MEPs approve Russia, Belarus fertilizer tariffs as critics push circular alternatives

MEPs have approved increased tariffs on fertilizers and certain Russian and Belarusian agricultural goods. As a result, the European Commission’s proposal will come into effect, triggering additional tariffs as of July 1, 2025.

However, agri-food organization Copa-Cogeca slams the European Parliament’s decision to greenlight the Commission’s tariff plan on Russian and Belarusian fertilizers, claiming the EU fails to consider alternative sourcing options for farmers.

Copa-Cogeca also criticizes the absence of an impact assessment and the lack of clarity on market implications, branding them “deeply problematic.” 

Distancing from Russian fertilizer

Politicians have endorsed the Commission’s proposal to increase EU tariffs by 50% on agricultural products from Russia and Belarus that were not yet subject to extra customs duties. The aim is to further reduce the EU’s dependence on the two countries. 

The regulation was recently adopted by 411 votes in favor and 100 against, with 78 abstentions.

Products to be hit by the new tariffs include sugar, vinegar, flour, and animal feed.

The text also provides for a 6.5% tariff on fertilizers imported from Russia and Belarus, plus duties of between €40 (US$45) and €45 (US$51) per ton for the 2025–2026 period, increasing to €430 (US$486) per ton by 2028. 

The European Commission says income from the sale of Russian and Belarussian fertilizers is considered to be contributing directly to the war against Ukraine. 

The standing rapporteur for Russia, Inese Vaidere (EPP, LV), says: “The regulation gradually increasing customs duties for products from Russia and Belarus will help prevent Russia from using the EU market to finance its war machine.”

“It is not acceptable that three years after Russia launched its full-scale war, the EU is still buying critical products in large volumes. In fact, these imports have risen significantly.”

“The proposal will boost EU fertilizer production, which has taken a hit from cheap Russian imports while giving farmers time to adjust. Importantly, the proposal also includes monitoring provisions enabling the Commission to follow the fertilizer market closely and take action if prices shoot up.”

Copa-Cogeca acknowledges the geopolitical context behind the Commission’s initiative and recognizes broader foreign policy goals, but it questions this proposal’s economic and operational consequences for the EU agricultural sector. 

Copa-Cogeca urges a “circular economy” approach

It stresses that if the EU wants to reduce dependency on Russian and Belarusian fertilizers, it must present a credible and forward-looking alternative.

Copa-Cogeca calls for a strategy safeguarding the resilience and sustainability of EU agriculture and urges the Commission to adopt a comprehensive approach promoting circular economy solutions for nutrient recovery and reuse within the EU.

It highlights the use of recovered nitrogen from manure (RENURE) materials and digestates to reduce reliance on fossil fuel-based fertilizers. The group also recommends derogations to the nitrates directive to use more livestock manure on grassland, among other crops, which is neutral in terms of water protection against nitrate pollution. 

“Given that the fertilizer market remains relatively opaque and particularly fragile, we remain watchful on these issues and urge European authorities — especially the Commission — to maintain extremely careful monitoring. We cannot afford to further undermine the economic viability of farms or the food security of millions across the EU,” says a Copa-Cogeca statement.