OP-ED: The conflict in the Middle East and its impact on the global fertilizer market – Implications for the Americas

Historically, conflicts in the Middle East tend to have consequences that extend far beyond the region. Their impact is often analyzed in terms of security, energy, or political stability, but one of the most significant effects is observed in global agricultural markets, particularly in the fertilizer market.

Due to the strong interconnection between energy, maritime transport, and chemical production, any tension in that part of the world can cause significant disruptions in the supply and prices of inputs, which are fundamental to agriculture.

Natural gas is an essential component in the production of nitrogen fertilizers, especially ammonia and urea. The most widely used industrial process for producing the base of most nitrogen fertilizers—ammonia—consumes large quantities of natural gas. In many cases, gas accounts for between 70 and 80% of the total production cost. Therefore, when a crisis triggers increases in oil and gas prices, the cost of producing fertilizers rises immediately, with direct consequences for global supply.

Added to this energy factor is the importance of several Middle Eastern countries as producers and exporters of fertilizers and chemical inputs for their manufacture. The major Persian Gulf countries have large petrochemical complexes that produce ammonia, urea, and other nitrogen fertilizers for the international market. Iran is also a significant exporter of urea.

Another key factor is maritime transport. A large portion of global fertilizer trade passes through strategic routes near conflict zones, such as the Strait of Hormuz, the Red Sea, or the Suez Canal—true bottlenecks in global trade.

If maritime security deteriorates, insurers raise coverage costs for ships, shipowners alter routes to avoid high-risk areas, and transit times lengthen, thereby increasing logistics costs. Even if production does not stop, rising shipping costs can significantly increase the final price paid by farmers in various countries.

The consequences of these changes are quickly felt in the agricultural sector: when fertilizer prices rise significantly, farmers typically respond by reducing their use or adjusting their planting plans. 

This can lead to lower yields per hectare and, in some cases, a reduction in cultivated land. In the medium term, this affects soil fertility. These changes can result in lower global production of grains and other agricultural products, contributing to upward pressure on international food prices and prices to consumers.

The impact is particularly significant in Latin America, a region central to global food production but which, paradoxically, relies heavily on imported fertilizers. For example, Brazil imports approximately 80 to 85% of the fertilizers used in its agriculture. Argentina also relies heavily on imports, which account for nearly 60% of its consumption. In other countries in the region, such as Chile, Peru, or Colombia, external dependence is even greater.

The World Bank reported that fertilizer prices rose 6.5% in February 2026 compared to the previous month, in a market already strained by production constraints, higher energy costs, and trade disruptions.

At the same time, the International Energy Agency has been warning about the extreme sensitivity of energy and logistics markets to any disruption in the Gulf and along strategic maritime routes. In other words: the shock could be more than just a momentary jolt.

According to data compiled by IICA, approximately 80% of agricultural operations in Latin America and the Caribbean are small or family farms. These are millions of production units that generate employment, sustain rural communities, and supply a significant portion of domestic markets. In several countries, moreover, these farms plays an irreplaceable role in the production of fresh and staple foods. When fertilizer prices rise too high, the impact on this sector is immediate and severe.

For this reason, rising fertilizer costs can go beyond being merely bad news for the agricultural sector and become a direct threat to food security, to families’ ability to remain in rural areas, and to social cohesion across vast rural territories.

The conclusion is clear: Latin America and the Caribbean need an urgent strategy regarding judicious management of fertilizers.

In the current situation, it is necessary to protect family farming and small and medium-sized producers; develop a regional supply policy, with shared mechanisms for purchasing, storage, and negotiation; and, fundamentally, devise a medium-term strategy to reduce dependence on imported fertilizers and to implement policies for sustainable use of biofertilizers.

This requires producing more locally, diversifying sources, restoring industrial capacity, improving nutrient use efficiency, and incorporating bio-inputs and precision agriculture where feasible. IICA has been collaborating with its partners in the fields of science, technology, and innovation to use biotechnology tools and a systems-based approach to improve the efficiency of agricultural systems, thereby increasing their productivity and nutritional value.

Armed conflicts are not fought solely on the military front lines. They are also felt in the prices of bread, vegetables, corn, rice, and meat. And behind all of this, quietly, lies fertilizer. If we do not act in time, the cost will not be merely economic. It will be social, territorial, and food-related.

Muhammad Ibrahim is the Director General of the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA).