It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Sub-Saharan Africa must urgently improve food security. Phosphorus availability is one of the major barriers to this due to low historical agricultural use. Shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) indicate that only a sustainable (SSP1) or a fossil fuelled future (SSP5) can improve food security (in terms of price, availability, and risk of hunger) whilst nationalistic (SSP3) and unequal (SSP4) pathways worsen food security. Furthermore, sustainable SSP1 requires limited cropland expansion and low phosphorus use whilst the nationalistic SSP3 is as environmentally damaging as the fossil fuelled pathway. The middle of the road future (SSP2) maintains today’s inadequate food security levels only by using approximately 440 million tonnes of phosphate rock. Whilst this is within the current global reserve estimates the market price alone for a commonly used fertiliser (DAP) would cost US$ 130 ± 25 billion for agriculture over the period 2020 to 2050 and the farmgate price could be two to five times higher due to additional costs (e.g. transport, taxation etc.). Thus, to improve food security, economic growth within a sustainability context (SSP1) and the avoidance of nationalist ideology (SSP3) should be prioritised.
New research finds future rock fertiliser use as a contributor towards food security in Sub-Saharan Africa can be achieved with both sustainability-driven and fossil-fuel-driven economic growth.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details




1 University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK (GRID:grid.36511.30) (ISNI:0000 0004 0420 4262)
2 University of Manchester, Manchester, UK (GRID:grid.5379.8) (ISNI:0000000121662407)
3 Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands (GRID:grid.5477.1) (ISNI:0000000120346234); PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, Netherlands (GRID:grid.437426.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 0616 8355)
4 Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands (GRID:grid.4818.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 0791 5666)
5 Origin Enterprises Digital Limited, Didcot, UK (GRID:grid.4818.5)