Co-operatives and fertiliser sovereignty: Why history matters now

22 April 2026

The article referenced in this interview was commissioned by the Business Council of Co‑operatives and Mutuals as part of its work examining economic resilience, supply chain sovereignty and Australia’s sovereign capability in food and agricultural systems.

Australia’s growing fertiliser crisis is not simply the result of geopolitical disruption. It is the consequence of long‑term structural decisions that dismantled farmer‑owned supply chains and left the nation highly dependent on imports. That was the central message of a WA Country Hour interview with Emeritus Professor Tim Mazzarol, broadcast on ABC WA, following the release of his BCCM‑commissioned article: From co‑operatives to crisis: how Australia surrendered control of its fertiliser supply.

Speaking with Belinda Varischetti, Professor Mazzarol traced the fertiliser industry’s origins back to the nineteenth century, when domestic manufacturing and co‑operative ownership underpinned Australia’s agricultural expansion.

“Large‑scale fertiliser production in Australia began in 1875, when Cuming, Smith & Co. opened a superphosphate factory at Yarraville in Melbourne,” he said. “Over time, production spread across states with major agricultural sectors, supported by governments and, critically, by farmer co‑operatives.”

These early co‑operatives were not marginal players. They were the backbone of supply, particularly in nutrient‑poor farming regions.

“The most striking feature of the industry’s formation was the role of farmer co‑operatives,” Professor Mazzarol said. “They built sovereign capability from scratch because they understood that a nation of phosphorus‑deficient soils cannot outsource access to the one product that keeps those soils productive.”

Demutualisation and dependence

That model began to unravel in the late twentieth century. From the 1970s and 1980s, Australia saw widespread demutualisation and consolidation across the fertiliser sector.

“From the late 1970s and 1980s, there was a lot of demutualisation taking place,” Professor Mazzarol said. “Wesfarmers, which had been a very successful co‑operative, demutualised in 1984, and ownership across Western Australia and other states became concentrated among a small number of large players.”

As co‑operatives disappeared or merged into listed corporations, domestic manufacturing capacity steadily declined. Today, Australia imports the vast majority of its fertiliser inputs, leaving farmers exposed to global price shocks and supply chain disruptions.

“There’s virtually no significant domestic production of urea,” Professor Mazzarol said. “The Gibson Island facility closed in 2022, and we’re now 100 per cent dependent on imports for that input.” The current conflict in the Middle East has made that vulnerability visible, with price surges and shortages emerging across multiple agricultural sectors.

A co‑operative exception in Western Australia

Against this backdrop, Professor Mazzarol pointed to CBH Fertiliser, a subsidiary of grower‑owned Co‑operative Bulk Handling Ltd (CBH), as an important contemporary example of co‑operative logic at work.

“CBH Fertiliser was designed in much the same way as the United Farmers Fertiliser Co‑operative,” he said. “Its purpose is to act as a shock absorber on pricing.”

CBH’s entry into the fertiliser market in 2015 did not aim to monopolise supply or lock members into exclusive purchasing arrangements.

“Not all CBH members buy fertiliser from CBH,” Professor Mazzarol said. “But what it does is keep prices under control. If you can get a third actor into a market, it disciplines pricing. Members know they can always come back to CBH if the price is right.”

Importantly, CBH Fertiliser operates as a trading and supply business rather than a manufacturer. Even so, its presence demonstrates how co‑operatives can rebalance market power and improve transparency for farmer members.

Why co‑operatives still matter

For Professor Mazzarol, the case for revitalising co‑operative models in fertiliser supply is not ideological but practical.

“Co‑operatives are not driven purely by the maximisation of shareholder returns,” he said. “Their value is usually in use – providing quality, reliable and affordable products or services for members – and they often do that better than investor‑owned firms.”

He noted that modern co‑operative legislation now allows groups to raise capital through instruments such as co‑operative capital units, while protecting enterprises from the demutualisation pressures that undermined earlier models.

“The modern co‑operative structure under current legislation allows co‑operatives to be formed and to raise capital in ways that weren’t possible in the past,” Professor Mazzarol said. “That creates genuine opportunities to rebuild sovereign capability, if the business case stacks up.”

A national question of sovereignty

The fertiliser challenge, Professor Mazzarol argued, should be understood as a question of national resilience rather than a short‑term market disruption.

“What we’re really talking about is sovereignty over critical resources,” he said. “Phosphate and fertilisers are critical inputs, particularly in states like Western Australia and South Australia where soils are old and fragile and require ongoing nutrient support.”

The experience of CBH Fertiliser shows that co‑operatives can still play a meaningful role in addressing these challenges – not by replacing markets, but by reshaping them to better serve those who depend on them.

As Australia confronts rising input costs and increasing global uncertainty, the lesson from history is clear: farmer‑owned co‑operatives were once central to building a resilient fertiliser system, and they may yet be part of rebuilding it.

Read the full article: From co‑operatives to crisis: how Australia surrendered control of its fertiliser supply

Listen to the interview: Emeritus Professor Tim Mazzarol on ABC WA Country Hour, interviewed by Belinda Varischetti (21 April 2026)