The European Union’s push to impose duties on fertilisers imported from Russia and Belarus, recently backed by the EP International Trade Committee, threatens to deliver a devastating blow to European farmers and global food security. The proposed tariffs—starting at €40-45 per tonne for 2025-2026 and soaring to €430 per tonne by 2028—aim to deprive Russia of one of its revenue streams and weaken Putin’s war machine. However, this geopolitical manoeuvre overlooks the dire economic consequences for Europe’s agricultural sector, risking skyrocketing input costs, farm bankruptcies, and further food inflation at a time when farmers are already under immense pressure.
Fertilisers are the backbone of agriculture, and Russia and Belarus supplied in 2024 almost quarter of the EU’s imports, valued at over €2 billion. Copa-Cogeca, the voice of Europe’s farmers, warns that these tariffs could double fertiliser prices, with costs making up to one-third of crop production expenses for small and medium-sized farms. This could push countless farms, particularly in high-cost regions like Ireland, into financial ruin. Irish MEP Maria Walsh highlighted the acute vulnerability of her country’s farmers, who already face the EU’s highest fertiliser costs.
The timing of this policy is particularly ill-judged. With the incoming Trump administration poised to slap tariffs on European agricultural exports, farmers face a double jeopardy: losing access to the €22 billion US market while grappling with soaring input costs. This perfect storm could erode the competitiveness of European agriculture, already strained by global supply chain disruptions, labour shortage and climate-driven challenges.
Critics, including Copa-Cogeca, have lambasted the European Commission for sidelining calls for a proper impact assessment or alternative sourcing strategies. The Agriculture Committee’s proposals to mitigate the fallout were ignored, raising questions about the decision-making process. Farmers’ associations from major producers like France, Italy, Germany, and Spain allege that the International Trade Committee prioritised input from Latvia—a minor agricultural player contributing just 1.5% to the EU’s 2024 harvest—over larger stakeholders. Spanish MEP Mireia Borrás Pabón called the process a “disgrace,” arguing it disrespects both farmers and democratic representation.
While the duties may generate windfall profits for European fertiliser giants like Norway’s Yara or Poland’s Grupa Azoty, they do little to address the EU’s broader competitiveness challenges. As Irish MEP Ciaran Mullooly noted, the tariffs will “inevitably” drive up costs for farmers within 18 months, with no clear plan to cushion the blow. The rush to push this legislation through, despite strong objections from MEPs and farmers’ groups, undermines the EU’s commitment to evidence-based policymaking.
The EU’s goal of reducing reliance on Russian imports is understandable, but the absence of a transition strategy or robust alternatives risks destabilising a sector critical to food security and economic stability. Copa-Cogeca has urged MEPs to reconsider the proposal at the upcoming plenary session on 22 May, calling for mitigation measures and a thorough impact analysis. This is not about shielding Russia but about safeguarding European farmers and consumers from the ripple effects of a poorly planned policy.
As the EU navigates its response to Russia’s actions, it must avoid knee-jerk measures that punish its own citizens. The proposed fertiliser duties, while politically symbolic, threaten to deepen the agricultural sector’s woes and fuel food price inflation. MEPs have a chance to correct this course in Brussels next week. For the sake of Europe’s farmers and food security, they must seize it.
