EU farmers slam Commission’s ’empty’ fertilisers plan

EU farmers have slammed the European Commission’s plans to bolster the sector against the fertiliser crisis, accusing the EU executive of offering farmers ‘almost nothing’ ahead of the imminent spring season.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has upended global agrifood chains. Besides causing major disruption in grain markets, the war has also sparked a global mineral fertiliser crisis, which has hit the EU hard.

Soaring energy costs, combined with sanctions curtailing the import of key fertiliser inputs from Belarus, have seen the price of fertilisers skyrocket as much as 149% in September 2022.

In response, the Commission put forward its communication on fertilisers on Wednesday (9 November) as part of efforts to mitigate the impact on the agrifood sector – but this has offered no assurances to the farming sector, according to EU farmers’ association COPA-COGECA.

Stressing that their “disappointment is as great as the expectations”, the association warned in a statement released following the publication of the communication that, while it offers some medium and long-term strategies, it “simply does not address the short-term challenges”.

As farmers face the spring sowing season, the association warns that the consequences of a fertiliser shortage will be “manifold on the 2023 harvest, affecting yields, crop quality and rotations, consumer prices and the competitiveness of European farms.”

For Christiane Lambert, president of COPA, the lack of imminent aid to farmers puts the “viability of many farms at risk.”

“What is the point of presenting a new communication to finally put forward so few proposals?” she queried.

One major point of contention is the Commission’s decision not to lift anti-dumping measures on fertilisers, levied against major exporters including the US, Russia, and Trinidad and Tobago.

Asked by EURACTIV, EU Agriculture Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski said that while the EU executive had considered this move, they had ultimately decided against the step out of fears that it may imperil the EU’s fertiliser industry.

“Maybe it will be effective in the very short term. But we have to see the long perspective,” he said at a press conference on the presentation of the communication.

“We need fertiliser production here in the EU, we cannot risk that our fertiliser industry will be affected by dumping, which is very dangerous for our food security,” he explained.

Instead, the Commission proposed to suspend tariffs on some inputs used for producing nitrogen fertilisers – namely urea and ammonia – until the end of 2024, but this has yet to receive the green light from member states.

Farmers are not the only ones unhappy with the communication.

Green campaign group European Environmental Bureau (EEB) lambasted the communication for prioritising “short-term benefits of the increased use of harmful synthetic fertilisers,” accusing the EU executive of “support[ing] the interests of industry rather than focusing on the urgently needed cuts to the EU’s excessive use of nutrients.”

For Sergiy Moroz, policy manager for water and biodiversity at the EEB, the move “undermines [the Commission’s] own Green Deal commitments to shift the EU to sustainable and resilient food and farming systems.”

However, the communication was broadly well-received by the EU fertilisers industry.

“Both financial aid and gas prioritisation, as well as support for farmers affected by high input costs, will play a role in helping industry fully restart production in Europe,” said Jacob Hansen, director general of Fertilizers Europe, in a statement.

At the same time, the association reiterated that when it comes to the long-term future of the European industry and the EU food security, a more comprehensive strategy is needed.

This strategy should also include measures to support the transition to a low-carbon fertiliser industry, they stressed.

Tags: yields, Belarus, crisis, Fertiliser, grain markets, Ukraine, Russia, harvest, price, EU