Bread is life. As Middle East war triggers fertilizer race, EU looks toward Belarus

An archive photo courtesy of AP Photo

The war in the Middle East has been going on for a third week, and there are no signs of an imminent end to the hostilities. This means the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most crucial routes for global trade in oil, gas, and fertilizers, will remain inaccessible for transit. While at the beginning of the conflict, the main concern was the situation on the hydrocarbon market and the rapid rise in fuel prices, in recent days the focus has shifted. As the spring field work season approaches, the threat of a fertilizer shortage is coming to the forefront.

Western media are already widely reporting on a global food crisis and price shock, and experts predict that a struggle for this valuable resource will soon erupt on the fertilizer market. The United States and countries of the Global South are already searching for alternative fertilizer suppliers. Alarm bells are also ringing in Europe. For instance, the Hungarian authorities have appealed to the European Commission, demanding to cancel duties on fertilizers from Belarus and Russia. In this review BelTA examines the current state of the fertilizer market, the challenges confronting agricultural enterprises, the prospects for a large-scale food crisis, and the potential lessons for European countries.

‘It will be worse than in 2022.’ Are fertilizers now worth their weight in gold?

The Middle East is at the center of global supply chains for fertilizers and energy resources. Up to 50% of the world's urea exports (the most common nitrogen fertilizer in the world) and about 45% of the world’s sulfur exports (a critically important raw material for the production of phosphate fertilizers) pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

“Major food-producing nations like the U.S. and Australia source much of their urea and phosphate from the Gulf nations. Brazil, the world's leading soybean producer, imports most of its urea from Qatar and Iran, which also exports to Türkiye and Mexico.
India relies upon Saudi phosphate,” writes the Turkish newspaper Daily Sabah.

According to data from the analytical company Kpler, against the backdrop of the escalating conflict in the Persian Gulf, more than 1.1 million tonnes of fertilizers have been accumulated and are stranded. If transit is not restored, annual supply volumes of fertilizer components could decrease by 30-50%.

Many experts draw parallels with 2022, when sanctions against Belarus and Russia (major fertilizer exporters) led to disruptions in supply chains and a fertilizer shortage. Coupled with a sharp rise in gasoline prices, this became one of the reasons for the increase in global food prices.

“It will be much worse now than in 2022," believes Veronica Nigh, chief economist at The Fertilizer Institute (TFI). “The longer the conflict continues, the more severe the situation will become.”

Fertilizer producers in the Middle East are already being forced to cut production and close plants. This is what Qatari company QAFCO did, shutting down a urea production plant with a capacity of 5.6 million tonnes per year. This is because the Qatari national oil and gas company QatarEnergy has stopped producing liquefied natural gas (LNG) due to drone attacks on its facilities. And, as is known, gas is the foundation of nitrogen fertilizer production.

This gives rise to another problem. Since the cost of gas has risen due to supply reductions, fertilizer production has also become more expensive. Against this backdrop, fertilizer producers in South Asian countries are also being forced to reduce production volumes. This is a direct path to further price increases.

“India has ordered fertilizer plants to reduce gas consumption to about 70% of normal levels because of shortages. Plants in Pakistan and Bangladesh have halted output. In Pakistan, one of the country’s largest fertilizer producers, Agritech Limited, had halted urea production, said people familiar with the matter,” the Financial Times describes the situation.

According to data from the analytical company CRU Group, the price of urea on world markets increased by more than 40% in the first two weeks of the conflict in the Middle East. There is no expectation that the situation will be resolved quickly. Even if the conflict stops in the near future, restarting fertilizer plants will take weeks. But farmers need fertilizers right now. The field work season cannot be postponed. As stated by Alvaro Lario, President of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), even a temporary spike in fertilizer prices could leave indelible scars on global food production.

‘A humanitarian catastrophe for 100 million people.’ What to prepare for?

“The Middle East war is close to triggering a global food shock,” the British Financial Times writes. “Fertiliser shortages threaten food production on multiple continents.”

“A big burden for farmers: Gulf shipping crisis threatens food price shock,” echoes The Guardian.
“Shockwaves are already coursing through global energy markets, but the most immediate and dangerous consequences of a prolonged closure may show up at the dinner table, not the gas pump. The Strait of Hormuz, after all, is not just a shipping lane for oil tankers; it is a critical artery of the global food system,” the Project Syndicate says.

Svein Tore Holsether, CEO of Yara International, one of the world’s largest suppliers of mineral fertilizers, also warns of catastrophic consequences if the Strait of Hormuz is closed.

“Given the importance of fertiliser, this is something that can seriously impact crop yields if the war continues for an extended period. This is a regional conflict with global implications and it goes straight into the food system,” Holsether stated.

Without fertilizer application, yields of some crops could drop by up to 50%. “If the strait of Hormuz was closed for a year it would be catastrophic. We are talking nutrition for plants, and if they don’t get the nutrition, then you will see significant reductions in the farm yield,” Svein Tore Holsether says.

Reduced harvests will lead to soaring prices for staple foods, as well as increased costs for animal feed. According to Project Syndicate, when fertilizers and fuel become more expensive, farmers adapt by using less fertilizer or planting smaller areas. As a result, yields decline, and this ripple effect spreads throughout the entire food system. The whole supply chain, from farmers and transporters to food processors, shifts rising costs onto consumers, eventually reflecting in higher food bills.

All of this could escalate into a global food crisis. The publication notes that prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz could undermine the agricultural sector in different regions of the world and result in a humanitarian catastrophe for more than 100 million people.

The world’s poorest regions, particularly African countries, would find themselves in the most difficult situation. Many African farmers are already forced to economize and apply less fertilizer than needed for normal plant growth. If prices continue to rise, smallholder farms will further reduce fertilizer use, leading to lower yields and potentially triggering widespread hunger across the continent.

Experts believe that the negative impact of a Strait of Hormuz blockade will be determined by two factors: the duration of the conflict and the damage sustained by fertilizer production facilities as a result of hostilities.

“The longer this conflict persists, the longer will be the ramifications for global food prices and food availability. I think we are already past the point of no return for seeing some short-term impacts,” American economist Richard Volpe said, as reported by Anadolu Agency.

According to him, the current situation demonstrates why countries need more flexible trade routes and supply chains. “This conflict is just another sort of reminder that it makes sense to keep as many trade pathways open and flexible at any point in time,” the expert stated.

Seeking new suppliers and the side effects of sanctions: What shouldn’t be forgotten?

Against the backdrop of reduced fertilizer production and exports, many countries are already looking for alternative suppliers, including Belarus.

“New Delhi is doubling down on fertilizer imports from non-West Asia countries to

shield its sprawling farming sector, as regional conflict and a maritime blockade loom over its traditional supply routes. The world’s largest importer of urea and diammonium phosphate (DAP) [a highly concentrated phosphorus fertilizer] is looking to boost purchases from a group of nations including Indonesia, Belarus, Morocco, Russia, and China,” Indian business publication Mint writes.

The Philippines is discussing fertilizer supplies with China and Russia, Bloomberg reports. “We will be talking to Belarus also to make sure that we have supply of fertilizers moving forward,” Agriculture Secretary Francisco Tiu Laurel Jr. said on 18 March.

Meanwhile, the USA is exploring ways to lower domestic fertilizer prices. Last week, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins stated she is considering all possible avenues to reduce fertilizer costs ahead of the spring season.

“We are very close to having an announcement on some solutions,” Rollins said. “Events around the world are impacting our farmers, but as the president has said, we expect that to resolve itself pretty quickly.”

And this week, Kevin Hassett, head of the White House National Economic Council, announced that the USA is taking emergency measures to find new fertilizer suppliers. “It’s almost planting season, and there’s a lot of fertilizer that usually goes down, including fertilizer that's based on ammonia and urea and nitrogen. We have been finding other sources and doing so really quite successfully. I’m not saying that we can eliminate what disruption there is so far, but we can minimize it for sure,” Hassett stated.

According to industry publication Argus Media, urea prices in the USA have jumped nearly $155 per ton since the beginning of March. Many farmers managed to purchase fertilizers before the price hikes. However, about a quarter of farms delayed purchases until later and now find themselves in a difficult situation.

European farmers are also facing challenges: on one hand, skyrocketing fuel prices; on the other, rising fertilizer costs and potential shortages on the horizon.

“While Europe appears at first blush to be less exposed, sourcing just 11 percent of its urea from the region [the Middle East], it will likely be impacted indirectly. Morocco is a big supplier of phosphorus-based fertilizers to Europe, but is dependent upon the Gulf for sulphur used in their manufacturing. The EU also imports 26 percent of its urea from Egypt, but the country is confronted by a halt of natural gas supplies from Israel by pipeline,” Daily Sabah writes.

Arthur Portier, a consultant at Argus Media, noted that the price for Egyptian urea has risen from $500 per tonne at the start of the war to over $650 today. “It directly affects fertilizer prices for European farmers,” the expert said.

Against this backdrop Hungary has already called on the European Commission to lift tariffs from Russian and Belarusian fertilizers. “Hungary is pressuring the European Union to suspend tariffs and additional duties on fertilizer imports from Russia and Belarus because the war in Iran threatens to drive up global food prices,” Politico reports.

In a letter sent to European commissioners on Monday, Hungarian Agriculture Minister Istvan Nagy warned that rising global fertilizer prices and uncertainty over supplies represent a threat to farming enterprises in EU countries. He called for reducing tariffs on Russian and Belarusian products to zero and warned that Hungary could face lower crop yields if access to cheaper imports remains limited.

BelTA predicted a year ago what the introduction of additional tariffs on Belarusian fertilizers (which Poland and the Baltic states had been actively pushing for) may produce. And, by all accounts, those predictions are coming true.

For Poland, which has its own large fertilizer plants, the introduction of duties on products from Belarus and Russia provided an opportunity to drive competitors out of the European market. Indeed, by early 2026 the volume of import from the east had dropped noticeably. But as soon as natural gas prices skyrocketed (and natural gas is essential for fertilizer production), the artificially created barriers backfired on Poland itself.

It is worth noting that Grupa Azoty, Poland’s largest chemical company, has already announced a temporary suspension of new orders for certain nitrogen fertilizers and subsequently announced an increase in prices for its products. Without a doubt, it will hit farmers hard, and then it will hit the wallets of ordinary citizens.

The Baltic states are also concerned about rising fertilizer prices. And they remember Belarus as well.

The Baltic News Network noted that the sanctions against Russia and Belarus, which were supposed to weaken the economies of these countries, come with side effects. In particular, they affect global food security. “Belarus remains one of the world’s largest producers of mineral fertilizers, in particular, potash fertilizers. The state-owned company Belaruskali and other Belarusian producers are major players in the global market, and their products are crucial for agriculture in many regions,” the Baltic News Network writes.

The publication notes that the European Union’s policy of sanctions raises questions. In December 2025 the United States lifted sanctions from Belarusian potash, citing concerns about food security. Meanwhile, the European Union kept these sanctions in place despite the fact that fertilizer shortages in many countries lead to lower crop yields and increase the risk of food shortages.

The Baltic News Network notes that the EU’s policy has not stopped fertilizer exports from Belarus. Instead it allowed Russia to profit from shipping Belarusian potash instead of the Baltic states.

“Last year Belarus exported about 12 million tonnes of fertilizers using Russian railways and ports, including those in St. Petersburg, as well as in the Black Sea and Caspian Sea regions. About 85% of this volume was transported via the Baltic Sea. The minimum cost of logistics in Russia is about $48 per tonne. This means that the cost of transportation services alone can be approximately $576 million per year, with port loading and unloading services costing at least $240 million. In other words, the cargo doesn’t disappear. It simply starts generating revenue elsewhere,” writes the Baltic News Network, calling the situation paradoxical. After all, it was stated that the European Union imposed sanctions primarily to the detriment of Russia, but in the end it was Russia that benefited from them.

Between the lines one can read the question of why the Baltic states do not receive this benefit. Although the answer is obvious: the policy of sanctions and artificial barriers, which were intended to harm Belarus or Russia, has backfired. For example, in the past Lithuania had considerable revenues from the transit of Belarusian goods, primarily potash. Today no money is earned from transit, but Lithuanians have expensive natural gas and fertilizers.

The current situation in the Middle East and, as a result, turbulence in global markets is a good lesson for European countries. Food is the most important thing. And it remains true no matter what geopolitical games are being played in the world. Belarus remembers it. This is why today our country is capable of fully ensuring its food security, and Belarusian products are in demand on world markets despite all the sanctions and barriers.

Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko said: our response to all intrigues is creation, our front line is the economy, and for rural residents it is the grain fields. Bread has been the hardest currency throughout history.

Perhaps this is what one should build on no matter how large-scale and ambitious one’s plans may be.

By BelTA’s Vita Khanatayeva