UN Warns of Global Food Catastrophe Amid Strait of Hormuz Closure Risks

UN Food and Agriculture Organization Issues Stark Warning on Global Food Security

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has issued a severe warning about the potential consequences of a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz, describing the scenario as a “global food catastrophe.” The alert, reported by Al Jazeera on Monday, highlights the critical role of the sea passage in global agrifood supply chains.

According to the FAO, 20-45% of the world’s key agrifood inputs—including fertilisers—are transported through the Strait of Hormuz. The disruption of this route would disproportionately affect poorer countries, leading to delays in fertiliser access and subsequent declines in agricultural output. A Financial Times analysis noted that the Gulf region has become “the centre of modern agriculture” over the past two decades.

FAO Calls for Caution on Energy and Fertiliser Restrictions

The FAO urged nations not to limit shipments of energy and fertilisers, warning that such restrictions have historically triggered spikes in food prices. The organisation also advised countries to “closely ponder” biofuel mandates, balancing the need for energy security against the risk of curtailing global food supplies.

“We are facing a perfect storm if the world is also affected by a strong El Niño.”

Dr Maximo Torero, FAO Chief Economist

Global Responses to Fertiliser Supply Concerns

Countries are taking varied approaches to mitigate potential fertiliser shortages:

• Sri Lanka: Despite “burdened with old fertiliser debts,” the government has pledged to provide fertiliser subsidies to farmers, as reported by the Sunday Times.
• India: Concerns over fertiliser shortages are “particularly heightened,” according to Scroll.in.
• Australia: With 60% of urea imports sourced from the Persian Gulf, the war could spur a “fertiliser manufacturing comeback,” ABC News reported.
• China: The country is “clamping down on fertiliser exports” to safeguard its domestic market, Reuters noted.

New Study Challenges the Climate Benefits of BECCS

A recent study has cast doubt on the long-term climate benefits of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). The research found that BECCS is unlikely to generate negative emissions within 150 years and may produce higher emissions for decades than natural gas without carbon capture.

The study also estimated that BECCS could increase electricity costs by ~3.5-fold. The Guardian highlighted the findings, suggesting they undermine government plans to subsidise carbon capture for wood-burning power plants, such as the UK’s Drax power station.

Expert Reactions: Caution Urged in Interpreting Findings

Experts have offered nuanced perspectives on the study’s conclusions:

• Prof Joana Portugal Pereira, Assistant Professor at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, noted that while the study’s modelling is transparent, its results are “very sensitive to the assumptions made.” She advised caution in drawing broad conclusions, particularly as the study focuses on BECCS supplied from existing forests, which may overstate emissions outcomes.
• Dr Isabela Butnar, Lecturer in Environmental Policy at University College London, praised the methodology but agreed that “forest-based BECCS for electricity is a no-go.”

For more updates on climate, land, food, and nature, subscribe to Carbon Brief’s free “Cropped” email newsletter, a fortnightly digest sent to inboxes every other Wednesday.