In the midst of an existential crisis caused by hyper-addiction to fossil fuels, the EU yesterday launched its Communication on the availability and affordability of fertilisers, focusing on exactly the wrong issues. Here in the middle of COP27, in the face of developed countries’ steadfast refusal to make the money available for urgently needed investments, the EU is proposing a strategy to increase public funding to ensure a steady supply of highly emitting fertilisers, with subsidies for producers and “continued and uninterrupted access to natural gas for fertiliser producers”.
The financial costs are real. A report released on Tuesday by GRAIN and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy showed the EU will spend an estimated $3 billion more on fertiliser imports than in 2020, assuming constant demand. But the environmental costs are also enormous.
You would think that we would have learnt by now… But no. There are no targets put in place to reduce GHG emissions from farming systems. Instead, the strategy focuses on gaining alternative markets for imports of fertiliser ingredients. Globally, the price of fertilisers has increased due to political instability and restrictions on imports. The fertiliser companies don’t care. This year the world’s largest fertiliser companies have enjoyed bumper profits while developing countries and farmers within them, those who can least afford it, will have to pay much more for their fertilisers.
The EU could have used the recent drop in fertiliser use in Europe to double-down on their proposed frameworks to green agriculture by reducing the sector’s greenhouse gas emissions, coupled with support for healthier diets and reduced consumption of animal-sourced foods. There are good alternatives to synthetic fertilisers, developed and tested by farmers in agroecological systems that have shown their effectiveness. These alternatives are also better for biodiversity.
Current nutrient flows in the EU surpass safe planetary boundaries by a factor of three. The Fertilisers Strategy has been fast-tracked and been developed without any form of public or expert consultation and many of the objectives contradict the EU’s Farm2Fork strategy. The EU should instead have set targets for the reduction in fertiliser use and a transition to more humane and sustainable food systems. They should also be reducing subsidies for the unsustainable use of fertilisers, instead of proposing a possible increase.
The whole world needs to stop hyper-charging agriculture with fossil fuels. The EU has gone in exactly the wrong direction. It’s time to wean itself off its fertiliser addiction.