Fossil fuel dependency is not only an energy issue: it is a structural vulnerability of our food systems.

The energy transition debate rarely includes food. Yet according to IPES Food’s Fuel to Fork report (2025), food systems consume at least 15% of global fossil fuel use. 40% of all global petrochemicals are consumed by food systems; primarily as synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, derived from fossil fuels in 99% of cases. The consequence is a direct transmission mechanism between oil and gas markets and food prices: when fossil fuel prices spike, fertilizer costs follow, harvests contract, and food inflation sets in. The 2022 Ukraine crisis made this visible at scale, triggering acute spikes across energy, fertilizer and food prices worldwide.  

A live geopolitical example 

Up to 30% of the global fertilizer trade transits through the Strait of Hormuz (Forbes, 2026). There is no strategic reserve for nitrogen fertilizer. Current tensions in the Gulf are demonstrating, in real time, how geographically concentrated supply chains expose food systems to price shocks with limited capacity for short-term adjustment. (IPES Food) 

In Belgium: a sector already under pressure 

A March 2026 collective note by Regenacterre, FWA, and SYTRA highlights structural fragilities in Walloon agriculture: 77% of farmers face a stress-risk imbalance, with average farm income around 30% below that of other regional workers. This vulnerability is closely tied to a model dependent on energy-intensive inputs, particularly synthetic fertilizers whose costs are directly linked to gas markets. 

The current geopolitical context is not only increasing cost, it is forcing farmers into difficult forward-looking decisions. Many must already secure inputs for the next planting seasons under conditions of high price volatility. For 2027, this means committing to fertiliser purchases at elevated prices with limited financial buffers, directly affecting future profitability and, in some cases, farm viability. Smaller farms are especially exposed: those unable to absorb or anticipate these costs are risking reduced application rates, lower yields, or taking on significant financial risk to maintain production. 

The issue is therefore not only one of price transmission to consumers, but of who carries the risk upfront within the food system, and whether farmers have the capacity to manage it. 

Pathways for greater resilience 

Reducing dependency on imported, energy-intensive inputs is a key lever. This includes;

1. scaling preventive agronomic practices (crop rotation, diversification, soil management) to reduce reliance on fossil-based inputs;  
2. reducing animal protein production and consumption to addresses the soy import dependency directly: Belgium’s livestock sector consumes 700,000 tonnes of soy meal annually, while legumes, which fix atmospheric nitrogen, offer a lower-input alternative; 
3. rebuilding short supply chains, as demonstrated by the Walloon initiative Pôle Circuit Court, to create structural resilience at the local level. 

Food system resilience and the energy transition are not separate agendas. The tools to reduce exposure exist; the challenge is to align policy, investment, and value chains to make them accessible and viable for farmers at scale. 

At Climact, we empower you to act on climate change, working on cross-cutting topics such as food systems, energy transition and sustainable policies. Reach out to our experts.