The EU’s one-year suspension of customs duties on key nitrogen-based fertilisers is intended to reduce costs for farmers, but it also exposes the vulnerability of Europe’s food system to energy shocks, maritime disruption and continued dependence on politically sensitive suppliers.
The European Union has moved to suspend customs tariffs on key nitrogen-based fertilisers for one year, in an attempt to ease pressure on farmers and reduce exposure to supply disruption in a market still shaped by energy prices, Russia’s war against Ukraine and instability around the Strait of Hormuz.
The decision, adopted by the Council of the EU on 22 May, applies to fertilisers and fertiliser inputs used in agricultural production, including urea and ammonia. The measure will enter into force the day after publication in the EU’s Official Journal and will apply for one year. According to the Council, it is expected to save farmers and the fertiliser industry an estimated €60 million in import duties.
The measure is limited. It will not apply to imports from Russia or Belarus. Brussels has presented that exclusion as part of a wider effort to reduce dependence on Russian and Belarusian fertiliser products while diversifying supply through other trading partners. The Council said the suspension will apply only within a quota, based on 2024 most-favoured-nation import volumes plus 20 per cent of the volumes imported from Russia and Belarus in the same year.
The immediate policy aim is to reduce input costs for European farmers. The broader significance is that fertiliser has become a food-security issue. Nitrogen-based fertilisers are closely linked to natural gas prices, since gas is a central input in production. When gas prices rise, fertiliser costs usually follow. That can affect planting decisions, crop yields, farm income and eventually food prices.
The Council noted that fertiliser prices have risen substantially since 2021, increasing pressure on agricultural production and contributing to higher food costs. In 2024, the EU imported 2 million tonnes of ammonia, 5.9 million tonnes of urea and 6.7 million tonnes of nitrogen-based fertilisers and mixtures containing nitrogen. Tariffs on some of these imports currently range between 5.5 and 6.5 per cent.
The timing also reflects wider market stress. Reuters reported that global fertiliser prices have risen following the near-total closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which around one third of global fertiliser trade passes. Although the EU’s direct dependence on Middle Eastern nitrogen-based fertilisers is limited, higher global prices still affect European buyers as importers compete for alternative supplies.
This makes the Council decision more than a technical customs adjustment. It is part of a wider attempt to prevent a supply shock from feeding into the EU food system. Earlier this week, the European Commission set out plans for additional emergency support for farmers hit by rising fertiliser costs, including possible use of the Common Agricultural Policy emergency reserve and measures allowing member states to provide faster support through advance payments or targeted investment. Reuters also reported that Brussels is considering fertiliser stockpiling as a way to reduce vulnerability to future disruption.
The policy dilemma is clear. European farmers need affordable inputs to maintain production, but the EU also wants to reduce dependence on Russia and Belarus. In 2025, the European Parliament backed higher tariffs on Russian and Belarusian fertilisers and certain agricultural products, arguing that imports from the two countries contributed to Russia’s war economy and left the EU vulnerable to coercive pressure. Those tariffs are due to rise progressively, with fertiliser duties reaching much higher levels by 2028.
The new suspension therefore creates a narrow balancing act. Brussels is lowering duties for non-Russian and non-Belarusian suppliers to reduce costs and encourage diversification, while maintaining a harder tariff line against Moscow and Minsk. That approach may help farmers in the short term, but it does not fully solve the underlying problem: Europe remains dependent on imported fertiliser and exposed to global energy and shipping shocks.
There is also a domestic industrial question. European fertiliser producers have faced high energy costs and competition from cheaper imports. The quota-based design of the measure is intended to avoid flooding the market with tariff-free supplies. But farmers, fertiliser producers and food processors do not necessarily have the same interests. Lower import costs help farmers immediately. Domestic producers may fear further pressure if imports rise too quickly.
Environmental policy adds another layer. The Commission’s wider response includes discussion of alternative fertiliser strategies, including bio-based inputs and greater use of digestate, a nutrient-rich by-product of biogas. But such options intersect with EU nitrogen rules, groundwater protection and pollution controls. Environmental campaigners have warned against weakening nitrogen limits in response to a short-term price crisis.
The Council’s decision is therefore best understood as a pressure valve rather than a long-term solution. It may reduce import costs and help diversify supply away from Russia and Belarus. It may also give farmers limited relief during a period of high input prices. But it leaves unresolved the structural dependence of European agriculture on imported fertilisers, energy-intensive production and vulnerable maritime routes.
For EU consumers, the issue matters because fertiliser costs feed into the price and availability of food. For farmers, it affects planting decisions and margins. For policymakers, it shows how quickly a conflict or shipping disruption outside Europe can become an agricultural and inflation problem inside the bloc.
The EU has acted to buy time. The harder question is whether it can build a more resilient fertiliser supply chain before the next shock arrives.
