The global fertilizer market faces disruption to supply chains and costs on a scale not seen even during the early stages of the Ukraine war, with these pressures expected to persist even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens and the conflict is resolved swiftly.

While fertilizer import prices may respond relatively quickly as geopolitical risk premiums linked to freight and insurance unwind, market participants caution that this would be unlikely to translate into a full normalization for a considerable time.

Market participants stressed that price reactions and logistical returns to normal could operate on different timelines. Relief for farmers, in particular, could be significantly delayed, as grain prices remain unfavorable compared to the time of the Ukraine conflict.

A source stated that they expect a return to normality could occur within a month or two after the conflict ends, adding: “Buyers would expect a price correction of $100–200/tonne, but this may take some time.”

Others were much more cautious in their timeline estimates, expecting at least a year before fertilizer markets normalize. Some suggested that even if the conflict were to end immediately, disruptions to global fertilizer trade flows could continue until the end of 2026, possibly even into the first quarter of 2027.

While views differed widely on how long full normalization would take, most participants agreed that logistics, production restarts and trade flows would recover far more slowly than prices.

Physical supply chains are expected to take considerable time to normalize, particularly for phosphates, where global availability was already tight before the latest Middle East conflict.

Iranian fertilizer exports would not fully resume overnight, while shipping, insurance and banking transaction constraints could linger even after a formal reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

At the same time, sulphur volumes for fertilizer use are being outbid by other industrial sectors, reinforcing a two-tiered market and limiting fertilizer production.

Among fertilizer products, phosphates are a particular concern. Prices for diammonium phosphate (DAP) and monoammonium phosphate (MAP) had not fully returned to pre-Ukraine conflict levels before the current Middle East disruption, largely due to structurally tighter supply.

While nitrogen markets may respond more quickly if gas prices stabilize, participants cautioned that full gas supply normalization could still take considerable time.

“Right now, the big difficulty is ammonia and sulphur,” a market participant said, adding that some ammonia plants in the region are damaged, raising questions over restart timelines.

An Asia-based source stated that they expect fertilizer markets to normalize in four to six months, but full gas supply may only return in two to three years.

“Bad situation for South Asia,” they concluded. Urea prices in particular could ease into Q2–Q3 if the conflict de-escalates but are expected to remain above 2025 averages due to lost volumes and elevated financing and insurance costs. Any collapse in negotiations would swiftly tighten urea, ammonia and sulphur supply, triggering renewed price spikes.

While the Ukraine conflict was an unprecedented shock for fertilizer markets, markets today are more conditioned to supply disruptions and may adapt faster from a logistics perspective.

However, comparisons have limits. A UK-based source said:
“At the time of the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict, farmers could justify spending big money on nitrogen, as they were getting much better prices on grain.”

They added that Ukraine and Russia are key players in global grain markets, which led to an immediate price reaction during that conflict.

“The big problem the whole industry has right now is that grain values haven’t really moved up much at all,” they concluded.
An EU-based source added:

“Most probably the situation will normalize a bit faster compared to the Ukraine conflict, but due to high prices farmers paid during the main application time their financial situation is very critical.”

They also noted that farmers have limited expectations for improved grain prices. Some market participants suggest that farmer decision-making will be even more critical in the aftermath of the conflict. This includes choices around crops, fertilizer types, application timing, or even skipping application altogether.

“The cost of no money is better than losing more money,” one participant concluded.
Source: ICIS by Chris Vlachopoulos, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XDkRYmXdzXfZd7WdA515LRwsTmUz3BdX/view