At the Oxford Farming Conference in January, the UK Environmental Secretary Emma Reynolds emphasised that food security plays a critical role in delivering national security.
Yet key resources such as fertilisers rarely feature in discussions about national strategy, even though a shortfall could push up food prices or even trigger a famine. In part, this is because they lack the political urgency of semiconductors or the glamorous political profile of critical minerals such as copper or lithium. But fertilisers sustain modern farming and have historically shaped the fortune of nations. If the UK government wants a secure, resilient, low-carbon food system, it needs to start considering fertilisers at least as strategically as batteries, chips and rare earths.
Societies have understood the importance of soil nutrients for most of human history. Farmers traditionally replenished soils through manure, compost and rotation crops – technologies for food security long before the term existed. When nutrients ran short, harvests failed, populations weakened and political stability suffered. Those who maintained nutrient-rich soils thrived; those who did not declined. A recent UK government report demonstrated however that fertiliser supplies from parts of the world vulnerable to ecosystem collapse could in future compromise crop production in key countries.
When food security is at stake, geopolitics sharpens quickly. In the 19th century, Europe’s fertiliser needs sparked the five-year long War of the Pacific, where Bolivia and Chile vied for control of guano- and nitrate-rich territories. The discovery of the Haber-Bosch process in the early 20th century changed the world again, enabling nitrogen to be synthesised from the air. The Green Revolution that followed in the second half of the last century transformed global food production, feeding billions, and supporting unprecedented population growth. But these innovations also introduced new dependencies: synthetic fertilisers are energy-intensive and concentrated in a handful of countries. Today Russia shapes nitrogen markets; Morocco controls phosphate; Canada dominates potash. This means that when fertiliser supply chains are disrupted by war, sanctions or trade disputes, food prices rise and political stability is tested.
Despite these realities, fertilisers are still oddly absent from strategic debates in the UK. They are regarded as a niche agricultural concern that overlaps with energy and industrial policy: important, but not urgent. This is a strategic oversight. While policymakers eagerly discuss copper and lithium as prerequisites for the energy transition, fertilisers -a resource central to feeding a global population of eight billion people and rising- seems to sit in a policy vacuum. While a copper shortage can slow manufacturing or delay an infrastructure project, a shortage of nitrogen or phosphate could threaten harvests and destabilise entire societies.
Contrast this to the situation in World War One, when the US responded to growing German dominance in global fertiliser markets with the launch of its own synthetic nitrogen-based fertiliser industry through technological advances, innovation and investment, following the passage of the 1916 National Defense Act.
The UK government could similarly change this strategic oversight through appropriate legislation. Principles such as security, resilience, decarbonisation and national capability are all relevant to UK industrial strategy: they all apply directly to fertilisers too.
As US energy historian Daniel Yergin has presciently told the Financial Times: “Supply chains used to be just about efficiency. Now they’re very much about politics and security.”
In this context, the UK Government therefore should:
- Formally recognise fertilisers as a sub-set of critical national infrastructure
- Diversify fertiliser supply sources to reduce geopolitical risk
- Invest in domestic capacity
- Consider building some modest strategic fertiliser reserves
- Establish mechanisms to provide early warnings when supply chains are strained
Professor Tim Lang, the country’s pre-eminent food policy expert, has long argued that Britain must treat food systems as a national security issue. Fertilisers sit at the centre of that argument. Without a stable supply of crop nutrients, the UK will not be able to deliver food security, climate goals or rural prosperity. At a time when governments across the works are rediscovering the importance of strategic resources, we need to recognise that fertilisers deserve to be elevated alongside energy, critical minerals and manufacturing in our national resilience and strategy plans.
Dr Alan Bullion and Antony So are co-convenors of the Labour Food Security Forum