European Sustainable Phosphorus Platform

Brussels and online, Wed. 13^th November 13h – 18h, legal status of biomass produced in wastewater treatment or with waste gas, manure or food waste inputs, and valorisation in fertilisers, feeds and industry. Presentation and discussion of legal analysis prepared for ESPP by Barry Love, Environmental Law Chambers, with user industries, algae production and processing experts, EU and national regulators.
Brussels and online, Wed. 13th November 13h – 18h, information and registration www.phosphorusplatform.eu/legalworkshop

21-22 January 2025: nutrient proposals for the new EU Circular Economy Act and the CAP

The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, plans an ambitious EU Circular Economy Act, to follow the second Circular Economy Action Plan (March 2020), replacing this Commission document by a regulatory act. Ms von der Leyen’s mission letter for the new Commissioner for Environment, Water Resilience and a Competitive Circular Economy, Jessika Roswall, specifies that the new Circular Economy Act should include measures to create market demand for secondary materials and a single market for waste, especially for critical raw materials (phosphate rock is on the EU Critical Raw Material List since 2014, confirmed in the EU Critical Raw Materials Act 2024). ESPP will develop proposals for nutrients in this expected new Act

The Common Agricultural Policy represents over 40% of the EU budget. The current CAP runs from 2023 to 2027. An interim evaluation report is expected in 2025. ESPP will develop proposals for integrating nutrient management (including the Green Deal and UNEP Biodiversity Convention 50% nutrient loss reduction objective) and nutrient recycling into the future CAP revision.
Two day meeting to discuss these two important policies and to develop proposals to input to the European Commission. 21 -22 January 2025, Brussels and online, information and registration soon available on https://www.phosphorusplatform.eu/policy2025

Phosphorus use and recycling in intensive livestock: March 2025

Can intensive livestock be more phosphorus efficient than extensive or organic farming ? Looking at P flows, P efficiency in feed, P-recycling, best nutrient management practices. UNEP uPcycle workshop, organised by BETA Technology Centre (University of Vic), with ESPP, hosted by Cooperl (the Brittany pig farm cooperative) and Roullier (feed and fertilisers). In Saint Malo and Lamballe, near Rennes, Brittany, France, 4-7 March 2025 (tbc). With site visits to the Saint Malo Minerallium (chemistry of minerals and phosphates), Roullier fertiliser and feed production and research, Cooperl experimental livestock technology research farm and Cooperl’s manure and animal by-product reprocessing to energy and organic fertilisers. This workshop will be limited to 60 participants, with representatives of livestock farmers organisations, meat and dairy processers and distribution, animal feed industries, with selected experts from science and from P recycling.
If you would be interested to participate or present, please contact

ESPP actions

Preparing for the new EU Circular Economy Act

ESPP has prepared or is developing several policy proposal documents. Your comments and input are welcome.

Perspectives for EU water policy and for the Sewage Sludge Directive, in the context of the planned new EU Circular Economy Act (see above under ‘Events’) (14/10/24)
ESPP input to Nenuphar questionnaire on EU policies on nutrient management Targets for Phosphorus “Reuse & Recycling” under the revised Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (Jan. 2024, v4/10/24)
Market pull policies to support nutrient recycling (Jan. 2024, v4/10/24)
ESPP policy documents are here : www.phosphorusplatform.eu/regulator

Join the ESPP-EBA Consultants List

Have you worked with consultants on regulatory aspects of recycling, digestate and compost, waste status, fertilisers regulations, animal by-products? ESPP and the EBA are developing a list of consultants in such areas The list includes consultants and advisors in regulatory, and market topic, dossier preparation and registrations such as the EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR), national fertiliser legislation, Animal By-Product Regulation, REACH, organic farming, End-of-Waste criteria, and more. The goal of this list is to provide companies and organisations with contacts, along with details on each consultant’s area of expertise and geographical coverage. Please note that this list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement of the listed consultancies.
If you can suggest a consultancy for inclusion, or if you wish to add your own consultancy to the list, please send details to and

Call for Policy Recommendations from R&D Projects

ESPP invites R&D projects to share their policy recommendations, contributing to the upcoming policy framework being developed by the European Commission. Current legislative efforts will have a significant impact on phosphorus recycling, nutrient stewardship, and include key measures such as the Circular Economy Act (see above), targets for sewage phosphorus reuse and recovery, and revisions to the Common Agricultural Policy.

ESPP is preparing a comprehensive overview of policy recommendations from EU-funded and other R&D projects. This effort will help highlight aligned proposals across projects and ensure relevant recommendations reach policymakers. All contributing projects will be credited in our summary, presented during our upcoming workshop in Brussels (with online access) on 21-22 January 2025 and submitted to EU policy makers.
If your project has developed any policy recommendations—whether as published proposals, conclusions from policy work packages, policy presentations, or draft documents—please share them with us: and For inquiries or further information, feel free to contact us.

Animal By-Product webinar summary & conclusions

Bringing Animal By-Products into the EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR)

Over 400 participants joined the 2-hour webinar organised by ECOFI, Eurofema, EBIC and ESPP on recycling animal by-products (ABPs) to fertilisers on 17^th September, with participation of the European Commission (DG SANTE, DG GROW Fertilisers).

The webinar was opened by Ludwig Hermann, ESPP Board. Regulatory challenges and circular economy value of animal by-product recycling were outlined by Kristen Sukalac (EBIC and ECOFI) and Leon Fock (Eurofema), the European federations representing the biostimulant and organic fertiliser industries.

Nutrient recycling value of ABPs

Leon Fock, Eurofema, underlined the importance of fertiliser recycling of animal by-products for both farmers and the food industry. Various animal by-products cannot be used in human food, animal feed, pet food or industry for regulatory – safety reasons or because of logistics, and so are used in fertilisers, so valorising nutrients and organic material. ABPs are often combined in organic fertilisers with other secondary materials, such as crop residues or plant-based food industry by-products, so that regulatory obstacles to the use of ABPs have impact many different organic fertilisers. A challenge is that there is little coherent data on the organic fertiliser industry so it is difficult to quantify ABP recycling to fertilisers today. Data is available in some countries or some sectors, but no aggregated nor European data. However, ABPs are probably the main source of phosphorus and of protein (nitrogen) to organic fertilisers.

Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) shows that ABP-based organic fertilisers offer low carbon footprint per nutrient content compared to both mineral fertilisers and to other recycling routes (see SOFIE2).

Kristen Sukalac, EBIC and ECOFI, underlined the current discrepancies between EU regulations on health (animal by-products) and policies for Circular Economy. Recycling of animal by-products to fertilisers and biostimulants is important to avoid waste of resources and to offer solutions to farmers, so contribute to the competitivity, resource efficiency and resilience of the EU agri-food sector. Guaranteeing safety remains essential, but the overall approach of animal by-product regulation needs to evolve to put more emphasis on upscaling revalorisation. The current regulations reflect the preoccupations of the mad cow crisis of the 1980’s. A recent joint letter signed by 16 organisations (including ESPP) calls for a review of the Animal By-Product Regulation architecture to enable more flexibility in authorisation of recycling processes and products derived from ABPs, whilst continuing to ensure safety and environmental protection, improving institutional efficiency and protecting company confidential information.

EBIC & ECOFI proposals for ABP regulation compatible with Circular Economy

The current ABP Regulations do not deliver circularity for livestock production according to the waste hierarchy: use as food, feed, fertiliser / materials recycling, with combustion for energy as a last resort.

EBIC and ECOFI’s proposals include:

Harmonise ‘core’ dossier content and processes for ABPs for different end-uses (cosmetics, food, fertilisers …) with differences or additional requirements only where necessary for specific value chains,
Validate safety by recognised overall criteria, with independent testing, rather than by defining “one-by-one” processes (ABP “standard methods”),
Differentiate ‘processing’ (modification of an ABP) from ‘transformation’ (resulting in a completely different substance, e.g. incineration, hydrolysation),
Restructure and consolidate the different existing Regulation and daughter regulations to facilitate understanding and implementation by users,
Ensure coherent implementation.

Current regulatory status

Theodora Nikolakopoulou, European Commission DG GROW, explained that ‘Derived Products’ from ABPs can today be used in fertilising products in Europe under two different routes (in addition to on-farm use of e.g. manure):

EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR), with End-of-Waste status. This requires that an ABP ‘End-Point’ has been defined under the ABP Regulations and is specified in the FPR,
Under national fertilisers regulations, in which case veterinary controls and traceability apply.

Under the FPR, products derived from ABPs can be used either as such (under CMC10) or as inputs to further processing (under CMCs 3 = compost, 5 = digestate, 12 = precipitated phosphates, 13 = ashes/ash derivates, 14 = pyrolysis materials/biochars). However, in all cases, these materials need to have an ‘End-Point’ determined according to the ABP Regulation.

At present, processed manure is already covered by CMC 10 (under specified conditions, see the consolidated version of the FPR) and COM services are working on the inclusion of certain other derived products from ABPs (QLab study, assessment of derived products from ABP which have an ‘End-Point’ determined, according to Regulation 2023/1605):glycerine of Category 2 and 3 materials, and other Category 2 material resulting from biodiesel process and the production of renewable fuels

Category 3 materials other than glycerine
processed animal protein of Category 3 materials
meat-and-bone meal of Category 2 materials
blood products of Category 3 materials
hydrolysed protein, including hydrolysed protein derived from residues coming from the leather or textile industry
dicalcium phosphate and tricalcium phosphate
horns, horn products, hooves and hoof products

Matjaz Klemencic, European Commission DG SANTE, explained the process for authorisation of an ABP or derived product under the EU Fertilising Products Regulation. The regulatory architecture is:

The ABP Regulation (EC) 1069/200 provides for the legal bases, categorization and authorised uses of animal by-products;
Implementing Regulation (EU) 142/2011 provides for safe processing methods of animal by-products in derived products;
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/1605 determines ABP ‘End-Points’ for certain organic fertilizers and soil improvers.

The ‘End-point’ is the point in the manufacturing chain at which the ABP derived product is considered to no longer pose any significant risk to public or animal health. Beyond this ‘End-Point’, it is no longer subject to the veterinary controls of Regulation (EC) 1069/2009. The ‘End-point’ defines to which input materials it applies, the processing conditions, and the final use (petfood; pharmaceuticals; biofuels; cosmetics; medical devices; fertilisers; … ). End-Points are for a specific end-use (e.g. in fertilising products) and the ABP derived product is then subject to other relevant applicable legislation (e.g. national or EU fertilisers regulations, REACH …).

An ’End-Point’ can only be defined by reference to a processing method specified in Regulation (EU) 142/2011 (“standard” or “alternative”). Additional processing methods can only be added to (EU) 142/2011 after an assessment by EFSA (European Food Safety Agency) of risks for health and the environment, following submission by a Member State (whose competent authority has assessed the proposed processing method). Use in EU fertilisers (with EU End-of-Waste status and without veterinary controls and traceability) in only possible modification of (EU) 142/2011 to add the additional processing method, after publication of a Commission Delegated Regulation defining the End-Point for use in fertilising products (DG SANTE) and after a Commission Delegated Regulation including the specified material into the FPR (DG GROW).

It is not possible for an ABP or “Derived Product” to be included in the EU FPR whilst retaining its ABP status. A material with an EU ABP End-Point can, on the other hand, be authorised for use under national fertilisers regulations, as well as under the EU FPR.

However, ABP derived materials can be used under national fertiliser regulations, without the processing method being included in (EU) 142/2011 and without an EU-defined ABP End-Point. In this case, the ABP derived product (used as fertiliser) remains subject to ABP veterinary controls and traceability.

An ABP End-Point for use in fertilising products does not provide “end of animal by product status” for any other use, so specifically does not modify exclusions under the Animal Feed Regulation 767/2009 (Annex II $1 and $5). It also does not modify the status of processed manure under the Nitrates Directive.

Examples of ABPs but not today authorised under the EU FPR

ESPP presented several examples of ABP materials that have been and/or are currently used in national fertilizers in EU Member States, with national authorization. To the industry’s understanding, these uses have not shown any identified safety concerns and deliver satisfactory products to farmers and users:

Category 1 Animal By-Product ash
Alternative composting and anaerobic digestion processes
Fish and aquaculture sludge
Certain hydrolysed proteins

Martin Alm, EFPRA (European Fat Processors and Renderers Association), indicated that estimates suggest Europe generates around 1 million t/y of Cat1 ABP meat and bone meal (MBM). The ABP Regulation requires that this material is “disposed of” by incineration and this generates some 100 – 310 kt/y Cat1 MBM ash (some Cat1 material is disposed of by combustion in cement kilns, not generating ash). This ash contains maybe 10-30 kt P/y (which corresponds to 1-3% of annual P use in mineral fertilisers). Cat1 ash has been widely used as fertiliser in the UK for over a decade, and is also used as a fertiliser for forestry in Portugal. DG SANTE has mandated an Opinion from EFSA on the prion (BSE/TSE) risk of Cat1 ash, expected by May 2025 (possibly with then a second phase on contaminant risks). EFPRA has provided detailed answers to EFSA questions. ESPP has submitted a “Risk appraisal” report commissioned from SAFOSO (September 2024, see ESPP eNews n°90 and www.phosphorusplatform.eu/regulatory).

The objective is to obtain authorisation of Cat1 ash, and of phosphate fertilisers produced from processing of Cat1 ash, under FPR CMC13 and also clarity for Member State authorisation of Cat1 ash under national fertilisers regulations.

Stefanie Siebert, European Compost Network (ECN) and Lucile Sever, European Biogas Association (EBA), summarised the problems currently encountered with alternative composting and anaerobic digestion processes.

The potential for nutrient recycling of digestates and composts is considerable. The EU Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC obliges separative collection of municipal organic wastes (by 31/12/2023). This will result in some 40 million t/y going to composting or anaerobic digestion. Separately collected municipal organic wastes (“biowaste”), which includes household kitchen wastes, can contain animal by-products and is classed a ABP category 3. Already in 2022, the development of renewable biogas production resulted in the production of some 28 million tonnes (dry matter) per year of agriculture-based digestate, much of which was from manure (a Cat2 ABP) with high nutrient value. This is expected to increase considerably with EU renewable energy objectives.

However, most compost and digestate is today produced, and used as organic fertiliser or soil improver under national regulations, with compost or AD processes which do not respect the ABP Regulation (EU) 142/2011 method specifications (which require 70°C for one hour residence time, particle size < 12 mm). The sanitisation requirements are either laid down in national rules or validated processes are authorised by national authorities and these vary significantly from one Member State to another.

ECN and EBA consider that the standard process requirements under ABPR (70 °C 1h 12mm) are not realistic and are not used in practice, and in particular are unsuitable for composting and anaerobic digestion of separately collected kitchen waste from households:

The maximum 12 mm particle size is not suitable for composting (structured material is needed for air flow), biowastes and green wastes have larger particles, larger particles are used in both wet and dry anaerobic digestion processes
The specified temperature > 70 °C is too high for microbiological decomposition

After extensive preparatory work, ECN submitted in July 2023 a proposal to include one alternative compost processing method into the ABP Regulations: tunnel composting 60°C, 48 h <200 mm and 55 C, 72 h <200 mm. EFSA delivered a positive Opinion in May 2024 (ESPP eNews n°87). ECN is now waiting for corresponding modifications to the EU Animal By-Products regulations 1069/2009 142/2011, which would enable use of these methods for EU fertilising products (FPR CMC3).

ECN and EBA consider that further alternative time-temperatures are needed and methods which have been validated by national authorities should be taken into account (by inclusion into EU ABP regulation End-Points). The current one-process-by-one-process approach to evidence collection, dossier preparation, EFSA assessment and finally possible modification of EU regulation annexes, is not feasible for industry (composting and digestion involve many SMEs and public organisations, using different methods in different countries) and is inefficiently time consuming for EFSA and for the European Commission. Without alternative time-temperature profiles, there can be expected to be no CE marked composts or digestates from ABP-derived materials, including from manure.

ESPP notes certain ABPs derived products, in particular “processed manure”, can be used as inputs to FPR composts and digestates (CMCs 3 and 5) if they have reached the ABP End-Point before composting/digestion, even if the compost/AD process does not achieve the above ABPR standard processing criteria. This is unclear in 2023/1605 which refers only to use “in” fertilising products (not to use “in production of …”), but has been clarified by the European Commission in the EU FPR FAQ (Q8.31). Various processing methods are specified for manure and other ABPs in 142/2011, in addition to sterilisation. However, it is generally not economic for operators to carry out such “double processing” (hygienisation and then composting/anaerobic digestion – composting/digestion then hygienisation). For this reason, recognition is needed of other composting/anaerobic digestion processing methods in the ABP Regulation, and then into the FPR in CMCs 3/5.

Torhild Tveito, Norway Food Safety Agency, indicated that aquaculture in Norway alone produces already today more than 2 Mt/y of fish sludge (10% DM) and aquaculture is expected to double in the coming decade. Resulting phosphorus losses to the sea were estimated in 2019 at 14 ktP/y (Broch & Ellingson 2020), that is more than 1 ½ times Norway’s mineral phosphate fertiliser use. Fish sludge is already generally collected and treated from inland (freshwater) aquaculture, and some operators are today implementing systems to collect fish sludge in coastal aquaculture (fish pens in the sea), to avoid discharge into coastal waters. Fertilisers produced from fish sludge are already exported to countries outside the EU and EU recycling and fertiliser companies are interested.

Questions need to be addressed concerning fertilising products processed from fish sludge: hygiene and pathogen safety, heavy metals, contaminants, salinity, agronomic value. However, the Norway Food Safety Agency believes that resolving the regulatory obstacles should not wait until these are answered, whereas at present fish sludge is excluded from current studies on new FPR CMC materials

At present fish sludge is excluded from current studies on new EU FPR CMC materials (NMI study for DG GROW, see ESPP eNews n°86) because a question have been asked whether it is an animal by-product. However, the Norwegian Food Safety Agency believes it should be possible to move forward already today the study for FPR consideration. This to avoid having a lengthy process with first studies and discussion on hygiene, and then after that start studies related to the FPR. The Agency believes that these processes move at the same time..

ESPP comment: The ABP status and the definition of “fish sludge” both require clarification. Fish excreta are excluded from the definition of manure in 1069/2009 (art. 3.20 and art. 2.2-k) but not in 1774/2002 (Annex I Specific Definitions). Also, some stakeholders consider that fish sludge contains only fish excrement and uneaten fish food, whereas others suggest that it may contain some dead fish or parts thereof. Technologies are today available to separate dead fish from the residues sinking for fish pens (e.g. ESPP member Ragn-Sells).

Chiara Manoli, ILSA SpA (for EBIC and ECOFI), discussed the current exclusion of many different hydrolysed proteins from the EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR). “Hydrolysed proteins” as defined in the ABP regulations, covers a wide range of different amino acids, peptides and polypeptides, derived from different protein-containing ABP materials by widely varying hydrolysis processes. These processes are often company-specific and proprietary, using carefully defined and managed temperature, time, pH, pressure and other conditions to generate hydrolysates with specific and consistent performance characteristics.

Although tonnages of hydrolysed proteins used are relatively low, they are key elements in different organic fertilisers and biostimulants, so contributing to significant market value and agronomic impact. A 2022 survey of 48 companies involved in the European fertilising products industry revealed that around 350,000 metric tonnes are produced annually, half of which are sold in bulk formats.

The different hydrolysates, derived from different ABP proteins, are designed to deliver particular biostimulant properties, and/or nutrients in specific organic forms (especially nitrogen, but also phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, calcium). Hydrolysed proteins can be tailored for compatibility with plant root metabolism, soil properties and microbes or for slow release.

Different hydrolysed proteins are today widely authorised for use under national fertiliser regulations, often with a given hydrolysed protein currently authorised in several Member States. According to feedback from EBIC members in September, most hydrolysates are already placed in the market in 4-9 Members States, which could be upscaled if these products could access the Single Market.

Industry considers unclear the wording of the Delegated Regulation 2023/1605 concerning hydrolysed proteins derived from non-ruminant ABPs “must be produced using a production process involving appropriate measures to minimize contaminations” because it does not specify what criteria need to be met to achieve this requirement.

EBIC and ECOFI also requested:

that all hydrolysed protein end points under Reg. 142/2011 be explicitly recognised and included in CMC 10 of FPR;
guidance as to how to request EFSA Opinions and prepare proposals for possible future EU ABP End-Points for other types of hydrolysed proteins without submitting numerous dossiers for highly specific individual company materials (how to develop a group assessment and regulatory proposal process, whilst respecting company-confidential process and product data).

Jessica Fitch, ECOFI, submitted the example of guano (not presented in the webinar to save time). Guano is taken to mean aged, accumulated wild bird and bat excrements (not fish heads as the word was used in the past in Norway). Bat and seabird guano are today sustainably harvested, and provide a nature-sourced high nutrient, high micronutrient fertiliser, which delivers nutrients according to plant needs. Guano is processed in the country of origin: sun-drying, sifting, and removal of feathers and other foreign objects. At least sixteen EU Member States allow the use of guano in fertilising products and it has been safely used for many years. It is authorised in Organic Farming (authorised under Annex II of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1165) and is valued as a nitrogen and phosphorus fertiliser.

EU imports of seabird guano range are c. 3000 - 8000 t/y, depending on climatic conditions and policies of exporting countries. Guano contains approximately 10-12 %N, 5 %P and 2 – 3% K. The ability to trade across EU borders is essential because large shipments are imported and the sold onwards to other companies that repackage the original delivery in big bags, often combining with other components to make a more complete final fertilising product.

At the EU level, however, although “guano of bats and birds” was specifically mentioned in art. 46 of the EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR), art. 3 of 1605/2023 refers only to bat guano (as in 142/2011). ECOFI requests clarification of an ABP End-Point for seabird guano and of its inclusion into the EU FPR.

Chris Thornton, ESPP, indicated other ABPs which have been flagged by industry stakeholders as currently excluded from the EU FPR despite authorisation and use in some Member States:

(some) Seafood processing wastes, fish bones ?
(some) Dairy processing wastes ?
Precipitated phosphates from biowaste or manure
Pyrolysis products from biowaste or manure (depending on process)

ESPP underlines that this is a preliminary list, based on input received, and that further analysis is needed to clarify more precisely which ABPs / processing methods are concerned, nutrient recycling potential (quantity and quality) and current regulatory status or questions under the ABP and FPR.

Several participants requested that raw sheep’s wool be added to the above list for consideration.

Discussions and questions from the ‘Chat’

A difficulty is the lack of available market information, in most Member States, on quantities and values of different types of organic fertiliser and biostimulant, and on ABP materials used as inputs for these. This could be partly addressed by better including organic fertiliser products and components (and more widely, secondary materials and the bioeconomy) into EU statistics systems, in particular: Eurostat, NACE codes, SAIO, EU fertilisers market data portal (see ESPP eNews n°79)

One company online indicates using around 10 000 tonnes of protein, feather meal and bone powder out of a total of 40 000 tonnes of organic and organo-mineral products manufactured and sold.

Questions were asked concerning the legal status of algae and other biomass grown using ABPs as inputs, for example algae grown in manure treatment ponds. This will be discussed at ESPP’s workshop in Brussels & online, 13^th November afternoon, with environment specialist lawyer Barry Love, the European Commission and algae innovation experts (see www.phosphorusplatform.eu/legalworkshop).

Concerns were voiced about the process for evaluating new materials and processes, as possible new CMCs or CMC modifications under the FPR. Innovation is currently rapid in organic fertilisers, biostimulants and nutrient recycling, so it is important that new proposals be taken into consideration, without waiting for conclusion of the current NMI study which only addresses materials submitted before June 2022.

ESPP – EBIC – ECOFI - Eurofema conclusions from the meeting

ABPs have been widely used for many years under national fertiliser regulations across Europe, showing safety and farmer satisfaction. They offer significant opportunities to further the nutrient circular Economy. Industry operators do not understand why it is proving complex and slow to authorise them under the FPR.
The objective is open and constructive dialogue between concerned industries and regulators (European Commission, Member States) with the aim of finding pragmatic and clear regulatory solutions for materials where a significant EU market potential, agronomic value and safety are demonstrated.
Specific cases which should be addressed rapidly include:
- aquaculture and fish sludge
- alternative processing methods for composts and digestates (especially for biowastes, manure)
- hydrolysed proteins
- algae and biomass grown using ABPs (e.g. manure) as inputs
- guano
- raw wool
Need for a permanently open and reactive process, engaging both DG SANTE and DG GROW, to assess new proposals for ABP materials and processes, to respond to innovation (where justified: demonstrated safety, EU market, agronomic value).
Proposal to reconsider the ABP Regulation architecture to reflect waste hierarchy, circular and bioeconomy objectives, whilst continuing to ensure safety and downstream confidence.
How to take into account experience of safe use of an ABP material / process and existing authorisations in Member States, in EU Regulation and in a single EU market, whilst maintaining both subsidiarity and national competence ? The single market is important not only for fertilising product manufacturers, but also very much for recycling process technology suppliers (difficult to sell a recycling process which produces a ‘fertiliser’ in one country but a ‘waste’ in another).
Importance of guidance to industry on ABPs in the FPR and on related aspects of the ABP regulations, as well as coherent implementation between Member States.
Watch the webinar replay https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91qEJWil2kU – slides https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1fLmQa1y54y4TL7YRTiK61HFQ3gAH8dqp?usp=sharing

Livestock and nutrients

EU livestock environmental innovation platform launched

JRC platform aims to gather and analyse information on innovative industrial and environmental techniques that can drive decarbonisation, depollution, resource efficiency, and a circular economy in large agro-industrial plants covered by the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED 2010/75/EU). This Directive was amended in 2024 to now cover around three quarters of EU pig and poultry farms (280-380 LSU or more = Livestock Units) – see ESPP eNews n°89. The Platform will gather information on innovative techniques which have reached at least operational demonstration stage, input by stakeholders, and on EU funding schemes, and enable searches by sector or region. JRC will analyse input submitted before publishing, including comparison with BAT (Best Available Technology). The EU BAT BREF for “Intensive rearing of poultry or pigs” however dates from 2017(here). See also the very dynamic and up-to-date catalogue of environmental techniques for livestock maintained by the US dairy farmers’ organisation NEWTRIENT https://www.newtrient.com/ for which technologies are independently assessed in operation on farms.
EU JRC INCITE Platform: https://innovation-centre-for-industrial-transformation.ec.europa.eu
Europe’s leading conference on recycling of manure and agricultural residues, RAMIRAN, will next take place in Wageningen, Netherlands, 15-17 October 2025 www.ramiran2025.nl

Manure management technologies for sustainable dairy farming

Newtrient, in partnership with Dairy Management Inc. (DMI), has released a series of videos highlighting innovative manure management technologies implemented by dairy farms. These videos, part of Newtrient's 2020 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Innovation Grant (CIG) project, showcase how advanced dairy systems are improving water quality and farm sustainability.
Fessenden Dairy in King Ferry, NY, manages manure from its 850-cow herd through a Bedding Recovery Unit and a composting system. The Unit produces dry manure solids for use as bedding, while liquids are stored for later application. Composting, an aerobic process requiring oxygen, moisture (60-65%), and proper carbon-nitrogen ratios, is completed in a rotary drum within 24 hours using high enough temperatures (50-65°C) for bacteria to work. This process creates pathogen-free compost, reducing environmental impact and nutrient runoff into local water systems. Fessenden's system supports cow health and farm sustainability, although it's not a simple plug-and-play solution and requires careful management.
Dairy Dreams, part of the Pagel Family Businesses, milks nearly 3 000 cows and uses a digester to produce methane and a nutrient recovery system to process manure. After methane extraction, solids are separated for cow bedding, and the remaining effluent undergoes ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis. This process yields a phosphorus-rich ultrafiltration concentrate, a nitrogen-rich reverse osmosis concentrate, and clean water. The system reduces environmental impact by decreasing the need for commercial fertilisers and cutting methane emissions, while also creating sustainable fertiliser products for the farm.
Royal Dairy in central Washington milks around 6 000 cows and uses a vermifiltration system to filter wastewater. This system, covering 3 hectares, relies on over 50 million earthworms and microbes to process roughly 1.5 million litres of water daily. The water, cleaned by the worms' digestive processes, is reused for irrigation and flushing, while the filtered solids go to composting. This method has significantly reduced contaminants, improved water quality, and enhanced soil health, with microbial populations increasing four to five times. The vermifiltration system also supports carbon capture, emission reduction, and creates valuable by-products like worm castings.
In-Vessel Composting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At5mwoIPSHI&t=1s
Ultrafiltration with Reverse Osmosis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUGn6YlPNv4&t=3s
Vermifiltration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7muCXGorKhY
Newtrient is a company representing United States dairy producers. Newtrient online suppliers catalogue provides independent expert evaluations of technologies and suppliers, covering technical and economic aspects, after-sales service and farmers’ operating experience (see SCOPE Newsletter n°125)

EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR)

European Court upholds FPR chromium limits (ferrous slags)

Ruling says European Commission was justified to set chromium (Cr_total) and vanadium and thallium limits on metal slags used under the EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR), to protect human health and the environment. Such slags can be used as liming products. All the arguments put forward by the German Iron slag Industry Federation, who brought the case, were rejected, and they are condemned to pay costs. The European General Court ruling underlines that this specification in the Commission’s Delegated Regulation 2022/973 (By-Products, CMC11) was based on the scientific analysis of the JRC which concluded that long term repeated use of iron slags would lead to accumulation of chrome and vanadium in soils, susceptible to exceed soil quality standards and with possible toxicity impacts. The Court firmly concludes that environment and health protection are required for FPR criteria, rejecting the slag industry’s claims that these should not be considered. The Court analyses in detail the question of chromium and vanadium, concluding that their potential toxicity justifies setting limits, that for chromium it is justified that these limits address total chromium (not only chromium VI), that criticisms of the PNEC limits for chromium and vanadium are not justified and that “given the important quantities of chromium and vanadium in ferrous slags” the Commission was right to take into account the possibility that these PNEC levels might be exceeded.
PNEC = Predicted No Effect Concentration
General Court judgment in Case T-560/22, total chromium in ferrous slags, Fachverband Eisenhüttenschlacken eV versus European Commission, 11^th September 2024, available in German and in French HERE.

Fertiliser and mulch film polymer biodegradability

European Commission publishes study on assessment of biodegradability of polymers used in fertilisers and in mulch films. This accompanies the Delegated Regulations defining these criteria, which are pending publication. The biodegradation criteria proposed for polymers are based on 90% ultimate degradation / mineralisation measures as evolved CO2, in soil and in water, after 2 years for mulch films and after four years for polymers used as fertiliser coatings or for water retention. The study underlines the lack of available data, because polymers used today are mainly not biodegradable, variability of biodegradation depending on soil and climate conditions and the absence of available test methods for biodegradability in water over prolonged time. A number of studies suggest that much the biggest source of microplastics in agricultural soils is probably mulch films, and that these can reduce availability of phosphorus to crops: see ESPP eNews n°88.
Finalised Delegated Regulations (adopted by the European Commission 15^th July 2024, following public consultation in March-April 2024 (see ESPP eNews n°85), pending publication https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13898-EU-fertilising-products-biodegradability-criteria-for-polymers-and-other-technical-amendments_en
“Study to assess biodegradability criteria for polymers used in EU fertilising products as coating agents or to increase the water retention capacity or wettability and of mulch films”, Aimplas, published by the European Commission 2024, 254 pages https://dx.doi.org/10.2873/179169

Regulation on digital labelling of fertilisers published

Specifies additional information which can be provided by digital link on EU fertilising products, in addition to legally obligatory information physically on the label, and authorises digital-only labelling for bulk products. Additional information provided digitally can cover project composition and use. Different types of information can be accessible to different users (blenders, distributors, farmers, general public).
EU Regulation 2024/2516, amending the EU Fertilising Products Regulation 2019/1009, as regards the digital labelling of EU fertilising products, 18^th September 2024 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2516/oj

One fifth of soil P deficits caused by global trade

Study shows that global trade is draining soil P from some world regions (in particular Africa, Russia, Oceania) to others. One fifth of global P consumption is estimated to be driven by non-food products (mainly fibre crops). General global trade expended 60x from 1970 to 2017, rising from 12% to 28% of GDP. Worldwide soil deficit increases grew from 2.7 to 6.9 MtP/y over this period, whereas soil P accumulation increased little (8.1 to 9.6 MtP/y). Thus, although soil P accumulation continues to annually exceed soil P depletion, regions losing soil P have seen this depletion accelerate (note: soil P accumulation or depletion does not relate directly to losses to water). 90% of soil P deficits are in developing or least developed regions. In 1970, trade only accounted for 0.2 MtP/y of P-deficits, but this increased to 1.3 MtP/y by 2017, that is nearly one fifth of global P deficits. Non-food products (mainly fibre crops, but also wood, leather …) accounted for around one fifth of global soil P-depletion, but over half of traded P-deficits (this compares to Hamilton et al. 2018 who concluded that non-food products accounted for over one third of P-losses and around half of traded P impacts).
“Impacts of global trade on cropland soil-phosphorus depletion and food security”, K. Niu et al., Nature Sustainability,2024 DOI.

Research

JRC – Towards Sustainable Food Systems

Analysis of EU agri-food system impacts, trends and relevant policies concludes current impacts will not improve without policy changes, will be exacerbated by climate change. Systemic, less fragmented policies are needed: “The current legislative context thus might not be suitable to counteract the global environmental crises. With no further actions, the EU food system will remain highly resource intensive, with the related consequences on the environment”. Inadequate monitoring of impacts and of policy effects, and incoherent uptake of initiatives across Europe are underlined. The absence of mandatory measures to reduce food waste is noted. The report recognises that phosphorus and nitrogen flows surpass planetary boundaries, and that supply is import dependent, compromising the environmental viability and resilience of the EU food system. The example of Denmark is given, where combined policies on N and P discharges successfully reduced N and P balances by over 50%, with actions including fertilisation accounting and quota systems, improved manure management, taxes on non-agricultural fertilisers and phosphorus in animal feed, agri-environment schemes and farm advisory services.
“Towards sustainable food systems: an analysis of EU policy measures setting environmental sustainability requirements. Current status and assessment of impacts”, S. Mengual et al. European Commission Joint Research Centre 2024, 87 pages, DOI.

Soil phosphorus: research and policy needs

Review paper summarises data on phosphorus flows and stocks, both for fertilisation management and to support sustainability policies. Over 150 publications are cited. To sustainably manage P in soils, we need information on two critical aspects: the quantity of phosphorus in the soil and its availability to plants. In this article, authors summarize recent scientific studies with conceptual diagrams, reviewing both studies on the spatial distribution of phosphorus and its availability. They find that phosphorus fertiliser recommendations are often based on outdated concepts and could be improved with new measurement techniques. Additionally, current soil phosphorus maps underestimate the high local variability in phosphorus concentrations and should be improved by accounting for this uncertainty. Translating these findings into practice will require close collaboration between science, policy, and industry. Cheaper and more accurate measurement methods for soil P pools and fluxes need to be developed, and science and policymakers should work together on P-footprints for food products. Policies should incentivise P-efficient agricultural practices, including P-efficient crop breeds, and improve spatial planning of livestock production to reduce regional P misbalances.
“Understanding soil phosphorus cycling for sustainable development: A review”, J. Helfenstein et al., One Earth, 2024 DOI.

Stay informed

SCOPE Newsletter: www.phosphorusplatform.eu/SCOPEnewsletter eNews newsletter: www.phosphorusplatform.eu/eNewshome
If you do not already receive ESPP’s SCOPE Newsletter and eNews (same emailing list), subscribe at www.phosphorusplatform.eu/subscribe
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/phosphorusplatform
Slideshare presentations: https://www.slideshare.net/phosphorusplatform - Twitter: @phosphorusESPP
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/user/phosphorusplatform

ESPP members

21 22 Jan 2025 21-22 January 2025, Brussels and online

Two day meeting to discuss these two important policies and to develop proposals to input to the European Commission. 21-22 January 2025, Brussels and online.

https://www.phosphorusplatform.eu/policy2025

Programme and registration link coming soon!

ESPP policy papers

Targets for Phosphorus “Reuse & Recycling” under the revised Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (Jan. 2024, v4_10_24)
Market pull policies to support nutrient recycling (Jan. 2024, v4_10_24)
Circular Economy perspectives for EU water policy and for the Sewage Sludge Directive 14_10_24
ESPP input to Nenuphar questionnaire on EU policies on nutrient management 7_10_24

The Global Partnership on Nutrients Management (GPNM) is a multi-stakeholder mechanism comprising of diverse entities including the government, research and academia, agricultural and fertilizer producer organizations in the private sector, regional and international intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations along with different UN agencies committed to promote effective nutrient management to achieve the twin goals of food security through increased productivity and conservation of natural resources and the environment.

The stakeholder webinar will discuss how GPNM (UNEP’s Global Partnership on Nutrient Management) can promote policies and research into nutrient management. Covering nutrient management in developing regions, Nutrient Use Efficiency, nutrients and drought, routes for collaboration.

Details: 16 and 17 October 2024 from 2 PM CEST. Registration.

For more information contact

The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, plans an ambitious EU Circular Economy Act. Her mission letter for the new Commissioner for “Environment, Water Resilience and a Competitive Circular Economy”, Jessika Roswall, specifies that the new Circular Economy Act should include measures to create market demand for secondary materials and a single market for waste, especially for critical raw materials. Phosphorus is on the EU Critical Raw Material List since 2014, confirmed in the EU Critical Raw Materials Act 2024.

Newsletter about nutrient stewardship - European Sustainable Phosphorus Platform (ESPP)

Please subscribe www.phosphorusplatform.eu/Subscribe
Link to www.phosphorusplatform.eu/eNews090
Download as PDF

Events

ESPC5 – register now online or for Lleida: 8-10 October

Regulatory status of algae grown using wastewater, wastes or ABPs, 13^th November 2024

Phosphorus use and recycling in intensive livestock: March 2025

ASLO P-sustainability session

Nutrients in aquaculture and fisheries – June 2025

EU policies

CSRD reporting requirements include circularity and Critical Raw Materials

EU Future of Agriculture report

ESPP input to Ecodesign preparatory study

EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR)

Microorganisms for “biostimulants” to improve crop nutrient processes

Two EU harmonised standards for fertilising products

Nutrient recycling technology catalogue

Update and new entries for Catalogue of Nutrient Recovery Technologies

Nutrient circularity in livestock and aquaculture

ESPP – UNEP uPcycle workshops: aquaculture, intensive livestock

Animal feed industry calls for circularity

SAFOSO final report on Cat1 animal by-product ash

EU funding for aquaculture sludge nutrient recycling

Sewage-recovered phosphate from Germany to animal feed in Canada

Consultation: UN FAO draft document on livestock in the circular bioeconomy

Marine advisory councils call on fishery and aquaculture circularity

Research and innovation

Lab testing of P₄ synthesis from phosphoric acid

Groundwater is a significant source of phosphorus to Oneida Lake, USA

Stay informed & ESPP members

Events

ESPC5 – register now online or for Lleida: 8-10 October

The 5^th European Sustainable Phosphorus Conference, 8-10 October 2024, online and Lleida Spain, has already over 200 registrants. Online registration enables participation in all plenary sessions and selected parallel sessions with access to live streaming and to the session questions and discussions (‘chat’), as well as speaker and registrant profiles and contact via the conference networking app (Swapcard, as for other ESPP events). Lleida participants can also participate in site visits to industrial nutrient recycling and digestate processing (Fertilizantes del Ebro and Bioenergia d'Almenar). Join us for this unique networking, industry, policy and science event worldwide.

Deadline for on-site (Lleida) registration is 29^th September. Online registration remains open.
Updated programme, online and Lleida registration, site visit details: https://www.phosphorusplatform.eu/espc5

Regulatory status of algae grown using wastewater, wastes or ABPs, 13^th November 2024

Brussels and online, Wed. 13^th November 14h00 – 18h30, legal status of boimass produced in wastewater treatment or with waste gas, manure or food waste inputs, and valorisation in fertilisers, feeds and industry. Presentation and discussion of legal analysis prepared for ESPP by Barry Love, Environmental Law Chambers, with the European Commission, user industries, algae production and processing experts, EU and national policy makers.

Brussels and online, Wed. 13th November 14h – 18h, information and registration www.phosphorusplatform.eu/legalworkshop

Phosphorus use and recycling in intensive livestock: March 2025

If you would be interested to participate or present, please contact

ASLO P-sustainability session

Deadline for submission: 21^st October 2024. As part of the major ASLO Aquatic Sciences Meeting, 26-31 March 2025, session on phosphorus in marine and freshwaters. Presentations can cover phosphorus aquatic biology, eutrophication, impacts of climate change on phosphorus loading, phosphorus management in agriculture, food systems and diet, phosphorus policies and regulation.

ASLO 2025 Aquatic Sciences Meeting, 26-31 March 2025, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA, session 5539 “Taking the pulse of phosphorus sustainability: challenges and solutions across the freshwater to marine continuum”, led by James Elser & Eric McLamore https://www.aslo.org/charlotte-2025/

Nutrients in aquaculture and fisheries – June 2025

ESPP workshop, with partners in Norway and UNEP uPcycle, on nutrient management in aquaculture feed, seafood processing and fish sludge valorisation, Norway & online, 17-19 June 2025 (tbc), covering nutrient flows, environmental best practice, phosphorus recycling, regulatory challenges. The workshop will contribute to the United Nations (UNEP) project uPcycle, leading to a UNEP white paper on phosphorus sustainability in aquaculture. Workshop in Norway with possible online connected meetings in Brussels, Chile. Site visits: state-of-the-art aquaculture, fish sludge processing installations.

If you would potentially contribute, please email indications of your organisation’s areas of interest, competence, possible content of presentation, to

Photo: trout in Montenegro fish farm, BuhaM WikiCommons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:BuhaM

EU policies

CSRD reporting requirements include circularity and Critical Raw Materials

Large companies and listed SMEs must now publish reports on environmental and social risks, impacts and actions. Information must cover resource use and circular economy, waste and Critical Raw Materials. The EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) 2022/2464, which entered into force on 5^th January 2024, concerns all companies > 250 employees or turnover > 50 M€, listed SMEs (except micro-companies) and non-EU companies with an EU branch with turnover > 150 M€. The CSRD extends obligatory company non-financial reporting to “double materiality”: that is both the company’s impacts on the environment and on sustainability issues and repercussions of these issues on the company itself (social and environmental risks). The Directive is implemented through ESRS (European Sustainability Reporting Standards): twelve standards covering (2) general requirements and disclosures, (5) environment (climate, pollution, water, biodiversity – ecosystems, resources – circularity) and (4) social. These are now detailed in the Commission implementing regulation 2023/2772 (July 2023). Under ESRS E5 “Resource use and circular economy”, companies must describe their resource inflows in particular Critical Raw Materials (E5-5 §30) and waste in particular food waste, biomass, non-metallic minerals and Critical Raw Materials (E5-4 §38), as well as how company actions impact resource efficiency, in particular Critical Raw Materials (E5-2 §20a). The implementing regulation specifically refers to “nutrient recycling” in the definition of Circular Economy (ESR E5 – ‘Objective’ §3).

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2772 of 31 July 2023 … as regards sustainability reporting standards https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2023/2772/oj

EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) 2022/2464: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022L2464

EU Future of Agriculture report

“Strategic Dialogue” report, which will shape the new European Commission’s “Vision for Agriculture and Food”, recommends improving nutrient management, reduction and decarbonisation of mineral fertilisers, organic farming. The 110-page final report of the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen received today the final report of the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture, launched in January 2024, includes 10 pages of political principles and 50 pages of recommendations. The more digestible Executive Summary (6 pages) specifies ten “guiding political principles” and 14 recommendations. The guiding principles refer to 10 = food security and 4 = geopolitical security, to sustainability (linked to 6 = economics, 7 = markets, 8 = innovation and technology) and to 9 = “balanced diets that are healthier and more sustainable”). Recommendations include promoting sustainability and reduced GHG emissions (2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and in particular sustainable livestock 9) and changing diets (6). Recommendation 7 includes “to reduce external inputs as mineral fertilisers and pesticides, improve nutrient management, advance in the decarbonization of mineral fertilizers … to support organic production as well as agroecological farming practices”. In the detailed recommendations text, a section on nutrient management (in §2.2.2 pages 61-62 calls for the (announced but not yet published) EU Integrated Nutrient Management Plan (INMAP) to be centred on improving nutrient efficiency and circularity, safe recycling of nutrients, decarbonisation of fertilisers and EU strategic autonomy. The report underlines the need for collaboration and partnership between governments, research and industry in the circular economy (page 20: “the circular economy extends far beyond nutrient cycles and geographical collaborations and involves all partners as equals”). Nutrient management is also recognised as important in recommendations 3.1.1 “Nonet land” (soil health and land take), 3.2.1 water resilience and 3.2.2 crop breeding.

European Commission press release IP/24/4528 , 4^th September 2024 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_4528

Final report “Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture A shared prospect for farming and food in Europe”, September 2024 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_24_4528/IP_24_4528_EN.pdf

ESPP input to Ecodesign preparatory study

ESPP has submitted comments to the European Commission (DG GROW) regarding the "Ecodesign preparatory study for product specific measures on scarce, environmentally relevant and critical raw materials and on recycled content”. Phosphorus (as P₄), which is on the EU Critical Raw Materials list (CRM), was only briefly mentioned in the preparatory study (draft 11/6/2024), despite its importance for the five product categories identified for further study: fridges, imaging equipment, personal computers, washing machines and electrical motors. The CRM “Phosphorus” (in the specific P4 form) is in fact critical for fire safety through flame retardants, electronic chip production, and potentially semiconductor doping. ESPP urged for a thorough investigation of phosphorus's relevance in the next phase of the study and offered to assist in gathering additional information. The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) entered into force on 18 July 2024 and replaced the Ecodesign Directive (2009/125/EC), enabling introduction of Ecodesign criteria for a broader range of products and defining obligatory requirements for the most energy and greenhouse-gas-intensive products.

“Ecodesign preparatory study for product specific measures on scarce, environmentally relevant and critical raw materials and on recycled content” Interim Study Report, Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R1781&qid=1719580391746

EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR)

Microorganisms for “biostimulants” to improve crop nutrient processes

Study launched for the European Commission (DG GROW) on microorganisms for possible authorisation under the EU FPR (CMC7) to propose an assessment methodology, screen proposals and assess microorganisms/processes. Proposals assessed will be those submitted to the EU survey of 2022 (see ESPP eNews n°69). The study has been contracted to AIT (Austrian Institute of Technology). The published ‘inception report’ (30 pages) presents the study approach, work plan and timeline. It further includes a first draft methodology indicating data requirements and decision criteria for microorganism taxonomic description, health and safety risks and for agronomic efficiency. The latter will be assessed against the four functions specified in PFC6 of the EU FPR, that is improving nutrient use efficiency, abiotic stress tolerance, crop quality or availability of nutrients in soil or rhizosphere. This will rely on the guidance and standards published or being developed by other organisations to substantiate efficacy claims of biostimulants, in particular the 2023 CEN standards: CEN/TS 17700-1:2022 Plant biostimulants - Claims - Part 1: General principles; CEN/TS 17700-2:2022 Plant biostimulants – Claims - Part 2: Nutrient use efficiency resulting from the use of a plant biostimulant; CEN/TS 17700-3:2022 Plant biostimulants – Claims - Part 3: Tolerance to abiotic stress resulting from the use of a plant biostimulant; CEN/TS 17700-4:2022 Plant biostimulants - Claims - Part 4: Determination of quality traits resulting from the use of a plant biostimulant; CEN/TS 17700-5:2022 Plant biostimulants - Claims - Part 5: Determination of availability of confined nutrients in the soil or rhizosphere.

“Technical studies to support the inclusion of new materials and microorganisms under the Fertilising Products Regulation, Lot 1 microorganisms & processes”, Inception report, 21^st march 2024, AIT, LINK.

Two EU harmonised standards for fertilising products

The European Commission has published in the Official Journal the first two references of harmonised standards, developed by CEN, to implement the EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR): EN 17816:2023 Liming materials – Determination of physical and chemical properties and specific contaminants and EN 17817:2023 Fertilizers, liming materials and inhibitors - Determination of the quantity (declared by mass or volume).

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2024/2387 referencing two harmonised standards for EU fertilising products, Official Journal 10^th September 2024 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AL_202402387

European Commission mandate to CEN (n° M564) listing harmonised standards to be developed to support the EU FPR C(2020) 612, amended by C(2022) 47 and C(2023) 8288 https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/enorm/mandate/564_en

Nutrient recycling technology catalogue

Update and new entries for Catalogue of Nutrient Recovery Technologies

ESPP has updated the Catalogue of Nutrient Recovery Technologies summarising processes for recovery of nutrients from sewage, manure or other sources. Recently added processes include Charlene (RE-CORD), Sinfert, SusPhos, Pyreg, and Stiesdahl Skyclean. Additionally, the catalogue has transitioned from a PDF file to an interactive web-based system, enabling users to directly access detailed information about each technology. The catalogue has also expanded its scope to include nitrogen (N) and potassium (K) recovery, with new filtering options available to search by type of recovery, operation, or input material.

The catalogue is open for the addition of new technologies. To be included, technologies should be operational or demonstrated at full-scale or pilot scale and should recover any of the nutrients: phosphorus, nitrogen, potassium, and/or micro-nutrients. Required information includes details about the technology supplier (website, contact information), input materials (e.g., sewage sludge, ash, manure), output products (nutrient content, organic carbon content, and other characteristics), process description (including the management of contaminants), current operating status (including the number and capacity of operational plants, pilot capacities, and duration of continuous operation), and photos of operational installations.

To include further technologies in the Catalogue: send information to

ESPP Catalogue of Nutrient Recovery Technologies http://www.phosphorusplatform.eu/p-recovery-technology-inventory

Nutrient circularity in livestock and aquaculture

ESPP – UNEP uPcycle workshops: aquaculture, intensive livestock

ESPP with UNEP uPcycle and other partners, will organise workshops on nutrient management and phosphorus recycling in intensive livestock (4-7 March 2025 tbc) and aquaculture and fisheries (17-19 June 2025 tbc). See above.

To present or participate, contact

Animal feed industry calls for circularity

Livestock feed industry federations have called for a “Feed Circularity Roadmap” and for discussions with regulators to identify possibilities to improve use of secondary materials in animal feeds whilst ensuring safety and quality. A joint letter signed by seven organisations and sent to the European Commission and to national food safety agencies, calls for dialogue to address regulatory restrictions to use of certain recycled materials in animal feed, in order to improve livestock circularity and reduce dependency on natural resources, soya import, deforestation pressures. The letter responds to a report by the EU Heads of national Food Safety Agencies (HoA) “Towards sustainable food systems - Reflections by Heads of Food Safety Agencies" (Sept. 2023, not online). The industry federations joint letter calls for public publication and discussion of this HoA report and dialogue to develop ‘Feed Circularity Roadmap’ identifying regulatory blockages to circularity in animal feed systems based on the examples indicated in the HoA report and other cases proposed by feed industry sectors.

Joint letter from industry federations to the European Commission (DG SANTE) and to the HoA (EU Heads of national Food Safety Agencies), 18^th September 2024. Signed by European Fishmeal and Fish Oil Producers, European Former Foodstuff Processors Association, European Fat Processors and Renderers Association ESPP, EuropeanPetFood, FEFAC, European Feed Manufacturers Federation, International Platform of Insects for Food and Feed www.phosphorusplatform.eu/regulatory

SAFOSO final report on Cat1 animal by-product ash

Risk appraisal of Cat1 ABP ash (incinerated to EU standards) finds no evidence of BSE risk. The EU had only 4 (total) cases of classical BSE 2014-2019 and none 2019-2023. Use of the ash as fertiliser in the UK has not shown BSE cases. The UK Government (when the UK was still in the EU), authorised use of Cat1 ash as fertiliser subject to End-of-Waste requirements (Environment Agency 2012) and some 70 000 t/y of ash has been used as fertiliser since then. Portugal has also authorised use of Cat1 ash (2 000 + t/y) as fertiliser, but in forestry only. In neither case has an increase in BSE incidence resulted, despite use starting in the UK when BSE levels were higher than in the EU today. Considering different EU-authorised rendering processes upstream of disposal by incineration or power-station combustion, under the conditions required by the EU Animal By-Product and Industrial Emissions Directives, the report estimates that risk reduction to ash is between 30 000 – 100 000 and 10 million - 30 million depending on the rendering method. Taking a “worst case” scenario of five BSE cows in a single batch, this concludes that residual batch BSE infectivity [(Bo)ID50/kg-ash] is estimated to be 5.5 - 16.4 x 10^-8 (rendering ABP Method 1) or x 10^-5 (no risk reduction considered for other rendering methods). The risk appraisal was carried out for ESPP by animal health consultancy experts SAFOSO Switzerland. ESPP has transmitted the SAFOSO report, and the 50+ studies and documents referenced in it, to EFSA (European Food Safety Agency) to input to their current assessment of prion risk European Commission (DG SANTE) has requested from EFSA (European Food Safety Agency) requested by the European Commission in April 2024 (conclusions expected by April 2025). EFPRA (European Fat Processors and Renderers Association) estimates that Cat1 ABP ash in Europe contains maybe 1 – 3 % of phosphorus used in mineral fertilisers (this does not include P in Cat1 material currently going to cement kilns).

European Commission DG SANTE “Request for a scientific opinion on the presence of biological and chemical hazards in ash from Category 1 material after incineration, co-incineration, and combustion”, Ares(2024)2805627 - 17/04/2024, EFSA reference EFSA-Q-2024-00278, Mandate number M-2023-00166 https://open.efsa.europa.eu/question/EFSA-Q-2024-00278

The above is ESPP’s simplified summary of the SAFOSO report. Please refer to the full report for conclusions and details.

“Risk appraisal of use of Category 1 animal by-products ash as fertiliser”, SAFOSO for ESPP, September 2024 www.phosphorusplatform.eu/regulatory

EU funding for aquaculture sludge nutrient recycling

AquaPhoenix EU Horizon project will receive 10 million € to develop and implement technology to transform and recycle “fish sludge” from aquaculture in Hardangerfjord Norway, in particular with phosphorus recycling. Fish sludge is a mixture of uneaten fish feed and fish faeces and can damage freshwater or marine environments. The project is led by NORCE with 30 partners including ESPP member EasyMining (Ragn-Sells), Framo and five fish farming companies are taking part in the four-year project: Eide Fjordbruk, Erko Seafood, Lingalaks, Tombre Fish Farms, and Bremnes Seashore, all located near Rosendal, Norway. The Åland Fish Farmers’ Association, Finland, is also a partner, interested in experience transfer to the eutrophication sensitive Baltic. The Hadangerfjord, Norway, produces some 100 000 tonnes of farmed salmon annually. Other trials by Lerøy Seafood suggest that around 60% of fish sludge can be collected below net cage aquaculture in fjords.

“Fish farming project in Hardangerfjord awarded over 10 million euro in grants”, Ragn-Sells, 14^th August 2024 https://www.ragnsells.com/about-us/press-media/articles/hardangerfjord/

“120 million NOK for unique EU project on sludge collection in Hardangerfjorden"”, NORCE 12^th August 2024 https://www.norceresearch.no/en/news/120-millioner-kroner-til-unikt-eu-prosjekt-for-slamoppsamling-i-hardangerfjorden

“Net pen collection system trapped 60% of sludge”, Fishfarmingexpert, 22^nd April 2022 https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/leroy-seafood-lift-up-morenot-aquaculture/net-pen-collection-system-trapped-60-of-sludge/1288746

Sewage-recovered phosphate from Germany to animal feed in Canada

Gelsenwasser Germany, Friesen Group Canada and EasyMining will recover calcium phosphates from sewage sludge incineration ash in Germany use in livestock nutrition in North America. The EU animal feed regulations pose regulatory obstacles to use of sewage-recovered phosphates in animal nutrition, irrespective of the quality and safety of such secondary phosphates. Canada and the USA do not have such regulatory barriers. High-quality calcium phosphates will be recovered from sewage sludge incineration ash in Schkopau, near Leipzig, Germany, from Gelsenwasser’s wastewater treatment plants. Gelsenwasser is a German utilities company, established in 1887 in the Ruhr region, and with today 6 billion € turnover in water and energy activities. Friesen Group is family-owned medium sized Canada and US supplier of animal feed, breeding and other livestock services. EasyMining, part of the Ragn-Sells group (ESPP member) has developed the Ash2Phos process to recover high-quality calcium phosphorus from biosolids or other organic waste ashes, recovering over 90% of the phosphorus from the ash.

“European recycled phosphorus can be exported to Canada”, 21^st November 2023 https://newsroom.easymining.com/posts/pressreleases/european-recycled-phosphorus-can-be-exported

“Green Light for a new phosphorus recovery Plant to address global resource needs”, 10^th September 2024 https://newsroom.easymining.com/posts/pressreleases/green-light-for-a-new-phosphorus-recovery-pla

Consultation: UN FAO draft document on livestock in the circular bioeconomy

Consultation open to 27^th September on 230 page draft from the United Nations FAO (LEAP TAG ‘Circular Bioeconomy Approaches’). ESPP notes that the document provides extensive literature references but no “guidelines” or practice recommendations, and no useful numbers on circularity potential. The draft document covers indicators of Nutrient Use Efficiency circularity, LCA and food systems modelling; plant by-product and animal by-product based animal feed potentials; manure and food waste management; public policies; food safety; planetary boundaries, one-health and other analysis frameworks. The document provides a high-level view, with many academic references and some industry information, and many examples, but not actionable technical or policy recommendations. Many numbers are given on different current recycling routes in the livestock sector, suggesting that there is already today a high level of circularity (in particular of use of animal and plant by-products), but there are scarcely any numbers for estimates of possible improvements in circularity through proposed practices (compared to current practice). The FAO document notes that “livestock can play a crucial role in the circular bioeconomy by recycling resources that are not part of the primary food basket, through diverse contributions in areas such as food production, utilization of plant-based products, residual management, nutrient cycling, soil health and renewable energy generation …. vital role in nutrient cycling and soil health”, referring to Van Zanten et al. 2019 (biophysical concept of circularity). The report notes that livestock circularity can be measured using different indicators (e.g. Partial Nutrient Balance, Nutrient Use Efficiency, Gross Nutrient Surplus, Nutrient Recycling Index …) where each one emphasises a different metric. Circularity of feed can, for example, be assessed as regards energy value, protein content or phosphorus cycling. Manure management is discussed: collection, storage, treatment and processing, including recovery of energy and processing to fertilisers. Quantities of manure generated worldwide and per continent are indicated.

Public consultation is open to 27^th September. ESPP made input to the public consultation on the document welcoming the collection of information as a reference documents, regretting the absence of clear “Guidance” in the document (despite its title) and suggesting that it should be reformulated to separate clear and actionable recommendations for practice, and noting the need for numbers to estimate the potential for improvement of circularity compared to current existing recycling and valorisation practices.

“Guidelines on the role of livestock in circular bioeconomy systems”, draft, UN FAO (United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organisation, LEAP Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance, TAG Technical Advisory Group), https://www.fao.org/partnerships/leap/news-and-events/news/detail/en/c/1708905/

Open for public input to 27^th September 2024: https://www.fao.org/partnerships/leap/resources/public-review/en/

ESPP input submitted 13/9/2024: www.phosphorusplatform.eu/regulatory

Marine advisory councils call on fishery and aquaculture circularity

Identified obstacles to blue economy recycling include the exclusion of aquaculture sludge from the EU fertilisers and the Animal By-Products regulations . The seven-page policy paper from NSAC (North Sea Advisory Council), MAC (Marine Advisory Council), AAC (Aquaculture Advisory Council) and CCRUP (Consultative Council for Ultraperipheric Regions) follows the Circular Blue Economy event (January 2024, see ESPP eNews n°84). It identifies sustainability concerns (health, ecosystems, fisheries) for fishery and aquaculture waste and by-product recycling, opportunities and economic benefits, consumer attitudes and current regulatory and policy objectives. It is noted that today, 40% of fish meal used in aquaculture feed originates from marine fishery leftovers and that there is a need to reduce this reliance by increasing use of other vegetable or animal by-products. The advisory councils specifically identify as regulatory obstacles the current exclusion of fish sludge (aquaculture wastewaters) from the EU Fertilising Products Regulation and the status of fishery and aquaculture derived materials under the Animal By-Products Regulation. The councils consider that “There is a need to revisit the 2009 Animal By-Product Regulation to align with the principles of the circular economy and food sustainability, without compromising safety standards in the current landscape. The new version should categorise fish excreta as manure and make them suitable for use as fertiliser.” The AAC already called for farmed fish effluent to be classified as an Animal By-Product in 2022. They also note the obstacles posed by “the necessary co-existence of animal by-product materials processed within the same establishment. Such integration is pivotal for enhancing industry efficiency and making the best value of raw materials. Certain fishery products, and in particular cut offs from the processing industry, could be classified as animal by-products, and once declared animal by-product, such raw materials cannot be upgraded and processed for food markets. Mixing different raw materials, approved for food or for feed, is not permitted either.” More flexibility in regulation is needed, whilst continuing to ensure health and safety. The councils underline the need to enable use of aquaculture and fishery wastes in Organic Farming.

“Joint-AC Advice on valorisation of fisheries and aquaculture by-products”, 3 September 2024, https://www.nsrac.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/12-2324-Joint-AC-Advice-on-Valorisation-of-fisheries-and-aquaculture-byproducts.pdf

Research and innovation

Lab testing of P₄ synthesis from phosphoric acid

A lab-scale reactor (32 mm diameter, 1.2m high, acid input 0.01 ml/minute, 1 hour runs) was tested for production of white phosphorus (P₄) from phosphoric acid using carbon reducing agent electrically heated to 900 - 1000 °C. No data is provided as to whether this would be more energy efficient than current P₄ furnaces using coke and electric heating and operating at >1500°C. ESPP notes that energy is economised in that calcium is separated from phosphate upstream of the process (production of the phosphoric acid, by the ‘wet acid’ route, using sulphuric acid which has zero energy footprint because it is a by-product of oil refineries) but on the other hand very considerable energy will be consumed to evaporate water (85% phosphoric acid is 85% H₃PO₄ so in effect 38% water: 15% as water and 13% in the H₃PO₄). The phosphoric acid (85% concentration) was dripped from the top of the reactor tube onto a 20 – 50 cm bed of coke or activated carbon bed. The phosphoric acid is thermally decomposed into P₂O₅ and H₂O gases at the top of the bed held at 1000℃. The generated gases are reduced in the carbon bed into CO, H₂, and P₄ gases. Some of the P₄ was condensed in the lower, cooler layers of the bed and trickled down through the silica filter reactor base into a water bath, some came off as gas which was reacted in water bath. A difficulty identified is that because there is no silica input (from phosphate rock or ash), no slag is produced (an energy consumption benefit), whereas the molten slag in conventional furnaces removes impurities from the system. Some impurities are however retained in the carbon reactor bed. No data is given concerning carryover of phosphoric acid with the offgas. Other challenges to address are removal from the reactor of the ash from reacted coke, and collection of solid white phosphorus (rather than reaction to phosphoric acid in a water bath). ESPP notes that it is likely that phosphine PH₃ will be released: this could pose operational challenges, or could be a commercial opportunity (phosphine is a precursor for organophosphorus chemistry). ESPP considers that these lab tests show that P₄production from phosphoric acid is technically possible, but that energy analysis is needed to assess whether this offers significant benefits compared to a conventional P₄furnace (using phosphate rock or secondary ash as input), solutions must to be found to remove contaminants and inerts from the reactor (calcium, silica) given that there is no slag outflow, more work is needed on carryover of phosphoric acid and phosphine, and that scale-up will require addressing corrosion throughout the system (hot acid, corrosive offgases …). Based on these first tests, Tohoku University is now conducting experiments with acid input 0.6 litres/hour.

“White phosphorus production by a carbothermic reduction of upcycled crude phosphoric acid”, H. Yu et al., Resources Conservation & Recycling 211, 2024, 107868, DOI.

Groundwater is a significant source of phosphorus to Oneida Lake, USA

Total groundwater P concentrations reached high values (up to 100 mg/l), with inorganic P representing c. 10% of total P, elevating lake P concentrations at the shore sediment–water interface and in the overlying water column. The role of groundwater leakage in P loading dynamics was evaluated along the shoreline of Oneida Lake (New York, USA), a shallow mesotrophic 207 km² lake. Two studies were conducted focusing on different scales along the lake: the first during summer 2017 and 2018, with sampling stations installed along 800 m of the southern basin shoreline; the second during summer 2020, sampling 10 representative sites around the entire shoreline. Groundwater leakage volume was measured and used with total P (TP, unfiltered samples) and Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP, filtered sample) data of pore and lake water samples to estimate P loads. Groundwater SRP concentrations and loads, although low, were constant throughout each summer season (c. 0.2 mg/L in 2017-18, 0.1 mg/L in 2020), indicating a consistent input of readily available P to the littoral environment, while TP concentrations were significantly higher than SRP (c. 2.0 mg/L in 2017-18, 25.0 mg/L in 2020), and widely variable across time and space (up to c.100 mg/L in 2020). Local and regional precipitation were positively correlated with flow rates and P fluxes. Sampling sites adjacent to residential areas exhibited higher P concentrations, possibly due to septic systems or garden fertiliser use. High TP loads also occurred adjacent to forested landscapes, possibly because of dissolved organic compounds leaching from the forest soils. In the study, SRP concentrations averaged less than 10% of TP, indicating that dissolved organic P, likely available for biological consumption, was the predominant fraction entering the lake via groundwater seepage (TP samples showed little to no particulate fraction). Therefore, even though the P entering the lake through groundwater seepage (3% of annual water inflow into the lake) is a small fraction of the total P loading to the lake, it may have an important impact due to its high bioavailability.

“Groundwater inputs could be a significant but often overlooked source of phosphorus in lake ecosystems”, M. Sol Lisboa et al., Scientific reports 14, 2024, 16269, DOI

Stay informed & ESPP members

SCOPE Newsletter: www.phosphorusplatform.eu/SCOPEnewsletter eNews newsletter: www.phosphorusplatform.eu/eNewshome
If you do not already receive ESPP’s SCOPE Newsletter and eNews (same emailing list), subscribe at www.phosphorusplatform.eu/subscribe
LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/company/phosphorusplatform
Slideshare presentations: https://www.slideshare.net/phosphorusplatform - Twitter: @phosphorusESPP
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/user/phosphorusplatform

ESPP member logos 06.08.24 page 0001

13 November 2024, Brussels and online

Brussels and online, Wed. 13^th November 14h – 18h30, legal status of biomass produced in wastewater treatment or with waste gas, manure or food waste inputs, and valorisation in fertilisers, feeds and industry. Presentation and discussion of legal analysis prepared for ESPP by Barry Love, Environmental Law Chambers, with user industries, algae production and processing experts, EU and national regulators. The legal analysis is available at www.phosphorusplatform.eu/regulatory, under the chapter “EU End-of-Waste status for materials recovered from waste waters”.

Discover the workshop programme.

Registration available on Eventbrite.

Onsite participation = 50€ + VAT (contribution to organisation costs). Online participation: free.

https://www.phosphorusplatform.eu/legalworkshop

Following the workshops organised on 13^th-14th March 2024 (complete summary available in SCOPE Newsletter N. 151), ESPP elaborated two position papers on market “pull” policies for uptake of recycled nutrients and targets for Phosphorus “Reuse & Recycling” from urban waste water as required by the revised Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.

Discussions at the workshops and proposals will be taken forward by ESPP by preparing, with participants and with ESPP members, a draft policy proposal document which will be opened to stakeholders for signature then submitted to the European Commission, Parliament, Council and Member States, based on the documents below. Comments and input on these are welcome to ESPP

ESPP proposals on market “pull” policies for uptake of recycled nutrients - download here

ESPP proposals on targets for Phosphorus “Reuse & Recycling” from urban waste water as required by the revised Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive - download here

Newsletter about nutrient stewardship - European Sustainable Phosphorus Platform (ESPP)

Please subscribe www.phosphorusplatform.eu/Subscribe
Link to www.phosphorusplatform.eu/eNews089
Download as PDF

Events, calls, job offers

5^th European Sustainable Phosphorus Conference 8-10 October 2024, Lleida, Spain

Upcoming call for projects on water circular economy

Phosphates 2025 conference to include potash

Job offer – BETA Technological Center

DPP P-recycling German thesis prize

ESPP new member

ReLEAF

Animal By-Products nutrient recycling in fertilisers

Webinar: including Animal By-Products into the EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR)

Safety and agronomic value of Animal By-Products as fertilisers

Watch the replay: webinar on use of ‘Processed Manure’ in EU fertilising products

“Processed Manure” in consolidated EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR)

Policy and regulations

European Commission further actions for failure to implement water policies

‘Polluter Pays’ lacks implementation in EU farming and industry policies

Increasing EU biomethane and digestate production

EU Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) – revision published

Research

Phosphorus-based superconductor material

Waterlogging of soil can increase plant availability of iron phosphates

Nutrient flows studies

Landfilled P in Rimini province (Italy) could meet 96% of crop demand

Low nutrient use efficiency in Flanders (Belgium)

Potential to recycle P will increase in Montreal (Canada) by 2050

Phosphorus management in Spain could increase efficiency and reduce losses

High P inflow and storage in Gippsland's agricultural system (Australia)

Phosphorus use efficiency trends across thirteen countries

Phosphorus flow studies previously summarised by ESPP

Stay informed & ESPP members

Events, calls, job offers

5^th European Sustainable Phosphorus Conference 8-10 October 2024, Lleida, Spain

120 abstracts received. With three European Commission services, United Nations, industry & experts from Europe and worldwide. Site visits to industrial nutrient recycling, digestate processing (Fertilizantes del Ebro, biogas installations). ESPC5 follows on from ESPC4 Vienna, 2022 which, with 320 participants onsite and 80 online, was the biggest conference on phosphorus ever worldwide. Join us for this unique networking, industry, policy and science event.
Updated programme, registration, site visit details: https://www.phosphorusplatform.eu/espc5

Birdwatching in Spain after ESPC5. Some of us will be taking a long weekend birding on the Spanish steppes around Lleida after ESPC5. Anyone interested in joining, contact

Upcoming call for projects on water circular economy

The European Water4All partnership has announced a Joint Transnational Call (c. 36 M€) for research and innovation projects to improve long-term water security, including resource recovery and valorisation.
The “Water for Circular Economy” call, backed by 36 funding agencies from Europe and outside, will be announced on September 12, 2024, with a total budget of c. 36 M€. The deadline for submitting pre-proposals is November 2024, and the projects will have a duration of 36 months. Research proposals must address at least one of the following themes: enhancement of water circularity in industries; urban water circularity; resource recovery and valorisation; economic, environmental and social implications of water reuse and recovered products. Project outcomes should contribute to the development of evidence-based water management policies and strategies at global, EU, and national levels, within the frameworks of the Green Deal, Water Framework Directive, Just Transition and UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Water4All 2024 Joint Transnational Call Pre-announcement.

Phosphates 2025 conference to include potash

CRU have announced that Phosphates 2025 (31/3/25 – 2/4/25, Orlando) will also cover potash. A call for abstracts is opened to 27^th September 2024. Themes will cover all aspects of the potash industry (as is the case for phosphates, for which CRU Phosphates is “the” annual industry & technology meeting place): mining and resources, beneficiation, fertilisers, environmental aspects of production management, sustainability.
Abstracts of 200-400 words should be sent to
Phosphates 2025 website: https://events.crugroup.com/phosphates/home

Job offer – BETA Technological Center

BETA Technological Center, Vic (Barcelona), Spain, is recruiting: "Senior Technician for the management of competitive projects in the field of governance". Application deadline 1^stSeptember. The selected person will be responsible for the implementation and technical management of the Horizon Europe CSSBOOST project.
Information: https://utalent.uvic.cat/index.php/Sollicituds/Vista/index/AD/11328

DPP P-recycling German thesis prize

DPP, the German Phosphorus Platform, is for the second year offering a 1000 € prize for a German bachelors or masters thesis on phosphorus recycling. The degree must have been obtained in Germany. The prize will be attributed at DPP’s annual meeting (DPP Forum), Frankfurt-am-Main, 23^rd October 2024. The first (2023) DPP thesis prize was awarded to Jannik Mühlbauer (TU Dresden) for his thesis “Laboratory studies on thermochemical sewage sludge treatment”.
Application (letter of motivation, CV, diploma, supervisor’s report, in one pdf file) plus the final thesis, must be sent by 1^st September to
DPP Forum, 23^rd October 2024 https://www.deutsche-phosphor-plattform.de/aktuelles-forum/

ESPP new member

ReLEAF

The four year 2024-2028 ReLEAF project is funded by the Circular Bio-Based Europe Joint Undertaking (CBE JU) to test efficient, safe, and sustainable bio-based controlled release fertilisers. The project has 17 partners from 9 countries, 6.5 M€ allocated EU funding, and is coordinated by Leitat technological centre, Spain. The project aims to valorise several bio-wastes widely available in Europe (sewage sludge, fish processing wastewaters and sludge, mixed food wastes, and agri-food wastes) to obtain fertilising ingredients, biostimulants, and bioplastics that will allow to obtain 100% bio-based controlled release fertilisers and fertiliser-functionalised horticulture elements (mulching films and planting pots). The ReLEAF products will be tested on different soil and climate conditions to demonstrate their efficiency and safety. ReLEAF aims to close the nutrient cycle, while promoting a sustainable agriculture in Europe, fully aligning with the ESPP’s objectives. ESPP membership will facilitate knowledge sharing, clustering and networking, to accelerate uptake of ReLEAF solutions and widen the project impact.
More information: https://www.linkedin.com/company/releaf-project-eu/
http://releafproject.eu/ (under construction)
Circular Bio-Based Europe Joint Undertaking https://www.cbe.europa.eu/cbe-ju-2023-call-projects

Animal By-Products nutrient recycling in fertilisers

Webinar: including Animal By-Products into the EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR)

17^th September, 14h – 16h (CEST, Brussels time). Recycling animal by-products to fertilisers: nutrient circularity, food chain safety and consumer confidence. Jointly organised by ECOFI, Eurofema, EBIC and ESPP. With participation of the European Commission (DG SANTE, DG GROW Fertilisers). This webinar will address several key questions: Which Animal By-Product (ABP) materials can currently be used in EU fertilising products? Under what processing conditions? How do the EU ABP Regulations and the Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR) fit together? What other materials could be considered? What logic and procedures should be followed to consider additional materials?

Secondary materials and fertiliser industry operators are invited to submit examples of ABPs with significant recycling potential as fertilisers. These should be safe, higher uses in the waste hierarchy (food, animal feed) should not be feasible, and they should currently not be authorised under the EU FPR.

This first webinar will present the current regulatory context, discuss several examples of potentially valuable ABPs that are currently excluded from the FPR, and propose ways to advance the inclusion of different types of ABP materials.
Registration open (free) https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZUrce6sqz0qGdD1o9cwY3u7GaJ4oo1gn5cA#/registration
Please send industry examples of ABP materials for consideration: short text indicating origin of material (from which industries, type of by-product), processing, agronomic value, potential (tonnes/year EU), health and environmental safety, industry contacts (emails) – to

Safety and agronomic value of Animal By-Products as fertilisers

QLab webinar presents conclusions proposed as input for pathogen safety, contaminants and agronomy for studied Cat.2 and Cat.3 ABPs for the Fertilising Products Regulation CMC10. Further input is still possible. The webinar included participation of the European Commission (DG GROW) and industry stakeholders. The study covers: processed insect frass, glycerine, by-products from production of fuels from ABPs, other Cat.3 materials, Processed Animal Protein (PAP), hydrolysed proteins, Meat and Bone Meal (MBM), Di- and Tri-Calcium Phosphate from bones, blood products, horn and hoof products, feathers and down, wet blue leather. Proposed conclusions are that in all cases, the processing required under the Animal By-Product Regulation are sufficient to ensure pathogen safety, when correctly applied (this includes BSE/TSE prion safety, given that Cat.1 materials are excluded). Pharmaceutical contaminants, including antibiotics or antibiotic resistance, could be an issue in some materials, and for these should be monitored and if possible reduced at source. In some materials, some contaminants could require specific limits on a case-by-case basis: methanol in glycerine; heavy metals in glycerine, horns & hoofs, hides & skins; arsenic in feathers & down; heavy metals and chromium in wet blue leather (chemicals used in tanning); possibly dioxins in feathers or horns where they may biologically accumulate. For processed insect frass, there are questions about protein allergens (in handling). Another question raised is possible deterioration of materials during storage, potentially resulting in mycotoxins.

The materials considered, based on available publications, show positive fertilising value, bringing organic material and/or nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, micronutrients) and can stimulate soil biology.

After any further input, the QLab report to the European Commission will be finalised, including proposed regulatory wording for inclusion of these materials into the FPR CMC10 (processing, contaminant and other criteria).

Webinar participants suggested that heavy metal levels are already fixed by FPR PFCs and need not be otherwise limited. ESPP commented that heavy metal limits in PFCs are adequate if these come only from heavy metals already present in the animal. However, for wet blue leather or skins/hides from tanning and leather processing, where chemicals including chromium, and arsenic are used, then specific limits in the CMC will ensure consumer and farmer confidence and environmental safety, and avoid “dilution” of such industrial pollutants into fertilisers and so onto fields.

Participants underlined that testing of e.g. allergens, pharmaceuticals, would be prohibitively expensive for organic fertiliser producers, and that these costs should be born by the livestock production and ABP processing sectors, so inciting to reduce at source.
Input and comments on the questions and conclusions proposed in these slides are invited to

Watch the replay: webinar on use of ‘Processed Manure’ in EU fertilising products

Organised by CERTrust, with Theodora Nikolakopoulou of DG GROW. ‘Processed Manure’ is now authorised under CMC10 of the FPR under specific conditions (see ESPP eNews n°88) and manure can also be used as input to CMC3 (composts), CMC5 (digestates), CMC14 (pyrolysis materials) under conditions. This webinar discusses the regulatory mechanism of these authorisations, ABP ‘End Points’, interactions with national fertiliser regulations and other regulations, sterilisation and hygienisation conditions, temperature-time conditions, use conditions, post-processing, packaging and storage obligations, certification documentation, how manure-derived recovered nutrients are in some cases authorised under other CMCs (e.g. recovered ammonia salts from offgases under CMC15).
Webinar 1^st July 2024 - watch replay and read transcript https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsUrwXJB_4w

“Processed Manure” in consolidated EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR)

The online consolidated version of the FPR has been updated to include “Processed Manure” in CMC10, as specified in the Delegated Regulation 2024/1682 (4 March 2024), see ESPP eNews n°88. The first batch of other materials which will hopefully be soon added to CMC10 are still under assessment (see QLab webinar above). ESPP recommends to users to always refer to the “consolidated” version of the FPR, in order to avoid working with outdated texts which do not take into account recent amendments (despite the consolidated version is only for guidance and does not include the recitals of the amending regulations). Note that CMC11 (By-Products) Regulation 2022/973 is NOT (and will not be) integrated into the consolidated FPR (for legal reasons) so should be consulted separately for CMC11. Also note that the link below to the consolidated FPR is to the CURRENT version: on opening this link, you should verify if there is not a more recent version (under “Hide all versions” on left hand side of page).
Consolidated EU Fertilising Products Regulation, consolidation of 3/7/2024 HERE.

Policy and regulations

European Commission further actions for failure to implement water policies

The EU continues to engage new infringement procedures against Member States for not fully implementing EU water policies, allowing pollution and deterioration of water bodies, including by phosphorus and nitrogen.
Failures to adequately collect and treat sewage or reduce agricultural nitrogen pollution are progressively being resolved, although this has in some cases only been after the European Commission engaged legal action at the European Court of Justice (ECJ): e.g. Belgium - ECJ C-395/13, France, Hungary - ESPP eNews n°56, Spain, Italy, Poland - ESPP eNews n°25, Germany – Euractiv 1/6/2023.

Implementation of the 1991 Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (that is before the recently decided revision) and the 1991 Nitrates Directive both still remain incomplete. Over the last year, the Commission has engaged actions against:

Slovakia: insufficient sewage collection for six agglomerations – INFR(2021)2147
Belgium (referral to ECJ): nitrate pollution in the Flanders region “successive Flemish nitrate action programmes [Nitrates Directive] have failed to deliver results and, to date, pollution levels remain excessively high, posing a risk to humans and the environment”.- INFR(2022)2051
Greece (referral to ECJ): inadequate sewage collection in 153 agglomerations, inadequate secondary treatment in 143 of these, failure to remove phosphorus before discharge into a Sensitive Area in one agglomeration – INF(2020)2021
France (referral to ECJ): drinking water exceeding legal nitrate concentration in 107 water supply zones in seven regions (Drinking Water Directive) - INFR(2020)2273
Cyprus: insufficient sewage collection and/or treatment for 31 agglomerations – INFR(2017)2046
Estonia: inadequate regulation of industrial wastewater – INFR(2023)2180
Ireland: failure to adequately treat wastewater from 8 agglomerations, failure to remove phosphorus before discharge into a Sensitive Area in a further three agglomerations – INFR(2023)2180
Spain (referral to ECJ): continuation of infringement procedures for inadequate collection of wastewater from 29 agglomerations and inadequate treatment of wastewater from 225 agglomerations – INFR(2012)2100 updated 21/12/2023
Portugal: inadequate secondary treatment in 15 agglomerations, failure to remove phosphorus before discharge into a Sensitive Area in three agglomerations INFR(2022)2028

The Commission has also engaged actions towards a number of Member States for inadequate implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60) and/or the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56), concerning reporting and definition of water basin management plans, river basin action programmes and flood risk maps.

Although there remain significant failure in EU water policy implementation by Member States, the situation is worse for EU waste policy: the Commission announced in July 2024 initial opening of infringement procedures against 27 Member States for failure to meet the 2020 target to prepare 50% of municipal waste for reuse and recycling (EU Waste Framework Directive 94/62 amended by 2018/852).

‘Polluter Pays’ lacks implementation in EU farming and industry policies

OECD paper indicates the need to improve coherence between EU agriculture and industry policies and the ‘Polluter Pays’ principle set by the Water Framework Directive. The ‘Polluter Pays’ principle was established by the OECD in 1972 and then as one of the 27 guiding principles of the UN ‘Rio Declaration’ 1992. The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD 2000/60) art. 9 fixes the “principle of recovery of the costs of water services, including environmental and resource costs, … in accordance in particular with the polluter pays principle”. The OECD’s 50-page analysis discusses challenges to implementation, including the distinction between water service users (paying water fees) and polluters. In particular, farmers using fertilisers or phytochemicals (diffuse pollution) will not pay environmental or depollution costs via water use fees. The OECD paper identifies pesticide taxes in place in Sweden and Denmark, a nitrate fertiliser tax in France only and a tradable phosphates quota system in The Netherlands. However, diffuse pollution is causing WFD quality status failure in nearly 40% of EU surface waters. In France, removal of nitrates and phytochemicals from drinking water costs 0.5 – 1 billion €/year (not considering environmental costs of water body quality degradation) whereas the nitrates tax revenue is <0.2 billion €/y. A study in Denmark estimated that a 150% tax on nitrates fertilisers would be needed to reduce losses by -30% (water quality target). The paper notes that cross-compliance introduced into the EU Common Agricultural Policy (that is, farmers must respect environmental legislation such as the Nitrates Directive or Water Framework Directive) to receive farm subsidies face difficulties of implementation, in particular identification of individual farmer responsibility in diffuse pollution. Also, CAP penalties are considered inadequate to ensure compliance. Measures such as obligatory balanced farm fertiliser plans and soil monitoring can contribute to ensuring application of ‘Polluter Pays’ to diffuse agricultural pollution. Nutrient credit trading programmes are noted, e.g. Great Miami River Watershed, Ohio. Identified challenges include Extended Producer Responsibility to implement ‘Polluter Pays’ for industrial chemicals (e.g. pharmaceuticals under the revised EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, see ESPP eNews n°83) costs of ‘legacy’ pollution, the absence of an EU legal framework to apply ‘Polluter Pays’ to soil pollution.
“The implementation of the Polluter Pays principle in the context of the Wate Framework Directive”, D. Sanchez Trancon, X. Leflaive, an output of the OECD Environment Policy Committee (EPOC) Working Party on Biodiversity, Water and Ecosystems (WPBWE), OECD Environment Working Papers No. 238, 23 May 2024, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/699601fc-en

Increasing EU biomethane and digestate production

2024 “Biomethane Map” from European Biogas Association shows nearly 40% increase in EU biomethane production capacity since 2022-2023 producing nearly a million tonnes of digestate. EBA’s updated map identifies over 1 500 biomethane plants across Europe, of which 80% are connected to methane compression, either for injection into the natural gas distribution network or for transport fuel. 25 billion € of private investment is already identified as secured for further plant investment, and will result in nearly 1 000 new plants by 2030. The EU objective to increase biomethane production by x10 by 2030 will be fed mainly by manure, as well as agricultural by-products and sequential crops. This will result in high-nutrient digestates. EBA estimates that by 2030 digestates in Europe will contain 4.1 Mt of nitrogen, 0.7 Mt of phosphorus and 0.4 Mt of potassium, that is around 60% of phosphorus currently used in mineral fertilisers. Today around 2/3 of digestate is used locally on fields and only around 16% is processed to fertiliser products. (See Giulia Cancian, EBA, in SCOPE Newsletter n°146 and EBA digestate report in ESPP eNews n°86).
“New edition of the Biomethane Map shows 37% increase in biomethane capacity in the EU compared to the previous map”, European Biogas Association (EBA), 5^th July 2024.

EU Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) – revision published

The revised IED was published on 24^th April 2024, setting mandatory emissions and environmental criteria across industry, increasing emphasis on material efficiency and covering around three quarters of pig and poultry farms. The Directive is implemented by BAT (Best Available Technology BREFs, established under a JRC process, and formally adopted by the European Commission. Emission limits, environmental technologies and other standards defined in these BAT BREFs then become mandatory for all installations of the relevant industry sector across Europe (above specified size). Under the new title “Industrial and Livestock Rearing Emissions Directive”, intensive pig and poultry farms (as defined in Annex Ia) will be covered from 280 – 380 LSU( livestock units). This is expected to increase the number of pig and poultry farms covered from around 35% under the current IED to 75 – 80% by 2030. Intensive cattle farms are not yet covered, but the Commission must assess this possibility by 2026. The revised Directive also increases the emphasis on materials and resource efficiency.
JRC BAT BREFs https://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference
Industrial and Livestock Rearing Emissions Directive (IED 2.0) 2024/1785 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401785
European Commission IED2.0 page: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/industrial-emissions-and-safety/industrial-and-livestock-rearing-emissions-directive-ied-20_en

Research

Phosphorus-based superconductor material

Research shows that lead – phosphorus based material can be superconductor (zero electrical resistance) at room temperature and pressure. The “LK-99” material was synthesised from copper phosphide (CuP, a derivate of elemental phosphorus P₄) and lanarkite (a lead sulphate – lead oxide mineral). The superconductivity is considered to result from structural distortion as copper ions substitute lead ions in the phosphate lattice, enabling electron movement. This research paper provides another example of possible applications of P₄- derived chemicals in electronics developments.
“The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor”, S. Lee et al., 2023. arXiv:2307.12008, DOI

Waterlogging of soil can increase plant availability of iron phosphates

In pot trials, iron II and III phosphates were not effective P-fertilisers for rice, but the P-availability was increased by 60-day waterlogging of the soil and addition of organic matter (glutamate). Three iron II (vivianite) and three iron III phosphates were pot-trialled with rice in three P-deficient soils (pH: 4.5 limed to 6.1, 6.0, 7.9, iron 0.9, 2.6, 2.9 gFe/kg). The vivianites were provided by Wetsus (recovered from wastewater), Fertiberia and laboratory synthesis. The iron III phosphates were phosphorus-loaded iron materials from drinking water treatment (two Aquaminerals, one from NeReDrain agricultural drainage P-trap). In the pot trials, the iron phosphates were compared to triple super phosphate (TSP) at the same P application rate plus a control (no added P). N, K and micronutrients were added in all cases. The rice pot trials (21 days) showed in all cases plant P uptake considerably lower than with TSP and generally not higher than for the control (no added P), in all three soils for all the iron phosphate materials tested, both in pot trials with waterlogged and non-waterlogged soil. In longer soil incubation tests (60 days), with waterlogged soil, the different iron phosphates did show P-release (increased soil CaCl₂ extractable P) compared to the control, in two of the three soils (not in the limed acidic soil), in particular when organic matter was also added (glutamate).
“Increasing phosphorus fertilizer value of recycled iron phosphates by prolonged flooding and organic matter addition”, R. Saracanlao et al., Pedosphere 34(3), 2022, pp 631-640. DOI

Nutrient flows studies

Landfilled P in Rimini province (Italy) could meet 96% of crop demand

Of nearly 240 tP/y entering the system, c. 80 tP/y accumulate in soils or are lost to water bodies. Recovery of P from digested sewage sludge would meet up to 96% of the annual P demand for crops, but this flow is currently landfilled.
Material flow analysis has been applied to characterise the 2020 phosphorous cycle in the seven municipalities of the Rimini province (Italy) and the State of San Marino. The area is served by the Santa Giustina wastewater treatment plant (560 000 p.e.), where sewage sludge undergoes anaerobic digestion. Two phosphorus flow analysis studies from the literature were used as archetypes for the modelling of the system (van Dijk et al., 2016 and Koppelaar and Weikard, 2013), and data were gathered from databases, inventories and statistics (from EEA, ISPRA, ARPA, USDA, …), and complemented with literature searches including ESPP Fact Sheet. The model showed that 236 ± 23 t P enter the system annually, of which 122 ± 12 t P/y from fertilisers applied to agricultural soils (producing wheat, lettuce, alfalfa, and grapes), and the remainder from imported food products, animal feed supplements for livestock, and household chemicals. The greatest P flow within the system (158 ± 31 t P/y) is from the agricultural soils to the harvested crops, even though a net accumulation in soils of 15 ± 23 t P/y was estimated by the model. The P consumed by the population is excreted into the sewage system, along with P from household chemicals, for a total of 142 ± 3 t P annually, corresponding to the recovery P potential at theoretical 100% efficiency rate. In 2021, current treatment technologies at the WWTP allowed the removal of about 117 ± 2 t P/year from wastewater (removal efficiency rate of 82%). This amount of P could theoretically meet up to 96% of the annual demand of mineral fertilisers in the system, but currently goes to landfill. The P discharge after water treatment is 25 ± 3 t P/y and adds to P leached flow from crop production (45 ± 8 t P/y). The resulting net P input to water bodies of 66 ± 8 t P/y and runs off to natural water bodies.
“Phosphorous flow analysis and resource circularity at the province level in north Italy”, C.M. Duque Torres et al., Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 33 (2023) 101133 DOI

Low nutrient use efficiency in Flanders (Belgium)

Detailed N and P flow analysis for the livestock-intensive region of Flanders shows low nutrient use efficiency (11% N, 18% P). Recycling/reuse could be increased from 35% N and 37% P of system inputs to 45% N and 48% P.
A recent study (Vingerhoets et al., 2023) modelled 40 sectors and processes, examining over 1 800 nutrient flows within the Flanders region. This included the fate of nutrients post-consumption, using data from various sources like government agencies, farming industries, treatment facilities, and households. The study builds on Coppens et al. (2016), which analysed nutrient flows in the same region for 2009, quantifying 160 N and P flows across 21 compartments. The 2016 study found 20 kgN/cap/y and 0.53 kgP/cap/y were emitted to the environment, lower than the EU averages. Crop and livestock production were the main contributors to emissions. In crop production, animal manure supplied 55% of the N and 87% of the P demand for fertilisers, contributing significantly to environmental nutrient losses. Inorganic fertilizers accounted for 32% of N and 6% of P. Despite advancements in waste management, only a small fraction of nutrients in waste streams were recycled (17% N and 12% P).

Vingerhoets et al. (2023) estimated a total system input of 87.9 ± 2.4 kgN/cap/y and 13.9 ± 0.4 kgP/cap/y, mainly from imports of plant and animal products (50% and 53% of N and P inputs), mineral fertilizers (21% N, 4% P), and animal feeds (18% N, 20% P). Compared to 2009, N and P inputs decreased (87.9 vs. 130 kgN/cap/y and 13.9 vs. 19 kgP/cap/y). Nutrient inputs were exported in food products (19% N, 20% P), feed (8% N, 11% P), side streams (including manure, 27% N, 61% P), lost to the environment (39% N, 4% P), or accumulated in soils (7% N, 4% P). Feed flows were dominant due to intensive livestock production. About one-third of consumed nutrients were assimilated into animal products, with the remainder in animal manure, reused for crop production, processed, or exported. The model showed a low nutrient use efficiency of 11% for N and 18% for P. Currently, 55% of 59.6 kgN/cap/y and 56% of 10.0 kgP/cap/y in recoverable streams are recycled or reused, providing 35% and 37% of total N and P input, respectively. Implementing recovery technologies for untapped recoverable streams (e.g., treated municipal wastewater, dried and exported poultry manure, activated-sludge treated pig and cattle manure, and point source NH₃ emissions) could increase recovery efficiency by 22.7% for N and 17.6% for P, enhance reuse efficiency by 14.6% for N and 24.4% for P, and replace 45% of external N input and 48% of external P input.
“Detailed nitrogen and phosphorus flow analysis, nutrient use efficiency and circularity in the agri-food system of a livestock-intensive region”, R. Vingerhoets et al., J. Clean. Prod. 410 (2023) 137278 DOI
“Follow the N and P road: High-resolution nutrient flow analysis of the Flanders region as precursor for sustainable resource management”, J. Coppens et al., Resour. Consev. Recycl. 115 (2016) 9-21 DOI

Potential to recycle P will increase in Montreal (Canada) by 2050

Over 80% of imported P is landfilled, 17% flows to the Saint Lawrence River, and less than 3% is available for recycling. There is potential to recover P from wastewater and solid organic waste and to reduce P flows to landfill by up to 95%.
The study presented a P flow analysis in the island of Montreal (Canada) in the year 2014, and explored possible flow modifications in the 2008-2050 period following potential policy changes and shifts in social behaviour. The study focussed on the food, wastewater, and waste management sectors, not calculating inputs and flows related to pet food and pet waste, household products containing P, and other flows. The geographical system boundary for the analysis was the island of Montreal, therefore flows associated with food systems operating exclusively off-island were not considered. P concentrations, quantities, and flow rates were based on peer-reviewed literature and published government reports. Site-specific data were used when possible, supplemented by provincial or national values. Results showed that approximately 3% of imported P (from food, feed and fertilisers) is being recovered in compost, with only 0.2% being recycled to urban food production. The majority of P is accumulating in landfills (c. 85%, mostly as sewage sludge), while 17% is exported to the river. At present, there is c. 1.7 ktP/y in organic waste streams, of which c. 2/3 is in sewage and c. 1/3 is in organic wastes. The amount of organic solid waste (food, leaves, and yard waste) being collected is expected to increase. The amount of compost produced from these solid wastes is predicted to eventually exceed the needs of on-island agriculture, resulting in available P for off-island markets.
“Dynamic simulation of phosphorus flows through Montreal’s food and waste systems”, Treadwell et al., Resour. Conserv. Recy.131 (2018) 122–133, DOI

Phosphorus management in Spain could increase efficiency and reduce losses

P flow analysis (PFA) suggests that Spain’s current P cycle is not efficient with significant losses and soil accumulation. However, data incoherences mean that precise conclusions cannot be drawn.
A phosphorus flow analysis conducted for Spain (19 autonomous regions plus Baleares and Canarias islands) for the year 2012 suggests that a net total of 215 kP/y was imported by Spain (imports – exported products). The numbers given suggest that one third of this is accumulating in stockpiled food and animal feed products. This would mean* that around a quarter of Spain’s food and animal feed production was being stockpiled, which seems unlikely. The PFA also suggests that over half of compost production was stockpiled (13 ktP/y accumulation in compost), also unlikely, as well as accumulations in industrial chemicals and fertiliser stocks. As indicated by the authors, these apparent accumulations are probably due to “partial information” rather than reflecting reality. This suggests that the PFA estimates for losses of phosphorus to water (45 ktP/y, of which 32 ktP/y from sewage works and 13 ktP/y from agricultural land) and for accumulation in soils (42 ktP/y) are probably too low.

These incoherences mean that the authors’ conclusions concerning efficiency of crop and animal production P use, and comparisons with efficiency in other countries, are not meaningful: it seems likely that much of the apparent “accumulation” of P is in reality P being lost to water or accumulated in soils.

The PFA numbers indicate that input to agricultural land (340 ktP/y) consisted of mineral fertilisers (48%), animal manure (39%), urban sewage sludge (10%), compost and others (3%). Fertiliser use data (kgP/ha applied) indicated an overdosing trend in Spain, up to 4 times the average for EU-27, with a ratio of applied mineral fertilisers to total fertiliser application close to the EU-27 average. 60% of the P received by wastewater treatment plants is removed in sewage sludge and around 69% of the sewage sludge was recycled to agriculture.
* comparing P shown as stockpiled to P shown as input to “Food and feed” in fig. 1.
“A Phosphorous Flow Analysis in Spain”, J. Álvarez et al., Sci. Tot. Env. 612 (2018) 995-1006 DOI

High P inflow and storage in Gippsland's agricultural system (Australia)

A six-year (2008–2013) P flow analysis in Gippsland, Australia, found that c. 70% of annual P inflow was stored within the region, and that the per capita P inflow (60 kg P/y) was remarkably higher than other regions (1.6-20.7 kg P/y).
In Gippsland, an intensive agricultural food-producing region of Australia, most of the annual inflow, outflow, and storage of P in the region is associated with the livestock farming system. The annual inflow of P primarily comes from commercial fertilisers for pastures (66% of the 15 ktP/y total input) and livestock feed (29%), while livestock products account for 94% of the mean annual total outflow (c. 4 ktP/year). The majority of P storage (66%, c. 7 ktP/year) is in livestock farm soils, where cattle excreta accumulate. These findings are consistent with previous flow studies (summarised in SCOPE Newsletter n° 77 and 95), indicating that Australia is a significant P importer, with livestock production accounting for a large share of the country's P consumption, including fertilised pastures and animal feeds, and that P in animal manures mostly accumulates in the soils of pastures. Over the study period, over 65 ktP accumulated in the region, and c. 3 ktP were lost through soil erosion and runoff. Both the annual inflow and storage of P in the Gippsland region and the livestock farming system showed a decreasing trend over the study period, while the annual outflow remained nearly the same. This suggests improved P management, coinciding with several initiatives for sustainable nutrient management in the region’s dairy farms. Despite these improvements, c. 0.5 ktP annually entered water bodies from different subsystems, negatively impacting the aquatic environment. Additionally, nearly half of the annual total P inflow in the waste management system remains unrecovered or unutilised, ending up in landfill or the environment as disposal of garbage (from solid waste streams), wastewater, and sewage sludge.
“A multi-year phosphorus flow analysis of a key agricultural region in Australia to identify options for sustainable management”, R. B. Chowdhury et al., Agric. Sys. 161 (2018) 42-60 DOI

Phosphorus use efficiency trends across thirteen countries

Agricultural phosphorus use efficiency in thirteen countries averages c. 45%. It is higher in crops & pastures (c. 70%) and lower in the livestock sector (c. 20%).
The study reviewed national scale P flow analyses to compare the major key P inflows, outflows, and P use efficiency (PUE*) in the crop-pasture, livestock and overall agricultural production sectors across various nations**. National flow studies were selected among peer reviewed single- or multiple- years flow studies published between 2005 and 2020, considering agricultural flows including crop, pasture and livestock production, and from which quantitative data were available.

Crop-pasture sector: mineral fertilisers and livestock manure account for c. 90% of the annual total P inflow in all considered countries. PUE in this sector ranges from 25 to 85%, with European countries showing higher PUE (66-85%) due to significant P inflow from animal manure, and therefore higher P recovery and recycling. Countries like Japan, South Korea, Finland, Portugal and Norway exhibit high soil P storage (>50% of inflow) and lower PUE (25-50%).
Livestock sector: P inflows mainly come from livestock feed from pasture/crop production (e.g., France, Bangladesh) and feed industry (e.g., China, Netherlands, Portugal). Total P outflow (livestock manure and products) was almost equal to the inflow, indicating almost no or low storage (ESPP note: logically the only “losses” in livestock are in bones and other non-food parts of the animal). PUE ranged from 2% (Bangladesh) to 34% (Netherlands), averaging 18%. Higher PUE is noted in Pacific and European countries, attributed to higher P outflow as livestock products for food production. However, authors excluded this flow from the calculation due to the uncertain fate of P in manure, which can be wasted or lost.
Overall agricultural sector (including crop-pasture and livestock sector): P inflows are primarily from mineral fertilisers (China, India, Bangladesh) and imported feed (Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland and Norway), with major outflows being crop/plant and livestock products. PUE ranged from 22 to 76%, averaging 46%. Countries with higher PUE (i.e., EU countries) often recycle P from organic waste streams, and show high PUE in the crop-pasture subsystem.

Given the positive correlation between high PUE in the crop-pasture subsystem and high PUE in the overall agricultural sector, the authors conclude that applying P fertilisers for producing more plant-based food than animal feed/pasture for generating animal-based food could reduce P input and improve PUE in the overall agricultural production system. They also underline the potential for improving PUE in the agricultural system of Asian countries by reducing the use of mineral fertilisers and enhancing the use of livestock manure through recovery and recycling, following many EU-countries example.

* Definitions of P use efficiency (PUE), as reported by the authors for the sector of:
- crop production: conversion ratio of the total P input into useful plant exports (e.g., harvested crops)
- animal/livestock production: conversion ratio of the total P input into useful animal/ livestock products (e.g., milk and meat)
** Selected national P flow studies: Bangladesh, China (summarised in ESPP Scope Newsletter 128), India, Japan, South Corea, Australia (see Scope Newsletter 95), New Zealand, Austria (see Scope Newsletter 143), Finland, France (see Scope Newsletter 104) , Germany, Netherlands (see Scope Newsletter 105), Norway (see Scope Newsletter 123), Portugal, Spain (see summary above), Sweden, Switzerland (see Scope Newsletter 128), Turkey, UK (see Scope Newsletter 113) and USA. Only 13 countries were considered for PUE comparison in the overall agricultural sector.
“Phosphorus use efficiency in agricultural systems: A comprehensive assessment through the review of national scale substance flow analyses”, R. B. Chowdhury et al., Ecol. Indic. 121 (2021) 107172 DOI

Phosphorus flow studies previously summarised by ESPP

State/Region/City	eNews	SCOPE Newsletter	State/Region/City	eNews	SCOPE Newsletter
Europe		85, 92, 117	Global	43, 58	73, 76, 99, 128
Austria		54, 113, 128, 143	Australia		77, 95
Baltic	42		Bangkok		122
Brussels	47		China		65, 78, 103, 128
Finland		78	Egypt (Nile)		67
France		93, 101, 104	New Zealand		116
Germany	65		Ontario	68
Netherlands		97, 105	Uganda		113
Nordic Countries		123	Review	38	128
Northern Ireland	49
Paris region	22
Slovenia		50
Stockholm		122
Sweden		71, 93, 99
Switzerland		80, 85, 102, 108, 126, 128, 141
UK	73	98, 108, 113, 116

Stay informed & ESPP members

17^th September, 14h – 16h (CEST, Brussels time). Recycling animal by-products to fertilisers: nutrient circularity, food chain safety and consumer confidence. Jointly organised by ECOFI, Eurofema, ESPP and EBIC.

With participation of the European Commission (DG SANTE, DG GROW Fertilisers). This webinar will address several key questions: Which Animal By-Product (ABP) materials can currently be used in EU fertilising products? Under what processing conditions? How do the EU ABP Regulations and the Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR) fit together? What other materials could be considered? What logic and procedures should be followed to consider additional materials?

Programme: click here

Registration open (free): here

Please send industry examples of ABP materials for consideration: short text indicating origin of material (from which industries, type of by-product), processing, agronomic value, potential (tonnes/year EU), health and environmental safety, industry contacts (emails) – to

Newsletter about nutrient stewardship - European Sustainable Phosphorus Platform (ESPP)

Please subscribe www.phosphorusplatform.eu/Subscribe
Link to www.phosphorusplatform.eu/eNews088
Download as PDF

ESPP actions

Registration is now open for the 5^th European Sustainable Phosphorus Conference

Webinar: including Animal By-Products in the EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR)

EFSA call for input on P-recycling from Cat.1 Animal By-Product ash: deadline 5^th July

“Processed Manure” now authorised in EU fertilising products

Positions and prizes

IFS 10^th Brian Chambers crop nutrition research prize

PhD positions open on nutrient recycling and fertilisers

Job offer - Morocco

Nutrient recycling

ISO Circular Economy standard integrates nutrient recycling

Updated position paper on sewage sludge biochar

3^rd PRO-FEM Conference, Catalunya: Bio-based Fertilisers and nutrient recovery

Microplastics

Microplastics and phosphorus in soils

Soil impacts of microplastics in sewage sludge and household organic waste composts

Stay informed & ESPP members

ESPP actions

Registration is now open for the 5^th European Sustainable Phosphorus Conference

8-10 October 2024, Lleida, Spain. 120 abstracts received. With three European Commission services, United Nations, industry & experts from Europe and worldwide. Site visits to industrial nutrient recycling, digestate processing (Fertilizantes del Ebro, biogas installations). ESPC5 follows on from ESPC4 Vienna, 2022 which, with 320 participants onsite and 80 online, was the biggest conference on phosphorus ever worldwide. Join us for this unique networking, industry, policy and science event.
Updated programme, registration, site visit details: https://www.phosphorusplatform.eu/espc5

Webinar: including Animal By-Products into the EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR)

17^th September, 14h – 16h (CEST, Brussels time). Recycling animal by-products to fertilisers: nutrient circularity, food chain safety and consumer confidence. Jointly organised by ECOFI, Eurofema, ESPP and EBIC. With participation of the European Commission (DG SANTE, DG GROW Fertilisers). This webinar will address several key questions: Which Animal By-Product (ABP) materials can currently be used in EU fertilising products? Under what processing conditions? How do the EU ABP Regulations and the Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR) fit together? What other materials could be considered? What logic and procedures should be followed to consider additional materials?

EFSA call for input on P-recycling from Cat.1 Animal By-Product ash: deadline 5^th July

The European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) is calling for input by Friday 5^th July on use of Cat.1 Animal By-Product ash in fertilisers, considering prion risk (TSE/BSE) and other possible biological or chemical risks (see ESPP eNews n°87, EU EFSA Mandate M-2023-00166, EFSA-Q-2024-00278). Draft SAFOSO risk appraisal report here – for comment to 4^th July. If you are aware of data, publications or evidence relevant to the health or environmental safety or to agronomic value of ABP Cat. 1 ash, please submit to EFSA (with copy for information copy to ESPP) or send to ESPP and we will submit for you.

ESPP has submitted a number of reports and studies which we have collected to date, and also a specific and new analysis of prion (BSE/TSE) risk estimation for use of Cat.1 ash for fertiliser, prepared for ESPP by SAFOSO. A “final draft” of this analysis has been submitted to EFSA and can be consulted here. Your comments and additions to this document are invited to ESPP. We will submit to EFSA, in August, a finalised version taking into account additional information which you send us.
Input to EFSA MUST be made via the specific web portal Portalino, by Friday 5^th July, and must refer to question number EFSA-Q-2024-00278. To do this, you must first contact EFSA by email and request opening of a Portalino account. Alternatively, send your input to ESPP and we will submit.
Draft SAFOSO risk study of Cat.1 ash, for ESPP – for comment and input by end July please here.

“Processed Manure” now authorised in EU fertilising products

Manure can now be used as an input for CE-mark fertilising products, under specific conditions, as such after ABP Regulation sterilisation under CMC10, or also as input to composts, digestates, biochars (CMCs 3, 5, 14). European Commission Delegated Regulation 2024/1682 (4^th March 2024), completing DG SANTE Delegated Regulation 2023/1605 (see ESPP eNews n°86), enables, as of now and under specified conditions, the use of “Processed Manure” as a component material under the EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR) CMC10. This concerns ‘Processed Manure’ as defined in the EU Animal By-Products Regulation ABP 1069/2009 and Annex XI, §2, ch. I of 142/2011.

Manure can already today also be used as an input to EU FPR composts and digestates (CMC3, CMC5) if the composting / anaerobic digestion process achieves the ABP sterilisation requirements (ABP Annex XI, §2, ch. I of 142/2011) or as an input to EU FPR pyrolysis and gasification materials (CMC14) if the pyrolysis/gasification process achieves the ABP “Processed Manure” sterilisation requirements (as above).

The new Delegated Regulation 2024/1682 sets specific conditions for use of “Processed Manure” in EU FPR CMC10 including:

processing must be as specified for “Processed Manure” in the EU Animal By-Product Regulations (temperature, time, registered installation …),
this also means that the requirements of the ABP ‘End-Point’ for fertilisers, fixed by Delegated Regulation 2023/1605 must be respected: size or packaging, mixing with other materials, labelling,
particle size,
pressure granulation, pelletisation, drying,
stability,
PAH₆

Note that this new Delegated Regulation 2024/1682 covers only ‘Processed Manure’ in FPR CMC10. The conditions for inclusion into CMC10 of other Cat.2 and Cat.3 materials (as listed in Delegated Regulation 2023/1605) are still under study. Cat.2 and Cat. 3 materials can already be used as inputs to FPR composts and digestates (CMCs 3, 5) if the composting/anaerobic digestion process achieves the ABP sterilisation requirements (ABP Annex XI, §2, ch. I of 142/2011.
European Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1682 “amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards adding processed manure as a component material in EU fertilising products”, 4^th March 2024 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L_202401682https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L_202401682

Positions and prizes

IFS 10^th Brian Chambers crop nutrition research prize

The International Fertiliser Society prize (UK£ 1000 plus 2 x UK£ 500) rewards completed or advanced research (PhD / MSc level) susceptible to make a practical contribution to improving crop nutrition. Application form (one page) and information on previous prize winners is here
Submission deadline: 30^th September. IFS Brian Chambers International Award for Early Career Researchers in Crop Nutrition. HERE.

PhD positions open on nutrient recycling and fertilisers

Timac Agro and University of Bari, Italy, have opened for candidatures five PhD positions:

Innovative Strategies for the Application of Plasma-Activated Means for Plant Nutrition
Exploring a circular model for natural polymers production for microencapsulation in agriculture
Valorising olive paste on a circular model for agricultural soil health
Enhanced Design and Evaluation of Porous Materials for Nutrient Recovery and Their Potential as Fertilisers
Ash recovery: Development of strategies for nutrient recovery from waste streams for contributing to the fertiliser industry’s sustainability

The PhDs will be with University of Bari (Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro), Department of Earth and Geoenvironmental Sciences. They are three year PhDs, with 6-12 months at another international research institute. They are funded by Italian National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) – Next Generation EU (NGEU) and TIMAC AGRO Italia S.p.A.
Applications should be submitted within 1-2 months. Deadlines and further information:https://www.dindistegeo.it/ or Daniela Pinto and Daniel El Chami .

Job offer - Morocco

The Global Phosphorus Institute (GPI), Benguérir, Morocco, is recruiting a Research and Operation Analyst. Application deadline 15^th August. Role is to review information (regulatory, company, scientific) to support decision making and to plan and organise activities.
Information: https://www.tgpi.org/en/home -> “Opportunities”
Information on GPI, see ESPP eNews n°56.

Nutrient recycling

ISO Circular Economy standard integrates nutrient recycling

Newly published ISO 59004, vocabulary and principles for the circular economy, includes definitions related to nutrient cycles and cites nutrient recycling as an example of circular economy actions. This new ISO standard, defining vocabulary and principles, joins four others in the ISO 59000 family, which aim to harmonise understanding of the circular economy and support its implementation and measurement, with ISO 59010 (circular economy business models), ISO 59020 (measuring and assessing circular economy performance), ISO 59040 (product circularity data sheet) and ISO 59014 (principles of recovery of secondary materials).

ISO 59004 provides terms and definitions, sets a vision and principles for a circular economy, and offers practical guidance for actions to implement in any organisation. Key points include:

definitions: 3.1.21 “Biological cycle” is defined as biological nutrient cycling, and refers to composting (definition 3.1.17), anaerobic digestion (3.1.18) and “extraction of bio-chemicals” (not defined).
anaerobic digestion is noted to produce “normally, nutrient-rich digestate” and nutrient recovery from composting or anaerobic digestion is cited under value creation in “Cascading of biological resources” (6.4.3.3)
energy recovery should if possible be coupled with resource recovery, with nutrient capture cited (6.4.7)
nutrient cycling is cited as a critical ecosystem service (6.5)
cited examples of actions towards value recovery include: recovery and recycling of biowaste; processes for extraction of biobased products and feedstocks from biowaste, residual biomass, wastewater and sludge; R&D to extract nutrients as fertilisers from wastewater (B.4) and safe return of nutrients and carbon to soils from biodegradable materials (C.4.5).
ISO 59004 (May 2024), 51 pages, c. 200€, “Circular Economy – Vocabulary, principles and guidance for implementation” https://www.iso.org/standard/80648.html

Updated position paper on sewage sludge biochar

European Biochar Industry (EBI) Consortium document presents evidence that pyrolysis can largely eliminate organic contaminants, discusses phosphorus plant availability, and calls for inclusion of sewage sludge biochar into the FPR (EU Fertilising Products Regulation). The document has been input to the currently ongoing NMI study (for the European Commission) into additions and extensions to the FPR Component Material Categories (Annex II CMCs). It updates a previous position paper of January 2023 (ESPP eNews n°73). It aims to present new scientific evidence published since the JRC STRUBIAS report 2019. This report concluded that sewage sludge should be excluded from authorised inputs to FPR biochars (CMC14) but noted that this “could possibly be revised once robust and extensive techno-scientific evidence underpins the safe use of (specific) pyrolysis & gasification materials derived from sewage sludge”.

Arguments and evidence are provided on contaminant elimination in pyrolysis processes. It is explained why the technology is adapted for implementation in municipal sewage works (deployable and scalable). Agronomic, environmental and carbon benefits of biochar are presented, including contribution to carbon sinks and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. It is noted that sewage sludge biochar is authorised under national regulations in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland and Sweden.

PFAS elimination

The 20-page paper brings together arguments and references showing that pyrolysis at 600°C or higher can eliminate nearly 100%% of PFAS (several studies) with data from one installation suggesting that PFAS are not transferred to flue gas. This is confirmed (at pyrolysis temperatures from 400°C) in the 2024 study by Husek et al. (ESPP eNews n°85), not cited in the EBIC document.

Concerning PFAS, ESPP notes that the cited study by Sørmo et al. 2023 (ref. 13 in the document) analysed PFAS in 8 different input materials (of which 4 sewage sludges, wood chips, garden waste …), in resulting biochar and in flue gas, for a Biogreen 2-10 kg/hour pyrolysis unit (ETIA Technologies, now part of VOW ASA), operated at temperatures 500 – 800°C. PFAS in the biochars ranged from non-detectable to 3.4 ppb, with removal of 99.6% or higher in all cases. Sørmo et al. found PFAS in flue gas, after combustion of the condensed pyrolysis oil, at all pyrolysis temperatures tested and for all of the feedstocks. Mean flue gas PFAS concentration was c. 70 ng/m². This also confirms similar results in flue gas in the Thoma study. Thoma et al. 2022 report analysis of PFAS in biochar produced from bio-dried sewage sludge and in offgas from a commercial Pyreg pyrolysis system (c. 3 500 t dried sewage sludge/year). The pyrolysis operated with reactor inner wall temperatures 650°C front end and 590°C rear end (residence time c. 19 minutes). PFAS in offgas was analysed after post-combustion at 1020°C. 21 of 41 PFAS compounds were detected in the input sewage sludge, but none in the biochar (the authors note that non-analysed PFAS compound could be present). Only two of the analysed PFAS compounds were found in the post-combustion offgas (analysis in scrubber water). Kundu et al. 2021 report results from lab scale pyrolysis (250 g/h, semi-continuous, 5 h residence time) at 600 – 700 °C of anaerobically digested, solar dried sewage sludge. The authors report suggest 50% - 96% destruction of 6 of the 12 analysed PFAS compounds and net formation or low destruction of the others. For several of the PFAS compounds, most of the final PFAS output was estimated to be in the post-combustion offgas (analysed in scrubber water).

Evidence of elimination of pharmaceuticals, microplastics and other organic pollutants is provided. Heavy metals are largely not removed in pyrolysis but the paper argues that their concentration ratio to phosphorus is the same as in sewage sludge and that they are less mobile.

Phosphorus plant availability and processing conditions

The EBI paper concludes that phosphorus in sewage sludge biochar is plant available. ESPP suggests that further evidence is would be useful on this: only one relevant published study is cited, ref. 47, Fristak et al. 2018, laboratory pyrolysis at 430°C for two hours, compared to 2 seconds currently required in the EU FPR CMC14). ESPP notes that a second study cited (ref. 21, Chen et al. 2022), suggests that at 600°C or higher pyrolysis will result in mainly mineral forms of phosphorus, in particular apatite (the principal mineral of phosphate rock, which is poorly plant available) and it can be guessed probably also iron/aluminium phosphates in sewage sludge biochar (also mostly poorly plant available).

For ESPP, further evidence should be developed to show that sewage sludge pyrolysis carried out at a high enough temperature to ensure elimination of PFAS and other organic contaminants, resulting in a material with immobilised heavy metals and immobile carbon (justifying carbon credits), can achieve the phosphorus availability criteria of the EU FPR (80% NAC solubility), so justifying the claim to be phosphorus “reuse & recycling” (new Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive vocabulary).

The EBI paper proposes that specific conditions be included into the FPR CMC14 for input of sewage sludge: minimum operating temperature 550°C - 600°C for a non-specified minimum time (“duration that ensures full carbonisation”). ESPP regrets that more precise temperature and time proposals are not put forward by industry, taking into account factors such as particle size and other process parameters, or other specific analysis criteria to demonstrate full carbonisation. A wording needs to be developed which could be proposed for inclusion into the FPR CMC14 and which would be implementable by CE-mark certification organisations (Notified Bodies).
Position paper “Sewage sludge as feedstock for pyrolysis and gasification materials (CMC14) EU Fertilising Products (EU) Regulation 2019/1009”, European Biochar Industry Consortium, April 2024 HERE.

3^rd PRO-FEM Conference, Catalunya: Bio-based Fertilisers and nutrient recovery

200 participants discussed nutrient recovery technologies, definitions of bio-based fertilisers, paths to market, underlining the need for a multi-actor approach covering all the value chain to find successful business cases.

The Catalan Government explained the potential for nutrient recovery in the Catalan region, in particular from animal manure, because Catalonia is a reference region in livestock production. The Catalan biogas plan includes a plan for digestate valorisation to produce bio-based fertilisers. Laura Van Schol, NMI explained the European regulatory framework for fertilisers. The Spanish National Entity of Accreditation (ENAC) talked about the procedures to be followed for certifying fertilising products in Spain. The Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Spanish Ministry of Ecological Transition and Demographic Challenge emphasised alignment of Spanish regulations with Europe.

Challenges for nutrient recovery were discussed and successful case studies presented, including digestate valorisation, compost production, insect-based organic amendments, bio-stimulants from slaughterhouse subproducts. Discussions noted the biorefinery process approach to reach zero-waste and the need to balance reducing operational costs with final quality of recovered products, noting that the market price of bio-based fertilisers is limited by the price of nutrients in mineral fertilisers.

Regulatory barriers were the main concern during the whole conference, especially the End-of-Waste status of input materials, and in particular sewage and agro-industrial sludges. The EU FPR excludes sewage sludge from use as an input material, except for precipitated phosphates and after incineration (sewage sludge ash derivates) and the new Spanish waste regulations align with this, so excluding from End-of-Waste status all sewage or agro-industry sludge derived materials. This impacts a number of fertilising product manufacturers in Catalonia who are today using sewage sludge or other sludges as input materials, in combination with other materials, to produce organic and organo-mineral fertilisers or commercial composts.

Examples of company success stories present at PRO-FEM

Fertiebro (Fertilizantes del Ebro) produces liquid fertilisers, deficiency correctors and solid fertiliser blends. The company operates one of the largest blending facilities in Spain, using raw materials of circular origin. Its R&D laboratory specialises in optimising industrial processes to manufacture from different raw materials, including secondary nutrient sources, and in analysis to offer tailor-made and a high-quality final products for customers. At PRO-FEM, Fertiebro discussed their experience and the importance of using secondary nutrient sources in their production.

Almenar Bioenergy (Bioenergia de Almenar) operates anaerobic digestion to convert organic matter (manure, waste from agrifood industry, agro-industrial sludges …) into green energy, with biogas that is valorised for different energy applications. The company produces from the digestate a solid fertiliser, clean water and a liquid concentrate with high nutrient content. At PRO-FEM, Bioenergia de Almenar shared their positive business model and the future challenges that they are facing concerning regulatory barriers affecting their activities.

At ESPC5, Ledia, 8-10 October 2024, site visits will enable you to meet Fertiebro and Almenar Bioenergy installations and visit their installations processing secondary nutrient streams into fertiliser products.

Next PRO-FEM conference edition will address soil health and will take place in Lleida (Spain) in 2025.
PRO-FEM Bio-based Fertilisers and nutrient recovery, 16-17 May 2024, Vic, Spain, Office of fertilisation and valorisation of livestock manure of the Catalan Department of Agriculture (Catalan Government), with the BETA Technological Center and the and the Horizon Europe projects Fertimanure and Novafert: website.

Microplastics

Microplastics and phosphorus in soils

High microplastic levels in soil, such as from plastic mulch films, can reduce phosphorus availability, likely due to adsorption onto the microplastic surfaces and possibly by increasing phosphorus mineralisation. However, this effect can be mitigated by phosphate fertiliser. Studies indicate that microplastics have more variable impacts on soil nitrogen availability.

Impacts are complex because they result not only from physico-chemical actions, but also from modifications to soil microbial communities and so to microbial activity (e.g. phosphatase enzymes). See for example, H. Ya et al. 2022 DOI who showed the formation of specific microbial communities on microplastics surfaces.

A recent paper suggesting that microplastics can release phosphorus into the soil from phosphorus flame retardants seems to be pure speculation*. J. Zhou et al. 2024 DOI, based on meta-analysis of 73 publications, suggest that microplastics in soil are correlated to increased soil phosphorus, soil available P and P leaching. They suggest that phosphorus flame retardants in microplastics might leach into the soil. To illustrate, consider a comparison: if churches and pubs appear together on a map, it might seem that most drinkers are churchgoers. However, both are simply located in village centres, not in open fields or lakes. The authors don't evaluate whether their suggestion is realistic. For soil phosphorus to increase by 5 ppm, assuming microplastics contain 5% phosphorus and release it over ten years, a 0.1% concentration of such microplastics in soil would be needed. This is a high level, considering most microplastics come from textiles, tyres, and non-flame-retardant plastics like mulch films. Therefore, it's unlikely that phosphorus in soil comes from flame-retardant plastics unless near a site processing waste electronics without dust filters. It's more probable that Zhou et al.'s correlation between microplastics and soil phosphorus is due to both being linked to agricultural activities, especially plastic mulch films. The two studies cited by Zhou et al. to support possible phosphorus input to soil from flame retardants seem irrelevant. They focus on the effects of non-flame-retardant microplastics on soil microbe phosphatase enzymes (ref. 70, S-S. Liu et al. DOI) or phthalates, not flame retardants (ref. 29, J. Wang et al. 2016 DOI). This aligns with the conclusions of F. Corradini et al. (2021) DOI in Chile, who found no evidence of microplastic pollution in natural grasslands and rangelands, but did find it in croplands and cultivated pastures. They noted that microplastic levels were not related to proximity to roads, mining, or urban areas. They concluded that microplastics are not ubiquitous in the environment and that their presence in soil is mainly related to agricultural activities, although the exact source was not identified.

R. Wang et al. (2024) DOI tested the effects of adding microplastics to soil on phosphorus availability in the lab. They used pure polymer microplastics (polyethylene PE, PVC, bio-based biodegradable PLA) without additives, at 5% dry weight and sizes ranging from 25 to 1080 µm. This high level of microplastics could occur exceptionally in fields with repeated use of mulch films. After applying phosphate fertiliser, they found that PE and PVC microplastics reduced Olsen-P by 10-40%, while PLA reduced it by 40-75%, compared to the control (no microplastics). Smaller microplastics caused greater decreases in Olsen-P. Adding fulvic acid reduced the microplastics' effect on Olsen-P. The authors concluded that microplastics reduce phosphorus availability by adsorbing it onto the polymers.

L. Wan et al. 2023 DOI meta-analysed 114 experimental studies, comparing microplastics addition to soil to control (not microplastics added), concluding that microplastic addition reduces total soil P, soil available P and total soil N.

F. Yu et al. 2023 DOI, using 0.5 – 1 µm polyethylene microplastics at 0.5 – 1% also showed that the microplastics led to considerable decreases in soil total and available phosphorus (reductions of up to -50%).

Q.L. Zhang et al. 2024 DOI tested, in pot experiments, the effects of adding 1% LDPE (low density polyethylene) microplastics to soil, showing that adding phosphate fertiliser mitigated impacts of the microplastics on bacterial communities (including impacts on microbes with phosphatase genes) on soil nitrate and on rice growth.

X. Li et al. (2022) DOI tested the addition of 1% polyethylene and polypropylene microplastics to soil in incubation tests, using pure polymers ground to 1-5 mm diameter. They tested these in the presence of organic or mineral fertilisers. The results showed that the microplastics consistently decreased soil available phosphorus, but had varied effects on soil nitrate and ammonia. The authors suggest that the varying results on soil nitrogen might be because these effects are more related to impacts on microbial communities (and thus nitrogen mineralisation) rather than physico-chemical impacts.

X. Wang et al. 2022 DOI provide a detailed review of effects of microplastics on elements cycling in the environment, with a concise chapter summarising knowledge on impacts on the phosphorus cycle. They note that “many studies” show that microplastics addition decreases soil total and available phosphorus, suggesting that this may be because microplastics lead to increased phosphatase activity, leading to P losses, or in fields because high use of plastic mulch films leads to reduced soil organic matter, again leading to P losses.

Z. Zhuang et al. 2023 DOI incubation tested addition of microplastics (polyethylene, polypropylene, butylene adipate terephthalate, ploy lactic acid = PLA) at 0.1 – 1% to paddy field soil. The microplastics (except for in some cases the biodegradable PLA) reduced soil P availability, inhibited soil alkaline phosphatase and reduced genes involved in organic P mineralisation and inorganic P solubilisation.

M. Yi et al. 2020 DOI also showed in soil incubation tests that microplastics of different forms (film, fibre, microsphere) of polyethylene and polypropylene impacted phosphatase and urease (P and N cycling enzymes) and soil bacteria communities.

M. Yin et al. 2023 DOI showed that PVC, polypropylene and poly lactic acid (PLA) microplastics significantly impacted microbial communities and N and P cycling in incubation tests with river sediments, suggesting that they could increase release of ammonia nitrogen and soluble phosphorus from sediments.

Full references of papers cited: click on the DOI link.
* Disclosure: the author of the above for ESPP also works for the Phosphorus, Inorganic & Nitrogen Flame Retardants association (pinfa).

Soil impacts of microplastics in sewage sludge and household organic waste composts

Studies suggest that microplastics in sewage sludge used in agriculture will not negatively impact soil ecosystems. J.Liengaard Johansen et al. (2024) reviewed available data on microplastics in sewage sludge and composted organic household waste. They concluded that, when applied within legal limits, these materials result in soil microplastic levels below those considered harmful to ecosystems. This is supported by the CRUCIAL field trials in Denmark, which show no negative effects and even increased abundance of earthworms and other soil organisms after 100 years of sewage sludge application (see SCOPE Newsletters 149 and 123).

Microplastic levels have been reported at 10⁵–10⁸ particles per kg of dry matter, with differences likely due to varying measurement methods and particle size limits. Microplastics smaller than 500 µm could make up around 0.7% of the dry matter in sewage sludge. These microplastics mainly come from abrasion of textile fibres during laundry, washing sponges, car tyres, and paints. Microplastics in household organic waste are generally larger (rarely below 1 mm) and might be lower in content than in sewage sludge. However, when both are applied according to crop phosphorus requirements, household waste could result in a higher soil plastic content by weight.

Based on 30 studies, the maximum levels of microplastics in agricultural soils are around 0.02% of dry matter. There is little evidence to suggest that microplastics impact soil organisms or plants at these concentrations. Studies showing impacts on microbial communities and nutrient cycling are usually at much higher concentrations (often around 1%).

The authors conclude that applying sewage sludge at agronomically appropriate or legal limits poses “limited risks” to agricultural ecosystems. However, they note a significant lack of data, particularly on comparable microplastic levels in sewage sludges, composts, and soils, the long-term fate of microplastics in soils, and ecosystem impacts considering various factors like microplastic type, soil type, climate, and other pollutants.
Reference: “Extent and effects of microplastic pollution in soil with focus on recycling of sewage sludge and composted household waste and experiences from the long-term field experiment CRUCIAL,” J. Liengaard Johansen et al., Trends in Analytical Chemistry 171 (2024) 117474 DOI.

Stay informed & ESPP members

ESPP member logos 15.05.24 page 0001

The European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) is calling for input) by Friday 5^th July on use of Cat.1 Animal By-Product ash in fertilisers, considering prion risk (TSE/BSE) and other possible biological or chemical risk (see ESPP eNews n°87, EU EFSA Mandate M-2023-00166, EFSA-Q-2024-00278). If you are aware of data, publications or evidence relevant to the health or environmental safety or to agronomic value of ABP Cat. 1 ash, please submit to EFSA (with copy for information copy to ESPP) or send to ESPP and we will submit for you.

Input to EFSA MUST be made via the specific web portal Portalino, by Friday 5^th July, and must refer to question number EFSA-Q-2024-00278. To do this, you must first contact EFSA by email and request opening of a Portalino account. Alternatively, send your input to ESPP and we will submit.

Draft SAFOSO risk study of Cat.1 ash, for ESPP – for comment and input by end July please here.

Possible fertiliser products or input materials (CMCs), as below, are requested by the EU standardisation organisation CEN to calibrate CE-standard testing methods. The samples are needed for “ring testing” by laboratories working with CEN TC 260 - WG 8 (EU standards mandate M564 for the EU Fertilising Products Regulation). Obtaining a range of samples of these materials is important to enable development of reliable and reproducible testing methods, and inter-laboratory validation, to facilitate EU fertilising product CE-mark certification. Materials provided do NOT need to be CE-mark certified, but should correspond approximately to the EU FPR specifications of the CMC or PFC specified below.

CMC 11 By-Products (as defined here) - to test total content of some elements, dry matter content and organic matter content: 30 kg samples;
CMC 13 Thermal oxidation materials & derivates (ashes & materials derived from ashes, as defined here) - to test dry matter content: 10 kg samples;
CMC 15 Recovered high purity materials (as defined here), including recovered ammonium salts - to test dry matter content and organic matter content: 20 kg samples;
PFC-I-(C) – Inorganic fertilisers, specifically with MORE THAN 1% organic carbon – to test chemical and microbiological parameters: 35 kg samples.

If you can provide sample(s) of one or more of these materials, please contact Olivier Teitgen and Laure Metzger with copy to ESPP .

Newsletter about nutrient stewardship - European Sustainable Phosphorus Platform (ESPP)

Please subscribe www.phosphorusplatform.eu/Subscribe
Link to www.phosphorusplatform.eu/eNews087
Download as PDF

ESPP actions

ESPC5 call for abstracts extended to 16^th June

15^th Sustainable Foods Summit, Amsterdam, 4-5 July 2024

ESPP list of consultants

SCOPE Newsletter – draft policy proposals –CRU Phosphates 2024 summary

Policy

Austria adopts Phosphorus recycling obligation

EU “greenwashing” Directive

Mandate to EFSA for Opinion on Category 1 Animal By-Product ash as fertiliser

EU Critical Raw Materials (CRM) Act published

EGTOP Opinion on calcium phosphate from sewage sludge incineration ash

DG GROW policy actions for Bio-Based Products

European Parliament study highlights EU food system dependencies

EFSA positive Opinion on alternative composting parameters

ESPP new members

SINFERT (soluble inorganic fertilisers), UCD, Ireland

EkoBalans

Nutrient recycling

Veas Norway CE-mark for recovered ammonium salt

Nordic BAT for nutrients in aquaculture

Stay informed & ESPP members

ESPP actions

ESPC5 call for abstracts extended to 16^th June

ESPC5, the 5^th European Sustainable Phosphorus Conference, 8-9 October, Lleida, Spain (site visits 10^th October to Fertilizantes del Ebro, biogas plant with digestate valorisation. ESPC5 follows on from ESPC4 Vienna, 2022 which, with 320 participants onsite and 80 online, was the biggest conference on phosphorus ever worldwide.

Abstracts are invited on:

Phosphorus management in agriculture: P losses in agriculture, P use efficiency.
Climate change impacts on P in the environment and on P management
Phosphorus sustainability in the Mediterranean region
Nutrient recovery technologies, recycled nutrient markets
Digestate processing and valorisation
Regional P sustainability policies
Other aspects of phosphorus management and nutrient recycling

15^th Sustainable Foods Summit, Amsterdam, 4-5 July 2024

ESPP (represented by Pär Larshans, EasyMining/RagnSells) will participate in a panel on Closing Material Loops. https://sustainablefoodssummit.com/europe/

ESPP list of consultants

We have published on our website (www.phosphorusplatform.eu/regulatory) a list of consultants active in areas relevant to nutrient recycling and fertilisers, including technical, regulatory and market questions. The table provide contacts, indications of areas of competence and geographical coverage. This list is developed for information of companies and organisations looking for professional support, and is not in any way a recommendation or endorsement of the cited consultancies. This list is open: if other consultants send relevant information (see existing table) we will be happy to include.
“ESPP list of consultants active in areas relevant to phosphorus recovery and recycling, including technical, regulatory and market questions” www.phosphorusplatform.eu/regulatory

SCOPE Newsletter – draft policy proposals –CRU Phosphates 2024 summary

ESPP’s 151^st SCOPE Newsletter is published. This Newsletter includes draft policy proposals (one page each), based on discussions at ESPP’s two one-day workshops in March 2024, on

proposing policies to support market uptake of recycled nutrients (market pull policies)
possible phosphorus "reuse and recycling" rates for the revised EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD)

For each of these, ESPP will submit proposals to the European Commission based on the relevant “ESPP outline for proposals” sections in this Newsletter.

Comments and input on these outline proposals are welcome to ESPP.

This Newsletter also summarises the 16^th edition of the CRU "Phosphates" Conference, the annual industry meeting place which is also the world's biggest conference on phosphorus, at which ESPP organised a panel on sustainable fertilisers.

www.phosphorusplatform.eu/Scope151

Policy

Austria adopts Phosphorus recycling obligation

Austria is now the third European country, after Switzerland and Germany, to make P-recycling from sewage sludge legally obligatory (from sewage works ≥ 20 000 p.e., by 2033). Published as part of the Waste Incineration Ordinance (Abfallverbrennungsverordnung 2024 – AVV 2024), the new regulation requires that, from 1^st January 2033, all sewage works with design capacity works ≥ 20 000 p.e., must either incinerate their sewage sludge and recover phosphorus from the ash, or must otherwise recover 60% of the sewage works inflow phosphorus. Where phosphorus is recycled from sewage sludge after incineration either 80% of the P must be recovered from the ash, or the totality of the ash must be used to produce a fertiliser compliant with Austrian fertilisers regulations. Sewage sludge and/or sludge incinerator plant operators will have to report annually the P-content of ashes or P inflow to the sewage works, type of P-recovery, tonnage of P recovered annually, tonnage of sewage sludge (DM) annually.
Austria Abfallverbrennungsverordnung 2024 – AVV 2024, CELEX 32010L0075, published in the Austrian Official Journal, 13^th May 2024 (see section 4) https://www.bmk.gv.at/themen/klima_umwelt/abfall/recht/vo/abfallverbrennung.html

EU “greenwashing” Directive

Proposed EU Green Claims Directive is in the Parliament – Council decision process. It will require that all environmental claims be factually substantiated and verified, with potential penalties for unsubstantiated claims. The European Parliament position and amendments were voted on 12^th March and the draft Directive is now under discussion in Councill and the Directive will only be adopted under the new Parliament and Commission after the June European elections. The proposal concerns all “environmental claims” which were defined in Directive 2024/825 (February 2024), modifying 2005/29/EC, and covers “any message or representation which is not mandatory … in any form, including text, pictorial, graphic or symbolic representation, … which states or implies that a product, product category, brand or trader has a positive or zero impact on the environment or is less damaging to the environment … or has improved its impact over time”. The proposed Green Claims directive would require any such claim to be factually substantiated, subject to verification by Member States. Substantiation would have to be based on recognised scientific evidence, with a life-cycle perspective covering all significant environmental impacts, environmental performance would have to be shown to be better than legal requirements. The Directive does not define one single evaluation method and does not apply to labelling under EU regulations (EU Ecolabel, Organic Farming Regulation, EMAS, future EU carbon certification). Very small companies may be exempted.
European Parliamentary Research Service briefing document “'Green claims' directive. Protecting consumers from greenwashing” HERE
European Consultation proposal for a Directive “on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive)”, 23rd March 2023, COM(2023) 166 final.

Mandate to EFSA for Opinion on Category 1 Animal By-Product ash as fertiliser

The European Commission (DG SANTE) has requested from EFSA (European Food Safety Agency) an opinion on use of Cat. 1 ash in fertilisers, considering both prion risk (TSE/BSE) and other possible biological or chemical risks. The mandate concerns ash from “incineration, co-incineration and combustion” of Category 1 Animal By-Products (without specifying incineration conditions. It reminds that Cat. 1 material must currently be “disposed by waste as incineration”, suggesting that use of Cat. 1 ash as fertiliser has been banned by EU regulations since 2009 (a lawyer’s opinion commissioned by ESPP in 2022 concluded that this is not the case, see www.phosphorusplatform.eu/regulatory, as demonstrated by authorisation of use of Cat. 1 ash as fertiliser by the UK for decades). The letter of mandate states that “the Commission is currently not aware of any new scientific data, evidence, publication, assessment or technological solution” that would justify revision of existing legislation but that following several requests “in particular from the European Sustainable Phosphorus Platform … the Commission seeks for a review of the existing scientific literature in order to explore the possible presence of biological and chemical hazards in ash from Category 1 materials after incineration, co-incineration and combustion.” EFSA have accepted this mandate committing to deadlines to deliver opinions on the BSE/TSE risk by 30^th April 2025 and (if this first opinion is not negative) on other biological and chemical risks by April 2026. ESPP welcomes this DG SANTE mandate. We have already requested a risk analysis from SAFOSO to input to EFSA and will submit all other relevant information known to us.

If you are aware of data, publications or evidence of health or environmental safety of Cat. 1 ash, please indicate to ESPP so that we can forward to EFSA.
European Commission DG SANTE “Request for a scientific opinion on the presence of biological and chemical hazards in ash from Category 1 material after incineration, co-incineration, and combustion”, Ares(2024)2805627 - 17/04/2024, EFSA reference EFSA-Q-2024-00278, Mandate number M-2023-00166 https://open.efsa.europa.eu/question/EFSA-Q-2024-00278

EU Critical Raw Materials (CRM) Act published

The EU CRM act has now been published. “Phosphate rock” and “Phosphorus” (meaning P₄ ) are in the Critical Raw Materials List so are concerned by the policy measures below. They are not however in the “strategic raw materials” sub-list, so are not eligible for Strategic Projects, Joint Purchasing, recycling and supply targets.

ESPP considers that this Act should support phosphorus stewardship and recycling by requiring monitoring, inciting national circularity measures and facilitating permitting of recycling projects.

ESPP regrets that P₄ is not included in the “Strategic” sub-list despite being essential for the specified “strategic” industry sectors (renewable energy, e.g. solar panels; batteries; data and electronics fire safety) and despite the EU’s 100% dependency on supply from three countries (China, Vietnam, Kazakhstan) – see joint industry declaration.

ESPP notes Art. 4.1) which specifies that CRMs covers “raw materials, including in unprocessed form, at any stage of processing and when occurring as a by-product of other extraction, processing or recycling processes, … shall be considered critical raw materials”. The interpretation of this for “Phosphate rock” could be interesting (!).

The following articles of the Act concern all CRMs (not only Strategic Raw Materials), so concern “Phosphate Rock” and “Phosphorus” (P₄) :

5.2: “incentivise technological progress and resource efficiency” of CRMs,
9 and art. 2.14 (definitions): Member States must establish “Points of Single Contact” (can be more than one!) to facilitate and coordinate permitting of installations for “extraction, processing or recycling” of CRMs,
13, art. 18: certain CRM project planning simplifications,
19: national exploration programmes for CRM resources,
20: EU monitoring of CRM trade flows and obstacles to trade, demand, supply and supply concentration, production, bottlenecks, price volatility. This monitoring information (aggregated) will be made publicly available,
21: identification and monitoring of key CRM value chain operators,
26.1: (within 2 years) national programmes for circularity of CRMs, including incentivising resource and materials efficiency, “collection, sorting and processing of waste with high critical raw materials recovery potential …” and “increase the use of secondary critical raw materials including through measures such as taking recycled content into account in award criteria related to public procurement or financial incentives for the use of secondary critical raw materials”, “increase the technological maturity of recycling technologies”, “support the use of Union quality standards for recycling processes of waste streams containing critical raw materials”, workforce upskilling …
2.7: analysis of operating and closed sites to define CRM recovery potential from extractive waste (ESPP note: could concern phosphogypsum deposits),
26.7: The Commission will adopt (by May 2025) implementing acts defining a “list of products … and waste streams … considered as having a relevant critical raw materials recovery potential”,
30 and art. 31: possible sustainability certification and environmental footprint schemes for CRMs.
EU Regulation 2024/1252 (11^th April 2024) “establishing a framework for ensuring a secure and sustainable supply of critical raw materials” https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1252/oj

EGTOP Opinion on calcium phosphate from sewage sludge incineration ash

The EU’s Expert Group on Organic Farming has published a positive Opinion recommending the authorisation of calcium phosphate from sewage sludge ash in EU Organic Farming, subject to respecting EU Fertilising Products criteria. This positive Opinion comes just 18 months after submission of this dossier. It is now up to the European Commission to prepare an amending regulation to include such recovered calcium phosphate into the list of authorised fertilisers in Annex II of the EU Organic Farming Regulatiion. The Opinion refers to the EGTOP positive Opinion on “calcined phosphates” from municipal sewage, 2016, stating that these are a “similar material” (this is questionable), but that this Opinion was subject to their inclusion into the EU fertilisers regulation (which is now done). “Struvite and other precipitated phosphates”, as defined in the EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR) CMC12, were authorised in EU Organic Farming in January 2023 (see ESPP eNews n°73), but this does not cover phosphates from ashes (CMC13). This new Opinion is based on the EasyMining Ash2Phos process and mentions other processes, focussing only on calcium phosphate from sewage sludge incineration ash, noting its low water solubility as important. The Opinion indicates that recovery from other ashes (meat and bone meal, manure, plant residues, agricultural digestates) is considered not appropriate, because it is preferrable for Organic Farming to use these directly as fertilisers. The recommendation is to authorise, for Organic Farming: “Calcium phosphate recovered from ash – Only from sewage sludge ash origin – The relevant limits for contamination and organic pollutants set [in the EU FPR] apply”. This is different from the requirements for struvite and precipitated phosphates (as inscribed in the Organic Farming Regulation) which require to “meet the requirements laid down” in the EU FPR (interpreted by the European Commission to mean: must be CE-Mark Certified under the FPR). It remains to be seen which wording the Commission will use if and when they amend the Organic Farming Regulation.

ESPP regrets that this Opinion leaves “calcined phosphates” with a positive EGTOP Opinion from 2016 but not yet implemented into the Organic Farming Regulation. ESPP welcomes this new EGTOP positive Opinion but we regret that this is limited to “calcium phosphates”. If EGTOP considers each recycled material one-by-one, they will consume much energy and progress very slowly. ESPP suggests that EGTOP consider all ash-based phosphate and potassium fertilisers recovered from ash which meet the requirements of the EU Fertilising Products Regulation (PFC1 = Fertilisers and CMC13 = Thermal Oxidation Materials and Derivates), subject to defining a limitation on solubility, as discussed in this Opinion. ESPP also regrets the limitation to sewage sludge ash. Some animal by-products cannot be spread directly on fields and must be incinerated, so that recycling of nutrients from ash is the best option, and incinerators may intake several different materials in order to optimise nutrient recycling and minimise environmental footprint.
EGTOP (EU Expert Group for Technical Advice on Organic Production), Final report on Plant Protection (X) and Fertilisers (VII), adopted 6 - 8 March 2024 here.

DG GROW policy actions for Bio-Based Products

Nearly 200 people joined the third European Commission (DG GROW) workshop on developing the bio-based economy, 21^st May. The Commission summarised actions underway and planned to support policy development.

This follows the European Commission Communication on “Boosting biotechnology and biomanufacturing” (COM(2024)137, 20^th March 2024). This Communication outlines policy actions, including research and innovation support, stimulating market demand by improving carbon impact comparisons of fossil-based and bio-based materials and by including “bio-based content requirement” in public procurement for certain categories (it is not indicated which product categories are envisaged), streamlining regulation (accelerating market approval for “bio-based fertilisers” is cited), supporting investments especially in scale-up of innovation, developing standards for bio-based industries, strengthening skills, improving cooperation and use of AI. Examples cited in the Communication include fertilisers from marine biotech and from algae grown in wastewater.

At the May workshop, DG GROW indicated that a study will analyse how legislation for biotechnologies and bio-based production could be simplified (by Autumn 2025). A mapping of current industrial bio-based value chains aims, by end 2025, to identify challenges and opportunities and to identify relevant raw materials which are currently imported into the EU and which could be replaced by EU-origin bio-resources. A third study will assess feasibility of introducing bio-based content requirements for public procurement of certain products and a fourth study (tbd) will look at voluntary sustainability labelling of bio-based products. Also, DG ENVI has launched work on assessment of fossil versus bio-based products for Product Environment Footprints. Regarding standards, DG GROW reminded that the 2024 work programme for European Standardisation includes developing new and revising existing standards for bio-materials and bio-based products, including defining terminology, harmonising testing methods and setting performance criteria. This is taken forward with a request call to the European Standardisation Organisation for a mapping and feasibility study for standards on (inter alia) bio-based products. DG GROW also presented the Biotech Hub under development which aims to identify and support relevant cluster organisations (1500 identified worldwide) and technology centres (50 identified in Europe).
“‘Next steps in advancing bio-based products and materials”, DG GROW workshop, Brussels and online, 21^st May 2024
European Commission Communication “Building the future with nature: Boosting Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing in the EU”, COM(2024)137, 20^th March 2024

European Parliament study highlights EU food system dependencies

Phosphates and potash are two of three agricultural inputs flagged as having very high geographical import dependency (along with soya, which is also a major import route for nutrients). Cereal production is identified as particularly dependent on fertiliser imports. The EU is estimated to be 68% dependent on imports of phosphates (for fertilisers) and 31% for potash (page 21, European Commission data), or 46%, 58% and 45% for P, K and N (page 26, based on Fertilizers Europe data). ESPP suggests that these differences in numbers show an increasing need to update EU phosphorus flow studies (from Kimo Van Dijk’s 2013 study, see SCOPE Newsletter n°106). The overall value ratio (imported inputs)/(total output) is <10% for EU agriculture, fisheries & aquaculture, food & beverages. Policy tools identified as addressing agricultural input security include trade relations, the Green Deal sustainability objectives and the Farm-to-Fork nutrient loss reduction targets, the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy, inc. support for nutrient management) and Organic Farming. Proposed actions include reducing consumption of animal products.
“The dependency of the EU’s food system on inputs and their sources”, study for the European Parliament Agriculture and Rural Development PE 747.272 - March 2024 HERE.
“Fertilizer Industry Facts & Figures 2023”, Fertilizers Europe 2023, June HERE.

EFSA positive Opinion on alternative composting parameters

The Opinion concerns only catering waste and similar (Animal By-Products Cat.3). For such compost to be authorised in EU fertilisers, DG SANTE must now modify the ABP Regulation annexes to include the considered parameters. This would then automatically lead to authorisation in the EU Fertilising Products Regulation CMC4 This dossier, submitted by the European Compost Network (ECN) via Belgium national authorities, was first considered by EFSA in 2020, when EFSA requested further evidence on neutralisation of thermoresistant viruses. The dossier was resubmitted with additional data in mid-2023 and EFSA’s positive Opinion was adopted on 14^th March 2024. EFSA considers that the two proposed alternative composting parameter specifications both achieve reduction in pathogens and viruses equivalent to the composting parameters currently specified in the ABP Regulations. The current ABP Regulation parameters are: ≥70°C for ≥1 hour with particle size ≤12 mm. The new parameters, based on tunnel composting processes, are: ≥55°C for ≥72 hours with particle size ≤200 mm and ≥60°C for ≥48 hours with particle size ≤200 mm. The EFSA positive Opinion concerns only Cat.3 ABPs as specified (catering and cooking wastes from restaurants, canteens and households and similar discarded food processing wastes = in effect “biowaste”), including when mixed with non-ABP materials.
“Two alternative methods for treating animal by-product-derived materials in composting”, ECN, 27^th May 2024
“Evaluation of alternative methods of tunnel composting (submitted by the European Composting Network) II”, adopted 14^th March 2024, EFSA Journal 2024;22:e8745, DOI.

ESPP new members

SINFERT (soluble inorganic fertilisers), UCD, Ireland

Innovative new DOC (deoxychlorination) process extracts volatile phosphorus compounds from a variety of sources including bone meal ash or phosphate rock. This material can be directly converted into phosphoric acid for production of plant-available inorganic fertilisers or inorganic phosphate chemicals. The process uses as inputs a chlorine source (chlorine is cycled in the system) and water or alcohols (for esterification). In the latter case, the DOC process could potentially produce some industrial organophosphorus esters directly, bypassing P₄, but not all chemicals which currently depend on P₄. Applications of these organophosphorus esters include surfactants (e.g. PA100, PAE800), plasticisers (e.g. TPHP, IPP), fire resistant fluids (triaryl phosphate esters) and flame retardants (TEP, TNBP). Work is underway to extend the range of chemicals which currently depend on P₄ to be manufactured via DOC process. The key process runs at medium temperature (60-100°C) with possibility for heat recycling. The UCD (University College Dublin) research Team led by Dr K. Nikitin and Dr S. Hodge works in close collaboration with fertiliser and food industry experts.

The process has been successfully demonstrated to date on a small lab scale of input materials processed including manure ash, sewage sludge ash, struvite and vivianite. The project aims to further widen the range of materials, including low-grade phosphate rock, improve the extraction yield (objective 90-95%) and achieve pilot scale (batch mode 100-1000 g) and develop a continuous flow version. The plant availability of fertiliser produced via DOC has been fully confirmed by in-vivo plant trials.

Dr Kirill Nikitin Team leader at UCD says “Our process is entirely different from existing thermal and wet extraction technologies. We hope that ESPP membership will enable SINFERT innovation to dialogue with significant industry players to look for partners to develop to further stages of industrial uptake. We are looking to actively engage with interested stakeholders to blueprint this new process. We are looking to work with chemical manufacturing experts to quickly improve the DOC process in terms of efficiency, economic viability and commercialisation potential”.
The SINFERT project has been selected by Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) ‘Future Food Systems Challenge” programme for a duration of up to 4-5 years subject to outputs https://www.sfi.ie/challenges/future-food-systems/SINFERT. For more information: presentation at ESPP’s NERM Conference April 2024 here. Contact

EkoBalans

EkoBalans develops integrated solutions for processing residual streams from biogas production, the food industry, and agriculture, into circular fertiliser products, including struvite and ammonium sulphate recovery. Today, EkoBalans delivers and operates such facilities and offers complete concepts from feasibility studies and pilot-scale facilities to refinement and product marketing. The aim is to combine technologies and other technical solutions in practical operation, to transform waste water treatment plants into recycling facilities, contributing to the circular economy and to addressing climate and environment challenges. EkoBalans’ nitrogen recovery technology, eco:N, combines ammonium stripping and absorption/crystallization to produce solid ammonium sulphate, using EkoBalans’ own specific system configuration, pre-treatment and ammonium sulphate harvesting process. Up to 95% of ammonium-N can be removed with eco:N. The eco:N process can be preceded by phosphorus extraction as fine particle struvite with EkoBalans' technology eco:P. The preferred business model is buy-back of the recovered ammonium sulphate and/or struvite for use with other secondary raw materials in the production of Ekobalans' organo-mineral fertilisers. EkoBalans is interested in cooperation for sales of the fertiliser product on local markets. We have a high interest in ESPP since we find the network vital to spread and share information about this important topic to many international stakeholders.
https://ekobalans.se/en/

Nutrient recycling

Veas Norway CE-mark for recovered ammonium salt

Veas, Norway’s largest municipal wastewater treatment plant, has obtained the CE-mark for its recovered ammonium sulphate solution, according to the EU Fertilising Products Regulation 2019/1009 EU Part, in PFC 1 and CMC 15. Veas treats around 800 000 p.e. wastewater from Oslo. Ammonia is recovered from the digestate dewatering liquor, after anaerobic digestion of the sewage sludge. The digestate solids are used as an organic fertiliser in local agriculture. A substantial fraction of the total nitrogen load entering the Veas plant is recovered, resulting in a 37 - 40 % (c. 8% N) ammonium sulphate solution. In 2023, around 4 000 tonnes of solution were recovered (over 300 tN). The ammonium sulphate product is CE certified (FPR PFC 1 and CMC 15) by CerTrust (Notified Body). The company Acinor AS is distributing the product which has been sold to Denmark, Sweden and United Kingdom as well as domestically.
“VEAS in brief” HERE.

Nordic BAT for nutrients in aquaculture

Nordic Council of Ministers document describes BAT (Best Available Technologies for nutrient reduction and reuse in land-based aquaculture, underling the importance of fish sludge nutrient recycling for the circular economy. The report notes that the EU has no specific regulatory framework for aquaculture. It remains not covered by the updated Industrial Emissions Directive. Fish sludge, consisting of faeces and uneaten feed, contains significant phosphorus and nitrogen: 2-3% P/TS, 4-11% N/TS, Estevez et al. 2022). Fish sludge can be used as a fertiliser and/or for energy production, generally after processing, for example by thickening (sedimentation, filtration), drying, anaerobic digestion, pyrolysis, bio-oil or syngas, incineration. Use as fertiliser may be limited by transport/processing costs, zinc or possibly other heavy metal levels and salinity for marine fish. EU regulations are considered to pose important obstacles to fish sludge nutrient reuse and recycling, in particular the exclusion from EU fertilisers and animal by-products regulations. These effectively limit fertiliser use to within the country of production (if allowed there) and exclude trade of fertilisers produced from fish sludge.
“Best Available Techniques for Reduction and Reuse of Emissions in Nordic Land-based Aquaculture”, Nordic Council of Ministers, 2023, 154 pages HERE.

Stay informed & ESPP members

ESPP member logos 15.05.24 page 0001

Austria is now the third European country, after Switzerland and Germany, to make P-recycling from sewage sludge legally obligatory (from sewage works ≥ 20 000 p.e., by 2033). Published as part of the Waste Incineration Ordinance (Abfallverbrennungsverordnung 2024 – AVV 2024), the new regulation requires that, from 1^st January 2033, all sewage works with design capacity works ≥ 20 000 p.e., must either incinerate their sewage sludge with P-recycling or must otherwise recover 60% of the sewage works inflow phosphorus. Where phosphorus is recycled from sewage sludge either 80% of the P must be recovered from the ash, or the totality of the ash must be used to produce a fertiliser compliant with Austrian fertilisers regulations. Sewage sludge and/or sludge incinerator plant operators will have to report annually the P-content of ashes or P inflow to the sewage works, type of P-recovery, tonnage of P recovered annually, tonnage of sewage sludge (DM) annually.

Austria Abfallverbrennungsverordnung 2024 – AVV 2024, CELEX 32010L0075, published in the Austrian Official Journal, 13^th May 2024 (see section 4) https://www.bmk.gv.at/themen/klima_umwelt/abfall/recht/vo/abfallverbrennung.html

Newsletter about nutrient stewardship - European Sustainable Phosphorus Platform (ESPP)

Please subscribe www.phosphorusplatform.eu/Subscribe
Link to www.phosphorusplatform.eu/eNews086
Download as PDF

ESPP events

ESPC5 call for abstracts open to 30^th May

NERM Nutrients in Europe Research Meeting, 16-17 April

EU consultations

EU public consultation on recycled nitrogen products under the Nitrates Directive

EU survey on Horizon Europe R&D Work Programme

Policy

CEN seeking expert on fertilisers testing

Summary of EU Fertilisers Expert Group 15-16 April 2024

Use of Category 1 Animal By-Product ash as fertiliser

European Commission update on Cat.1 ABP ash, algae grown in manure

EU regulation on animal by-products (ABPs) should be fundamentally reviewed

Differences between Netherlands and EU fertilisers regulations

ESPP is looking for advice / support on AI

Nutrient recycling

Benefits, perspectives and challenges of digestates

Ostara struvite approved for EU Certified Organic Farming

N2 Applied and Felleskjøpet Agri cooperative to implement N-recycling

Research and innovation

Struvite can be used in powder fire extinguishers

PFAS removal in pyrolysis

Stay informed & ESPP members

ESPP events

ESPC5 call for abstracts open to 30^th May.

ESPC5, the 5th European Sustainable Phosphorus Conference, 8-9 October, Lleida, Spain (site visits 10^th October) will focus on the climate and eutrophication challenges of phosphorus management in the Mediterranean and on synergies with anaerobic digestion of manure (Catalunya is a major livestock production region with proactive biogas development policies). Field visits: Fertilizantes del Ebro, biogas plant with digestate valorisation. ESPC5 will also celebrate the 10^th Birthday of ESPP, and look at progress and perspectives ten years on from the first ESPC Conference in 2013.

ESPC5 follows on from ESPC4 Vienna, 2022 which, with 320 participants onsite and 80 online, was the biggest conference on phosphorus ever worldwide.

- ESPC4 Vienna 2022: SCOPE Newsletter n°143

- ESPC3, Helsinki 2018: SCOPE Newsletter n°127

- ESPC2, Berlin 2015: SCOPE Newsletter n°111

- ESPC1, Brussels 2013: SCOPE Newsletter n°092

Abstracts for ESPC5 are invited by 30^th May 2024 on:

Phosphorus management in agriculture: P losses in agriculture, P use efficiency.
Climate change impacts on P in the environment and on P management
Phosphorus sustainability in the Mediterranean region
Nutrient recovery technologies, recycled nutrient markets
Digestate processing and valorisation
Regional P sustainability policies
Other aspects of phosphorus management and nutrient recycling

Abstracts for oral and posters: free format, must include: short title, names and emails of all authors, summary of maximum 500 words. ESPP members can take a short pitch, presenting company technologies or R&D perspectives. Send to by 30^th May 2024.
ESPC5 is organised by BETA technological Center (University of Vic), with support of ESPP and of the Catalunya Region. Lleida is one hour train from Barcelona. Full programme, conference fees, registration link (will open soon), travel information: https://www.phosphorusplatform.eu/espc5.

NERM Nutrients in Europe Research Meeting, 16-17 April

ESPP’s NERM Nutrients in Europe Research Meeting brought together nearly 200 participants in Brussels, online, for research PhD students’ pre-meetings, posters, parallel sessions and for a policy meeting with the European Commission. The conference was organised with the five Horizon2020 projects Fertimanure, Lex4Bio, Walnut, Sea2Land, Rustica. The conference showed that a wide range of research continues around nutrient recycling, in particular looking at new or improving known nutrient recovery technologies, further demonstration of agronomic performance of recycled nutrient products (noting the need for long-term field trials), environmental and LCA aspects. Conclusions noted the need for better information about nutrient recycling and organic fertiliser processing, products, markets; information of farmers; regulatory complexity and policies. The conference included a site visit to the BioSterco farm, treating over 5 000 t/y of manure (its own pig manure and from nearby farms) by nitrification/denitrification with Detricon nitrogen recovery from the manure (recovering ammonium salt solution) with production of a solid organic fertiliser and of purified water (reverse osmosis).
NERM, Brussels & online, 16-17 April, including site visits.
A full summary of the conference will be published as an ESPP SCOPE Newsletter soon.

EU consultations

EU public consultation on recycled nitrogen products under the Nitrates Directive

Public consultation to 17^th May on amendment of Annex III of the Nitrates Directive to allow certain recovered nutrient products to be exempted from the 170 kgN/ha spreading limit. This limit is applicable for “manure … even in a processed form” in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones, whereas synthetic fertilisers generally have a higher spreading limit. The Commission’s proposed amendment partly takes the JRC “Renure” proposals, but allows only three eligible recovered products: ammonium salts from gas scrubbing, “mineral concentrates” from reverse osmosis, precipitated struvite. The proposed criteria also specify that the manure processing must have increased the mineral-N and that the resulting products must be of “consistent quality”.

This is presented as an “interim solution”. By limiting to these three specific recycled nutrient products, the proposal avoids the fact that the JRC Renure criteria (total N must be ≥ 90% mineral, or ratio organic carbon / total N < 3), without other criteria, would be difficult for Member States regulatory authorities to verify (would be passed by raw manure spiked with urea) and would allow scarcely processed manure and some raw manure fractions.

The proposal includes additional requirements: copper and zinc limits, pathogen limits, quality control, labelling requirements, and also requirements which would appear to require specific modifications of NVZ Action Plans wherever these recovered products are to be authorised > 170 kgN/ha: tightening land application limits for all fertilisers, prevention of air emissions, specific consideration of the authorised products in Action Plans, especially as regards Natura 2000 and drinking water abstraction. Also, authorisation of the recovered products requires that “Member States ensure that livestock numbers and manure production do not increase as a result”.
Commission Directive amending Annex III of the Nitrates Directive consultation to 17^th May. Input: 4000 characters plus optional document.

EU survey on Horizon Europe R&D Work Programme

European Commission DG Research is asking for feedback on expected impacts and outcomes for each of nearly 50 thematic and functional clusters etc. of the Horizon Europe 2025 Work Programme. Deadline for input: 6^th May. The themes (called “Destinations”) relevant to nutrient management, in Cluster 6 (Food, bioeconomy, natural resources, agriculture, environment): Destination 2 Fair, healthy and environment-friendly food systems from primary production to consumption, Destination 3 Circular economy and bioeconomy sectors, Destination 4 Clean environment and zero pollution. The Commission’s proposals include for Destination 2 “Farmers are enabled with tools, innovations and practices to sustainably manage natural resources (in soil, water, nutrients, biodiversity)” and for Destination 4 “Farmers are empowered to make informed management decisions on water, carbon, nutrients and greenhouse gas balances for environmental and economic sustainability, preventing and reducing pollution from agriculture” and “Advanced water-nutrient-soil management tools that integrate multidimensional data from sampling, remote sensing and other data sources to enable context-specific decision making at farm level”. For each Destination, there is a specific survey (you are invited to respond to more than one survey) with one or two tables to select priorities between proposed impacts and outcomes, plus possibility to submit short comments (300 – 1500 characters).
European Commission, Research and innovation, “Feedback opportunity for Horizon Europe work programme 2025”, surveys online HERE. Open to 6^th May 2024.

Policy

CEN seeking expert on fertilisers testing

CEN is looking for experts on analytical methods for fertilising products, for working groups developing standards to support the EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR), in particular an expert on analysis of organic carbon content. The European Commission has mandated CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation, the European Committee for Standardization) to develop a significant number of new EU analytical method standards for the testing of different parameters in CMCs and PFCs of the FPR. Industry and expert participants are welcome for the relevant working groups. CEN is specifically also looking for a project leader to develop the method and organise inter-laboratory study for the standard “Inorganic fertilizers - Determination of the organic carbon content organic carbon". The expert will be supported by the relevant Working Group in TC 260, and budget is available for the compensation of costs.
Contact CEN

Summary of EU Fertilisers Expert Group 15-16 April 2024

Animal by-products (ABPs) in EU fertilising products:

Discussion of a draft Commission “Frequently Asked Questions” answer on the status of inclusion of ABPS in CE-mark fertilisers (under the FPR) concluded that at present, to ESPP’s understanding:

Certain animal by-products can already be included today in EU fertilising products, but only as follows (as specified in 2023/1605):
- Most Cat2 and 3 ABPs (including raw manure, slurries, treated manures), can be used as inputs to composts or digestates (CMCs 3 and 5), as specified in these CMCs, but only if the composting / anaerobic digestion process achieves the ABP Regulation conditions (this does NOT include national ‘alternative’ temperature/time profiles). In effect, this is Cat2-3 materials, inc. manure, where the compost/digestion process achieves ‘sterilisation’ as required by the ABP Regulations.
- Raw manure/insect frass (but not other Cat2-3 materials) can be used as an input material for biochars/pyrolysis/gasification materials (CMC14) but only if the processing conditions for “processed manure” specified in the ABP Regulation 142/2011 (temperature/time, installation inspection …) are achieved in the pyrolysis/gasification process.
- “Processed manure” (as defined in the ABP Regulations), or ABP-criteria compost or digestate of other Cat2-3 materials, can be used as inputs to CMC3 compost, CMC5 digestate or CMC14 pyrolysis, even if the compost/digestate process does not achieve the ABP Regulation conditions. In effect, this is CMC3/5 compost/digestate where the input material has been ‘sterilised” (to ABP requirements) before sending to the composter/digester..
- Note: if ABPs (e.g. raw manure) are used as inputs for a compost/digestate process which achieves CMC3/5 criteria but does NOT achieve the ABP ‘sterilisation’ criteria (as specified in 2023/1605) then the output product (i.e. compost/digestate) cannot be ‘post-sterilised’ and then used in an EU fertilising product. This is because sterilisation is not a listed post-processing for compost/digestate under the FPR CMC3/5 (see consolidated version of the FPR)
- Most Cat 2 and 3 ABPs (inc manure etc. as above) can be used as input to combustion processes as specified in CMC13 (ashes and derivates thereof)
Will hopefully be included soon,
- “processed manure” in CMC10 (draft regulation here and annex here, adoption underway)
- a limited list of other Cat2/3 materials in CMC10 (list in 2023/1605, study underway with QLab, see below, before hopefully preparation of an amendment to include these into CMC10).

All stakeholders with information concerning the ABPs listed in 2023/1605 (current use as fertiliser, e.g. under national regulations, processing, markets and potential, nutrient content and agronomic benefits, contaminants and safety) are invited to submit these to the QLab study via the questionnaire here (if possible before end April).

ABPs are excluded from the NMI study underway into possible new materials/processes for FPR CMCs (see below) and DG GROW indicated that other ABPs could not be discussed in the EU Fertilisers Expert Group until DG SANTE has validated an ‘ABP End Point’ (DG SANTE delegated regulation amending the ABP Regulations). ESPP therefore proposed, with other organisations, to take this forward outside the official EU Expert Group.

Stakeholders with knowledge of other ABPs, or of other ABP processing methods, relevant to use in fertiliser and which are not in 2023/1605 are invited to send information to (nature of the material / process, uses in fertilising products).

NMI study on possible new input materials for EU fertilising products (possible new CMCs / new CMC processes).

This study (see ESPP eNews n°85) will take 1-2 years and could in some cases, lead to draft amendments to include new materials or CMC-processes into the FPR. However, the list of materials / processes to be studied will be defined in coming weeks. Input is invited from companies and stakeholders on secondary nutrient materials and processing methods not currently included in the EU FPR, as specified in the ‘questionnaire’ on page 28 of the NMI study inception report:

Detailed description and specifications for the secondary material and for its processing to a fertilising product
Legal status: is the material/process already applied for fertilisers in EU Member States or other countries ?
Market situation: current market size and key actors, EU market potential ?
Is the material or resulting fertilising product susceptible to cross-border trade (rather than domestic use) ?
Agronomic benefits
Health or safety data or studies.

Input can concern any material / process listed in the NMI study inception report chapters 3-4-5-6 (pages 8-11)

Animal by-products and “derived products” (ABPs) are not included in the NMI study, but ESPP is collecting information on ABPs and ABP processing methods (not currently covered in 2023/1605) to prepare a concerted request to the European Commission to address currently “missing” ABPs – so information to ESPP is welcome.

ESPP is inputting to the NMI study with a table of possible new CMC input materials / processing methods. Draft is on www.phosphorusplatform.eu/regulatory (under EU Fertilising Products Regulation -> “ESPP list of possible new CMC materials & processes 21_4_24”). Any comments or additions to this table are welcome.

Please send comments and input to the NMI report and/or the ESPP table, by 13^th May 2024, to

CE certification process and conformity assessment

Giel Tettelaar, EFCI Register, presented proposals from the Notified Bodies Coordination Body, in particular to clarify and make more feasible certain requirements of the certification procedures, including distinguishing between periodicities for sampling and for audits, and not requiring certification visits to every site providing similar input materials (e.g. a number of sewage works providing recovered struvites from the same process). For reasons unclear, one Member State objected to the “assumption of conformity” currently applied by NOBOs, that is if there is no reason why a specific contaminant should be present in a material (not in inputs, not generated in processing), then it should not be necessary to test for it, as currently specified in the Commission’s FPR Frequently Asked Questions document (Q 10.6). ESPP considers this as important to avoid unnecessary testing costs and as justified and pragmatic.

Clarifications via the Commission FAQ document

A number of new Q&As were validated for inclusion into the Commission’s “Frequently Asked Questions” document, which effectively provides guidance on interpretation of the FPR. It is clarified that plant materials under CMC2 can be “waste” or “by-product”. Clarification of the definition of “biowaste” (in CMCs 3 and 5) was agreed, noting the “comparable” waste streams are also included, such as food waste flows from factories for example producing sandwiches or ready-to-cook meals (e.g. offcuts, discarded food materials because of deterioration) but not sludges or specific processing flows from factories processing e.g. vegetables, dairy products, pet foods, biofuels …

“Evaluation” of the EU Fertilising Products Regulation

The evaluation of the FPR will be launched by the European Commission in coming months, as required in art. 49 of the Regulation, with the aim of identifying if certain aspects of the Regulatory text should be modified (see ESPP eNews n°84). Art. 49 already indicates certain points which must be evaluated (contaminants including cadmium and uranium, functioning of the internal market, conformity assessment, market surveillance, optional harmonisation). The Commission is currently defining the terms of reference to commission a study to support this evaluation.
EU Fertilisers Expert Group documents (CIRCABC public) HERE.

Use of Category 1 Animal By-Product ash as fertiliser

ESPP has commissioned a risk analysis of use as fertiliser of combustion ash from “disposal” of Cat.1 ABPs. The European Commission DG SANTE has requested an Opinion on safety of such ash from EFSA (European Food Safety Agency). The analysis has been commissioned by ESPP to SAFOSO Switzerland, animal health expert consultants. Because there is to our understanding no proof that incineration eliminates prion infectivity (TSE / BSE “mad cow disease”), see ESPP eNews n°73, the SAFOSO risk analysis will be based on: number of BSE cows in Europe (very low), dilution of material in processing, risk reduction in processing, risk reduction in ash use as fertiliser. This will be supported by evidence that Cat.1 ash has been for decades and continues to be widely used as fertiliser in the UK (and elsewhere?) with no identified infection of animals or humans, and similarly for Cat.1 ash handling in landfills etc... We thank EFPRA for providing helpful input to this study.
If you have any information which could support this study (scientific report references, examples or data of Cat.1 ash use as fertiliser in other countries in the world, information on Cat.1 ash handling and storage in landfills, please contact )

European Commission update on Cat.1 ABP ash, algae grown in manure

In reply to a letter from ESPP, DG SANTE confirms that an Opinion on Cat.1 ABP ash is requested from EFSA (to be completed by 2025) and indicates position on nutrients from ABP ash to animal feed, algae grown in manure. ESPP has launched a study to input to the EFSA Opinion on Cat.1 ash (see above). On possible use of nutrients recovered from ash in animal feed, DG SANTE considers that this should be considered after the EFSA opinion on Cat.1 ash use as fertiliser. On algae grown in manure, DG SANTE considers that there is no possibility for use of the algae nor of materials extracted from them in animal feed nor in fertilisers, but that algae grown in “processed manure” can be used in fertilisers (grown in manure which has been ‘sterilised’ as defined in the ABP regulations).
Letter from ESPP to DG SANTE 29^th January 2024 and reply of 3^rd April 2024 HERE.

EU regulation on animal by-products (ABPs) should be fundamentally reviewed

Sixteen organisations, including ESPP, have sent an open letter to the European Commission calling for a comprehensive review of EU regulation of ABPs to enable circularity whilst continuing to ensure safety. We underline our complete commitment to ensuring safety, and perception of safety by consumers and stakeholders, but suggest that current ABP regulation is fragmented and incoherent, with different value chains treated differently and incoherent vocabulary, leading to regulatory obstacles, excessive demands on administrative resources and consequent failure to address these. The letter calls on the Commission to include a review of ABP regulations in the next 2024-2029 work programme. A number of examples provided by stakeholders are presented in annex, including difficulty to use in animal feed amino acids which are recognised human food ingredients, failure to recognise in the EU Fertilising Products Regulation ‘alternative’ temperature-time profiles for composting and anaerobic digestion despite these being safely used in Member States, failure to recognise complete transformation of ABPs which eliminate risks (e.g. recovery of nutrients from ashes), absence of pathways to coherently assess new processing pathways or materials (e.g. algae grown in manure).
Open letter to the European Commission, 3^rd April 2024.

Differences between Netherlands and EU fertilisers regulations

Report by Wageningen UR identifies over 60 secondary nutrient materials which are authorised for use in fertilisers in The Netherlands but not in the EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR). This includes:

11 wastes and by-products, such as food industry by-products not listed in FPR CMC6, by-products from biofuels production, paper industry by-products, pharmaceuticals by-products, demolition gypsum waste, ammonium phosphate from fire extinguisher refurbishment,
31 vegetable residues not included in FPR anaerobic digestion inputs, including vegetable oil and fat residues, food industry sludges and various food industry by-products which are not “bio-waste”, biofuel and glycerine production residues,
24 animal by-products not included in FPR anaerobic digestion inputs.

The WUR report recommends to :

Better define “bio-waste” and to define additional groups of food-industry, biofuel, dairy and animal feed industry by-products for inclusion as inputs to FPR digestates (CMC5),
Define additional groups of food industry by-products for inclusion in CMC6 (use as such in fertilising products),
Consider other temperature-time profiles for sanitisation of animal by-products in anaerobic digesters (CMC5)

‘Kunnen de afval- en reststoffen uit de Uitvoeringsregeling Meststoffenwet beantwoorden aan de Europese Meststoffenverordening?” (Can the waste and residues from the Netherlands Fertilisers Act Implementation Regulations comply with the European Fertilizers Regulation?), in Dutch, 58 pages, 2-page summary in English, I. Regelink et al., Wageningen Environmental Research, report n°3317, ISSN 1566-7197, Jan. 2024 DOI.

ESPP is looking for advice / support on AI

ESPP is seeking help to use Artificial Intelligence (AI). We wish to contract advice and support to set up AI that can help us find new and important updates about phosphorus sustainability and nutrient recycling. Our goal is to use AI to better share information with our network. We might need help setting this up, training AI, or guiding a programmer to create an AI tool. Right now, we are overwhelmed with many alerts from the internet and scientific sources every week, even though we try to target our alert filters. We hope AI could read these alerts and other documents and pick out those which are most likely to be important to us, such as new ideas, big changes in technology or markets, new full-scale nutrient recycling plants or updates in regulations. We also want it to work in different languages, not just English. The main problem is to figure out what news is truly new and exciting, rather than just getting summaries of many research papers on topics we already know about. It’s not certain if AI can really do this, but we might find out by trying.
If you would be interested in taking forward an initial feasibility analysis of AI for ESPP, contact

Nutrient recycling

Benefits, perspectives and challenges of digestates

Comprehensive report by European Biogas Association (EBA) explains digestate production, properties and processing, benefits for climate and for soil health and details the regulatory framework at the EU and Member State levels. EBA estimates that by 2050 digestates in Europe will contain 9.7 Mt of nitrogen, 1.7 Mt of phosphorus and 0.8 Mt of potassium, that is around 90%, 60% and 25% respectively of nutrients currently in mineral fertilisers. Nutrient content and availability in digestates are explained, both rapidly available and long-term nutrients, depending on different input materials and digestate processing. Benefits for climate and soil health are discussed, including reductions in emissions from raw organic wastes, soil carbon sequestration, impacts on soil microbial activity, soil structure, water retention, nutrient retention, pH buffering. The EU regulatory framework is outlined, including waste, fertiliser, animal by-product regulations and the Nitrates Directive. National regulatory frameworks are specified for Member States, including waste status, fertiliser regulations, quality schemes and specific national regulations. The report concludes that the complexity of regulatory frameworks is an obstacle to digestate valorisation, in particular where digestate does not have fertiliser status under national fertiliser regulations. The Nitrates Directive restriction on application of digestates from manure is considered a key obstacle. Better information on the value of digestates as an organic fertiliser and soil improver is needed.
“Exploring digestate’s contribution to healthy soils”, European Biogas Association, March 2024, 40 pages LINK

Ostara struvite approved for EU Certified Organic Farming

Ostara’s recovered struvite, from municipal wastewater, has been validated for EU Certified Organic Agriculture under the EU regulation 2021/1165 (ESPP eNews n°73). This follows the successful EU Fertilising Products Regulation of Ostara’s Crystal Green Pearl® recovered struvite (CE-mark, see ESPP eNews n°82), which is a prerequisite requirement for EU Organic Farming certification. The FiBL / SKAL validation obtained by Ostara also confirms that the Ostara recovered struvite complies with the criteria of The Netherlands Organic Farming input list. Ostara states: “Crystal Green Pearl is a granular fertilizer with an analysis of 5% Nitrogen (N), 28% Phosphorus Pentoxide (P₂O₅), and 16% Magnesium Oxide (MgO). This one-of-a-kind fertilizer source is produced with Ostara’s nutrient recovery solutions that recover nutrients from wastewater and prevent excess, water soluble nutrients from entering global water systems. Crystal Green Pearl is minimally water-soluble, although it’s 100% soluble in weak organic acids naturally exuded from plants. This maximizes nutrient availability … highly efficient phosphate fertilizers to release nutrients in response to crop demand. Crystal Green fertilizers are proven to maximize yield, enhance soil health and significantly reduce phosphate tie-up, runoff and leaching, thereby improving food security while protecting the environment.”
“Ostara Secures Certified Organic Registration of Recovered Nutrients for Crop Production”, Ostara, 17^th April 2024, HERE.
FiBL organic validation for Ostara recovered struvite Crystal Green HERE.

N2 Applied and Felleskjøpet Agri cooperative to implement N-recycling

Plasma N-enrichment and N-recycling technology of N2 Applied (ESPP member) will be rolled out by one of Norway’s main agricultural cooperatives, Felleskjøpet Agri. N2 Applied is also talking to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. N2 Applied’s plasma technology both fixes nitrogen from the atmosphere and stabilises nitrogen already present in manures or digestates, so enabling storage and efficient recycling to crops, whilst also reducing ammonia and methane emissions (see ESPP eNews n°84). Felleskjøpet Agri has over 50 000 cooperative members and an annual turnover of c. 15 billion €. A two-year letter of intent will roll out the plasma N2 Applied’s technology to farmers as part of the cooperative’s advice and services to farmers towards sustainability and balanced fertilisation and cost benefits, enabling them to better use their own manure as crop fertiliser with reduced environmental impacts.
“Felleskjøpet Agri and N2 Applied enters agreement”, 19^th March 2024, HERE.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and International Fertilizer Association (IFA), Marrakech, Morocco, March 2024 HERE
Bill Gates video “Why I love fertilizer”, 2018, HERE.

Research and innovation

Struvite can be used in powder fire extinguishers

Powder fire extinguishers widely use mono ammonium phosphate (MAP). Lab tests showed that milled struvite, coated with DOPO-VTS, performs better to extinguish fires than MAP or neat struvite and can be stored at up to 100°C. It is not specified whether the struvite used was recovered or synthetic. The struvite was ball-milled first with ethanol, then with hydrophobic fumed silica, to fine particle size (90% < 20 µm diameter). It was then coated with 3% w/w DOPO-VTS, a derivative of the commercial phosphorus flame retardant DOPO (9,10-dihydro-9-oxa-10-phosphaphenanthrene-10-oxide) reacted 1:1 with vinyltrimethoxysilane. Fire extinguishing performance was tested using burning heptane basin tests. Heat absorption and fire temperature decrease were better with the coated ultrafine struvite, fire extinguishing time was shorter and powder consumption was lower, compared to than with MAP (similarly ground), and also compared to uncoated struvite. Also, the coated struvite maintained its fire extinguishing properties when heated to 100°C, so could be stored in varying temperatures.
“Preparation and fire extinguishing mechanism of novel fire extinguishing powder based on recyclable struvite”, Z. Liang et al., Materials Today Communications 34 (2023) 105410, DOI.

PFAS removal in pyrolysis

Lab tests using PFAS-loaded sand show 97% removal from the sand at 400°C or higher but significant transfer of organofluoride compounds to the offgas. The tests used purified sea sand mixed with 24 different PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) at total 2000 ng PFAS/g sand (0.0002% DM), in a 25mm diameter 40 cm high lab pyrolyser with residence time 2 hours (significantly higher than industrial pyrolysis units). Because PFAS may be broken down to non-analysed shorter-chain PFAS, both PFAS (27 PFAS chemicals) and total organofluorides were analysed in both the pyrolysed material and in the laboratory pyrolyser offgas (using an acetone trap). In the PFAS-sand, organic fluorine removal was only c. 40% at 300°C, rising to 97% at 400°C or higher. Removal of PFAS from the sand was 99% at 400°C and the 27 analysed PFAS were non-detectable at 500°C or higher. The analysed PFAS were detected in the offgas up to 500°C pyrolysis temperature (not at 600°C). However, around 50% of the total initial PFAS fluorine was found as organofluorides in the offgas at 400°, 500°C, 600°C and 700°C. Similar tests were carried out using dried granulated sewage sludge from Bohuslavice‑Trutnov municipal sewage works, Czech Republic, again showing >96% removal of organofluorides at 400°C with significant detection in the offgas. Sludge biochar from a commercial sludge pyrolysis unit operating at this sewage works was tested and the analysed PFAS chemicals were not detectable. This unit operates at 600°C with a residence time of 10 minutes.
“Removal of per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances and organic fluorine from sewage sludge and sea sand by pyrolysis”, M. Husek et al., Biochar (2024) 6:31 DOI.

Stay informed & ESPP members

European Commission DG Research is asking for feedback on expected impacts and outcomes for each of nearly 50 thematic and functional clusters etc. of the Horizon Europe 2025 Work Programme. Deadline for input: 6^th May. The themes (called “Destinations”) relevant to nutrient management, in Cluster 6 (Food, bioeconomy, natural resources, agriculture, environment): Destination 2 Fair, healthy and environment-friendly food systems from primary production to consumption, Destination 3 Circular economy and bioeconomy sectors, Destination 4 Clean environment and zero pollution. The Commission’s proposals include for Destination 2 “Farmers are enabled with tools, innovations and practices to sustainably manage natural resources (in soil, water, nutrients, biodiversity)” and for Destination 4 “Farmers are empowered to make informed management decisions on water, carbon, nutrients and greenhouse gas balances for environmental and economic sustainability, preventing and reducing pollution from agriculture” and “Advanced water-nutrient-soil management tools that integrate multidimensional data from sampling, remote sensing and other data sources to enable context-specific decision making at farm level”. For each Destination, there is a specific survey (you are invited to respond to more than one survey) with one or two tables to select priorities between proposed impacts and outcomes, plus possibility to submit short comments (300 – 1500 characters).
European Commission, Research and innovation, “Feedback opportunity for Horizon Europe work programme 2025”, surveys online HERE. Open to 6^th May 2024.

Commission Directive amending Annex III of the Nitrates Directive consultation to 17^th May. Input: 4000 characters plus optional document.

Newsletter about nutrient stewardship - European Sustainable Phosphorus Platform (ESPP)

Please subscribe www.phosphorusplatform.eu/Subscribe
Link to www.phosphorusplatform.eu/eNews085
Download as PDF

Events

NERM Nutrients in Europe Research Meeting, 16-17 April

5^th European Sustainable Phosphorus Conference ESPC5, 8-10 October, Lleida, Spain

ESPP looking for service

To develop a listing of organic & organo-mineral fertiliser producers

Policy

European greenhouse gas import taxes enter inter force

EU Chemical Agency (ECHA) announces next steps towards PFAS restrictions

European water industry calls for universal PFAS restriction

Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) revision

ESPP and EU policy consultations (NERC, Nitrates)

Fertilisers & EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR)

Survey on animal by-products (ABPs) in EU fertilising products

Tenders for laboratories and coordination for Organic and Organo-Mineral Fertilisers

EU consultation on fertiliser polymer biodegradability, microplastics, and other

Preliminary draft on possible new materials/processes as CE-fertiliser inputs (CMCs)

SOFIE summary in Fertilizer Focus

Mediterranean

Mediterranean coastal lagoon eutrophication correlated to business failure

Harmful Algal Blooms in the Mediterranean

UNEP event summaries

Management of phosphate fertilisers for sustainable food systems

Launch of UNEP global phosphorus project “uPcycle”

Research and innovation

Brabantse Delta Water Board launches ViviMag® LIFE project

P-fertilised grassland, Ireland, may release higher CO₂ but lower N₂O

PFAS could be cause of 0.5 – 4.5% of wastewater treatment GHG emissions

Stay informed & ESPP members

Events

NERM Nutrients in Europe Research Meeting, 16-17 April

NERM Nutrients in Europe Research Meeting (6^th Phosphorus in Europe Research Meeting). Nearly 200 registrants to date for the conference and its pre-meetings. Speakers include the European Commission (DG AGRI, DG TRD), EIP-AGRI Support Facility/EU Cap Network, EU-FarmBook, NUTRI-KNOW Thematic Network. Parallel sessions on nutrient recovery technologies, bio-based fertilisers. Organised with Fertimanure, Lex4Bio, Walnut, Sea2Land, Rustica.
NERM, Brussels & online, 16-17 April, including site visits: programme & registration

5^th European Sustainable Phosphorus Conference ESPC5, 8-10 October, Lleida, Spain

ESPP looking for service

To develop a listing of organic and organo-mineral fertiliser producers

We are looking for someone to put together a listing of emails of companies selling, producing or processing, in Europe, organic or organo-mineral fertilisers. This will enable ESPP to communicate on SOFIE2025 and nutrient recycling. Listing could also cover companies providing processing technologies: such as granulation, drying, packaging … Candidates can be individuals, companies or research institutes, subject to being able to emit an invoice or payable note for fees. Work to be done before end summer 2024. Objective: collate list of companies, contact email(s), general types of organic fertiliser sold/processed, website, covering all EU countries plus UK, Switzerland, Norway, Turkey, Ukraine, North Africa.
Send short description of experience and competence, plus estimated price to by 15^th May 2024

Policy

European greenhouse gas import taxes enter inter force

The EU CBAM (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism) has entered into force taxing imports of five industrial products, including nitrogen fertilisers, as a function of greenhouse emissions. The CBAM Regulation 2023/956 and Implementing Regulation 2023/1773, which entered into force on 1^st October 2023, covers imports of “nitrogen-containing fertilisers”*, iron and steel, cement, aluminium, and electricity. CBAM aims to tax the greenhouse emissions embedded in imported fertilisers (scope 1 and 2: direct emissions in production, emissions related to electricity use in production) and covers CO₂ and NO_xemissions. The objective is to compensate costs for EU manufacturers who have to pay ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) tariffs for their climate emissions. The EU CBAM Regulations define the methodology for calculating the embedded emissions for the concerned products, based either on real emissions, or in the absence of data, on values for the relevant industry sector in the specific exporting country, or if this is also not available, then based on the average emission intensity of the worst performing EU installations. Fertilizers Europe has welcomed the EU CBAM, subject to appropriate conditions as ensuring fair competition for EU producers against fertiliser imports. However, Fertilizers Europe expresses concern that CBAM cannot provide a mechanism to address exports of fertilisers from Europe, which risk being replaced by fertilisers with a higher carbon footprint in user countries outside Europe.
EU CBAM Regulation 2023/956 “establishing a carbon border adjustment mechanism” and Implementing Regulation 2023/1773,
* Regulation 2023/956 – Annex I , Ch. 3105 and Ch. 3102, Implementing Regulation 2023/1773, Annex II – 3.10. Mixed fertilisers – in effect covers all N, NP, NK and NPK fertilisers.

EU Chemical Agency (ECHA) announces next steps towards PFAS restrictions

After over 5 000 comments were received to the public consultation on PFAS restriction in 2023, ECHA has announced that the EU’s scientific committees will evaluate restriction for uses in different sectors over the coming six months. Uses which will be considered are: consumer products, cosmetics, ski wax, metal plating and processing, upholstery - leather – carpets – clothing, food contact materials and packaging, oil and mining industries. Other sectors, such as machinery and medical, are not yet on the calendar. Following the opinions of the two scientific committees (Risk Assessment RAC and Socio-Economic Analysis SEAC), ECHA will finalise restriction proposal reports, and then the European Commission with the Member States will take decisions.

In the US, legal actions against companies is accelerating, based often on accusations of PFAS contamination of groundwater and drinking water. Litigation is targeting the chemical companies manufacturing PFAS, but also companies using it. Litigation in some cases is being brought by cities operating water systems. Litigation also concerns PFAS in sludges, both from industry (e.g. paper industry). In a case reported recently in Europe by The Guardian, UK, farmers in Texas and an environmental NGO are suing the US Environmental Protection Agency for not adequately regulating PFAS and a company which processes sewage sludge to organic fertilisers. Following litigation, the US courts approved in February a settlement requiring DuPont to pay nearly 1.2 billion US§ to public water systems across the US covering payments to water authorities who have already detected PFAS and costs of testing and then compensation to those which have not yet tested.
European Chemical Agency (ECHA) “Next steps for PFAS restriction proposal” 13^th March 2024.
The Guardian “Legal action could end use of toxic sewage sludge on US crops as fertilizer” 12^th March 2024.

European water industry calls for universal PFAS restriction

The water industry (EurEau) is calling that “all uses of PFAS should be phased out rapidly” because PFAS cannot be effectively removed in sewage treatment, so accumulate in water, soil and foods. EurEau represents European drinking water and wastewater operators serving 500 million Europeans. The federation has sent an open letter to the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, calling for universal restriction of PFAS. The federation underlines that PFAS (Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances) are today found in water, food, air, household products, are remanent and pose health risks. Removal of PFAS from drinking water is technically challenging, expensive, energy and resource consuming, and relies on activated carbon imported from China. PFAS in sewage hinders recovery and recycling of nutrients. EurEau consequently calls for a universal PFAS restriction, in line with the EU Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability and the Green Deal.

The European Environment Agency has published a communication stating that nearly 15% of teenagers in Europe show exposure to PFAS above EFSA Health-Based Guidance Values (HBGV).

EurEau position on PFAS: https://www.eureau.org/priorites/pfas
EurEau briefing paper “Sludge and the circular economy - the impact of PFAS”, July 2022
EurEau input to EU consultation on PFAS restriction, 18^th September 2023 “Universal PFAS restriction - Consultation on Annex XV report”
EurEau open letter to the European Commission “No Green Deal with PFAS: Call to support the Universal PFAS Restriction proposal”, 4^th March 2024.
European Environment Agency “Risks of PFAS for human health in Europe (Signal)”, 15^th March 2024.

Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) revision

The IED revision, agreed by Parliament & Council, making strictest achievable pollution emissions limits mandatory, will improve industry material efficiency requirements, will cover more intensive pig & poultry farms, but not cattle farms. The Directive revision amendments have been provisionally agreed by Parliament, Council and the Commission (trilogue 29/11/2023), validated by Parliament (12/3/2024) and are pending Council final validation, before legal publication. The IED fixes mandatory pollution emission limits applicable to all covered factories and installations, currently around 50 000 across Europe. The revision extends coverage to include more intensive pig and poultry farms, down to 280 – 380 LSU “livestock units” (implemented progressively starting in 2030). The Commission estimates that this will increase the % of total EU pigs and poultry in covered farms from around 35% under the current IED, to around 70 – 80%. Cattle farms are however still not covered by the IED Directive: this will be reviewed by end 2026. Will also be reviewed the possibility to ensure that overseas producers of meat imported into the EU respect the same criteria. The revised Directive will require waste, resource efficiency, energy efficiency and raw material use targets for covered industries. The Directive is also extended to include certain metal mining / extraction activities (phosphate rock not included) and battery manufacture.

European Commission IED Review – Livestock farm data update 2016-2020 HERE.
Trilogue agreed Directive revision text: HERE.
European Parliament press release 12^th March 2024.

ESPP and EU policy consultations (NERC, Nitrates)

EU input on revision of the NERC Directive asking that this integrate nutrient recycling and not only emissions limitation.

ESPP did not input to the EU consultation on evaluation of the Nitrates Directive, as members had differing positions.

ESPP input to the EU consultation on the NERC Directive (National Emissions Reduction Commitments), 14^th March 2024, supporting the value of this Directive in limiting transboundary emissions of air pollutants across Europe (the Directive currently limits emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides (NOx but not N2O), ammonia, non-methane volatile organics, fine particles PM_2.5), noting that limiting these N emissions is coherent with the EU Farm-to-Fork Strategy, EU Biodiversity Strategy and COP15 Convention on Biological Biodiversity objective to reduce nutrient losses by 50% by 2030 and suggesting that it should integrate recovery and recycling of nitrogen and sulphur from these emissions.

Concerning the Nitrates Directive, ESPP members did not agree on whether the Directive has been effective (since is adoption in 1991), whether to oppose re-opening of this Directive (which could lead to regression in protection of surface and groundwaters from nitrates) or to consider this necessary to address the obstacle posed to manure nutrient recycling (by the 170 kgN/ha limit for manure and “processed” manure), what forms of manure-recycled nutrient might be exempted from this limit (Renure criteria too lax and non-verifiable, but < 1% organic carbon not practically relevant …). Members also disagreed on whether or not to propose that the Directive should be widened to specifically address phosphorus as well as nitrogen.
ESPP input to NERC Directive (National Emissions Reduction Commitments) www.phosphorusplatform.eu/regulatory
Summary of discussions on Nitrates Directive at ESPP webinar 22^nd February 2024 in ESPP eNews n°84.
EU public consultations on the Nitrates Directive (both closed 8^th March 2024). Call for evidence: 248 contributions received (and published) and public consultation (1071 contributions received and validated, not yet published, pending analysis by the European Commission).
Feedback to the call for evidence from ESPP members: EurEau, N2-Applied, Ragn-Sells, SUEZ, TIMAC AGRO, Other ESPP members submitted to the public consultation, including to our knowledge: Fertilizers Europe, Nutribudget, submitted by Proman.

Fertilisers & EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR)

Survey on animal by-products (ABPs) in EU fertilising products

Request for information, for specific ABPs, on applicable national fertiliser legislation, agronomic effects, nutrient content, processing, heavy metals or other residues, health or environmental risks. The Cat2 and Cat3 ABPs concerned are insect frass, biofuel glycerine, meat and bone meal and derived DCP/TCP, blood products, hydrolysed protein, horn- skin and feather materials (as specified). The survey, open to all companies and stakeholders, is carried out by QLab, under contract from the European Commission, to support preparation of possible criteria or conditions for proposed inclusion of these materials as inputs to CE-Mark fertilising products (FPR CMC 10). This is because art. 42 of the FPR indicates that the Commission can modify the FPR CMCs only if proposed additional materials have the potential to be significantly traded within Europe and if there is evidence of their agronomic efficiency and of safety for health and for the environment.
“Survey to include new materials in CMC 10 to the Fertilising Products Regulation”, QLab for the European Commission SURVEY HERE.

Tenders for laboratories and coordination for Organic and Organo-Mineral Fertilisers

Two CEN tenders open to 15^th April to (1) prepare – coordinate, and (2) participate in laboratory ring tests for proposed new European Standards relating to organic and organo-mineral fertilisers for the Fertilising Products Regulation. The testing will concern the various different standards currently being developed by CEN (European Committee for Standardization) CEN/TC260/WG8 to support implementation of the EU Fertilising Products Regulation, that is verification of the different criteria and limits specified for Organic and for Organo-Mineral Fertilisers in this regulation (as per the mandate from the European Commission, a list of around 20 proposed test standards is included in the tender documents and draft EU standards (prEN) can be downloaded on the CEN tender web pages)
“Open calls for tender related to the Interlaboratory studies on Organic and organo-mineral fertilizers”, CEN, published 12/3/2024, submission deadline = 15/4/2024 HERE.

EU consultation on fertiliser polymer biodegradability, microplastics, and other

Open to 5^th April: consultation on five draft Delegated Acts amending the Fertilising Products Regulation concerning biodegradability of fertiliser and mulch film polymers, microplastic polymers (in CMCs 1 and 11), Enterococcus testing. The five draft amending regulations are included in one single public consultation, open to 5^th April 2024. The biodegradation criteria proposed for polymers are based on 90% ultimate degradation / mineralisation measures as evolved CO₂, in soil and in water, after 2 years for mulch films and after four years for polymers used as fertiliser coatings or for water retention.
“EU fertilising products – Aligning biodegradability criteria for polymers to the REACH restriction on microplastics”. NOTE: the consultation web page title is unclear, this page in fact covers all five proposed Delegated Acts. Public consultation open to the public and all stakeholders. Deadline for response 5^th April 2024. Response is free text of up to 4000 characters plus possibility to submit a pdf document. HERE.

Preliminary draft on possible new materials/processes as CE-fertiliser inputs (CMCs)

The draft proposed list of new CMC materials and processes to be studied for possible inclusion into the EU Fertilising Products Regulation (Annex II) is circulated for comment and will be discussed at the Fertilisers Expert Group 15^th April (input via members of this Group, inc. ESPP). The study, commissioned by the European Commission (DG GROW) to NMI Netherlands, will run for two years, and will assess which materials/process modifications could be justified to add into the EU Fertilising Products Regulation (based on the art. 42.1 criteria: significant potential for trade on the EU market, agronomic value, environmental and health safety). The study will consider all proposals submitted under the European Commission’s June 2022 stakeholder survey (ESPP eNews n°69). 207 stakeholders submitted to this survey, with 26 proposals considered out of scope (concerning other FPR annexes not CMCs) but some submissions including more than one relevant proposal. In this first draft report, NMI have regrouped the into proposals for:

14 for new CMCs, including separated human urine/faeces, N and K recovered from wastewater liquors, Mn and Zn recovered from battery recycling, ammonium salts recovered from end-of-life fire extinguisher powder, pulp & paper sludge, vivianite, algae grown on wastewaters, industry limes
14 for admitting new input materials to existing CMCs, including potassium from municipal waste incineration ash, sewage sludge as input to biochars / pyrolysis / gasification, food & feed industry sludges as input to composts & digestates
11 for new materials within existing CMCs
6 for new CMC processing methods, including plasma treatment of digestate, tree bark humous

(examples cited were included in ESPP proposals).

ESPP proposals which seem to be not included in this draft report (to be clarified) include: fish sludge (stated to be an animal by-product, whereas fish excreta seem to be excluded from the ABP Regulation 1069/2009 art. 2.2(k)), natural biomass collected as waste, digestate from biorefineries wastes, P leached from biochars, pre-processing of inputs to CMCs 13 and 14.

Following input at the 15^th – 16^th April EU Fertilisers Expert Group (input via FEG members only, e.g. ESPP), NMI indicate that they will launch a stakeholder consultation on the different regrouped materials / proposals to collect information on current legal status, current use as fertiliser (under national fertiliser regulations or otherwise), producers, potential market. This will enable assessment of the Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR) art. 42.1 criteria that the FPR can be amended if there is “potential to be the subject of significant trade on the internal market”.

For materials/processes where such potential is identified, NMI will further search literature and consult stakeholders on environmental and health safety and risks, and on agronomic effectiveness (an indicator for this being current use today), as also required in FPR art. 42.1

A final selection of relevant materials/processes, respecting art. 42.1, will then be made, and for these NMI will propose to the European Commission draft amendment texts to the FPR Annex II (CMCs) – planned timeline = before end 2025.
“Technical study to support the inclusion of new materials and processes under the Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR); Lot 2: Material and processes under the FPR. Inception report; Screening of proposals, workplan”, L. van Schöll, W.H. Riechelman, NMI (study performed for the Commission DG GROW F2 under GROW/2022/OP/0046), version March 2024 HERE.
Comments via members of the EU Fertilisers Expert Group (includes ESPP) – send comments ASAP to

SOFIE summary in Fertilizer Focus

A 2-page summary of ESPP’s SOFIE3 conference (3^rd Summit of Organic & Organo-Mineral Fertiliser Industries in Europe) is published in Argus Media’s March/April 2024 Fertilizer Focus (11 000 readership). A full summary will be published soon in ESPP’s SCOPE Newsletter. Questions addressed include distribution costs, industry trend towards combining organic (recycled) nutrients with mineral fertilisers, potential for development of nutrient recycling from digestate and the corresponding need for roll-out of digestate processing (digestate production will increase with EU bio-methane policies), contribution of organic fertilisers to reducing nutrient losses and to soil health, potential for market growth or organic and organo-mineral fertilisers.

Fertilizer Focus, March/April 2024 (Argus Media) HERE.

Mediterranean

Mediterranean coastal lagoon eutrophication correlated to business failure

A statistical study of business failures around Mar Menor, Murcia, South-East Spain, shows correlation of lagoon eutrophication to business failure of companies in some economic sectors. Mar Menor is a shallow saltwater lagoon of 135 km², separated from the Mediterranean Sea by a narrow strip of land. It is a Red Natura and a Ramsar site, with strong tourism and agriculture activities. The lagoon suffered a major algal bloom and anoxia event in 2019. This study compared distance to eutrophied lagoon water (maximum water chlorophyll concentration within a certain radius of the company), distance to coast (of lagoon or of Mediterranean Sea) and rate of business failure (failure at some time in the four year period 2017-2020) for over 3200 businesses in ??? how many ??? municipalities < ??? km from the Mar Menor lagoon (how were these companies and municipalities chosen and why ?). All businesses were < 30 km ??? from the sea or from the lagoon. Overall business failure in this sample of companies was 11.6% (over the four years) compared to 10.6% average across Spain. Business failure was lower for companies situated near the sea or near the lagoon, but higher for companies near lagoon waters with high chlorophyll (algae). Despite the seeming probabilistic benefit of proximity to the coast/lagoon, a 1 gm higher Chl_-a concentration within 600m of a company was correlated to +8.4% increase in probability of business failure for accommodation services, +11% for financial and real estate services, +14.4% for industrial and building activities and +9.5% for minor trade. Probability of business failure did not increase with eutrophication for agriculture and transport services. The author concludes that the results show that effective environmental protection to reduce eutrophication would bring benefits for businesses. They also note that agricultural businesses, being not apparently negatively impacted by eutrophication, have no incentive to reduce phosphorus and nitrogen losses.
“The impact of marine pollution on the probability of business failure: A case study of the Mar Menor lagoon”, M. Maté-Sanchez-Val & G. Aparicio-Serrano, J. Env. Management 332 (2023) 117381, DOI.

Harmful Algal Blooms in the Mediterranean

Review of data suggests that toxic algae events are not frequent in the Mediterranean Sea whereas algal blooms risk impacting tourism, including with mucilage, water discoloration and anoxia events. Of 140 potentially toxic algae species identified worldwide (UNESCO Moestrup 2009), 84 have been found in the Mediterranean (2 400 records since 1860). Increasing reports of toxic species and harmful algal blooms (HAB) over time are likely related to increasing awareness and monitoring. No trends are shown for increases in toxic algae. Impacts on human health are extremely rare, and on shellfish (toxin accumulation can lead to bans on harvesting) are uncommon except in some local coastal regions of Spain and France. Non-toxic problematic algae blooms, causing mucilage, water discoloration, anoxia (loss of water oxygen, killing fish and other organisms) or other aesthetic deteriorations detrimental to tourism also show no temporal trends for frequency or for bloom algal abundance. Blooms show unpredictable annual changes.

A summary of harmful algal blooms (HABs) in the Adriatic and Ionian regions of the Italian Mediterranean coast, 2012-2019, showed an increasing number of blooms over this period, but with variations. Blooms particularly occurred in coastal zones with multiple human pressures (physical modification of the coast, urban runoff, agricultural runoff)with the strongest link showing to coast modification. No toxic algae events were recorded in this study. See also studies on Adriatic eutrophication in ESPP eNews n°84.
“Toxic marine microalgae and noxious blooms in the Mediterranean Sea: A contribution to the Global HAB Status Report”, A. Zingone et al., Harmful Algae 102 (2021) 101843, DOI.
“Harmful algae and pressure-impact relationship: Noxious blooms and toxic microalgae occurrence from coastal waters of the Apulia region (Adriatic and Ionian Seas, Mediterranean)”, L. Roselli et al., Marine Environmental Research 183 (2023) 105791, DOI.

UNEP event summaries

Management of phosphate fertilisers for sustainable food systems

Webinar jointly organised by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and International Fertilizer Association (IFA), February 2024, with over 260 people attending.

James Lomax, UNEP, opened the webinar underlining the pivotal role of soil heath as an ecological foundation of sustainable food systems. Soils are today facing an unprecedent crisis, with over 40% of Earth’s surface degraded, and topsoil being lost at a very fast annual rate. Healthy soils can reduce the need for fertiliser, regulate water and nutrient cycles, support plants and soil organisms, and filter, break down and immobilise potential pollutants. Prioritising soil health politically can help bridge ideological divides and galvanise joined up actions to achieve environmental agreements and SDGs. On this, UNEP is committed to create changes at the Country level, to interact with decisionmakers in the field of fertilisers to support the transformation of agribusiness, and to encourage farmer led innovations to tailor practices and incentives to meet needs and to scale and accelerate impact on the ground.

Achim Dobermann, IFA, presented global trends in phosphorus use efficiency, based on FAOSTAT Global Reference Database for cropland nutrient balances, a database of country-level budget estimates for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium on cropland, covering 205 countries and territories, for the period from 1961 to 2020. Nutrient use efficiency is calculated as the ratio of outputs (nutrient removed by crops) divided by inputs (phosphorus in seed, fertilisers and manure). On a global perspective, both P inputs to cropland and P removal by crop have increased over the last 60 years (see picture). The average PUE is about 70%, (will probably reach 80% by 2040), and there is still a surplus of about 8 Mt P/y (of which 6 Mt P/y in Asia) ending up in soil, fresh water and marine ecosystems. On the regional level, P balances vary widely. China has made great progress in reducing its P surplus (ca 20 kg/ha in 2020, over 35 kg/ha in 2010) and increasing its PUE (around 60%) thanks to changes in policy, but Brazil and India are not. In Brazil, a period of intensification of agriculture resulted in a large and rising P surplus (ca 20 kg/ha in 2020), with a moderate/low PUE (ca 50%), and similarly in India the PUE has not changed over the last 20 years and has remained low (ca 50%), and the surplus is rising (ca 10 kg/ha in 2020). Soil P mining continues in much of sub-Saharan Africa, where P balance has been negative due to soil mining and soil health degenerating for most part of its modern history, requiring large increases in P inputs (fertilisers and recycled P) for greater food security and improving soil health. In the European Union (EU-27), P surpluses declined over the last 40 years benefitting from soil legacy-P and PUE has increased to an average 70%, with room to improve, although the situation is very different among countries and cropping systems. Finally, in the United States, P surpluses have declined over the last 40 years, reaching today a neutral-negative P range (although some local hotspots are present), and P use efficiency is now hovering about 100%.

Veronica Santoro, ESPP, and Ludwig Herman, ESPP and Proman, presented successful cases of P recycling technologies in Europe, including biosolids (treated sewage sludge) reuse in agriculture, use of P in wastewater to grow biomass (algae, duckweed), P-recovery from liquor streams (struvite precipitation), pyrolysis and hydrothermal carbonisation, P recovery from incineration ashes (to produce calcium phosphates, phosphoric acid, ...), and other technologies under development (vivianite precipitation, ion exchange, adsorption, ...). Theoretical P recycling potential is however very different from the actual recycling capacity. A study by the Joint Research Center of the European Commission identified a potential recovery of about 0.3 Mt P/y to mineral fertilisers, and about 0.3 Mt P/y to organic fertilising products, out of the 1.1 billion t of P consumed in Europe. The currently operating struvite plants in Europe are recovering about 3000 t of P, while the global capacity is about 5000 tons of P. The recovery potential from ash is instead about 50000 t of P with the projects that are currently underway in Europe, while the current recovery is of about 16000 t P. These technologies are still in the beginning of their development, making P recycling only regionally competitive and – apart from ash-derived products - hampered by the current low recovery rates and the fluctuating quality of products, but further development will lead to higher efficiencies and lower costs for implementation.

Vinisa Saynes Santillán, FAO, highlighted that nutrient imbalance is one of the major threats to soil health according to the “Status of the World’s Soil Resources” report by FAO (2015). More than 50% of the global P loss in agriculture is attributable to soil erosion, and the P exported in harvest is not replenished by organic or inorganic fertilisers leading to soil fertility loss. General recommendations to ameliorate nutrient deficiencies in soils and in crops include increasing soil organic matter, promoting crop diversification, use fertilisers in a balanced way, choose sustainable soil management practices according to the national and cultural reality. On the other hand, nutrient overuse and misuse also lead to negative effects, including greenhouse gas emissions, nutrient leaching, toxicity for plants and animals and impacts on soil biodiversity. Planetary boundaries research has shown that both global and regional boundaries for safe operating space of P are exceeded: a paradigm shift is therefore needed to move from current to sustainable agrifood systems, aiming at long-term productivity and minimal environment impact.

A final panel, moderated by Kim Haekoo, FAO, underlined the need of getting the political focus onto the importance of maintaining soil health and incentivise good practices, taking into account local differences and conditions. Many initiatives are now converging to this goal, but more needs to be done to implement the measures and develop capacity at local farm scale to increase nutrient use efficiency and soil health. Regarding the economic feasibility of P recycling, in the case of municipal wastes, implementing P recovery in a wastewater treatment plant has a cost but this is minimum in comparison to the whole wastewater treatment cost. In the case of agricultural residues, the integration of P recycling may result in more expensive food prices, and only technical advancements will allow to recycle nutrients at a lower cost.

The meeting was concluded by Ramesh Ramachandran, GPNM, who stressed the critical role of P management in enhancing soil health, optimising food production and mitigating nutrient losses, and by Patrick Heffer, IFA, who referred to the updated assessment of world phosphate rock reserves and resources, published by IFA in 2023. The study estimated global phosphate rock resources at over 300 billion t (expected to last at least 300 more years), but geologic depletion should not be the only focus: more work must be done on reducing losses during mining and processing of phosphate rock, but increasing recovery and recycling from waste streams and improving P use efficiency at the farm level are pivotal to increase the lifespan and our reliance on these reserves and resources.
“Management of phosphate fertilisers for feeding the world sustainably”, joint UNEP/FAO/IFA webinar 14^th February 2024. Recording and materials are available here.

Launch of UNEP global phosphorus project “uPcycle”

2 million US$ UNEP/GEF* funding for project to bring together global data on phosphorus losses to water and share knowledge on phosphorus (P) management and recycling, with a demonstration study focussed on Lake Villarrica (Mallalafquén), Araucanía Region, Chile. The project is implemented by the United Nations Environment Programmes and executed by the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and the Chilean Ministry of the Environment.

The uPcycle launch webinar, 27^th March 2024, introduced by Will Brownlie and Issy Lewis, UK CEH, and by Natalie Alem Zabalaga, UNEP, with over 60 participants, aimed to present the 2-year project to the global community of phosphorus scientists and stakeholders and to invite them to participate in bringing together databases and information sources on phosphorus and to establish a network for cooperation and exchange. This follows on from the “Our Phosphorus Future” report (coordinated by UK CEH, funded by the UK Research Council NERC and UNEP) and the Helsinki Declaration calling worldwide policymakers for more sustainable phosphorus management (launched at the 3^rd European Sustainable Phosphorus Conference, 500 signatures).

The webinar was opened by Maisa Rojas, Chile’s Minister for the Environment, who announced the aim to go beyond the Biodiversity COP15 global objective to reduce nutrient losses by 50% by 2030 (ESPP eNews n°74) and work towards “net zero phosphorus” **,
Isabelle Vanderbeck and Ning Liu, UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) and Mark Sutton, UK CEH, collectively highlighted the need for action on global sustainable nutrient management. They presented the UNEP’s Global Partnership on Nutrient Management (GPNM) and its Global Wastewater Init iative (GWWI). GPNM provides technical support to the UNEP Working Group on Nitrogen, and promotes knowledge sharing and capacity building on phosphorus and other nutrients. She noted that GPNM is considering re-launching a Phosphorus Work Group (previously launched in 2015, see ESPP SCOPE Newsletter n°115, but disappeared).
Sergio Sairafi Bazán, Chile Ministry for the Environment, summarised eutrophication challenges in Lake Villarica (these are widely documented, see e.g. NASA 2023). The lake is one of the largest in Chile (over 70 km²) and is nearly 170m deep. Its hydrographic basin covers nearly 3 000 km². The lake has important tourism and fishing activities, which are impacted by algal blooms and risk of toxic algae. Water quality standards were fixed in 2013: P_-total 10 µg/l, N_-total200 µg/l, chlorophyll_-a 3 µg/l, but phosphorus levels can be 10 – 50x higher than this (Rodríguez-López et al. 2023, DOI). Nearly half of P reaching the lake is considered today to be from natural runoff, c. 10% from agriculture, c. 5% from sewage, and 40% from aquaculture. The aim of reducing P inputs to the lake by 1/3, considered necessary to achieve water quality standards, will only be possible by reducing and capturing aquaculture P losses.
Stuart Warner, UNEP, summarised the results of the SDG indicator 6.3.2 2023 data drive. This indicator is calculated by national agencies and includes basic physico-chemical quality data (phosphorus, nitrogen, electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH). Information on over 90,000 water bodies was reported in 2023 (including 14 000 lakes). The indicator shows a lack of monitoring in low-income countries. See UNEP’s SDG Water Quality Hub.
Ken Irvine, IHE Delft (Institute for Water Education, UNSECO), presented the UNEP World Water Quality Alliance White Paper Embedding Lakes into the Global Sustainability Agenda (2023 https://wwqa.info/ -> Ecosystems workstream) and the proposal to develop a global coalition for lakes. He noted that a survey shows that stakeholders consider nutrients/eutrophication the first priority for lake ecosystems restoration. Lakes provide worldwide an estimated 3 trillion US$/year ecosystem services, and 20% of this is expected to be lost under a Business As Usual nutrient and pollution scenario.
Dana Cordell, University of Technology Sydney: underlined the inefficiency of the current global phosphorus use chain: P in the food we eat represents only around one fifth of the P in phosphate rock mined (see papers cited ESPP SCOPE Newsletter n°128, 2018)
Genevieve Metson, Western University, Ontario, talked about “towards net zero phosphorus” for cities, with aims to reduce P use (in particular by dietary change), reduce P losses, increase P recycling (back to agricultural lands) and to ensure synergy with climate net zero policies (see Metson et al. 2022, DOI)
Linda May, Issy Lewis, Anna Doeser, Philip Taylor, Helen Coskeran and Bryan Spears, CEH, presented the four components of the uPcycle project: assembling global data on phosphorus losses and impacts on surface water, bringing together existing data sources into a permanent dashboard demonstrating sustainable phosphorus management for Lake Villarrica and Chile, establishing a global community on lake phosphorus management and raising global awareness.

* ENEP/GEF United Nations Environment Programme / Global Environment Facility https://www.unep.org/gef/
** ESPP questioned whether “net zero phosphorus” is meaningful: net zero climate emissions is (theoretically achievable) by compensating inevitable emissions by carbon sinks (CO₂ reaction into minerals or burial, trees, soil carbon storage …). But how can inevitable phosphorus losses be compensated ?
uPcycle project website: https://www.upcyclelakes.org/
“Our Phosphorus Future” report 2022 https://www.opfglobal.com/

Research and innovation

Brabantse Delta Water Board launches ViviMag® LIFE project

Phos4EU LIFE project will test vivianite separation using Kemira’s proprietary technology ViviMag® from sewage sludge at demonstration scale (9 m³/h, treating 50% of the wwtp's 400 000 p.e. capacity) at Nieuwveer wwtp, The Netherlands, In addition, replication projects will take place in Hoensbroek, The Netherlands and Burgos, Spain wwtps operated by Limburg Water Board, and Acciona respectively.. This follows trials with 1 m³/h pilots at Nieuwveer, at Schönebeck Germany (Veolia) and VCS Søndersø Denmark), see ESPP eNews n°82. The LIFE Phos4EU project (4.1 million € EU funding, 6/2023-5/2028), will further test the magnetic vivianite separation technology at near full scale in Nieuwveer and aims to recover up to 60% of total phosphorus in sewage sludge (with enhanced iron dosing). Aquaminerals and STOWA are also partners of the LIFE project and will look at possibilities to valorise the vivianite. The project is supported by Kemira, the owner of the ViviMag® technology as well as Royal HaskoningDHV, the development partner of ViviMag® in The Netherlands.

Brabantse Dela Water Board announcement on LinkedIn 12^th March 2024.
LIFE Phos4EU link.

P-fertilised grassland, Ireland, may release higher CO₂ but lower N₂O

Atmospheric emissions were measured following two applications of N and organic carbon in two temperate grassland long-term field trial areas, after 23 years of zero / low / high phosphate fertilisation. The experiment was conducted on a long term phosphorus field trial site, at Johnstown Castle, Wexford, Ireland, on two contrasting soils both managed as permanent cut grassland. The site plots had received phosphorus rates of 0, 15, 45 kgP/ha/y since 1995. Grass was harvested monthly seven times per year. In Spring 2019, an experiment was conducted to look at the effect of varying phosphorus rates on N₂O emissions under contrasting soil conditions. Plots were fertilised with nitrogen fertiliser (CAN = calcium ammonium nitrate) 40 kgN/ha/application and organic carbon at a rate of 6.3 kg C/day. The organic carbon (glucose, sodium acetate and methanol) was applied to simulate labile carbon in animal excreta. Cumulative carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emission, soil properties, soil microbial biomass and glomalin related soil protein (GRSP) and plant biomass were measured over three months following the first N and C_-org application. Cumulative soil N₂O emissions were significantly higher in the zero-P plot (P application of previous two decades) compared to low or high-P in both soils (zero-P = 1.1 vs high P = 0.6 gN₂O/m²) and were higher in the less well drained soil. CO₂ emissions were in some cases higher with higher P-fertilisation, but not systematically. Based on GRSP, the authors suggest that the higher N₂O emissions could result from increased AMF (arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi) development on roots in soils with low P, as these fungi help plants acquire carbon in P-limited soils (GRSP are related to AMF). This research is being expanded in the EJP Soil Iconica project to investigate the effect of phosphorus on carbon and nitrogen cycling in a number of long term trials across the world.
“Effect of contrasting phosphorus levels on nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions from temperate grassland soils”, A. Gebremichael et al., Nature Scientific Reports, 2022, 12:2602, DOI.
See also: “The effect of carbon availability on N2O emissions is moderated by soil phosphorus”, R. O’Neill et al., Soil Biology and Biochemistry 142 (2020) 107726 DOI, summarised in ESPP SCOPE Newsletter n°137 special issue: Climate Change, Nutrients and Catchment Management.

PFAS could be cause of 0.5 – 4.5% of wastewater treatment GHG emissions

Study of two sewage sludge incinerators reported no targeted PFAS in chimney gas discharged from a fluidised bed furnace, as widely used in Europe, but detectable short-chain fluorine compounds which are greenhouse gases (e.g. CF₄, C₂F₆, C₃F₈). It is assumed that these carbon-fluoride compounds come from decomposition of PFAS* in combustion and not from combination of organic carbon with fluorine present in mineral forms in sewage sludge. The other sludge incinerator, a multiple hearth furnace, showed some chimney gas PFAS emissions (12 µmol). Both incinerators were equipped with wet gas scrubbing, and significant PFAS went to the scrubber water (320 – 340 µmol). No PFAS was reported in bottom ash in the fluidised bed incinerator (the ash in the other incinerator went to the scrubber water). Levels of targeted PFAS in input dewatered sewage sludge were 250 – 1 300 µmol (around 10 -50 ng/gDM), mostly PFOS*, with around half of the 20+ PFAS substances analysed being quantifiably detected. The authors noted that more recent incinerators should have additional flue gas treatment, including activated carbon (to abate mercury emissions), which could reduce PFAS and fluorinated substances in chimney offgas. The authors estimated greenhouse gas emissions (CO₂ equivalent) of the carbon-fluorine compounds in the incinerators’ chimney gases at 0.5 – 2.8 % (fluidised bed furnace) or 0.5% - 4.5% (multiple hearth furnace), expressed as a total of GHG emissions from wastewater treatment for the population generating the input sewage sludge (based on the US EPA greenhouse gas inventory 2023).
* PFAS = perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a wide family of several thousand different chemical substances. PFOS = perfluorooctane sulfonate is one chemical from this family (eight carbon chain = C₈HF₁₅O₂).
“Fate of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) through two full-scale wastewater sludge incinerators”, L. Winchell et al., Water Environ Res. 2024;96:e11009 DOI.

Stay informed & ESPP members

Newsletter about nutrient stewardship - European Sustainable Phosphorus Platform (ESPP)

Please subscribe www.phosphorusplatform.eu/Subscribe
Link to www.phosphorusplatform.eu/eNews084
Download as PDF

ESPP dates 2024

ESPP workshops
Join us: Market policy tools to support pull for recycled nutrients – 13^th March
Join us: Defining targets for nutrient reuse and recycling from waste water – 14^th March
Summary of ESPP workshop on Nitrates Directive and Safemanure / Renure

ESPP members
ESPP new member: TTBS Belgium
SNB announces P-recovery from ash project with SusPhos
ICL commercialises first CE-mark recycled sewage sludge ash fertiliser
Study concludes negligible pathogen risk in ash-recycled calcium phosphate
N2-Applied plasma N-enrichment prevent methane formation in manure

EU consultations and calls
EU public consultation on National Emission Reduction Commitments Directive (NERCD)
EU public consultation on the Nitrates Directive
DG Agriculture call to sign “Soil Manifesto”

Policy
EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR) evaluation and interpretation
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive revision final text published
Critical Raw Materials (CRM) Act adopted by European Parliament
UK water industry Resource Recovery Working Group
German Phosphorus Platform (DPP) regulatory proposals
Federal Environment Agency joins German “Clean Phosphorus 2029” initiative
ESPP founding participant of circular feed platform
BlueBio Policy Brief: waste to resource

Event summaries
Regulatory barriers to aquaculture and marine Circular Economy
Fertilizers Europe Forum on Plant Nutrition

Research and innovation
Phosphorus and nitrogen losses, climate change, impacts on Adriatic eutrophication
Climate change will deteriorate eutrophication of Mediterranean river Júcar, Spain
P fertilisation improves water use efficiency (WUE) in Mediterranean tree-grass system

Stay informed

ESPP members

ESPP dates 2024

13-14 March 2024: Brussels & online ESPP workshops on Nutrient recycling policy
- 13^th March: market policy tools to support pull for recycled nutrients (optional networking dinner)
- 14^th March: targets for nutrient recovery under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive revision
16-17 April 2024: Brussels & online NERM Nutrients in Europe Research Meeting
(with Fertimanure, Lex4Bio, Walnut, Sea2Land, Rustica)
8-10 October 2024: Lleida, Spain ESPC5 (5^th European Sustainable Phosphorus Conference)

ESPP workshops

Join us: Market policy tools to support pull for recycled nutrients – 13^th March

Identifying policy tools to support market pull for recycled nutrients, which could achieve consensus across industry and users. Speakers from waste and water industries, fertiliser industries, circular economy policy experts. Proposals to be discussed will include targets, quotas, border tariffs, recycling credits, fiscal incentives, public purchasing, labelling … Industry and user positions can differ: The meeting aims to identify policies which could achieve consensus across recycled product producers (waste companies, recycling technology suppliers), industry and users (fertilisers industries, distributers, farmers), and to discuss ESPP proposals to submit to policy makers.
13^th March Brussels & online. Registration is open www.phosphorusplatform.eu/nutrientevents2024

Join us: Defining targets for nutrient reuse and recycling from waste water – 14^th March

The proposed UWWTD revision text (art. 20) states: “The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts … setting out the minimum reuse and recycling rates for phosphorus and nitrogen”, see eNews n°80. This workshop will define ESPP proposals for these targets: How to define “reuse” and “recycling” ? What % rate? What criteria for products ? What rates for different sizes waste water treatment works or type of sewage treatment ? …
14^th March: Brussels & online. Registration is open www.phosphorusplatform.eu/nutrientevents2024
To present your ideas in Brussels, 14^th March, contact .

Summary of ESPP workshop on Nitrates Directive and Safemanure / Renure

Over 100 online participants discussed evaluation of the Nitrates Directive and proposals for facilitating recycling of manure nutrients in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. The aim was to develop ESPP input to the currently open EU public consultation to 8^th March on the evaluation of the Nitrates Directive. The discussion showed a range of differing opinions of participants concerning the objectives of the Nitrates Directive, its implementation, changes needed, and concerning limits to use of manure-recovered nutrients:

What is the objective of the Nitrates Directive? To reduce eutrophication of surface water ? To limit nitrates in groundwater for health reasons ? To limit concentration of livestock production and regional nutrient excesses ?
Should the Nitrates Directive also address phosphorus ? This would add complexity and duplicate the obligation to engage actions to achieve water Quality Status under the Water Framework Directive. On the other hand, it would be coherent with addressing eutrophication, with the Green Deal / COP15 target to reduce nutrient losses by 50%, and phosphorus is already included in some Nitrates Directive national/regional Action Plans for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs).
How to better take into account nitrogen use efficiency in limiting manure and fertiliser application under the Directive, whilst ensuring clear and enforceable requirements ? The Directive already includes mandatory implementation of a Code of Good Agricultural Practice including farm fertiliser plans (art. 5.4, art. 4 and Annex II, in NVZs).
Is the limit to 170 kgN/ha/year for use of manure in NVZs justified - including manure in a “processed form” ? This limit represents a significant obstacle to nutrient circularity, creating an unlevel playing field compared to synthetic fertilisers, and market obstacles. There is no agronomic justification for treating digestate / compost from manure differently than from that from e.g. food-waste. How to take into account the importance of returning organic carbon to soil ? Is this limit needed given that Annex III (3) of the Directive also specifies that NVZ Action Plans must limit application of all fertilisers, based on balancing crop needs and nitrogen supply ? Or is this limit somehow an ‘indirect’ way of limiting livestock density ?
Under what conditions should manure-recovered nitrogen (recycled nutrient products) be exempted from this 170 kgN/ha/y limit ? The JRC Renure report 2020, based on an agronomic science assessment, has not received unanimous support, and has not progressed towards implementation to date. This JRC report suggests as criteria: TOC:TN ratio ≤ 3 or a mineral N:TN ratio ≥ 90%, with such materials remaining subject to specific management and use constraints to be fixed for each NVZ. ESPP notes that these criteria penalise organic carbon input to soil, do not take account of the stability in soil of the TOC (total organic carbon), and would cover materials such as 90% raw manure spiked with 10% urea (impossible to detect by administrative control testing), some raw manures and also most liquid fractions of manures.

Given the widely ranging opinions expressed, ESPP will:

In the EU public consultation, underline that this is a consultation on the questions to be considered in an evaluation of the Nitrates Directive, not on how to modify the Directive. ESPP will suggest that evaluation questions include:
- Should phosphorus be included into the Directive, given the impacts of agricultural phosphorus losses on eutrophication, and if so how ? Or is this unnecessary given limits to phosphorus losses implied by Water Framework Directive quality status obligations ?
- Should the Directive be widened to cover atmospheric emissions of N pollutants N₂O, NO_x, ammonia (currently art. 1 limits to water pollution) ?
- How should soil organic carbon be taken into account ?
- Should the Directive specifically address livestock concentration and resulting regional nutrient misbalances ?
- Need to update knowledge on eutrophication and health impacts of nitrates ?
- How to better take into account Nitrogen Use Efficiency and organic nitrogen storage in soil ?
- How to prevent the 170 kgN/ha/y limit from inhibiting nutrient recycling, but ensure environmental protection ?
- The JRC Renure report proposals are scientifically justified, but are they consistent with the Nitrates Directive objectives, the need to reduce regional nutrient misbalances, the Green Deal / COP15 target to reduce nutrient loses by 50% ?
- How to better harmonise implementation, monitoring, definitions across Member States, in order to facilitate European transfer of knowledge and technologies ?
Propose that manure-recovered nutrient products which are “Mineral Fertilisers” should be not considered manure “in a processed form” : Mineral Fertiliser: as defined in the EU Fertilising Products Regulation Annex III part II, that is < 1% organic carbon. ESPP will request a lawyer’s opinion on whether the current Nitrates Directive text could be interpreted to enable this without modification of the Directive text.

Public consultation on evaluation of the EU Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC). Open to 8^th March 2024. HERE
ESPP proposed consultation input, proposals on manure-recycled nutrient: www.phosphorusplatform.eu/regulatory

ESPP members

ESPP new member: TTBS Belgium

TTBS

TTBS is a Belgian company focused on phosphate technology and located in Wavre (Belgium), founded by Mohamed Takhim who has over 25 years’ experience as a phosphate industry process developer and industrial project manager. The objective of TTBS is to supply the phosphate market with efficient technical and business solutions. TTBS has developed a new patented process RubiPhos® for phosphate recovery, currently being pilot tested (12.5 kg/h input) with sewage sludge incineration ash, using digestion by hydrochloric or sulfuric acid. The company indicates that the technology can also be applied to other P-sources (vivianite, struvite, meal bones ashes, …). Together with its partners, TTBS can supply a complete plug-and-play production unit for phosphoric acid and/or its salt derivatives. TTBS can install its mobile P-recovery pilot onsite, to generate data for the design and supply of an industrial full-scale P-recovery unit.
TTBS - Takhim for Technology and Business Services - https://ttbs.be - Photo TTBS 2-container mobile pilot P-recovery unit.

SNB announces P-recovery from ash project with SusPhos

SNB

Slibverwerking Noord-Brabant (SNB, an ESPP member) has announced a contract with startup SusPhos to design and plan phosphorus recovery from sewage sludge incineration ash at Moerdijk, The Netherlands. SNB is Europe’s largest sewage sludge mono-incinerator, burning 410 000 - 430 000 t/y of dewatered sewage sludge (> 90 000 t/y DM).The contract with SusPhos, following a European tender, aims to design a full-scale P-recovery from ash plant, establish the business plan and define cooperation with SusPhos within one year, allowing a decision on investment in a full-scale plant to then be taken. The objective is for the full-scale plant to be operational by 2027. SusPhos is presented as a robust process: sulphuric acid is reacted with the ash (similar to existing industry Single Super Phosphate type processes) then a proprietary solvent is used to extract ESPP eNews n°84 March 2024 Published by the European Sustainable Phosphorus Platform (ESPP) www.phosphorusplatform.eu Page 4 phosphoric acid. Purified phosphoric acid can then be stripped out of the solvent, or reacted to phosphate chemicals which can be separated from the solvent. The solvent is then recycled back to the process. The SusPhos solvent extraction leaves a residual mineral stream, containing gypsum (calcium sulphate from the sulphuric acid reaction), sand from silicates in ash, aluminium and iron. Heavy metals in the sewage sludge (copper, lead …) are 95% removed from the phosphoric acid and immobilised in the residual mineral stream. Susphos intends that this mineral stream can be valorised in e.g. building materials. This SusPhos technology has to date been tested at pilot scale: a 25 kg/day pilot plant has been operated for over 2 years using various ashes and other phosphate rich waste streams. SNB Managing Director, Silvester Bombeeck, says “'This all fits with our circular vision and mission to recover raw materials from sewage sludge”.
“SNB and SusPhos join forces to recover phosphate in a circular way”, 27^th February 2024, HERE.

ICL commercialises first CE-mark recycled sewage sludge ash fertiliser

ICL Fertilizers (ESPP member), has launched the first fertiliser recovered from sewage sludge incineration ash to have obtained the CE-mark (EU Fertilising Products Regulation FPR certified). REACH declaration (EU chemicals regulation) and FPR Conformity Assessment (Module D1) were successfully completed in 2023. A first batch of over a thousand tonnes has been produced and commercialised at ICL’s existing phosphate rock processing plant in Amsterdam, using ash supplied by Netherlands sewage sludge incinerators, with further production planned. The product is based on acidulation then granulation of ash, with or without other nutrients.. ICL’s German production site in Ludwigshafen will also start this new process in coming months. ICL notes that the recycled fertiliser has specific characteristics different from synthetic mineral fertilisers, achieves EU FPR phosphorus crop availability criteria (>80% NAC solubility of P) and has shown good results in agronomic trials. The sewage sludge ash offers advantages over phosphate rock (no cadmium, no fluorine, no odour) but requires specific adaptations to the industrial chemistry, processes and handling, necessitating significant R&D and specific installations. Recycling is a strategic objective for ICL Fertilizers and the company now aims to progressively increase production.
https://www.icl-group.com/

Study concludes negligible pathogen risk in ash-recycled calcium phosphate

Assessment by the Swedish National Veterinary Authority (SVA) concludes that pathogen risk is negligible in calcium phosphates recovered from sewage sludge incineration ash by the EasyMining Ash2Phos process (ESPP member). The study assessed the risk of pathogens (probability of presence of infectious pathogens) in the recycled phosphate product, based on risk in sewage sludge and reduction of pathogen infectivity in the different processing stages: sewage treatment, sludge incineration, Ash2Phos processing (which uses sequential precipitation: acid, alkali, filtration, lime). The SVA study concludes “There is a clear scientific basis to support that no bacteria, viruses or parasites can survive the incineration step, making sewage sludge ash a safe substrate in terms of these pathogens”. The study further concludes “The overall probability that phosphorus recovered from sewage sludge using the Ash2Phos process contains infectious prions was also assessed to be negligible”. This results from the negligible/very low prevalence of TSE (transmissible spongiform encephalitis) in Europe and evidence that both incineration and the Ash2Phos process steps can significantly reduce prion infectivity. Knowledge gaps are noted concerning prions in sewage/sludge, inactivation of prions in incineration and effects on prions of sequential acid/alkali. The study concludes overall that, assuming operating procedures are appropriately respected, that “the probability that phosphorus recovered from sewage sludge ashes using the Ash2Phos process contains infectious animal pathogens is assessed to be negligible”. Trials with chickens and pigs have shown that the Ash2Phos recovered phosphate is digestible, safe and performs as well as commercial animal feed phosphates (see ESPP eNews n°82).
“Negligible risk of pathogens in our recycled phosphate”, EasyMining 10^th January 2024 here and SVA Risk Assessment Report “Assessment of the risk for pathogens in phosphorus recovered from sewage sludge ash”, Sweden National Veterinary Institute, SVA report 92:2023, ISSN 1654-7098 here.

N2-Applied plasma N-enrichment prevent methane formation in manure

A three-year trial at Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU) shows that the N2-Applied process prevents methane formation without accentuating NO_xor ammonia emissions. The study compared methane production in four closed 2 m³ tanks of manure over 70-80 days in three summers. Two tanks contained raw cattle manure (after screw press filtration) and two contained N2-Applied plasma treated manure (nitrogen enriched, NEO). The untreated manure generated 60 – 1500 gCH₄/m³ (cumulative after 70 days), whereas the NEO treated manure showed slight net methane uptake (0 – 0.3 gCH₄/m³). Laboratory studies of methane production from manure showed that neither the pH decrease, nor the increase in nitrate or nitrite, nor combination of these, could explain the complete inhibition of methane production achieved by the N2-Applied process, suggesting that it is the elimination of methanogenic bacteria by the plasma treatment which is the key factor.
“Complete elimination of methane formation in stored livestock manure using plasma technology”, M. Nyvold, P. Dörsch, 2023, DOI.

EU consultations and calls

EU public consultation on National Emission Reduction Commitments Directive (NERCD)

Consultation on EU Directive limiting emissions of ammonia, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, particulates and (non methane) volatile organic carbons (VOC). Open to 14^th March. Organisations and individuals are invited to submit evidence and comments.

ESPP will underline that announced evaluation of this Directive should address recovery/recycling of nitrogen and sulphur (coherence with EU Circular Economy policy). ESPP suggests that this Directive is important in limiting emissions of the five targeted pollutant gases across Europe, and is necessary to achieve EU reduction targets, to avoid transboundary pollution and to ensure a level playing field across Europe for concerned activities. ESPP suggests that NERCD should, for coherence, also cover the climate gases N₂O and methane, for which emissions can be related to NO_x and NH₃ emissions (e.g. livestock, digestates). Coherence should be ensured with revision of the Industrial Emissions Directive, which increases emphasis on material efficiency and reuse. NERCD emissions limits should ensure protection from eutrophication of sensitive terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Habitats Directive, Water Framework Directive, Nitrates Directive) and also impacts on soil (proposed Directive on Soil Monitoring and Resilience) and should be supported by EU agriculture policy (CAP farm funding and CAP National Action Plans) and Nitrates Directive NVZ Action Programmes.
EU public consultation “National Emission Reduction Commitments Directive – evaluation”, open to 14^th March 2024, input 4000 characters plain text plus possibility to submit pdf documents here.

EU public consultation on the Nitrates Directive

Consultation for evaluation of the Nitrates Directive. Open to 8^th March. See ESPP eNews n°81 and also above.
“The protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources – Evaluation”, public consultation preparatory to evaluation of the EU Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) and Call for Evidence. Input requested from the public, farmers, stakeholders. Open to 8^th March 2024. In all EU languages. HERE

DG Agriculture call to sign “Soil Manifesto”

European Commission call for signatures for a “Soil Manifesto”, recognising the need to protect and restore soils, current soil degradation, support the Soil R&D Mission objectives and commit to soil protection and awareness actions. The Soil Manifesto was launched by the European Commission and the European Regions Research and Innovation Network (ERRIN) in April 2023, has today over 2 600 signatures, and remains open for signatures. Signatories recognise the importance of soil for food and for environmental and social functions as “the basis of our well-being”, recognise that more than 60% of EU soils are in an unhealthy state and that pressure will increase with climate change, call to embed soil protection and restoration in all human activities, support the Soil R&D Mission goal to establish 100 test-demonstration sites (“living labs”, “lighthouses”) and commit to contribute to the protection and restoration of soil, to raise awareness and to enlarge the active community.
“The EU Mission Soil launches its Manifesto”, April 2023, link. “Update on the Mission Soil Manifesto” European Commission, 28 February 2024, here. Sign the Manifesto here.

Policy

EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR) evaluation and interpretation

The next EU Fertilisers Expert Group is fixed 15-16 April. ESPP will participate. So if you have points you consider should be taken into account in the FAQ regulation guidance or aspects to consider in the upcoming regulation evaluation: please email us ASAP (before end March latest). The existing FAQ is HERE (Frequently Asked Questions = in effect, FPR guidance). Please indicate interpretation or implementation questions which are NOT already addressed or are not resolved in this existing FAQ, if possible with real case examples. The evaluation of the FPR will be launched by the European Commission in coming months, as required in art. 49 of the Regulation, with the aim of identifying if certain aspects of the Regulatory text should be modified. Please indicate aspects of the Regulation which you suggest should be evaluated, other than points already specified in art. 49 (contaminants including cadmium and uranium, functioning of the internal market, conformity assessment, market surveillance, optional harmonisation) and other than specifications and materials in CMCs and biostimulants (studies already underway, see ESPP eNews n°81).
EU Fertilisers Expert Group documents (CIRCABC public) HERE.

Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive revision final text published

Final text validated by Council specifies that EU “combined reuse and recycling rates” for P from sewage and sludge will be fixed within 3 years, and a feasibility study on N reuse and recovery will be engaged. The P reuse & recycling rates requirements are detailed in art. 20: these rates should take into account technical and economic viability, P content of sludge, other organic P sources on national markets, impacts on health and the environment. The N reuse & recycling study is specified in art. 30.This final text now goes to the European Parliament for endorsement and then legal verification before publication. The revised Directive also tightens sewage works discharge limits for P and N, requires that urban wastewater systems achieve “energy neutrality” (without increasing methane or nitrous oxide emissions, preamble 16), quaternary treatment (end-of-pipe removal of organic contaminants), extended producer responsibility to cover costs of this 4^ry treatment (for pharmaceuticals and cosmetics only, extension to industrial chemicals to be studied), promotes water use, microplastic measurement methodology, “integrated urban wastewater management plans”, and specifies new definitions (e.g. of “sludge”). For details, see summary of the Commission’s initial proposal in ESPP eNews n°74. ESPP will provide a full summary of the final text when it is promulgated in the EU Official Journal.

ESPP will start work defining consensus proposals for defining these new “combined reuse and recycling rates” for phosphorus (from sewage and sewage sludge) at our meeting of 14^th March (Brussels & online – register now): what % rates from different sewage works (size, configuration), definitions of “reuse” and “recycling”, requirements for recovered materials (quality, safety, plant P availability …).
Final validated compromise text for revised Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 1st March 2024 HERE.
Working meeting, defining “combined reuse and recycling rates” for phosphorus from municipal waste water, 14^th March (Brussels & online) http://www.phosphorusplatform.eu/nutrientevents2024

Critical Raw Materials (CRM) Act adopted by European Parliament

European Parliament plenary has validated the CRM final text, following ‘trilogue’ finalisation, and pending final formal validation by Council. “Phosphate rock” and “Phosphorus” (meaning P₄ ) are in the Critical Raw Materials List, but not in the “Strategic” sub-list.

ESPP considers that this Act should support phosphorus stewardship and recycling by requiring monitoring, inciting national circularity measures and facilitating permitting of recycling projects. ESPP regrets that P₄ is not included in the “Strategic” sub-list despite being essential for the specified “strategic” industry sectors (renewable energy, e.g. solar panels; batteries; data and electronics fire safety) and despite the EU’s 100% dependency on supply from three countries (China, Vietnam, Kazakhstan) – see joint industry declaration.

The finalised text adjusts the initial Commission proposal (see ESPP eNews n°74) by underlining materials efficiency and recycling of CRMs in art.1. The original text is also modified (art. 4.1) to specify that a CRM “at any stage of processing and when occurring as a by-product of other extraction, processing or recycling processes, be considered critical raw materials”. The interpretation of this for “Phosphate rock” could be interesting (!).

Many points of the Act address “Strategic” raw materials only (not all CRMs) – in particular definition of recycling objectives, possibilities for “Strategic Projects”. However, the following concern all CRMs:

Art. 5.2: “incentivise technological progress and resource efficiency” of CRMs,
Art. 9 and art. 2.16, 2.20 (definitions): Member States must establish “Points of Single Contact” (can be more than one!) to facilitate and coordinate permitting of installations for extraction, processing or recycling of CRMs,
Art. 13, art. 18: certain CRM project planning simplifications,
Art. 19: national exploration programmes for CRM resources,
Art. 20: EU monitoring of CRM supply risks and stress testing,
Art. 21: identification and monitoring of key CRM value chain operators,
Art. 26.1: national programmes for circularity of CRMs, including incentivising resource and materials efficiency, “collection, sorting and processing of waste with high critical raw materials recovery potential …” and “increase the use of secondary critical raw materials including through measures such as taking recycled content into account in award criteria related to public procurement or financial incentives for the use of secondary critical raw materials”, “increase the technological maturity of recycling technologies”, “support the use of Union quality standards for recycling processes of waste streams containing critical raw materials”, workforce upskilling …
Art. 26.7: The Commission will define a “list of products … and waste streams … considered as having a relevant critical raw materials recovery potential”,
Art. 30 and art. 31: possible sustainability certification and environmental footprint schemes for CRMs.

The above are ESPP’s understanding of the amended text published by the European Parliament and remain to be confirmed when the final Act is published.
European Parliament “Consolidated legislative document” EP-PE_TC1-COD(2023)0079 12^th December 2023

UK water industry Resource Recovery Working Group

The third meeting (12^th January 2024) of this informal UK group, led by Thames Water, discussed actions needed to develop markets for resources recovered from wastewater, with six UK water companies, waste/water engineering companies, the fertilisers industry, researchers and regulators.

User drivers for resource recovery were discussed. Leading food companies and fertiliser producers are looking to reduce carbon footprint, and recycling nutrients may contribute to this. Industry will drive interest in recovered resources as companies seek sustainable feedstocks to reduce supply chain greenhouse gas emissions, rather than agriculture itself. Discussions suggested that market forces alone are unlikely to deliver sufficiently rapid change: intervention and collaboration across the value chain are needed.

Joe Gilbertson, UK Agricultural Industries Confederation, explained that the UK is updating its (1991) fertilisers regulations, probably towards a matrix aligned with the EU Fertilising Products Regulation. Fertiliser blenders and companies manufacturing compound and liquid fertilisers in the UK can integrate recycled nutrient materials into their products. Recycled phosphates with low cadmium would be welcome. Sulphur is today needed in fertilisers, because no longer provided by atmospheric sulphur dioxide pollution (‘acid rain’). A challenge to uptake of recycled nutrient materials is perception of possible risks in wastes, with possible unknown contaminants and fear of contamination the food chain. Price is also important. She underlined that food processors, retailers and the public will determine demand for recycled nutrients, irrespective of fertiliser industry or government wishes.

Discussion underlined the need for dialogue between the fertiliser industry - distributors and waste - wastewater companies, on how to deliver nutrients in a form useful to industry, and on quality and safety. A key challenge is scale and logistics. Recycled nutrients are available in small, diffuse quantities. In the short term, an answer is to target recycled products to niche markets, but the longer aim should be to generalise nutrient recycling to deliver a significant proportion of fertiliser nutrient needs.

Nutrient platforms can enable dialogue, between waste and user industries, and with researchers. An important role of platforms is on policy and regulation. Other tools are needed to directly develop markets, ranging from industry joint ventures to take recycled materials to market (e.g. AquaMinerals Netherlands) to market matchmaking apps and websites.

The UK water industry Resource Recovery
Working Group is open to participation of all concerned companies and competent persons. Contact: Robert Naylor

German Phosphorus Platform (DPP) regulatory proposals

DPP’s January 2024 ‘Political Memorandum’ calls for changes to German national fertiliser regulations, to ensure coherence and facilitate phosphorus recycling from sewage. This 2024 DPP Memorandum follows from, and updates, the DPP’s 2020 Memorandum (see ESPP eNews n°49). DPP reminds that Europe is largely dependent on imports for phosphorus, which is essential for food production, and increasingly for batteries and electromobility and calls for a national phosphorus circular economy strategy. German legislation (Sewage Sludge Ordinance 2017 AbfKlärV, see ESPP SCOPE Newsletter n°129) requires phosphorus recovery from sewage sludge from 2029 (except for small sewage works < 50 000 p.e. where sludge may be used in agriculture, and with a transitional delay to 2032 for sewage works < 100 000 p.e.). DPP requests adjustments of German regulations to enable implementation of this:

The current German fertiliser regulation (DüMV) currently specifies that only sewage sludge compatible with national criteria for agricultural valorisation (AbfKlärV) can be used as an input material for production of recovered phosphate fertilisers. This should not apply, for organic contaminants, in P-recycling processes which ensure elimination of these (e.g. incineration) subject to respecting fertiliser regulation heavy contaminant limits in the final product. The DüMV fertiliser regulation also specifies that only sewage sludge / ash respecting the DüMV fertiliser contaminant limits can be used as input material: this excludes P-recycling routes which simply dilute contaminants by combining with other materials, but it also excludes processes which remove or eliminate contaminants in order to achieve fertiliser contaminant limits.
AbfKlärV (see ESPP SCOPE Newsletter n°129) currently requires phosphorus recovery ensuring reduction of sludge P-content by at least 50%, or reduction of sludge P content to < 2 %P/DM, or recovery of at least 80% of P from sewage sludge incineration ash. DPP requests clarification of how these requirements should be verified (e.g. P-flow balances: P-input, P-output, P in recovered product).
Phosphate solubility requirements in recovered fertilisers: DüMV requires at least 2.5% solubility in water of P_total, 5% in NAC (neutral ammonium citrate-soluble) and 2% in mineral acid-soluble phosphate (it is unclear how these three different criteria fit together). DPP propose to modify this to 60% solubility (of P_total) in NAC or 60% solubility in 2% citric acid. This differs from the EU Fertilising Product Regulation (FPR) which requires 40% solubility in water or 75% in NAC.
End-of-waste status. Unlike under the EU FPR, the German national fertiliser regulation DüMV does not automatically confer end-of-waste status to fertilisers recovered from sewage. DPP requests clarification of this.
DPP underlines the need for stable and appropriate support for phosphorus recovery, without which the German regulatory AbfKlärV 2029 deadline will not be met. Current municipal sewage management tenders often cover periods too short for investment in recovery installations. Currently not all federal states have the option of including P recovery in the wastewater fee before 2029. DPP requests application, as of today, of the “polluter pays” principle to ensure adequate funding of phosphorus recovery, with a national cost approach (most sewage phosphorus comes from human excreta).
DPP proposes a review of policies to pull market uptake of recycled phosphates:
- a quota for recycled phosphates in fertilisers (related to distributor sales),
- pricing of environmental costs (externalities),
- taxation, e.g. of resource consumption,
- support for early starter municipalities, for example through an incentive system,
- financial benefit / penalty for municipalities implementing / not implementing phosphorus recovery.

“Politikmemorandum zur Phosphorrückgewinnung 2023/2024 der Deutschen phosphor-Plattform DPP”, 31^st January 2024 HERE.

Federal Environment Agency joins German “Clean Phosphorus 2029” initiative

This initiative, launched June 2022, aims to achieve the German regulatory P-recovery obligations with processes which explicitly remove contaminants and produce clean, marketable phosphorus products. The initiative currently brings together Gelsenwasser (waste and water utility employing 6 400 people - group), Ragn-Sells EasyMining (ESPP member), Remondis, MSE Mobile, Parforce, and several other sewage services, recycling and lime companies. The initiative promotes seven points for phosphorus recovery processes: achieve the P-recovery requirements of the German Sewage Sludge Ordinance AbfKlärV (see ESPP SCOPE Newsletter n°129), not accumulate pollutants to agriculture, remove pollutants present in input materials, produce clean and marketable phosphorus products of quality irrespective of composition and pollutant load of input material, separate and recover other materials where possible and not only phosphorus. The Federal Environment Agency (UBA) is also a member of the German Phosphorus Platform (DPP), as is the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (BAFU) and several German Land (regional) authorities.
“Umweltbundesamt schließt sich der Initiative Sauberer Phosphor 2029 an” (the Federal Environment Agency joins the Clean Phosphorus 2029 Initiative)., Gelsenwasser, 1^st March 2024, HERE and “Sauberer Phosphor”, seven point outline for P-recovery processes, EasyMining, 2 June 2022 HERE.

ESPP founding participant of circular feed platform

New initiative, led by FEFAC (animal feed industry federation), will bring industry organisations together to develop circularity in animal feed. Discussions are underway with industry federations in chemicals, animal by products and several food and bio-based materials processing sectors. Aims could include a mapping to identify and quantify secondary materials with potential as animal feed inputs (which are not currently being used), analysis of these resources (safety questions, nutrient digestibility, transport distances and logistics, food versus feed status, waste hierarchy, land use), supporting different sectoral organisations’ proposals for feed circularity within an overall strategy, possible definition of principles for feed circularity, analysis of regulatory and other obstacles, proposals to EU decision makers.
Industry federations and sectoral organisations wishing to engage with the proposed feed circularity platform should contact ESPP .

BlueBio Policy Brief: waste to resource

Policy Brief identifies three areas of regulatory barriers to circularity in the blue economy, including barriers to nutrient recycling from aquaculture sludge and by use of algae to treat wastewaters. The Policy Brief, from the Blue Bio Cofund (an initiative of the R&D platform JPI Oceans and the EU-funded R&D network Horizon2020 ERA-NET Cofund) accompanying the European Parliament event summarised below identifies:

Regulatory complexity for use of algae in human food, animal feed and health products:
Cost and time needed for authorisations under the Novel Food 2015/2283, Animal Nutrition 1831/2003 and Animal Feed Hygiene 183/2005 Regulations
Varying heavy metal limits between different EU Member States for food / food ingredient uses
Process for validating nutrition and health claims under 1924/2006, 432/201
Lack of European legislation concerning algae cultivation, leading to delays and uncertainties in production site licensing.
Moving from “waste to resource” for fisheries and aquaculture:
Need to revisit the outdated Animal By-Product Regulations, in particular to resolve the current exclusion of fish excrement (and so fish aquaculture slurry) from the definition of manure
Clarify the exclusions of wastewaters and manures from animal feeds (767/2009), irrespective of processing, subject to fully ensuring food chain safety
Assess food chain safety risks for the use of aquaculture sludge as input for production of insects or aquatic invertebrates for use as animal feed (request an EFSA Opinion)

BlueBio “Policy Brief On identified regulatory barriers to more circularity in the blue bioeconomy”, 5 pages, January 2024, https://bluebioeconomy.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/BlueBio-policy-brief-Jan-2024.pdf

Event summaries

Regulatory barriers to aquaculture and marine Circular Economy

European Parliament meeting underlines the need to better identify and address obstacles to nutrient recycling from fish slurry, aquaculture and in algae production. The meeting had 43 participants in Brussels and 75 online and was organised by BlueBio Era-Net, with Clara Aguilera and Catherine Chabaud, MEPs.

Alex Obach, European Aquaculture Technology and Innovation Platform and FEFAC (animal feed industry federation), underlined that EU aquaculture is one of the most sustainable in the world. 40% of today’s fish meal used in aquaculture feed comes from marine food production co-products and over half of the ingredients used are co-products of marine, vegetable and animal origin (e.g. from maize or soja processing). However, 70% of aquaculture food products consumed in the EU are imported, resulting in a 25 billion € trade deficit. Regulation needs to ensure both safety and flexibility to allow innovation in the EU to support a sustainable and ambitious growth of the industry. Market policies and promotions campaigns of aquatic products are also essential. Furthermore, it should be stressed that the EU leads globally in terms of the development of aquaculture technology and innovation across the value chain, putting the EU at a competitive advantage in terms of RTDI transfer.

Anne Mette Baek, EFFOP (European Fishmeal and Oil Producers Federation), noted regulatory obstacles to producing food-grade products and processing animal by-products on the same site, which is however important for industry efficiency and integration. The 2009 Animal By-Product Regulation needs to be revisited to address the circular economy and food sustainability, whilst continuing to ensure safety, in today’s context.

Ingeborg Korme, BlueBio Era-Net, underlined that EU-funded R&D projects on aquaculture conclude that regulatory obstacles are important and are limiting innovation, investment and development of aquaculture in Europe, both concerning input of aquaculture products into applications such as animal feed, and concerning recycling of nutrients.

Ann-Cecilie Hansen, Norwegian Food Safety Authority. Norway uses around 2 million tonnes/year of fish feed for salmon aquaculture. The government has launched a mission into sustainable fish feed. Fish slurry from aquaculture, which contains mainly fish excrement and unconsumed feed, is authorised for use in fertilisers in Norway under national regulations, but is currently excluded from the EU Fertilising Products Regulation – but this is currently being studied. Challenges for recycling of fish sludge to agriculture include food-chain and environmental safety: heavy metals (zinc, copper, cadmium), organic contaminants (such as plant protection chemicals and pharmaceuticals), pathogens. Processing can ensure hygienisation and drying, which is important for transport from coastal to arable regions. Another possible route for valorisation is as food for insect farming, possibly for feed production, but this poses the risk of recirculating pathogens and contaminants. This route is currently excluded by feed regulations and requires more research into safety.

Oana Parvulescu, NUST Polytechnic Bucharest, summarised work on aquaculture and marine harvesting circularity. Fish processing wastes (heads, bones …) and aquaculture sludge (fish slurry) are both rich in nutrients and offer valuable potential as inputs to agriculture, as fertilisers and biostimulants. However, their use is currently blocked by EU regulations as fish excreta are not animal by-products under the Animal By-Product Regulation (2009/1069, art. 3.20), so are not considered in the EU Fertilising Products Regulation. There are also obstacles in the EU Organic Farming regulations.

Panagiotis Kougias, Hellenic Agriculture Organisation, noted the challenges facing use of food processing wastewaters to produce (micro)algae for applications such as cosmetics or human foods. Data is needed to prove safety. Barriers include the absence of regulatory standards, leading to lack of clarity and predictability for investment.

Kerstin Kuchta, Hamburg University of Technology, also indicated the complexity of the regulatory context. For example, if mixed algal biomass is cultivated, authorisation is difficult in product regulations which are based on individual algae species.

Efthalia Arvaniti, SUBMARINER Network, showed some Seamark project results concluding that the costs of obtaining approval for health and nutrition claims are an obstacle to marketing new algae-based products, highlighting that while the commercial communication of non-authorised health claims is not possible in the EU, this is allowed in US and Japan, where qualified health claims supported by a less demanding level of scientific evidence, are allowed to be communicated to the consumers. Furthermore, Seamark concluded that the EU has more demanding harmful contaminant limits than in equivalents in US or Japan. The Seamark report “Assessment of EU regulatory landscape in a global context” will be published in April at the Seamark project website here: https://seamark.eu

Lorella De La Cruz Iglesias, European Commission DG MARE (Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) explained that the Commission is working with stakeholders and industry to identify regulatory obstacles and bring the Circular Economy into MARE strategies. The Strategic Guidelines for EU Aquaculture adopted in 2021 and the EU Algae Initiative adopted in 2022 look into circularity approaches and cover many of the issues presented by participants in the event. She noted the importance to keep a connection/dialogue between researchers and innovators (especially those part of EU-funded projects) and policy makers in order to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that EU policy and regulation is adaptable to future societal and technological developments, whilst continuing to ensure high levels of safety and consumer confidence. This is the approach followed in the implementation of both the EU Aquaculture Strategic Guidelines and the EU Algae Initiative.

Paolo Caricato, European Commission DG SANTE, also underlined the importance of cooperation and communication with stakeholders. The Commission fully understands that current EU regulations may pose barriers, but at present no Member States are pressing for changes. The political input of Member States is fundamental at this regard.

Round table conclusions noted that the EU is a world leader in research and innovation, and in aquaculture sustainability. There is need to improve coordination between researchers, industry and regulators, to promote implementation. R&D projects are today asked to deliver policy recommendations. A key question is to define policies to support market pull for the circular blue economy.

Catherine Chabaud, MEP, underlined the need for a Blue Deal within the Green Deal, and that algae are a key link between the marine economy and Green Deal (circular economy).

Clara Aguilera, MEP, indicated that implementation of the Green Deal is not yet today finished, and hopes that Green Deal objectives, including for marine and algae, will be taken forward under the new European Parliament and Commission after the June 2024 European elections.
JPI Oceans – Blue Bio event at the European Parliament and online, 30^th January 2024 “Connecting the dots for a Circular Blue Bioeconomy: From Science to Policy and Regulatory solutions” https://www.jpi-oceans.eu/en/connecting-dots-circular-blue-bioeconomy-science-policy-and-regulatory-solutions and meeting report.

Fertilizers Europe Forum on Plant Nutrition

The forum underscores the central roles of nutrient use efficiency, decarbonisation of the fertilisers industry, and recycling of nutrients in Europe's path towards sustainable agriculture. The Forum on Plant Nutrition "Sustainable food production: From nutrient management to decarbonization” was hosted by MEP Peter Jahr and organised by Fertilizers Europe, and brought together policy makers, professionals and stakeholders in the food production value chain to discuss challenges of the agricultural and environmental sectors, with the ambition of guaranteeing food security, moving from current practices to a sustainable and decarbonised food production system.

Professor Wim de Vries, Wageningen University, shared main results from the study “Assessment of spatially explicit actual, required and critical nitrogen inputs in EU-27 agriculture”, funded by Fertilizers Europe, the International Fertilizer Association and the European Environmental Agency. The study arose from the interest in an accurate calculation of N boundaries, accounting for the spatial variation in the sensitivity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and in climate, land use and soil properties at the EU level. Downscaling of planetary boundaries to regions, as often applied, in fact neglects this variation and flat rate reductions in N losses and inputs as in the ‘From Farm to Fork’ strategy appear inappropriate, since N concentrations in air and water vary depending on application rate, climate, crop and soil type. The study quantified and compared current inputs and losses of N with required N inputs for crop production and N inputs/losses in view of adverse environmental effects, with a focus on ammonia emissions to air and nitrate leaching and runoff to groundwater and surface water. The required Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE) at which the current or target crop yield can be reached by improved management was also quantified. Required overall reductions in ammonia emissions and N runoff at EU level to protect terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems were calculated as 38% and 50%, respectively, the latter value being equal to the mentioned reduction in nutrient losses by the Green Deal’s Farm to Fork strategy. At current NUE, the required reduction in N inputs to protect terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, is 31% and 43%, respectively. Critical N inputs are most strongly exceeded in regions with high livestock density, such as Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Brittany in France and the Po valley in Italy. At increased NUE, a given crop yield can be obtained with less N input, while the critical N input increases since a lower fraction of N is lost to the environment. The NUE increase that is required to attain actual or target crop yields at acceptable N losses varies strongly, but a mean +22% of variation was calculated. Prof. de Vries then highlighted the need to develop region-specific mitigation policies based on regional information on critical N inputs and their exceedances with related environmental and health impacts, and wrapped up by linking sustainable food production to enhanced waste and nutrient recycling, decreased food waste and the adoption of efficient practices to fertilization and farm management, notably the 4R principle: right product, rate, time, and place.

A panel discussed the link between sustainable nutrient management and food security. Mónica Andrés Enríquez, Yara International, highlighted how the fertiliser industry is committed to transform the food value chain, through increased nutrient use efficiency, decarbonisation of fertilisers production and recycling of nutrients (as a solution to food waste as well). This is possible only through a collective effort, including fertilisers producers, food companies, regulators, consumers and farmers. In fact, to shift from “grey” (obtained from fossil fuels) to “green” fertilisers (obtained with renewable energy) and to reduce the carbon footprint of fertilisers of between 80 and 90%. The whole value chain needs to be involved, as this shift will be costly, requiring huge investments. Farmers are pivotal in this change, but they must be supported with digital tools to control nutrients and convinced by business cases for green fertiliser.

Max Schulman, Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners (MTK), highlighted the important role of advisors, including farmers’ associations, local cooperatives, fertilisers manufacturers, in helping farmers selecting the right type of fertiliser and use management according to soil type, crop variety and required quality of the product. He agreed that communication within the value chain is pivotal, as well as giving farmers the proper time to put in place the required changes but at the same time provide long term certainty that the targets will remain consistent and will not change in the short term.

Fabien Santini, European Commission, DG Agriculture, specified that the EU Fertilising Products Regulation introduced the possibility to create a single market for organic fertilisers, to increase the possibility of recycling nutrients from manure and waste streams and to facilitate the movement and reuse of organic fertilisers in excess in one region. He announced that a report on the implementation of the CAP strategic plans is soon to be published, reporting Member States’ interventions related to nutrient management. He reiterated that communication and clarity are crucial for innovation and for implementation of change.

Peter Jahr, MEP, concluded the meeting remarking that a combination of policy and technology solutions are needed to guarantee availability of fertilisers in Europe, and highlighted how farmers are the most important part of the solution, as long as they are advised in the correct way.
“Assessment of spatially explicit actual, required and critical nitrogen inputs in EU-27 agriculture” de Wries et al. (2022) DOI
“Forum on plant nutrition: from food security to carbon farming”, online, hosted by Peter Jahr, Member of the European Parliament, 9^th February 2024, HERE.

Research and innovation

Phosphorus and nitrogen losses, climate change, impacts on Adriatic eutrophication

Review summarises changes in P and N discharges and concentrations in the Po river and the Adriatic coastal Mediterranean Sea, showing reduced algal blooms with lower P inputs, higher N/P ratios and impacts on fisheries. The Adriatic coastal Mediterranean is shallow with limited water exchange and high nutrient-rich river input. The Adriatic receives one third of freshwater flowing into the Mediterranean, of which over 50% from the Po river, which has a population of 16 million (including Milan, Turin) and is agriculturally intensive. These nutrient inputs make the Northern Adriatic one of the most productive fisheries of the Mediterranean, but also susceptible to eutrophication. Phosphorus inputs to the Adriatic were reduced from 1985 with the Italy ban on detergent phosphates (1988). Phosphorus inputs continued to reduce through to the 2020’s (ESPP comment: probably because of improved sewage treatment: over 70% of phosphorus and 60% of nitrogen are removed from Lombardy’s sewage SCOPE Newsletter 124) but this trend was not observed for nitrogen. Over past decades, climate change has also led to reductions in nutrient levels in the Adriatic, with lower rainfall resulting in lower land nutrient runoff, and lower river inflow to the coastal Mediterranean resulting in more mixing with low-nutrient waters from the central Adriatic. Algal growth fell, as shown by chlorophyll-a data 1978-2020. This led to lower fish populations and consequent overfishing. The authors note that questions are raised by the continuing high N levels in river input (largely from agriculture), leading to increased N/P ratios in the Adriatic, and that there is a need to further reduce nutrient losses to the Adriatic, to monitor impacts of climate change and to move towards more sustainable fisheries and aquaculture.

Cozzi et al. (2020), studying the Gulf of Trieste, Italian Mediterranean coast, showed similar results, with decreasing phosphorus inputs resulting in decreasing algal development through to around 2010, but then recurrence of algal blooms and changes in seasonal algal growth patterns as a result of climatic changes modifying water temperature, winds (water mixing).

Rubini et al. (2021), analysed occurrences of toxic microalgae in the Adriatic, releasing yessotoxins which can accumulate in shellfish, leading to stoppage of harvesting to avoid human health risks. These releases are considered to be linked to climate change (increasing water temperatures, changes in river freshwater discharge or in marine water mixing).

Soana et al. (2024) recently analysed the long-term trends (1992–2020) of N and P export from the Po river basin to the Adriatic sea, investigating annual and seasonal patterns and their relationship with water temperature and precipitation patterns. Diffuse plus point sources in the basin did not significantly decrease over this period, yet a marked decrease (-20%) in N_-total export, mostly as nitrate, was recorded in the last decade compared to the 1990s. This is likely related to the water temperature warming, especially during summer (+0.13°C/year) and autumn (+0.16°C/year)), to the increased number of warm days (+70%–80%), and to the persistence of low flow periods, that may enhance the rates of microbial processes and sustain favourable conditions for the denitrification and nitrate removal. On the other hand, despite a significant reduction in both agricultural diffuse P sources in the basin (manure, synthetic fertiliser) and point P sources (sewage works, but these are c. 20x lower than agriculture), the annual export of P_-total in the river displayed a high inter-annual variability, and no significant downward trend. In large turbid rivers, such as the Po, P cycling is less sensitive to temperature warming. The only negative relationship found between water temperature and soluble P loads in the river final section was observed in summer and attributed to increased P uptake by phytoplankton.
“The Role of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Eutrophication of the Northern Adriatic Sea: History and Future Scenarios”, M. Marini & F. Grilli, Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 9267, DOI.
“Climatic and Anthropogenic Impacts on Environmental Conditions and Phytoplankton Community in the Gulf of Trieste (Northern Adriatic Sea)”, S. Cozzi et al., Water 2020, 12, 2652, DOI.
“New Trends in the Occurrence of Yessotoxins in the Northwestern Adriatic Sea”, S. Rubini et al., Toxins 2021, 13, 634. DOI.
“Climate change impacts on eutrophication in the Po River (Italy): temperature-mediated reduction in nitrogen export but no effect on phosphorus”, E. Soana et al., J. Environ. Sci. 2024, 143, DOI.

Climate change will deteriorate eutrophication of Mediterranean river Júcar, Spain

Modelling suggests that climate change will multiply water in the Júcar basin with poor quality status by x4, requiring a 50% reduction in P losses. The Júcar basin, 43 km², drains into the Mediterranean and includes the cities of Valencia, Albacete and Ribera Alta. Two models (PATRICAL, RREA) were applied with climate scenario RCP8.5 for period to 2100. Surface water area impacted by nitrates is estimated to increase by x1.3 as a result of climate change by 2100. Other Mediterranean studies have estimated decreases in nitrate loadings with climate change (Serpa et al., 2017; Buonocore et al., 2021). Nitrates runoff from agriculture will be reduced with lower precipitation and run off and with increased denitrification. Water area impacted by ammonia is estimated to increase by x1.9 and that by BOD (biological oxygen demand) and by phosphorus by x4. Median ammonium and phosphorus concentrations in the river and tributaries may double in low flow periods, because lower precipitation leads to reduced dilution of point sources and agricultural runoff. To maintain current water quality status, reductions of -25% for nitrates and -50% for ammonia, BOD and phosphorus will be required.
“Effect of climate change on the water quality of Mediterranean rivers and alternatives to improve its status”, D. Doradao-Guerra et al., J. Environmental Management 348 (2023) 119069 DOI.

P fertilisation improves water use efficiency (WUE) in Mediterranean tree-grass system

6-year field trial in central Spain extensive ‘dehesa’ agri-ecosystem shows that N or P+N fertilisation improves WUE and prevents carbon loss, with P+N showing the best WUE and lowest evaporation. The site studied, at Madajas de Tiétar, has 20-25 trees/ha, grass and extensive grazing (<0.3 cattle/ha). Annual rainfall was 440 – 970 mm/y (85% October – April). Three c. 20 ha plots received N fertiliser (100 kgN/ha/y) in 2015 and 2016, P+N fertiliser (50 kgP/ha/y) or no fertiliser (control), and were then monitored for further four years. Data was collected from three eddy covariance towers (one in each plot), CO₂ emissions, airborne spectral measurements, meteorological and Landsat data, vegetation sampling. The two plots receiving N fertilisation showed 40% increased leaf area index (LAI) in spring, resulting in reduced evaporation. Evapotranspiration increased in the N-only fertilised plot, but was similar to the control in the P+N plot. The higher leaf water loss with N-only fertilisation may be due to increased root development or root activity required for uptake of limited P. In both fertilised plots (N, P+N), annual net ecosystem CO₂ loss was reduced to net zero (from c. 75 gC/m²/y in control). The best water use efficiency was achieved in the P+N fertilised plot.
“How Nitrogen and Phosphorus Availability Change Water Use Efficiency in a Mediterranean Savanna Ecosystem”, T. El-Madany et al., J. Geophysical Research Biogeosciences, 126, 2021, e2020JG006005, DOI.

Stay informed

ESPP members

Newsletter about nutrient stewardship - European Sustainable Phosphorus Platform (ESPP)

Please subscribe www.phosphorusplatform.eu/Subscribe
Link to www.phosphorusplatform.eu/eNews083
Download as PDF

ESPP dates 2024

ESPP workshops on Nutrient recycling policy
Market policy tools to support pull for recycled nutrients
Defining targets for nutrient reuse and recycling from waste water

ESPP new member
Toopi Organics

Policy
Political agreement on EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD)
Digital labelling of fertilising products is a missed opportunity according to industry
BAT for slaughterhouses published: includes struvite recovery

Research and innovation
Benefits of organo-mineral fertilisers
Testing thermal plasma treatment of dried sewage sludge
Long-term phosphate fertiliser application and heavy metals in soils
Second JRC study again suggests that UE+UK soils are accumulating phosphorus
Iron phosphate precipitation from electronics industry wastewater
To where does nitrogen in sewage go?
P-recovery potential from biofuels production
Bacterial biorecovery of ammonium sulphate from digestate

Stay informed

ESPP members

ESPP dates 2024

22 February, 14h-15h30: webinar on EU Nitrates Directive evaluation (consultation here)
and Renure (criteria for “processed manure” recycled nutrients)
27-28 Feb. 2024: Warsaw CRU Phosphates 2024 ESPP panel on sustainable fertilisers
13-14 March 2024: Brussels & online ESPP workshops on Nutrient recycling policy
- 13^th March: market policy tools to support pull for recycled nutrients (optional networking dinner)
- 14^th March: targets for nutrient recovery under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive revision
16-17 April 2024: Brussels & online NERM Nutrients in Europe Research Meeting
(with Fertimanure, Lex4Bio, Walnut, Sea2Land, Rustica)
8-10 October 2024: Lleida, Spain ESPC5 (5^th European Sustainable Phosphorus Conference)

ESPP workshops on Nutrient recycling policy

Market policy tools to support pull for recycled nutrients

13^th March Brussels & online. Registration is open www.phosphorusplatform.eu/nutrientevents2024

Defining targets for nutrient reuse and recycling from waste water

14^th March: Brussels & online. Registration is open www.phosphorusplatform.eu/nutrientevents2024
Your input and proposals are welcome: present your ideas on these questions (and why) in Brussels, 14^th March. We still have a few slots available. Please send short outlines of proposals for pitches to as soon as possible to .

ESPP new member

Toopi Organics

Toopi Organics is a french start-up, incorporated in 2019, processing separately collected human urine and valorising it in agriculture. Toopi Organics aims to save water and nutrient resources while offering green alternative solutions for farmers. Toopi collects urine at source from waterless urinals and uses it as a growing medium to perform submerged liquid fermentation, producing organic urine-based microbial biostimulants to increase nutrient use efficiency and reduce mineral fertilisers for crops. More information in ESPP eNews n°82.

https://toopi-organics.com/

Policy

Political agreement on EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD)

European Parliament and Council have announced agreement on the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) revision, probably enabling adoption before the June 2024 European elections. The agreement now must go to Parliament and Council environment committees for endorsement, then formal plenary vote by both institutions. The coregulators underline that the 1991 UWWTD has been highly effective in reducing water pollution because of the simplicity of its requirements. Announced points of the political agreement include obligations of secondary wastewater treatment for all agglomerations > 1 000 p.e. by 2039 and of tertiary (N and P removal) and quaternary treatment (organic micropollutants) for all large agglomerations and, in areas with identified risk, down to 10 000 p.e. by 2045. Energy neutrality targets for waste water treatment plants will be required by 2045. Other measures agreed in principle include monitoring of microplastics, antibacterial resistance, Covid virus tracers and PFAS, polluter pays (for quaternary treatment, applicable to pharmaceuticals and cosmetics industries), promoting treated sewage water reuse. The communications do not specify what agreement is reached on nutrient recycling. The European Commission proposal (art. 20) indicated that the Commission should be empowered to set “minimum reuse and recycling rates for phosphorus and nitrogen” see eNews n°80. Both Parliament and Council proposed amendments to conditions for this, but both retained the principle of phosphorus reuse and recycling targets, whereas Council proposed to delete nitrogen from this article. The full text of the agreement is not yet published.

29^th January 2024.
European Commission communication: More thorough and cost-effective urban wastewater management (europa.eu)
Council: Urban wastewater: Council and Parliament reach a deal on new rules for more efficient treatment and monitoring
European Parliament: Deal on more efficient treatment and reuse of urban wastewater

Digital labelling of fertilising products is a missed opportunity according to industry

Council and Parliament have reached agreement, but Fertilizers Europe considers that the proposal will not significantly reduce complexity of on-package labels and of packaging wastage required every time a label needs to be modified. Digital labelling enables to include additional information on product use and characteristics, which is not possible or not legible on a physical label. It also allows different types of user (blender, distributor, farmer, public consumer …) to access different information according to their requirements. The agreed rules (not yet published) will not allow digital-only labelling for any packaging other than bulk, with key information continuing to be required on physical labelling on packaged products. Fertilizers Europe suggests that digital-only labelling should also be an option for professional and industrial end-users. The industry federation indicates that nearly 2 million fertiliser packages (only taking into account packages above 500kg) have to be discarded every year in Europe because of physical labelling modifications.

“Commission welcomes the political agreement on the voluntary digital labelling of EU fertilising products”, European Commission 23 January 2024 here.

BAT for slaughterhouses published: includes struvite recovery

The European Commission has published the updated BAT for “for slaughterhouses, animal by-products and/or edible co-products industries”, including struvite recovery as a possible BAT (Best Available Technology, under the EU Industrial Emissions Directive), replacing the previous 2015 BAT BREF. Relevant to nutrients, the adopted BAT includes measurement of wastewater phosphorus and nitrogen, including mass flows (but not calculation of mass flows in incoming animals and output food products or animal by-products), P and N removal from wastewater, and now includes struvite precipitation from waste waters with > 50 mgP/l (indicative concentration):

BAT 2 and BAT 7: Environmental management system including measurement in waste waters of average concentration and mass flows of phosphorus, nitrogen species and organic carbon.
BAT 14: Waste water treatment including where appropriate: N removal (down to 2 -25 mgN_total/l) , P removal (down to 0.25 - 2 mgP_total/l) by precipitation, enhanced biological P removal (EBPR) and/or struvite recovery.
BAT 12: Resource efficiency: “Phosphorus recovery as struvite” (e.g. waste water with P > 50 mg/l) and/or anaerobic digestion.

European Commission decision 2023/2749 “establishing the best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions, for slaughterhouses, animal by-products and/or edible co-products industries” (32 pages), 18/12/2023 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AL_202302749

Research and innovation

Benefits of organo-mineral fertilisers

Yara summarise the sustainability benefits and challenges of combining mineral fertilisers with organic materials for optimal agronomic and environmental benefits and developments engaged by the company. 65-year field trials at Yara’s Hanninghof research centre, Dülmen, Germany, show that combining organic fertiliser (farmyard manure) and mineral fertiliser (potato/cereal rotation) resulted in increased soil organic carbon, increased water use efficiency (3x improvement) and highest yield and profitability. Yara is developing organo-mineral fertilisers (OMFs) in order to deliver such benefits to farmers, and to enable optimal recycling of local organic nutrient resources. Yara has carried out greenhouse tests and is now doing field trials, looking both at efficiency for crops, impacts on soil and risks of nitrogen losses (possible ammonia or N₂O emissions to air). OMFs are delivered as pellets to farmers, to facilitate handling and enable spreading (which is important for yield). Local transformation routes are needed as organic secondary resources are scattered locally and transport would be inefficient and expensive. Nitrogen uptake alone does not explain increased yields from OMFs, so these are considered to result from other benefits such as soil organic carbon (40 – 80 % of organic carbon applied is shown to be stored in soil in the rhizosphere) and soil microorganism activation. Application timing must however be adjusted to adapt nutrient release to crop needs and so minimise nutrient losses.

“Optimising crop production by combining organic-based and mineral fertilizer sources: Agronomic performance, soil and environmental considerations”, A. Becerra, Yara, at the IFS (International Fertiliser Society) annual conference, Cambridge, UK, 6-7 December 2023. IFS events here.
The 2024 IFS annual conference will take place 11-13 December 2024, Cambridge, UK.
“65 years-long research concludes: Mineral fertilizer supports sustainable agriculture”, Yara press release, 5^th September 2023.and book chapter “Effect of Balanced and Integrated Crop Nutrition on Sustainable Crop Production in a Classical Long-Term Trial”, M. Jate, J. Lammel, in “Sustainable Crop Production - Recent Advances” 2022 here.

Testing thermal plasma treatment of dried sewage sludge

Study presents tests to convert sewage sludge and recovered carbon dioxide (CCUS) to ash and syngas, with a 2-hour test run of a 220 litre interior volume, 15 kg/h, 1200°C thermal plasma reactor. The reactor used an argon-water stabilised DC plasma torch (max 150 kWe) with rotating copper disc anode. The torch generated a plasma at around 18 000 °C at its outlet, resulting in temperature of c. 1200°C measured on the reactor walls. The feedstock for this reactor was dried anaerobically digested sludge (c. 6% water) from a Czech municipal sewage treatment plant (15 kg/h), as was CO2 (c. 1200 l/h): the objective was to capture industrial carbon dioxide and convert it to syngas by reacting with sewage sludge (CCUS = carbon capture utilisation stockage). The cold gas efficiency (energy recovered in syngas / electric energy consumed by plasma torch plus energy potential in sewage sludge) was c. 35% (the authors suggest this could be increased to nearly 50% by thermal insulation of the reactor / heat recycling). This does not take into account energy used upstream for drying of the sewage sludge. Very low char production meant that carbon conversion (carbon to syngas) was over 95%. The authors suggest that an advantage of this route for sewage sludge treatment is that phosphorus in the reactor will be volatilised to elemental phosphorus (high temperature, reducing conditions, silicates in sewage sludge). In these trials, the phosphorus was found in the offgas filter (particles) and retained in the reactor.

“Integration of thermal plasma with CCUS to valorize sewage sludge”, V. Sikarwar et al., Energy 288 (2024) 129896, DOI.

Long-term phosphate fertiliser application and heavy metals in soils

Field trials show increased soil P, but also increased soil cadmium, uranium, chromium, vanadium and arsenic, in topsoil, after 45 years of repeated fertilizer application. Results are based on soil samples from five plots with different levels of P fertiliser application from 1966 to 2022 (zero control up to 72 kgP/ha, that is up to 3 – 4 x crop requirements) at Tidewater Research Station, North Carolina, USA. P content of topsoil was strongly correlated to soil concentrations of Cd, U, Cr, V and As, all of which were present in the applied fertilisers at levels above soil background concentrations (23 mgCd/kg, 163 mgU/kg, 179 mgV/kg, 132mgCr/kg). The correlations shown include the plots with repeated high excess fertiliser application, it is unclear to what extent the results are significant for plots with fertiliser applied according to agronomic recommendations. The paper does not show data for the relation fertiliser application – soil meta(loids), but shows correlations soil P – soil metl(loids). Potassium fertiliser, which was also applied, had low levels of these metals. The metal(loid) increases were mostly found only in topsoil, not in deeper soils. The authors note that the increase in plant available P (Mehlich-III) may cause mobilisation of metals already present in soil, but conclude that the data indicate that the rate of P-fertiliser application is correlated to occurrence of the metal(loid)s in topsoil. The possible significance of the changes in heavy metal levels was not analysed and possible increased uptake of the metal(loid)s by crops was not assessed.

“Evidence for the accumulation of toxic metal(loid)s in agricultural soils impacted from long-term application of phosphate fertilizer”, J. Hu et al., Sci. Total Environment 907 (2024) 167863 DOI.

Second JRC study again suggests that UE+UK soils are accumulating phosphorus

Modelling suggests average soil P accumulation of 0.11 kgP/ha/y in arable soil (total 190 ktP/y),2010-2019, somewhat higher than 130 ktP/y in a previous JRC study (Panagos et al. 2023, see ESPP eNews n°73), with high regional variations. This represents c.8% of applied phosphorus (6.5 kgP/y from manure and 6.4 kgP/ha/y from mineral fertilisers, other organic P inputs not considered). Net P losses by soil erosion (minus deposition) are estimated as 0.25 kgP/ha/y, that is more than twice soil P accumulation. The study uses the DayCent model to estimate daily dynamics of C, N, P and S between plants, soil and air, at a 1 km²-grid level, considering six different soil P pools: P_Org) and five mineral P pools: P_labile, P_sorbed, P_{strongly sorbed}, P_parent, and P_occluded. Model inputs included LUCAS soil and water data, CLC land-use, meteorological data, CORDEX climate project data, Eurostat (crops, irrigation, mineral fertiliser inputs), FAO livestock distribution, SAGE agronomy parameters and literature numbers for P excretion, soil P partition, etc. The authors model consequences of management scenarios to 2050, concluding that increased use of N-fixing cover crops can reduce the P-surplus by increasing crop productivity (N availability, whilst also reducing erosion losses. The authors note that results for national P budgets from this modelling study correspond for some countries to those from the empirical Panagos 2023 study or to national statistics, but diverge for other countries.

“Assessing the phosphorus cycle in European agricultural soils: Looking beyond current national phosphorus budgets”, A. Muntwyler et al., Sci. Total Environment 906 (2024) 167143 DOI.

Iron phosphate precipitation from electronics industry wastewater

Lab tests looked at use of ferrous sulphate to precipitate soluble phosphorus from mobile phone metal shell polishing wastewater, achieving over 95% P-precipitation and a precipitate with c. 25% vivianite, 75 % iron phosphate colloid. The industrial process water contains over 200 mgP/l and had pH <3. Optimal conditions for P-precipitation showed to be c. 1.5:1 molar ratio Fe:P and pH around 7. At these conditions, the iron phosphate precipitated contained <25% vivianite, and was mostly colloidal iron phosphate, that is lower vivianite content than expected from literature and modelling. Given the low proportion of vivianite in the precipitate and that no evidence is provided to suggest that the precipitated phosphate material could be recycled, the title of the paper seems to misleading.

“Efficient removal and recovery of phosphorus from industrial wastewater in the form of vivianite”, Y. Zhang et al., Environmental Research 228 (2023) 115848 DOI.

To where does nitrogen in sewage go?

Analysis of data for France suggests that only c. 10% of N from human excreta is recycled (despite 3/4 of sewage going to agriculture), half is lost to the atmosphere and 40% goes to surface and ground water. The study analyses data from all of France’s sewage treatment plants (over a decade), autonomous sewage treatment, population, diet, nitrogen in human faeces and urine. Nitrogen removal in sewage works varied from around 60 to 85%, with higher removal rates in Nitrates Directive “Nitrate Vulnerable Zones” and in larger sewage works. No data is available for nitrogen losses to air in sewage works, but nitrification – denitrification converts much of inflow N to N₂ lost to air. The authors estimate around 10% N losses to water upstream of sewage works. Of the N arriving at sewage works, around 50% is lost to air in sewage works, 40% to surface waters and only around 10% recycled to land. In autonomous sewage treatment systems, losses to underground water are estimated to be around 3/4. N in urine represents c. 15% of French mineral N fertiliser consumption (0.3 vs 2 MtN/y) and the authors estimate that recycling N from human sewage, via separate collection of urine, could cover around 10% of France’s protein production with current diets, or up to around 30% if diets moved away from meat to plant-based.

“Fate of nitrogen in French human excreta: current waste and agronomic opportunities for the future, T. Starck et al., 2024, Nitrogen in agro-food systems and the environment, 912, pp.168978, DOI.

P-recovery potential from biofuels production

US Sustainable Phosphorus Alliance webinar with R. Cusick (University of Illinois) shows the significant potential and environmental benefits of for phosphorus recovery from maize processing to biofuels. The US harvests nearly 1.5 Mt/y of maize for biofuel (bioethanol) production, that is around 1/3 of US maize production. The maize contains phosphorus which is not wanted in the biofuel (in combustion it would generate corrosive phosphoric acid) and ends up in distillers’ grains which mostly go to animal feed. High P in feed is transferred to manure, and can contribute to eutrophication of water bodies. Maize processing (CBs = corn biorefineries) generate liquor streams with higher P concentrations than in wastewater or manure, they are large installations, mainly clustered in US Mid-West States, where there is high demand for fertilisers. Most of the phosphorus in the input maize is in phytate, but the processing partly breaks this down and mineralises or solubilises the phosphorus, making it available for P-recovery processes. Total P in distillers’ grains in the US is estimated to be around 230,000 t/y, that is around 13% of P mineral fertiliser consumption in the US. In bioethanol producing states such as Iowa, that percentage can be as high as 37% mineral P fertilizer consuption. Total P-recovery potential from maize biofuel production (corn biorefineries) in the US is estimated to be around twice that from municipal wastewater (as struvite), with the median recovery potential for corn biorefineries estimated to be three orders of magnitude greater than a wastewater treatment plants (1,000 vs 0.5 t/facility).

“Mapping the National Phosphorus Recovery Potential from Centralized Wastewater and Corn Ethanol Infrastructure”, K. Ruffatto et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 12, 8691–8701 DOI.
“Modeling National Embedded Phosphorus Flows of Corn Ethanol Distillers’ Grains to Elucidate Nutrient Reduction Opportunities”, K. Ruffatto et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57, 38, 14429–14441 DOI.
“Big Opportunity for Phosphorus Recovery from Bioethanol Processes”, Sustainable Phosphorus Alliance “Science Now” webinar, 21 minutes, date November 8, 2023, available online here.

Bacterial biorecovery of ammonium sulphate from digestate

Lab trials (100 ml, 15 days) showed production of ammonium sulphate by Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans from liquid fraction of dairy manure digestate, generating a material showed 90% ammonium sulphate content after drying @ 60°C. The manure digestate was lab centrifuged, resulting in zero measured solids, 100 mM ammonia, 0.1 mMP and 10 mM K. Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans was stepwise acclimatised to ammonia at 400 mM-N, then incubated with the digestate liquor and with elemental sulphur. The bacteria reduced the digestate pH from c. 9 to 2 over 15 days. This produced c. 6g of ammonium sulphate (after drying), so in 100 ml of digestate/inoculum that is 6% ammonium sulphate solution (1.2 %N) with 10 % impurities.

“Biorecovery of ammonium from manure digestate by Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans”, B. Jalili et al., Chem Eng J Chemical Engineering Journal 466 (2023) 143094 DOI.

Stay informed

SCOPE Newsletter: www.phosphorusplatform.eu/SCOPEnewsletter eNews newsletter: www.phosphorusplatform.eu/eNewshome

If you do not already receive ESPP’s SCOPE Newsletter and eNews (same emailing list), subscribe at www.phosphorusplatform.eu/subscribe

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/phosphorusplatform

Slideshare presentations: https://www.slideshare.net/phosphorusplatform - Twitter: @phosphorusESPP

YouTube https://www.youtube.com/user/phosphorusplatform

ESPP members

Political agreement between Council and Parliament adds only aluminium to the “Strategic” materials list. Phosphorus is not added to the ‘Strategic’ materials list but remains on the ‘Critical’ raw materials list. The ‘Strategic’ list is 16 raw materials identified as supply-critical for ‘strategic technologies’ defined as “green and digital transitions … defence and space applications”. Both phosphate rock and “phosphorus” (meaning P₄ = white phosphorus) remain on the EU list of “Critical” raw materials (34 materials). Graphite, already on the “Strategic” list, is extended to both synthetic and natural graphite. The trilogue agreement is not public. It will lead to detailed compromise amendments which then go back to European Parliament and Council for validation votes. To ESPP’s understanding, only “Strategic” materials are concerned by the main tools of the CRM Act (EU sourcing, processing and recycling targets; Strategic Projects) but all “Critical” raw materials will benefit from monitoring of supply and uses, programmes to develop recovery and recycling, and stress tests every three years.

European Commission: “Commission welcomes political agreement on the Critical Raw Materials Act”, 13^th November 2023.
Council: “Council and Parliament strike provisional deal to reinforce the supply of critical raw materials”, 13^th November 2023.

European Commission “feasibility study” considers two sewage sludge management options: 1 = ongoing land use of treated sludge with tighter monitoring and contaminant limits; 2 =mandatory sludge incineration with P-recovery. The study rejects options for ongoing sewage sludge land use without EU regulatory contaminant limits. The study does not select a preferred option of the two considered because of uncertainties about levels of contaminants and related risk, and with the aim of enabling further stakeholder input. The scenario (1) proposes that sewage sludge from larger sewage works applied in agriculture must qualify under the EU Fertilising Products Regulation and that other quality requirements would be applicable to sludge from smaller sewage works used in agriculture or forestry etc. (p31), and also that all sludge used on land should be applied according to crop phosphorus needs and with good management practice requirements (p34).

The study indicates that the EU generates just over 8 Mt/y dry matter (DM) of sewage sludge of which c. 32% is incinerated (based on Eurostat 2021). 10% of EU sewage sludge still goes to landfill, resulting in significant methane emissions.

Table 1 (p8) shows that heavy metal limits are generally lower in current Member State national legislation than in the EU Sewage Sludge Directive (which dates from 1986 and has not been updated), and also that the lowest national heavy metal limits for sewage sludge are in all cases lower than EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR) limits (for Organic Fertiliser / Organic Soil Improvers). The average observed heavy metal levels in sewage sludge are also lower than the EU FPR limits for all eight metal contaminants considered. However, JRC note concerns about other chemicals potentially found in sewage sludge, including industrial chemicals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, personal care chemicals, PFAS, microplastics, and consider (p26) that risk assessments of these chemicals in sludge are inadequate, in particular because they do not take into account local context and combination effects of chemicals in sludge.

The study suggests (p 19-20) that benefits to society are highest for mono-incineration of sewage sludge with phosphorus recovery (option 1). Use of composted or digested sewage sludge in agriculture has net positive benefits (assuming tight contaminant limits and application of nutrients according to crop requirements and not in excess) but significantly lower than for option 1, whereas co-incineration (phosphorus not recovered) has negative net societal impacts and landfilling has strongly negative societal impacts. On the other hand the cost of mono-incineration (option 2) is estimated to be 2-3 x higher than agriculture application (option 1).

Organic carbon returned to soil by use of treated sewage sludge is not considered significant (fig. 5 p 11, p 35) compared to manure and bio-waste.

Short-term agronomic P-efficiency is considered to be higher in mineral P-fertiliser products recovered from sewage sludge incineration ash than in agricultural application of sewage sludge, so leading to lower expected nutrient losses in scenario 2 (p 43-44).

Option 2 (mono-incineration and P-recovery from sewage sludge incineration ash) is estimated to result in additional annualised total EU costs (Capex plus Opex, compared to agricultural sludge application) of 138 – 569 million € per year, depending on the size of sewage works above which this is mandated (138 M€ if sewage works > 500 000 p.e. – 569 M€ if > 20 000 p.e.). If mandated for sewage works > 50 000 p.e. estimated additional cost is 1.4 – 3.3 €/person/year, that is 1-3% of wastewater treatment costs. Correspondingly, option 2 ( > 50 000 p.e.) would generate 3 000 – 4 200 full time job equivalents across Europe.

The study underlines that cost to operators of societally positive sludge management options are higher than for options with negative societal impacts, so that policy action is therefore necessary.

ESPP will make comments to JRC on the content, methodology and conclusions of this study, probably in early 2024. Any input to these comments is welcome, to ESPP by end 2023.

“Feasibility study in support of future policy developments of the Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC)”, European Commission, JRC Science for Policy Report, L. Egle et al., 2023 https://dx.doi.org/10.2760/305263

European Commission opens public consultation for evaluation of the Nitrates Directive, citing climate, food security, sustainability, nutrient recycling and the commitment to reduce nutrient losses by 50% by 2030. The evaluation will assess if the Directive remains “fit for purpose”, if it is coherent with EU environmental objectives, whether cost and administration burdens can be reduced. The consultation (in 27 languages) is 16 questions plus possibilities for comments or to submit documents. The accompanying “Call for Evidence” specifically notes the question of whether the Directive is sufficiently promoting the recycling of nutrients, including from processed manure, and the EU commitment at COP15 (Convention on Biological Biodiversity) to reduce nutrient losses by 50% by 2030. Phosphates (which are not mentioned in the current Nitrates Directive text) are mentioned in the online introduction to the questionnaire, but not in the questionnaire, not in the Call for Evidence. Recycling of nutrients is cited in Q2.7. Measures to limit inappropriate manure spreading and the 170 kgN/ha manure nitrogen limit are cited in Qs 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.9. Addressing intensive livestock production is cited in Qs 3.1, 3.9. Questions address which Nitrates Directive measures are effective (Nitrate vulnerable Zones, Action Programmes, manure storage, manure spreading limit … Q3.2) and relevance to Water Framework Directive Good Ecological Status and to the 50% nutrient loss reduction objective (both Q3.12).

“The protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources – Evaluation”, public consultation preparatory to evaluation of the EU Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) and Call for Evidence. Input requested from the public, farmers, stakeholders. Open to 8^th March 2024. In all EU languages. HERE.

Newsletter about nutrient stewardship - European Sustainable Phosphorus Platform (ESPP)

Please subscribe www.phosphorusplatform.eu/Subscribe
Link to www.phosphorusplatform.eu/eNews082
Download as PDF

ESPP dates for 2024
SOFIE3
Standards & definitions for “Bio-Based” nutrients
Targets for nutrient recovery under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive revision

Policy
German Environment Ministers’ conference calls for implementation of P-recovery
EU-funded R&D into Circular Economy outcomes are mainly publications
Proposed dental amalgam ban will reduce mercury levels in sewage and water bodies
EU JRC Seville recruitment offers – Sustainable Industry

Phosphorus Recycling
Ostara’s Crystal Green: first recovered struvite to obtain EU FPR CE-mark
Further pilot trial announced for ViviMag® iron phosphate recovery
EU funding for roll out of agronomic biostimulant recycled from human urine
Safe use of recycled phosphates in animal feed

Aquaculture, algae, fisheries
Legal status for nutrient recycling from fish manure, algae, seafood, aquaculture
Review: nutrient recycling from fisheries and aquaculture

Research
Sewage sludge treatment in Czech Republic and in Japan
Netherlands wastewater nutrient recycling project KNAP

Stay informed

ESPP members

ESPP dates for 2024

16-17 Jan. 2024: Brussels & online SOFIE3 (Organic and Organo-Mineral Fertilisers)
(with Eurofema, Fertilizers Europe, International Fertiliser Society and SILC Fertilizzanti)
18 Jan. 2024: Brussels & online “Bio-Based” nutrients - standards & definitions
26-28 Feb. 2024: Warsaw CRU Phosphates 2024 ESPP panel on sustainable fertilisers
13-14 March 2024: Brussels & online ESPP workshops on Nutrient recycling policy
- 13^th March: policy tools to support market pull for recycled nutrients
- 14^th March: targets for nutrient recovery under the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive revision
16-17 April 2024: Brussels & online NERM Nutrients in Europe Research Meeting
(with Fertimanure, Lex4Bio, Walnut, Sea2Land, Rustica)
8-10 October 2024: Lleida, Spain ESPC5 (5^th European Sustainable Phosphorus Conference)

SOFIE3

3^rd Summit of Organic and organo-mineral Fertiliser Industries in Europe.
16-17 January 2024, Brussels & hybrid. SOFIE is the only industry meeting place for organic-carbon-based fertiliser producers, distributors, advisory, technology suppliers. SOFIE1 (2019) attracted 125 participants, with 230 for SOFIE2 (2023).
SOFIE3 has an exceptional lineup of speakers, featuring key insights from esteemed organizations and industry leaders. Join us to hear from the European Commission (DG AGRI and DG GROW), Notified Bodies like CerTrust and EFCI Register, alongside renowned companies such as Yara, ICL, and Fertilisers Europe. We'll also have insightful contributions from Eurofema, EBA, S&P/Fertecon, ADAS, Nutriënten Management Instituut, and IPS Konzalting.
The conference will be enriched by the participation of leading companies in the field, including Yara, K+S, Sede Environment, Culterra, Terramarine, Tessenderlo Group, Unimer, Den Ouden, Fertinagro, Ductor, DCM, Compo, Stiesdal, Biota Nutri, Darling Ingredients, Omya, Honkajoki, Labin, Ormin, Sappi, Agrana Starch, Green Circle, Centeon, AgriBioSource Europe, Alan SRL, The Waste Transformers, Steel Belt Systems, Sedron Technologies, and Sanitation360. This event promises to be a melting pot of ideas and innovations, shaping the future of our industry. Connect, collaborate, and be part of this transformative journey.

Programme and registration www.phosphorusplatform.eu/SOFIE.

Standards & definitions for “Bio-Based” nutrients

Brussels & hybrid, 18^th January 2024 Defining “Bio-Based Fertilisers” and FPR “solely biological origin”.

enews80 2 The term “Bio-Based Fertilisers” is today being widely used. For market transparency and policy making, it is important to have a clear and agreed definition of what is a “Bio-Based Fertiliser” and how to define the “Bio-Based” nutrient content of fertilising products. Also, the EU Fertilising Products Regulation 2019/2009 uses the term “of solely biological origin” for nutrients in criteria of several PFCs and there is today no clarity on how this should be interpreted. CEN and ISO methodologies for “Bio-based products: vocabulary” and for defining bio-based content are based on carbon radio-dating, and are not applicable to nutrients.
The meeting will take as starting point the working proposal HERE. Programme: http://phosphorusplatform.eu/BBF2024 Registration Eventbrite

Targets for nutrient recovery under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive revision

ESPP policy workshop to define proposals for possible regulatory targets for phosphorus and nitrogen reuse-recycling from sewage, Thursday 14^th March 2024, Brussels & online.
The proposed UWWTD revision draft text (art. 20) states*: “The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts … setting out the minimum reuse and recycling rates for phosphorus and nitrogen …”.
This meeting aims to develop consensus proposals for such “reuse and recycling rates”, covering for example:

what are feasible “rates” for P and for N recovery?
how should these “rates” be defined? … as % of wwtp inflow? … as % in sludge? … as % in ash? …
as recovery of P or N down to a certain residual level (per p.e.)? … other …?
should the “rates” be different for wwtps of different size? different configuration? Before or after sludge energy valorisation / combustion ?
definition of “reuse and recycling”? … Should this include treated sludge use in agriculture (biosolids to land). If so, under what conditions, e.g. quality / contaminants? plant nutrient availability? spreading according to crop nutrient requirements? CE or National fertiliser certification ?
should “reuse” and “recycling” be addressed differently depending on context: size of wastewater treatment works, regional context …
should quality/functional requirements be specified for recovered nutrient products?
other questions proposed by meeting participants.

* The UWWTD Directive revision is currently under discussion by the European Parliament and Council European Parliament. European Parliament and Council. Both have finalised their positions on this Directive revision, see eNews n°80. Both maintain the principle of targets for phosphorus reuse and recycling, but Council proposed to delete nitrogen from this art. 20. It is expected that the finalised UWWTD Directive will be formally adopted early 2024.
13^th March 2024: policy tools to support market pull for recycled nutrients
14^th March: proposing UWWT Directive targets for P and N recovery, ESPP policy workshop
Both: Brussels & online. Registration is open www.phosphorusplatform.eu/nutrientevents2024

If you wish to present proposals, positions or evidence at the 14^th March meeting: please send a brief outline of your proposed input by 21^st January 2024 to

Policy

German Environment Ministers’ conference calls for implementation of P-recovery

Conference of German States (Land) of Environment Ministers reaffirms the importance of phosphorus recovery and expresses concern that little progress has been made towards the 2029 deadline fixed by German legislation. The Umweltministerkonferenz resolution 1^st December 2023 underlines the importance of sustainable management of phosphorus and estimates that P in sewage could potentially substitute nearly half of Germany’s P fertiliser consumption. However, six years after the entry into force of the German sewage sludge ordinance (AbfKlärV, 27^th September 2017, see SCOPE Newsletter n°129) requiring phosphorus recovery from sewage, few P-recovery plants are identified and the 2029 implementation deadline may be widely not achieved. The resolution notes that obstacles include insufficient maturity of P-recovery technologies and lack of State regulations enabling passing of P-recovery costs on to wastewater fees. The Ministers call for an operator and stakeholder dialogue in 2024, with the German Phosphorus Platform, to identify obstacles to implementation and solutions, for modifications of regulations to allow passing on of costs and for State support for infrastructure. The Ministers also consider that the German Fertilisers Ordinance should be modified to facilitate the use of sewage-sludge derived phosphorus products in fertilisers when pollutants have been reduced.

Umweltministerkonferenz, 1 December 2023, Münster, agenda points TPO 20 and TOP 21 “Phosphor-Rückgewinnung aus Klärschlamm” https://www.umwelt.nrw.de/presse/detail/ergebnisse-der-101-umweltministerkonferenz-1701431976

EU-funded R&D into Circular Economy outcomes are mainly publications

Analysis of EU-funded Circular Economy R&D projects shows science publications are the main short-term outcome. Analysed projects completed more than one year earlier produced no direct methodologies and no market products. The study notes that Circular Economy R&D is funded under a wide range on EU programmes (Research Framework Programmes, Bio-based Industries Consortium, Bio-based Industries Joint Undertaking, LIFE, BlueInvest – maritime & aquaculture, Structural and Investment Funds, Recovery Plan for Europe, …). The study identifies 38 projects funded under the EU R&D Framework Programmes FP7 or Horizon Europe, of which 12 had been completed more than one year earlier (6 responded to a questionnaire). The study conclusions state that EU R&D Framework projects are fulfilling their purpose because they are “increasingly societal challenges-driven and market oriented” but this is supported by conjecture or inference rather than evidence. Project participants are c. 44% companies (220) and c.38% research / universities with the remainder being public bodies (the distribution of subsidy funds between participants is not indicated and may be different): companies presumably expected to obtain some benefit from participation, be it subsidies, skills transfer, know-how or technology. The analysed studies completed more than a year ago resulted in no “direct methodologies and/or products for the market”.

“On the societal impact of publicly funded Circular Bioeconomy research in Europe”, A.S. Brandao et al., Research Evaluation, 2023, 00, 1–17 DOI.

Proposed dental amalgam ban will reduce mercury levels in sewage and water bodies

The European Commission has proposed to further restrict uses of mercury, with a complete ban of dental amalgam (use, manufacture) and further restrictions on certain types of lamps. Dental amalgam (containing mercury) was already banned for certain populations (children, pregnant and breast-feeding women) in 2017 (art. 10, Mercury Regulation 2017/852, see ESPP eNews n°6). The Commission now proposes (2023/0272 (COD)) to ban all use and manufacture of dental amalgam in Europe from 1^st January 2025. Mercury free alternatives exist. Eureau, the EU water industry federation, welcomes the Commission proposal as contributing to reduce water pollution and facilitate the Circular Economy, indicating that over 40% of water bodies in Europe are not achieving Water Framework Directive “good status” because of mercury contamination. In Sweden, Norway and Denmark, where dental amalgam was banned two decades ago, mercury levels in sewage have fallen by 60%. The amalgam ban will also progressively reduce atmospheric mercury emissions from crematoria.

European Commission proposal for a Regulation “amending Regulation (EU) 2017/852 … on mercury as regards dental amalgam and other mercury-added products subject to manufacturing, import and export restrictions”, 14^th July 2023, COM(2023) 395 final - 2023/0272 (COD). This proposal is currently with the European Parliament and Council for co-decision. Procedure file here.

EU JRC Seville recruitment offers – Sustainable Industry

The European Commission has opened recruitment for six project officers to work at JRC Seville on Industrial Emissions Directive BAT BREFs and in the new INCITE (EU Innovation Centre for Industrial Transformation & Emissions), 3 – 6 year contracts in the EIPPCB (European Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Bureau). IED BAT BREFs cited include mining, livestock rearing, landfills, battery manufacture, iron-steel, cement, chemicals, paper, glass.

EU JRC recruitment open to 31^st January 2024 http://recruitment.jrc.ec.europa.eu/?site=SVQ

Phosphorus Recycling

Ostara’s Crystal Green: first recovered struvite to obtain EU FPR CE-mark

Ostara has completed EU Fertilising Product Regulation (FPR) conformity assessment for its 100% recycled phosphate struvite (magnesium ammonium phosphate) recovered from municipal sewage in Madrid and in The Netherlands. This is the first time a recovered phosphate salt (CMC12) has obtained the EU FPR CE-mark. Ostara’s struvite, marketed as Crystal Green, is pure struvite 5-28-0-16MgO fertiliser, which is considered to release nutrients according to crop requirements, independent of rainfall or irrigation, unlike conventional fertilisers. The FPR conformity assessment was undertaken for Ostara by Certrust (notified body). Ostara indicate that the EU FPR CE-mark now opens the way for Organic Farming certification. The EU Organic Farming Regulation (2023/121, January 2023, see ESPP eNews n°73) authorises use of recovered struvite and precipitated phosphate salts as fertilisers in Organic Farming, only if they “meet the requirements laid down in” the EU FPR.

“Ostara is proud to be the first company in the European Community to successfully pass the conformity assessment procedure of the EU fertilizing Product regulation for a 100% fully recovered struvite fertilizer”, 6 December 2023.

Further pilot trial announced for ViviMag® iron phosphate recovery

Kemira and Royal Haskoning DHV have announced further trials of vivianite (iron(II) phosphate) magnetic recovery from municipal sewage sludge at Hoensbroek municipal sewage works (Waterschapsbedrijf Limburg WBL The Netherlands). The ViviMag process was initially developed by WETSUS and TU Delft and is today a Kemira patented technology. Anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge tends to reduce iron(III) phosphate to vivianite, which can be magnetically separated from sludge and recovered. A first manual 1 m³/h ViviMag pilot for magnetic separation of vivianite was operated at Nieuwveer; The Netherlands in 2019, then a 1 m³/h fully automated continuous pilot was built by Kemira. It was first operated by Veolia at Schönebeck, Germany (2022) with a digested sludge and a second trial then took place at VCS Søndersø, Denmark on a non-digested sludge in first half of 2023. This pilot installation has today been operated for a total of around 6 months with continuous operation for up to 7 days. The objective of the Kemira – Royal Haskoning DHV collaboration is to further test and assess the ViviMag technology at another WWTP in the Netherlands. This new trial has just started and will last at least 6 months. The vivianite may find a market as a niche fertiliser product in regions where soils suffer from iron deficiency, or research is underway to possibly develop a process to separate phosphorus in vivianite from iron, so enabling phosphorus recycling into mainstream phosphate fertilisers, and recycling of the iron for reuse in sewage phosphorus removal - Another option being explored is use of vivianite as a raw material to product lithium iron phosphate for use in batteries, if it can be shown that this is chemically efficient and that impurity levels are compatible with battery electronics specifications.

“Kemira and Royal HaskoningDHV to collaborate in award-winning phosphorus recovery technology”, 12th December 2023.
“Wastewater: recover vivianite mineral, from lab to pilot scale - with Wetsus partner”, 5^th December 2023

EU funding for roll out of agronomic biostimulant recycled from human urine

Toopi Organics, a French startup, will receive 8.4 M€ EU funding to develop their Lactopi Start microbial biostimulant, produced by cultivating specific bacteria using separately collected human urine as substrate. In 2023, Toopi Organics collected and processed around 500 000 litres of urine from sites including motorway service stations, tourist attraction sites, city public toilets and music festivals and events. The funding is EU Horizon (European Innovation Council EIC Accelerator) with 2.4 M€ subsidy and 6 M capital. Over 100 field trials of the product will be carried out across six EU member states and Toopi Organics intends to open a full-scale production site near Bordeaux, France in 2025 (objective one million litres/year litres of product per year, sufficient for application to e.g. 40 000 ha @ 25l/ha) followed by further sites in France and/or Belgium. The urine is filtered to remove pathogens and most organic contaminants. The processed urine is used as fermentation substrate to grow specific lactobacillus microorganisms and lactic acid, both of which act as biostimulants, enhancing crop nutrient uptake by solubilising phosphorus present in soil and improving and stimulating the plant root system. The resulting product does contain some nutrients, but does not claim fertilisation (nutrient supply) as a mode of action. The company indicates that the product meets the EU FPR (Fertilising Products Regulation) PFC 6(A) “Microbial plant biostimulant” criteria (stimulation effect on plant nutrition independent of product nutrient content, contaminant and pathogen limits) but cannot today be registered as an FPR CE-mark product because the cultivated lactic acid bacteria is not listed in CMC7. The product is authorised under national regulations in France, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain.

“Toopi Organics décroche un financement de 8,4M€ pour développer la valorisation agricole de l’urine humaine en Europe”, 14^th November 2023 here.

Safe use of recycled phosphates in animal feed

EasyMining webinar with veterinary and agricultural experts suggests that calcium phosphates recovered from sewage sludge incineration ashes could be safely and effectively used in animal feed, if regulatory obstacles were lifted.
Beth Young, Epidemiologist, Swedish National Veterinary Institute (SVA), presented a risk assessment for pathogens for calcium phosphates recovered from sewage sludge incineration ash by EasyMining’s Ash2Phos process. This recovered phosphorus has been shown to perform just as well as commercial phosphate feed additives, providing digestible phosphorus in trials with pigs and chickens (see SLU animal feed trials study results). The risk assessment considered probability of transmission of ‘worst case’ pathogens (prions for BSE – scrapie) in the stages: presence in sewage sludge, incineration of sludge, Ash2Phos ash processing. No data was found on prions in sewage sludge, two studies suggest that spiked prions survive in sludge, but low levels of prion infections in livestock and actions to reduce risks mean that the probability of prion presence in sewage is negligible. Probability that prions survive sewage sludge incineration is very low. The probability that prions survive the Ash2Phos process (acid, alkali, filtration, lime) is considered negligible. Overall the probability that bacteria, viruses or prions could be transmitted by the recovered phosphate is negligible, although there are knowledge gaps for prions.

Kerstin Sigfridson, Product Developer, Lantmännen, Swedish farmers’ cooperative, with 18 000 farmers, providing 1 Mt/y of animal feed, that is around 50% of Swedish livestock. Lantmännen has ambitious sustainability and innovation objectives, including active work on livestock diets. Lantmännen considers that the use of recycled phosphates offers sustainability benefits and that the Ash2Phos recovered phosphate has shown the same digestibility as commercial phosphate feed additives (DCP) and is safe to use.

Sara Stiernstörm. Product Manager, EasyMining, explained that the Ash2Phos recovered phosphate (RevoCaP precipitated calcium phosphate) offers CO₂ benefits and low contaminants compared to commercial feed phosphates and is fully soluble in citric acid (digestible). It contains around 35% Ca and 17% P. Ash2Phos can recover >90% of the phosphorus in ash, as well as recycling iron, aluminium and sand. Two full scale plants are today planned, both 30 000 t-ash/y, in Schkopau, Germany (with Gelsenwasser), commissioning planned 2027 and Helsingborg Sweden, planned 2028. However, there is today a major regulatory obstacle: the animal feed Regulation 767/2009 prohibits use of products from sewage sludge. This needs to be changed. EasyMining wishes to see: P-recycling from sewage to be made obligatory, sewage sludge incineration ash should be considered a safe starting point, product legislation should be based on quality not on input material origin, and incentives should support the use of clean and safe recycled materials.

Webinar “Safe use of recycled phosphate”, 14^th December 2023, organised by EasyMining (Ragn-Sells Group). Watch here.
Webinar “Improving sustainability of livestock production”, 3^rd February 2022, watch here.

Aquaculture, algae, fisheries

Legal status for nutrient recycling from fish manure, algae, seafood, aquaculture

ESPP will meet the European Commission to discuss nutrient recycling from marine and aquaculture in week 3 of January 2024. We have prepared a draft table to summarise legal status and questions and welcome your input. This draft table covers different marine / aquaculture / algae materials under EU legislations: waste, fertilisers, animal by-products, Organic Farming, animal feed. Please send any input, comments or additions concerning nutrient and organics recycling from fish and marine product processing, aquaculture wastes and fish sludge, algae production, in particular where regulations are today unclear or are posing obstacles to the Circular Economy.

ESPP draft table on legal status of nutrient recycling from aquaculture and fisheries wastes and by-products, for comments. www.phosphorusplatform.eu/regulatory

Review: nutrient recycling from fisheries and aquaculture

Overview shows significant, increasing nutrient recycling potential from fish processing wastes and from aquaculture, but need to address regulatory obstacles and absences and to develop technologies adapted for different waste flows. Aquaculture production increased from 20 to 90 Mt/y worldwide over three decades to 2020, and today represents around half of world seafood and fish production. Processing waste can be 55 - 75 % of fish weight. Fish sludge, made up of water, fish feed, fish faeces and biomass from dead fish or other organisms, can represent c. 1.5 t sludge /t fish produced. Nutrient content of fish sludge varies widely, depending particularly on feed supply. Around 2/3 of P in fish feed is left in fish sludge not recovered in the fish. Solid fraction of fish sludge can contain e.g. 0.0015 – 0.03 % of P and N, so that nutrient recycling generally requires concentration. A number of studies are identified as showing effectiveness of fishery wastes or fertilising materials processed from them. Processed discussed for fishery processing wastes or fish sludge include anaerobic digestion, fermentation, composting, struvite recovery, thermal treatment and pyrolysis, emulsion (oil extraction and caking), drying, hydrolysis. Fish protein hydrolysates and chitin/chitosan from crustaceans are considered to be plant biostimulants as well as providing plant nutrients. Recycling is impacted by a range of EU regulations including Industrial Emissions Directive, waste regulations, Animal By-Products, food hygiene and health, fertilisers and Organic Farming. However, products derived from fishery wastes, by-products or aquaculture sludge are not yet included as a CMC category in the EU Fertilising Products Regulation 2019/1009. Attention should be paid to salinity.

“Nutrient recovery and recycling from fishery waste and by-products”, EU Horizon 2020 Sea2Land project, J. Zhang et al., J. Environmental Management Volume 348, 15 December 2023, 119266 DOI.

Research

Sewage sludge treatment in Czech Republic and in Japan

Paper analyses sewage sludge valorisation routes and fate of sewage phosphorus in Czech Republic and in Japan. More than three quarters of Czech sewage sludge is applied to soil (use in agriculture, compost), 12% is co-incinerated and 7% still goes to landfill. In Japan only around 11% of sewage sludge is applied to soil, with most going to combustion (71% incineration, but also use as fuel in cement production and other thermal processing), with <1% going to landfill. Phosphorus content of sewage sludge in both countries (from literature) was 2.4 – 3.4 %P/DM, with higher P contents in digested sludge (this can be expected, because organic carbon is reduced in the digestion process). The paper estimates that in both countries, phosphorus in sewage could replace around 13 – 16 % of mineral phosphate fertiliser use, but does not take into consideration the fact that three quarters of Czech sewage sludge phosphorus is today input to soils with land application, mostly after anaerobic digestion or composting. The paper suggests that sewage sludge does not provide the same phosphorus effectiveness in crops as commercial fertilisers: two papers are cited to support this: Christiansen 2020 and Lemming 2017).

“P‑recovery versus current sewage sludge treatment policy in the Czech Republic and Japan”, M. Husek et al., 2023, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy DOI.

Netherlands wastewater nutrient recycling project KNAP

New national project led by Wageningen University and Research will look at recycling of nutrients from sewage, separative sanitation, and agri-food wastewaters including dairy, brewery, sugar and potato industries. Focus is on producing recycled fertilisers for use in arable farming, feed crops cultivation, (circular) horticulture and organic farming. The 2023-2026 project involves Wageningen Environmental Research (WENR), KWR, LeAF, the Netherlands Nutrient Platform, as well as waste & water companies, agriculture and horticulture organisations, fertiliser industry, (recycling) technology suppliers and local and regional authorities. Objectives include implementation of nutrient recycling and valorisation cases, development of a quality system for recycled nutrient products from wastewaters, data on nutrient flows and losses, assessment of the agronomic value of recovered nutrient products and analysis of regulatory barriers.

Public-Private Collaboration (PPS) project “Closing the cycle of nutrients from wastewater and process water (KNAP)” website.

Stay informed

SCOPE Newsletter: www.phosphorusplatform.eu/SCOPEnewsletter
eNews newsletter: www.phosphorusplatform.eu/eNewshome
If you do not already receive ESPP’s SCOPE Newsletter and eNews (same emailing list), subscribe at www.phosphorusplatform.eu/subscribe
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/phosphorusplatform
Slideshare presentations: https://www.slideshare.net/phosphorusplatform - Twitter: @phosphorusESPP
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/user/phosphorusplatform

ESPP members

ESPP member logos 10.10.23 page 0001

NUEP banner

13^th March 2024 - Policy tools to support market pull for recycled nutrients

Meeting objectives

Identify policy tools to support market pull for recycled nutrients which could achieve consensus across industry and users.

The EU Green Deal 2019 mentions possible “legal requirements to boost the market for secondary raw materials, with mandatory recycled content” and the EU Circular Economy Action Plan 2020 refers to “stimulating the markets for recovered nutrients”. To date, there are no EU proposals.

Industry and user positions on possible market pull policy tools can differ. The aim of this meeting is to identify policies which could achieve consensus across recycled product producers (waste companies, recycling technology suppliers), industry and uses (fertilisers industries, distributers, farmers). And to discuss how to elaborate technical proposals to submit to policy makers.

14^th March 2024 - Proposing UWWT Directive targets for P and N recovery

Meeting objectives

To elaborate ambitious, feasible and consensus proposals for regulatory targets for phosphorus and nitrogen reuse-recycling from municipal wastewater.

This workshop aims to develop consensus proposals, to submit to the European Commission, and will discuss:

what are feasible “rates” for P and for N recovery?
how should these “rates” be defined? … as % of wwtp inflow? … as % in sludge? … as % in ash? … as recovery of P or N down to a certain residual level (per p.e.)? … other …?
should the “rates” be different for wwtps of different size? different configuration? Before or after sludge energy valorisation / combustion ?
definition of “reuse and recycling”? … Should this include treated sludge use in agriculture (biosolids to land). If so, under what conditions, e.g. quality / contaminants? plant nutrient availability? spreading according to crop nutrient requirements? CE or National fertiliser certification ?
should “reuse” and “recycling” be addressed differently depending on context: size of wastewater treatment works, regional context …
should quality/functional requirements should be specified for recovered nutrient products?
other questions proposed by meeting participants

Programmes: click here

Registration

Available on Eventbrite.

Page 1 of 14

Read earlier SCOPE and eNews editions.

For ESPP Privacy Policy and data management information (GDPR) please see here.

SUBSCRIBE to our eNews and SCOPE Newsletter

Newsletter about nutrient stewardship - European Sustainable Phosphorus Platform (ESPP)

ESPP actions

Events

13 November 2024: Regulatory status of algae grown using wastewater, wastes or ABPs

21-22 January 2025: nutrient proposals for the new EU Circular Economy Act and the CAP

Phosphorus use and recycling in intensive livestock: March 2025

ESPP actions

Preparing for the new EU Circular Economy Act

Animal By-Product webinar summary & conclusions

Bringing Animal By-Products into the EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR)

Nutrient recycling value of ABPs

EBIC & ECOFI proposals for ABP regulation compatible with Circular Economy

Current regulatory status

Examples of ABPs but not today authorised under the EU FPR

Discussions and questions from the ‘Chat’

ESPP – EBIC – ECOFI - Eurofema conclusions from the meeting

Livestock and nutrients

EU livestock environmental innovation platform launched

EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR)

European Court upholds FPR chromium limits (ferrous slags)

Fertiliser and mulch film polymer biodegradability

Regulation on digital labelling of fertilisers published

One fifth of soil P deficits caused by global trade

Research

JRC – Towards Sustainable Food Systems

Soil phosphorus: research and policy needs

Stay informed

ESPP members

ESPP policy papers

Newsletter about nutrient stewardship - European Sustainable Phosphorus Platform (ESPP)

Events

ESPC5 – register now online or for Lleida: 8-10 October

Regulatory status of algae grown using wastewater, wastes or ABPs, 13th November 2024

Phosphorus use and recycling in intensive livestock: March 2025

ASLO P-sustainability session

Nutrients in aquaculture and fisheries – June 2025

EU policies

CSRD reporting requirements include circularity and Critical Raw Materials

EU Future of Agriculture report

ESPP input to Ecodesign preparatory study

EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR)

Microorganisms for “biostimulants” to improve crop nutrient processes

Two EU harmonised standards for fertilising products

Nutrient recycling technology catalogue

Update and new entries for Catalogue of Nutrient Recovery Technologies

Nutrient circularity in livestock and aquaculture

ESPP – UNEP uPcycle workshops: aquaculture, intensive livestock

Animal feed industry calls for circularity

SAFOSO final report on Cat1 animal by-product ash

EU funding for aquaculture sludge nutrient recycling

Sewage-recovered phosphate from Germany to animal feed in Canada

Consultation: UN FAO draft document on livestock in the circular bioeconomy

Marine advisory councils call on fishery and aquaculture circularity

Research and innovation

Lab testing of P4 synthesis from phosphoric acid

Groundwater is a significant source of phosphorus to Oneida Lake, USA

Stay informed & ESPP members

Newsletter about nutrient stewardship - European Sustainable Phosphorus Platform (ESPP)

Regulatory status of algae grown using wastewater, wastes or ABPs, 13^th November 2024

Lab testing of P₄ synthesis from phosphoric acid