Right now, that question is urgent. Renewed conflict across the Middle East has disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz — a chokepoint through which roughly a third of the world’s seaborne fertilizer passes. Urea prices have jumped sharply. Ammonia is at a three-year high. And somewhere in Kyrgyzstan, Bangladesh, or Benin, a smallholder farmer is doing the math on whether she can afford to plant this season.

For wealthy, large-scale producers, these shocks are painful. For smallholder farmers in low-income countries, they can be catastrophic. Unlike commercial producers, smallholders typically buy inputs at retail prices and operate on margins so thin that even a modest price rise can wipe out an entire season’s income.

This is not a new story

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, disruption to Black Sea commodity exports pushed an estimated 349 million people deeper into food insecurity. Before that, the COVID-19 pandemic fractured supply chains and decimated rural livelihoods. And before that, the 2007–08 food price crisis raised agricultural commodity prices by over 100%, plunging 150 million people into extreme poverty — and prompting the creation of the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP).

Each of these crises confirmed something that agricultural development practitioners have long observed on the ground: smallholder farmers operating alone are deeply exposed, whereas those embedded in strong producer organizations are fundamentally more resilient.

The logic is simple — the difference is institutional

An individual smallholder facing a 50% rise in fertilizer costs has almost no recourse. She cannot negotiate with a supplier, bulk purchase, or draw on an institutional credit line. Her options are to use less fertilizer — accepting lower yields — or take on debt. Either way, she pays a heavy price.

A farmer embedded in a well-functioning producer organization faces the same price spike, but with meaningfully different options. The organization can pool demand to negotiate collectively, stockpile resources, and access credit on behalf of its members.

This is the difference between a shock that is weathered and one that forces a family off the land entirely.

The evidence is not theoretical

In Kyrgyzstan’s remote Batken region — the country’s poorest — the agricultural cooperative Mol-Tushum was on the brink of collapse following the economic disruptions of COVID-19. With GAFSP support, the cooperative procured and distributed over 300 tons of mineral fertilizer to its members, who saw yields rise by 30% to 40%.

Crucially, the impact went beyond inputs. Farmers who had lost faith in collective action began to re-engage. The cooperative used that rebuilt trust to introduce improved seeds, establish organic composting, and develop greenhouse infrastructure with drip irrigation. What began as crisis response became the foundation for long-term resilience.

This is a model that works at scale. GAFSP has approved $38.75 million in new grants supporting 16 producer organization-led projects across 27 low-income countries — from West Africa to South Asia to the Americas — expected to directly benefit 175,000 smallholder farmers. From cooperatives strengthening women’s land tenure in Benin to climate-smart agriculture networks in Sri Lanka, each project is different, but the underlying logic is the same: build the institutions that connect farmers to credit, markets, and the financial tools they need to trade their way through volatility, rather than be crushed by it.

The window to act is narrowing

The current situation in the Middle East may not resolve quickly. Fertilizer prices could stay elevated for months, rippling through harvests, food prices, and household food security well into the year. The immediate impact on the global North may be limited — many farmers will have already made input purchases for spring planting. But a prolonged conflict could affect planting decisions and yields in the Southern Hemisphere, and fertilizer applications for rice across South and Southeast Asia.

This matters especially as aid budgets decline across across major donor countries. Policymakers and international donors who want to respond effectively should resist the temptation to reach only for short-term, externally administered relief. Emergency humanitarian response remains essential — but this moment also demands a longer-term commitment to the institutional infrastructure that allows smallholders to grow, thrive, and absorb the next shock.

World Bank platforms like GAFSP and AgriConnect are doing precisely that — transforming smallholder agriculture by de-risking investments, bridging infrastructure gaps, and connecting producers to markets in ways that unlock private capital at scale. As donors gather in Washington for the Spring Meetings this week, scaling up this kind of investment is one of the most effective responses available.

Producer organizations are cost-effective, demand-driven, and self-reinforcing. Investment in their capacity generates returns that compound over time. We know what works. The evidence spans crises and continents. The infrastructure exists.

The shocks will keep coming. The only question left is whether we fund the institutions that let farmers face them together — before the next one arrives.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.