Fertiliser reliance leaves UK farms exposed to global shocks

UK farmers remain vulnerable to disruption in fertiliser supply, with geopolitical tensions and concentrated global markets posing ongoing risks to input costs and food production.

A report from the National Preparedness Commission, titled The Strategic Geography of Fertilisers: Implications for UK Preparedness, authored by Antony So and Prof Tim Lang of the Centre for Food Policy at City University London, identifies three core weaknesses in the system.

These impact on the UK food system: uneven global production, corporate concentration, and dependence on fragile shipping routes.

See also: Middle East turmoil sparks renewed food security fears

Recent events have underlined the scale of the risk.

When shipping through the Strait of Hormuz was halted following US strikes on Iran in February, fertiliser prices increased within hours.

The authors say this highlights how quickly global instability can translate into higher costs on farm.

Prof Lang told Farmers Weekly that a change in approach is needed.

“We have to get off the treadmill, understand where this NPK vulnerability is coming from, and we have to go back to farming with less impact,” he said.

“Farming wants to get back to business, but for that we have to think outside the box.”

Global imbalance

Fertilisers remain essential to UK agriculture, with about one-quarter used in cereal production and roughly half supporting grass growth for livestock.

However, domestic supply is limited. Between 2019 and 2021, the UK produced 371,000t of fertiliser, but imported around 1.29m tonnes.

Production of key nutrients is also unevenly spread. Nitrogen is produced across several countries, including China, the US and India, but phosphorus and potash are far more concentrated.

More than 70% of global phosphate reserves are located in Morocco and Western Sahara, while potash supply is dominated by Canada, Russia and Belarus.

The report warns this level of concentration “ought to invite serious strategic reflection”, particularly given the UK’s lack of domestic reserves.

Market power

The fertiliser sector is also dominated by a small number of multinational companies.

Data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shows the world’s nine largest fertiliser firms increased profits from almost $13bn in 2020 to $55bn in 2022.

With several producers partly or wholly state-owned, supply and pricing can be influenced by political as well as commercial factors, adding uncertainty for farmers.

Supply routes

Reliance on key global shipping routes adds further risk.

The Strait of Hormuz, the Turkish Straits and the Strait of Malacca are identified as critical chokepoints, where disruption could halt supply or drive up costs. Other routes, including the Suez and Panama canals, also present vulnerabilities with limited alternatives.

Farmers have already experienced the impact of these pressures, with fertiliser prices rising sharply after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, driven by higher energy costs for nitrogen production.

Policy options

The report outlines several possible responses, each with limitations.

Building fertiliser stockpiles could improve resilience, but would be expensive. Leaving supply entirely to market forces risks price volatility that could discourage crop planting.

Subsidies are viewed as unsustainable in the long term, while a shift towards lower-input or organic systems would require significant changes to land use and production methods.

“Whatever line it [UK government] takes, growers and farmers, as well as wider commercial food interests – and above all the consuming public – would have to be brought on board to the new context and realities,” the authors state.

They conclude that fertiliser supply is becoming a central issue for UK food security, with challenges that “are not going away”.