Westminster has its head in the sand over food security

FERTILISER prices are a huge headache.

We know the reasons, but knowledge does not solve the problem. It is rooted in high energy costs, made worse by the loss of Russia as a source of ammonium nitrate and urea. This is a global problem, but the EU has admitted that while it has used sanctions to block imports from Russia, other countries have not done the same.

As a result they have been handed a competitive advantage in production costs, while European farmers struggle with fertiliser prices and worry about availability in the Spring.

The European Commission has promised action, beginning with a plan to tackle how to make Europe less dependent on imports to manufacture fertiliser. At the same time, and with an inevitable nod to the green lobby, it says it will look at ways to reduce fertiliser use.

Both these are likely to be goals easier to set than deliver, but all credit for tackling this must go to the Commission. It is acknowledging the scale of the problem, the need for workable solutions and the risk fertiliser prices and availability pose to food security.

This contrasts with the situation here in the UK, where this time bomb ticking away has not made it onto the political agenda. Our best hope is that the government finds ways to cooperate with the EU, rather than wrapping itself in a cloak of Brexit sovereignty smugness that ignores reality.

That fertiliser prices pose a threat to food security is beyond question. The Commission says usage was cut this year on grounds of cost, citing a figure of up to 20% for some enterprises and some member states. It says the potential impact on yields underlines that fertiliser cost is a threat to food security. It insists there is sound case for finding ways to reduce fertiliser use and says its road map to tackle the problem will increase the focus on precision farming.

However it acknowledges that in the short term the issue is to tackle availability and cost. The confirmation by Brussels that farmers cut production because of high fertiliser prices confirms what many farmers already know – that despite all the talk about rising food prices, they are still not high enough here or in Europe to cover escalating costs for many enterprises.

This commitment to find a solution has been welcomed by the fertiliser industry and farming lobby in Europe. That action is needed on ammonia is clear, with the trade body, Fertilisers Europe, saying that 70% of production is ‘curtailed’ because the high gas price makes production uneconomic. It has welcomed the commitment from Brussels to find ways to make Europe less dependent on imports to manufacture fertilisers. It says that finding ways to produce low carbon fertiliser in Europe is less about delivering a green solution than finding a long term viable way to move away from dependence on Russia as a supply source. While it is not said overtly, that sounds like a way of saying the solution will be more complex than importing raw materials and by definition more costly.

The Commission will publish its road map in a few weeks and its contents are eagerly awaited. This will be followed, possibly in the new year, by a second document involving a number of EU directorates on the drivers for food security. These may both only be words in a document, but the significance is that the European Commission, right from its highest level, is making the issue of food security and a move away from import dependence a priority.

This contrasts with the position in the UK, where these issues are not even on the political radar. This head-in-the-sand approach to agriculture and food is not what was promised from Brexit, and farmers would be right to call out politicians at Westminster for the abject failure compared to Brussels. However that would be just a pebble on the mountain of criticism the government is rightly facing for what it has done to the economy.

The fertiliser plan from Brussels is not going to be a quick fix, but a signal that a new strategy is needed. Funding and scientific expertise will be made available to deliver the move away from import dependence and a more scientific use of fertilisers on farms, linked to need, timing and plant growth. Not perfect – but a lot better than doing nothing.

‘This is not what was promised from Brexit, and farmers would be right to call out politicians at Westminster for the abject failure compared to Brussels – however that would be just a pebble on the mountain of criticism the government is rightly facing for what it has done to the economy’