Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

High energy and fertilizer prices are more damaging than food export curtailment from Ukraine and Russia for food prices, health and the environment


Higher food prices arising from restrictions on exports from Russia or Ukraine have been exacerbated by energy price rises, leading to higher costs for agricultural inputs such as fertilizer. Here, using a scenario modelling approach, we quantify the potential outcomes of increasing agricultural input costs and the curtailment of exports from Russia and Ukraine on human health and the environment. We show that, combined, agricultural inputs costs and food export restrictions could increase food costs by 60–100% in 2023 from 2021 levels, potentially leading to undernourishment of 61–107 million people in 2023 and annual additional deaths of 416,000 to 1.01 million people if the associated dietary patterns are maintained. Furthermore, reduced land use intensification arising from higher input costs would lead to agricultural land expansion and associated carbon and biodiversity loss. The impact of agricultural input costs on food prices is larger than that from curtailment of Russian and Ukrainian exports. Restoring food trade from Ukraine and Russia alone is therefore insufficient to avoid food insecurity problem from higher energy and fertilizer prices. We contend that the immediacy of the food export problems associated with the war diverted attention away from the principal causes of current global food insecurity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The role of Russia and Ukraine in the global wheat market.
Fig. 2: Diagram of LandSyMM structure.
Fig. 3: Diagram of the four scenarios modelled in the study.
Fig. 4: Percentage change in global commodity market prices between the no shock scenario and the three other scenarios.
Fig. 5: Change in annual deaths between the no shock scenario and combined energy and export restriction scenario.
Fig. 6: Global agricultural land use from 2020 to 2040.
Fig. 7: Difference in land use in 2030 between the combined energy and export shocks scenario and the no shock scenario.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Input data sources from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO;, World Bank ( and the IIASA SSP database ( are publicly available. The crop and pasture yield potential data from LPJ-GUESS are available on request from the corresponding authors. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

The model code used is publicly available at Full results files can be provided on request to the authors.


  1. Cottrell, R. S. et al. Food production shocks across land and sea. Nat. Sustain. 2, 130–137 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Heslin, A. et al. Simulating the cascading effects of an extreme agricultural production shock: global implications of a contemporary US dust bowl event. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 1–12 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Guterres, A. Secretary-General’s remarks to the Security Council - on Conflict and Food Security. United Nations (2022).

  4. Khorsandi, P. War in Ukraine: WFP renews call to open Black Sea ports amid fears for global hunger. World Food Programme (2022).

  5. Osendarp, S. et al. Act now before Ukraine war plunges millions Into malnutrition. 604, 620-4 Nature (2022).

  6. Shenggen Fan, D. H. Reflections on the global food crisis: How did it happen? How has it hurt? And how can we prevent the next one? J. Peasant Studies (2010).

  7. World food situation: FAO food price index. FAO (2022).

  8. Commodities: wheat front month futures. Financial Times (accessed 4 Oct 2022) (2022).

  9. Klein, A. An unfolding food crisis: a perspective from the fertiliser industry. International Fertilizer Association (2022).

  10. Henry Hub natural gas prices. Macrotrends (2022).

  11. Commodity markets: monthly prices (September 2022). World Bank (2022).

  12. Resource Trade.Earth Database (Chatham House, 2022);

  13. Wax, E. & Brzezinski, B. ‘Enormous’ fertilizer shortage spells disaster for global food crisis. Politico (2022).

  14. Baffes, J. & Koh, W. C. Fertilizer prices expected to remain higher for longer. World Bank Blogs (2022).

  15. Brunelle, T., Dumas, P., Souty, F., Dorin, B. & Nadaud, F. Evaluating the impact of rising fertilizer prices on crop yields. Agric. Econ. 46, 653–666 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Alexander, P. et al. Drivers for global agricultural land use change: the nexus of diet, population, yield and bioenergy. Glob. Environ. Chang. 35, 138–147 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Turner, P. A., Field, C. B., Lobell, D. B., Sanchez, D. L. & Mach, K. J. Unprecedented rates of land-use transformation in modelled climate change mitigation pathways. Nat. Sustain. 1, 240–245 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Elobeid, A., Carriquiry, M., Dumortier, J., Swenson, D. & J. Hayes, D. China–U.S. trade dispute and its impact on global agricultural markets, the U.S. economy, and greenhouse gas emissions. J. Agric. Econ. 72, 647–672 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fuchs, R., Brown, C. & Rounsevell, M. Europe’s Green Deal offshores environmental damage to other nations. Nature 586, 671–673 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Green, J. M. H. et al. Linking global drivers of agricultural trade to on-the-ground impacts on biodiversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23202–23208 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Fuchs, R. et al. US–China trade war imperils Amazon rainforest. Nature 567, 451–454 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Food outlook: biannual report on global food markets. FAO (2021).

  23. Russia says it is facing difficulties exporting grain due to sanctions on ships. Reuters (2022).

  24. Lack of grain exports driving global hunger to famine levels, as war in Ukraine continues, Speakers warn Security Council. UN (2022).

  25. Beacon on the Black Sea. UN (2022).

  26. Henry, R. C. et al. Global and regional health and food security under strict conservation scenarios. Nat. Sustain. (2022).

  27. Rabin, S. S. et al. Impacts of future agricultural change on ecosystem service indicators. Earth Syst. Dyn. 11, 357–376 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  28. Alexander, P. et al. Adaptation of global land use and management intensity to changes in climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 2791–2809 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  29. Maire, J. et al. How different COVID-19 recovery paths affect human health environmental sustainability and food affordability. Lancet Planet. Health, (2022).

  30. Land area (sq. km). World Bank (2022).

  31. Matthews, O. How Russia is holding Ukraine’s wheat exports to ransom. The Spectator (2022).

  32. Murphy, M. Ukraine invasion could cause global food crisis, UN warns. BBC News (2022).

  33. Campbell, B. M. et al. Agriculture production as a major driver of the earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soc. 22, (2017).

  34. Henry, R. C. et al. The role of global dietary transitions for safeguarding biodiversity. Glob. Environ. Chang. 58, 101956 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kok, M. T. J. et al. Assessing ambitious nature conservation strategies within a 2 degree warmer and food-secure world. Preprint at bioRxiv (2020).

  36. Schleicher, J. et al. Protecting half of the planet could directly affect over one billion people. Nat. Sustain. 2, 1094–1096 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Potts, S. G. et al. The Assessment Report on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production: Summary for Policymakers (IPBES, 2016).

  38. Arneth, A. et al. Restoring degraded lands. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 46, 569–599 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Laborde, D., Lakatos, C. & Martin, W. Poverty impact of food price shocks and policies. Policy Research Working Paper;No. 8724. World Bank, Washington, DC. (2019).

  40. Tadasse, G., Algieri, B., Kalkuhl, M. & vonBraun, J. Drivers and triggers of international food price spikes and volatility. Food Policy (2016).

  41. Bouët, A. & Debucquet, D. L. Food Crisis and Export Taxation: Revisiting the Adverse Effects of Noncooperative Aspect of Trade Policies in Food Price Volatility and Its Implications for Food Security and Policy (eds Kalkuhl, M,, von Braun, J. & Torero, M.) 167–179 (Springer, 2016).

  42. Joint Statement: the heads of the World Bank Group, IMF, WFP and WTO call for urgent coordinated action on food security. World Bank (2022).

  43. Glauber, J., Laborde, D. & Mamun, A. From bad to worse: how Russia–Ukraine war-related export restrictions exacerbate global food insecurity. Int. Food Policy Res. Inst. (2022).

  44. Laborde, D. & Mamun, A. Food export restrictions during the Ukraine–Russia crisis. Food & Fertilizer Export Restrictions Tracker (2022).

  45. Elkin, E. & Gebre, S. Can the world feed itself? Historic fertilizer crunch threatens food security. Bloomberg (2022).

  46. Elkin, E. Fertilizer prices drop 30% following demand destruction. Bloomberg (2022).

  47. IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2022).

  48. Smith, T. G. Feeding unrest: disentangling the causal relationship between food price shocks and sociopolitical conflict in urban Africa. J. Peace Res. 51, 679–695 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  49. Berazneva, J. & Lee, D. R. Explaining the African food riots of 2007–2008: an empirical analysis. Food Policy 39, 28–39 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Hungry and angry: a wave of unrest is coming. Here’s how to avert some of it. The Economist (2022).

  51. Raleigh, C., Choi, H. J. & Kniveton, D. The devil is in the details: an investigation of the relationships between conflict, food price and climate across Africa. Glob. Environ. Chang. 32, 187–199 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. O’Neill, B. C. et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Clim. Change 122, 387–400 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  53. World Bank. Global Economic Prospects, June 2022. The Financial Crisis and the Global South (2022).

  54. Domm, P. A fertilizer shortage, worsened by war in Ukraine, is driving up global food prices and scarcity. CNBC (2022).

  55. IPCC. Climate Change and Land: an IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems (IPCC, 2019).

  56. Gouel, C. & Guimbard, H. Nutrition transition and the structure of global food demand. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 0, 1–21 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Merrigan, K. Fertilizer prices are soaring—and that’s an opportunity to promote more sustainable ways of growing crops. The Conversation (2022).

  58. Conflict, economic fragility and rising food prices drive up hunger in West and Central Africa. World Food Programme (2022).

  59. Henry, R. C. et al. Food supply and bioenergy production within the global cropland planetary boundary. PLoS ONE 13, e0194695 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Clavin, P. Opportunities are born of crisis, but the lines that connect them are far from direct. Finance Dev. (2022).

  61. Schnabel, I. Looking through higher energy prices? Monetary policy and the green transition. European Central Bank (2022).

  62. Smith, B. et al. Implications of incorporating N cycling and N limitations on primary production in an individual-based dynamic vegetation model. Biogeosciences 11, 2027–2054 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  63. Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  64. Dufresne, J. L. et al. Climate change projections using the IPSL-CM5 Earth System Model: from CMIP3 to CMIP5. Clim. Dyn. 40, 2123–2165 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Bodirsky, B. L. et al. Global food demand scenarios for the 21st century. PLoS ONE (2015).

  66. Springmann, M. et al. Global and regional health effects of future food production under climate change: a modelling study. Lancet 387, 1937–1946 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Springmann, M. et al. Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail. Lancet Planet. Health 2, e451–e461 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. van Vuuren, D. P. et al. The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim. Change 109, 5–31 (2011).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  69. Flatley, D. What secondary sanctions mean, for Russia and world. Washington Post (2022).

  70. Borger, J. Russian navy ordered to lay mines at Ukraine’s Black Sea ports, says US. The Guardian (2022).

Download references


P.A. and R.H. were supported by the UK’s Global Food Security Programme project Resilience of the UK food system to Global Shocks (RUGS, BB/N020707/1). R.H. was also funded by the Novo Nordisk Challenge Programme grant number NNF20OC0060118. A.A. and M.D.A.R. acknowledge support through the Helmholtz Association.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



P.A. conceived of the idea, and all authors contributed to scenario design. P.A. developed the model and analysed the data. J.M. developed Fig. 1. All authors reviewed the results and developed the main conclusions, as well as drafting and approval of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Alexander.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Food thanks Petra Berkhout and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Figs. 1–10 and Tables 1–4.

Reporting Summary

Source data

Source Data Fig. 4

Modelled results of time series of price percentage changes.

Source Data Fig. 5

Modelled results of annual change of deaths.

Source Data Fig. 6

Modelled results of time series of agricultural areas and intensities.

Source Data Fig. 7

Modelled raster of agricultural areas and intensities.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alexander, P., Arneth, A., Henry, R. et al. High energy and fertilizer prices are more damaging than food export curtailment from Ukraine and Russia for food prices, health and the environment. Nat Food 4, 84–95 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene