Agriculture

European Union agriculture ministers are meeting in Brussels to discuss the availability of fertiliser as the war on Iran disrupts global supply chains.

The talks come as the European Commission pushes a new Fertiliser Action Plan aimed at supporting farmers who face a significant rise in costs for fertilisers. It is hoped the measures could boost agricultural production and reduce Europe’s dependence on food imports.

The plan includes possible fertiliser stockpiles, emergency support for farmers and measures to increase imports from countries other than Russia and Belarus, which are involved in the war with Ukraine.

It comes amid disruption in the Strait of Hormuz caused by the US-Israel war on Iran. The vital shipping route normally carries about one-third of the world’s seaborne fertiliser trade, raising fears that rising fuel and fertiliser costs could place further pressure on farmers already struggling with high expenses.

While the EU is less directly impacted by fertiliser shortages than some other parts of the world, disruptions to supplies have exposed divisions within the bloc about how to protect food supplies and shield farmers from rising costs.

How exposed is Europe?

Europe imports large volumes of fertiliser, bringing in two million tonnes of ammonia, 5.8 million tonnes of urea and 6.7 million tonnes of nitrogen fertilisers and mixtures in 2024, according to EU data.

The EU also produces its own nitrogen fertiliser, but this depends heavily on imported gas. When conflicts in the Gulf region pushes up gas prices, it also makes fertiliser made inside Europe more expensive.

The blockade has raised concerns over global food security, particularly in Africa and South Asia, where countries are more dependent on Gulf supplies.

The Middle East accounts for only about 3 percent of the EU’s ammonia imports and 1 to 2 percent of its nitrogen fertiliser imports, so the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has not significantly affected European supplies.

But the bloc is still being hit through higher global prices and rising energy costs because European nitrogen fertiliser is made using gas, which has increased in price due to the disruption in the strait –  while some countries are more at risk to rising costs due to low stockpiles.

Nitrogen fertiliser prices in Europe are now about 70 percent above their 2024 average, according to reporting on the commission’s plan.

That vulnerability became clear after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, when soaring gas prices forced several European fertiliser plants to scale back or temporarily shut down because production was no longer profitable.

The commission says its new plan combines immediate measures to improve affordability and security of supply with longer-term steps to strengthen domestic production and reduce dependence on imports.

What is the EU proposing?

The plan includes emergency financial support for farmers through the EU agricultural budget, liquidity schemes and more flexible advance payments under the Common Agricultural Policy.

The commission is also looking at ways to support farmers who reduce their reliance on synthetic fertilisers, including through bio-based alternatives and more efficient fertiliser use.

In a second measure, the EU has moved to suspend duties on some nitrogen fertilisers, including urea and ammonia, from countries other than Russia and Belarus. Some nitrogen fertiliser imports currently face tariffs of between 5.5 and 6.5 percent. The Reuters news agency reported that the suspension could save importers about 60 million euros ($68m).

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the plan was aimed at building “a stronger European fertiliser industry” while supporting farmers and accelerating “sustainable, home-grown solutions”.

But Irish Agriculture Minister Martin Heydon warned that rising fertiliser prices caused by the Middle East crisis would affect the cost of food production and the competitiveness of European farmers.

“The rise in fertiliser prices as a result of the Middle East crisis will impact on the cost of food production and, consequently, on the economic sustainability and competitiveness of European farmers,” he said.

Which countries are most exposed?

The impact is not evenly spread across Europe, with Ireland particularly vulnerable because it has little domestic fertiliser production and depends heavily on imports. Its livestock-heavy farming system also relies on nitrogen fertiliser for grassland, with many farmers buying supplies between February and September.

Ireland imported 1.7 million tonnes of fertiliser in 2025, leaving farmers exposed to international price swings.

Other countries are better prepared. Finland has long maintained security-of-supply stockpiles that include fertiliser, grain and fuel. Sweden has also announced plans to stockpile fertiliser, seeds and grain as part of its “total defence” strategy after joining NATO.

There are also divisions inside the EU over how far Brussels should go. Italy and France have pushed for relief from the bloc’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which adds costs to carbon-intensive imports.

Some farming unions argue that the carbon levy has become another cost for farmers at a time of crisis. Environmental groups, however, have warned Brussels not to weaken nitrogen pollution rules, saying that doing so could increase pollution and health costs if excess nitrates enter water supplies.

Poland and Germany, meanwhile, home to major nitrogen fertiliser producers, have been more focused on opposing any measures that could weaken protections for domestic industry – and are therefore more opposed to reducing levies on imports.

Will food prices rise?

EU officials are not expecting an immediate food price shock, with many farmers in the bloc still using fertiliser bought long before the Iran war disrupted supply chains.

But officials are concerned that higher fertiliser costs could create problems in supply chains later in the year. Fertiliser affects food prices with a delay, as gas becomes fertiliser, fertiliser then feeds crops, and crops eventually become food – so the effects are often felt up to six months after the initial disruption.

Meanwhile, there are fears that anger in rural areas already hit by higher fuel, energy and input costs could lead to a backlash against green policies in the EU at a time when right-wing and populist parties are gaining ground in Europe.

But Europe still remains less exposed than many regions. The most severe risks are in countries more dependent on Gulf fertiliser and energy supplies, especially in parts of Africa and South Asia.

BEIRUT, Lebanon, May 22 (UPI) — Lebanon’s agriculture sector emerged as another victim of Israel’s widespread attacks across southern Lebanon, damaging vast areas of farmland, displacing the majority of the region’s farmers and threatening the country’s food security, economic resilience and cultural identity.

The sector, which is key to Lebanon’s economy and plays a vital role in sustaining rural communities and preserving cultural traditions, had not yet recovered from the impacts of the 2023-2024 war between Hezbollah and Israel when it was again hit by resumed hostilities in March.

The fresh escalation severely disrupted farming activities, with an estimated 22.5% of agricultural areas (56,264 hectares) damaged, including farms and greenhouses, and nearly 80% of farmers (more than 6,593) displaced and unable to access their land due to Israeli military activities, according to an updated report released by the Lebanese Ministry of Agriculture on May 5.

The report indicated that the most affected crops in the south are bananas (95%), citrus trees (97%), olives (91%) and small-scale farming, which accounts for 80% of Lebanon’s total agricultural area.

Moreover, more than 1.8 million heads of livestock (cows, goats, sheep and poultry), 29,121 beehives, and 2,030 tons of fish have been lost.

Nizar Hani, the minister of agriculture, said the sector suffered its biggest losses compared with previous wars, adding that agricultural losses have doubled since the March 2 escalation to about $1.5 billion, out of an estimated total war damage that exceeds $20 billion.

Hani said Israel is establishing a buffer zone in southern Lebanon “empty of any life, where no one can pass through, hide or live,” through destruction of entire villages, properties, orchards and olive trees.

He said southern Lebanon produces 70% of the country’s citrus fruits and 90% of its bananas, supplying the local market and exporting to neighboring countries such as Syria, Jordan and Iraq.

And he told UPI that the heavy agricultural losses, inflation, and resulting job losses had a direct impact on food security, with 24% of people living in Lebanon — including Syrian displaced persons, Palestinian refugees and others — requiring immediate assistance.

According to an analysis by the Agriculture Ministry, in collaboration with the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Food Programme, 1.24 million people were expected to face food insecurity between April and August 2026, marking a significant increase from the November 2025-March 2026 period, when an estimated 874,000 people experienced acute food insecurity.

Nora Ourabah Haddad, the Food and Agriculture Organization representative in Lebanon, warned that damage to irrigation systems, productive infrastructure, livestock systems and agricultural supply chains is further weakening local production capacity.

Haddad referred to substantial declines in the production of milk, meat, eggs and honey after 1,600 farms were affected and more than 1.8 million animals killed during the war.

She said the scale of the damage is “extremely serious” and extends far beyond the affected agricultural land that included some of the country’s most productive farming areas.

“What is at stake today is Lebanon’s capacity to sustain local food production, protect rural livelihoods and preserve the resilience of its agrifood systems at a time when the country is already heavily dependent on food imports and facing severe economic pressures,” she told UPI in an interview.

Haddad said food prices rose by 8.4% in the first quarter of 2026, while transport costs increased by 21%, adding that higher fuel and logistics costs expected to continue to drive up prices.

This time, farmers fear prolonged displacement after being forced to leave their land and homes under Israeli evacuation orders in early March — as many were preparing for the planting season.

Hussein Salameh, head of an agriculture cooperative in the Bint Jbeil-Marjeyoun area, recalled how they fled without having time to take any belongings, move their cows away or release them.

Salameh, an inhabitant of the village of Aitaroun, said the displaced farmers mostly feel “frustrated and abandoned” after exhausting their savings on working their land and repairing their damaged homes when they first returned after the Nov. 27, 2024, cease-fire.

He noted that Hezbollah did not provide them then with any financial assistance, saying it no longer had the funds to do so.

Unlike other displaced employees or skilled workers who could still find work in their areas of refuge, they have lost their only source of livelihood away from their land, he said.

“This is a big tragedy. … Farmers have only their land to live on and survive,” he told UPI.

The fear is that when farmers remain separated from their land, livestock and livelihoods for extended periods, many gradually lose the ability to sustain themselves and may eventually abandon agriculture altogether, Haddad warned.

Helping farmers protect what remains of their livelihoods by providing emergency agricultural support and restoring the country’s agricultural capacity before losses become “irreversible” were emerging priorities for the Food and Agriculture Organization, she said.

However, soil contamination presents another major concern after Lebanon and international rights groups accused Israel of unlawfully using white phosphorus and the herbicide glyphosate during its attacks on southern Lebanon, destroying crops and damaging beehives and livestock.

“This is an international environmental crime,” Hani said, adding that Israel “sprayed everything with glyphosate.”

The destruction and uprooting of old olive trees — some of which have been cultivated and preserved across generations, and in some cases for centuries — was equally painful.

“It is the loss of a living heritage … olive trees are deeply connected to family history, local traditions, food culture and rural economies,” Haddad said, adding that their destruction carries not only economic consequences, but also profound social and cultural impacts on farming communities.

Restoration is possible, but it requires time as newly planted trees require many years before becoming fully productive.

“Some of these ancient olive trees may also contain unique genetic heritage that has adapted to local environmental conditions over centuries, making parts of this loss potentially irreversible from a biodiversity perspective,” Haddad said.

Even if hostilities were to stop today, recovery in southern Lebanon’s agriculture sector would not be immediate and would require extensive international funding and support.

Farmers would also need time to recover from the “deep psychological impact” of being uprooted from their land, after their “cultural and environmental values” were destroyed, according to Hani.

To Salameh, Israel was not just targeting Hezbollah but carrying out what he described as “collective punishment” against everyone living in the south, including those opposed to the Iran-backed group.

“Would such collective punishment ensure security for Israel? Would that bring peace?” he asked.

China will buy ‘at least’ $17bn worth of US agricultural goods annually, the White House says.

China will buy “at least” $17bn worth of agricultural goods from the United States annually following US President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s summit in Beijing, the White House has said.

China will make the purchases through 2028, with the 2026 target applying to the remainder of the year on a proportionate basis, according to a fact sheet released on Sunday.

The White House said the deal is in addition to China’s commitment to buy at least 87 million metric tonnes of US soya beans, which was made at Trump and Xi’s summit in South Korea in October.

China will also restore market access for US beef by renewing the expired listings of more than 400 production facilities, and resume imports of poultry from states determined by the US Department of Agriculture to be free of avian influenza, according to the fact sheet.

Trump and Xi also agreed to establish two new bodies – the US-China Board of Trade and the US-China Board of Investment – to manage trade and investment between the sides, the White House said.

China has yet to confirm or comment on the White House’s announcement.

The Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The White House’s update provides further clarity on the outcome of Trump and Xi’s two-day summit, which was heavy on pageantry and camaraderie but light on concrete agreements.

During their two days of talks in Beijing, Trump and Xi sought greater alignment on economic issues and trade, while largely skirting the sensitive issues of Taiwan and the US-Israel war on Iran.

In a readout after the summit wrapped up on Friday, the White House said the two sides had discussed ways to “enhance economic cooperation”, and that they agreed on the need to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and that Iran “can never have a nuclear weapon.”

Beijing did not explicitly state that Iran should not have nuclear weapons, but stressed the importance of reaching “a settlement on the Iranian nuclear issue and other issues that accommodates the concerns of all parties”.

Neither White House statement contained any mention of Taiwan, the self-governing island that Beijing views as an integral part of its territory.

The omission of any reference to the island – the defence of which Washington is committed to supporting under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act – came after Xi warned of “clashes and even conflicts” between the superpowers if the issue is not “handled properly”.

After nearly a decade of tit-for-tat economic salvoes between Washington and Beijing, US-Chinese trade is down sharply from its peak.

Their bilateral trade in goods last year came to some $415bn, down from more than $690bn in 2022.

Published on
12/05/2026 – 19:47 GMT+2

An EU committee made up of experts from member states voted on Tuesday to ban imports of Brazilian meat starting 3 September due to the use of antimicrobials to stimulate animal growth.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The decision to remove Brazil from the list of countries that comply with EU food safety standards comes as the EU-Mercosur free trade agreement between the EU and Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay provisionally entered into force on 1 May.

The deal, which liberalises trade of agri-product between both sides of the Atlantic, remains fiercely opposed by EU farmers, who fear that different production standards on both sides of the Atlantic will create unfair competition from Latin American imports.

“The fact that the Union is able to enforce the rules is essential for trust, a level playing field, and good relations with our trading partners,” an EU diplomat told Euronews.

An official with knowledge of the file said that the vote was unanimous and makes Brazil the first country removed from the list of states complying with EU restrictions on antimicrobial use in animals.

The list of third countries which comply with EU requirements, and therefore can export food-producing animals to the EU, will be formally adopted in the coming days.

The European Commission has consistently said EU food safety rules would continue to apply to agricultural products imported from Latin America after the deal enters into force.

Commission’s spokesperson Eva Hrncirova confirmed to Euronews that from 3 September Brazil will no longer be able export to the EU commodities such as bovine, equine, poultry, eggs, aquaculture, honey and casings.

“Trade agreements do not change our rules,” Hrncirova said, adding: “The Commission establishes the Union’s mandatory sanitary and phytosanitary standards, and both our farmers and exporters from third countries have to comply with them.”

Brussels has also negotiated safeguards aimed at protecting EU farmers, including mechanisms to monitor potential market disruption from a surge in imports from Mercosur countries. Quotas were also introduced for sensitive products, including poultry and meat.

Once compliance with the safety rules is demonstrated by Brazil, the EU will be able to resume the imports, and Brazil will be able to benefit from the same tariff relief as the other Mercosur countries.