January 2026 Global Fertilizer & Petrochemical Market Report

Author: Saman Memarpour

Market Phase Comparison – December 2025 vs January 2026

Structural Transition Overview

The transition from December 2025 to January 2026 marked a fundamental change in how fertilizer markets functioned. December marked a post-shock stabilization phase, during which prices consolidated after the sharp November correction. Market participants focused on rebuilding confidence, re-establishing reference prices, and cautiously repositioning forward exposure. Liquidity improved, but conviction remained limited, and price movements were largely reactive rather than directional.

By contrast, January 2026 confirmed a shift into a structurally tight, supply-led market phase. Price formation became increasingly detached from short-term demand signals and instead anchored to execution constraints, logistics friction, and geopolitical risk premiums. This transition was visible not only in price behavior but also in freight markets, port congestion, and the narrowing gap between paper and physical availability.

Source: FAO – Fertilizer Market Context

Comparative Framework

Table 2 – Market Phase Comparison

Source: FAO; Green Gubre Group analysis based on Armaiti MEX

Visual Interpretation of the Phase Shift

Figure 2 – From Stabilization to Structural Tightness (Conceptual Framework)

Market Phase Comparison – December 2025 vs January 2026

1. Nitrogen – Urea Market (January 2026)

1.1 Global Urea Price Overview

January 2026 confirmed a decisive upward repricing phase across global urea markets, marking the strongest month-on-month performance since Q3 2025. Granular urea paper markets led the move early in the month, with forward values consistently adjusted higher and subsequently validated by physical offers. This sequencing—paper first, physical confirmation later—signals a structurally supported market rather than a liquidity-driven spike.

Across all major benchmarks, price advances were both sustained and geographically synchronized. Brazil CFR, Egypt FOB (Europe), Middle East FOB (Persian Gulf), and US Gulf FOB all recorded multi-week gains, culminating in late-January consolidation at elevated levels rather than corrective retracement. Importantly, volatility remained contained, indicating disciplined selling behavior rather than speculative overshooting.

Source: Armaiti Mercantile Exchange (Armaiti MEX) – Daily Urea Reports

By month-end, Brazil CFR values had firmly moved into the mid-USD 450s, Egypt FOB strengthened toward the high-USD 480s, and Middle East FOB stabilized in the low-to-mid USD 450s. These price levels were maintained despite limited spot buying activity, underscoring that sellers were constrained by logistics and execution capacity rather than incentivized to discount to stimulate demand.

Source: ICIS – Fertilizer Market Updates

Table 3 – Indicative Urea Price Ranges (End-January 2026)

Source: Armaiti MEX; ICIS; Green Gubre Group analysis

1.2 Physical Market Validation – Ports, Line-Ups, and Congestion

January’s price escalation was fully corroborated by physical market evidence. Detailed jetty and anchorage line-up data from Rajaie and Bahonar ports revealed persistent vessel queues, repeated “lack of jetty” status, and slow discharge rates across urea, sulphur, and competing bulk commodities such as iron ore, HBI, and billets. These conditions were not episodic but persistent throughout the month.

Notably, urea vessels remained in anchorage for extended periods even when documentation and cargo readiness were complete. This confirms that

port capacity and discharge constraints—not demand weakness—were the binding limitation on supply flow. In practical terms, this reduced prompt availability and increased execution risk, reinforcing seller leverage in negotiations.

This congestion materially reduced the elasticity of adequate supply. Even where theoretical availability existed on paper, delays in physical execution prevented rapid market balancing. As a result, January pricing behavior reflected logistics-enforced scarcity, a defining characteristic of structurally supported commodity markets.

Source: World Bank – Commodity Transport & Logistics Risk

1.3 Regional Market Insights

Middle East (Persian Gulf)

The Persian Gulf urea market played a central stabilizing role throughout January 2026. FOB values advanced steadily as producers maintained disciplined selling strategies amid constrained logistics, elevated freight rates, and heightened geopolitical risk. War-related developments in the broader Middle East increased insurance costs and operational caution, indirectly reinforcing supply discipline without directly disrupting production output. As a result, the region functioned as a price anchor rather than a pressure point.

Source: International Fertilizer Association (IFA) – Middle East Market Context

Egypt FOB (Europe)

Egyptian FOB values continued to command a premium over other origins, supported by sustained European demand, proximity advantages, and regulatory-driven supply security considerations. January strength reflected Europe’s willingness to pay for reliability amid CBAM-related cost pass-through and elevated energy prices. Egypt remained one of the most resilient and strategically important exporting origins globally.

Source: European Commission – Fertilizer & CBAM Context

Brazil CFR

Brazilian demand remained cautious and price-sensitive, yet CFR prices advanced amid global supply constraints and freight economics. Brazil once again acted as a price validator, confirming that sub-USD 400 CFR levels were no longer feasible under prevailing logistics and freight conditions. This reinforced Brazil’s role as a key reference market for global urea pricing.

Source: Trading Economics – Brazil Fertilizer Prices

United States (US Gulf)

The US Gulf urea market strengthened further in January, supported by tightening inventories, improved export parity, and reduced availability from alternative origins. This reinforced Atlantic Basin stabilization and removed a key bearish overhang that had constrained sentiment during Q4 2025.

Source: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service – Fertilizer Reports

Structural Transition Overview

The transition from December 2025 to January 2026 marked a fundamental change in how fertilizer markets functioned. December marked a post-shock stabilization phase, during which prices consolidated after the sharp November correction. Market participants focused on rebuilding confidence, re-establishing reference prices, and cautiously repositioning forward exposure. Liquidity improved, but conviction remained limited, and price movements were largely reactive rather than directional.

By contrast, January 2026 confirmed a shift into a

structurally tight, supply-led market phase. Price formation became increasingly detached from short-term demand signals and instead anchored to execution constraints, logistics friction, and geopolitical risk premiums. This transition was visible not only in price behavior but also in freight markets, port congestion, and the narrowing gap between paper and physical availability.

Source: FAO – Fertilizer Market Context

Comparative Framework

Table 4 – Market Phase Comparison

Source: FAO; Green Gubre Group analysis based on Armaiti MEX

Visual Interpretation of the Phase Shift

Figure 3 – From Stabilization to Structural Tightness (Conceptual Framework)

Sulphur Market (January 2026)

3.1 Market Overview – From Peak to Controlled Normalizatio

January 2026 confirmed that the global sulphur market had entered a post-peak normalization phase, following the exceptional rally observed in late 2025. However, unlike a typical cyclical correction, price adjustment during January remained orderly and structurally supported, with no signs of capitulation or forced liquidation.

nWhile demand resistance—particularly from price-sensitive Asian buyers—tempered further upside momentum, sulphur prices did not experience a sharp retracement. Instead, values consolidated at elevated levels, reflecting the market’s transition from speculative scarcity pricing towardcost- and production-linked equilibrium.

This behavior underscores that sulphur’s late-2025 rally was not entirely speculative. Structural demand from the phosphate sector, combined with persistent logistics friction, prevented a rapid reversion to historical averages

Source: ICIS – Sulphur Market Updates

3.2 Demand Dynamics – Phosphates as the Structural Backbon

Sulphur demand during January was primarily anchored by phosphate fertilizer production, particularly in North Africa, the Middle East, and China. While downstream phosphate demand growth slowed relative to Q4 2025, production continuity remained critical to sustain sulphur offtake.

eAsian spot demand—especially from China and Southeast Asia—showed increased price sensitivity, limiting the willingness to chase higher numbers. However, this resistance manifested asbuying deferral rather than demand destruction. Producers and processors prioritized operational continuity, reinforcing a stable demand floor.

As a result, sulphur demand functioned asymmetrically

• Limited upside elasticity due to buyer resistance
• Strong downside protection due to phosphate-linked baseline consumption
  
  

Source: International Fertilizer Association (IFA) – Phosphate & Sulphur Linkages

Figure 5 – Sulphur Market Transition: Peak → Normalization (Q4 2025–Jan 2026

Source: ICIS; Green Gubre Group analysis

3.4 Strategic Interpretation

January 2026 demonstrated that sulphur had exited its speculative rally phase but had not entered a corrective collapse. Instead, the market transitioned into a structurally supported normalization regime, where phosphate-linked demand and logistics friction absorbed selling pressure.

For market participants, sulphur reinforced an important strategic lesson:

In environments where logistics capacity is constrained, even declining demand does not automatically translate into falling prices.

Sulphur thus acted as a bridge product between nitrogen and phosphates—less volatile than urea, less rigid than ammonia, but increasingly sensitive to port and freight dynamics.

Source: ICIS – Sulphur Market Analysis

5. Freight Market (Urea) – January 2026

5.1 Freight as a Structural Market Driver

Freight emerged as one of the most decisive and price-enforcing variables in the global urea market during January 2026. Unlike December—when freight acted primarily as a supportive cost component preventing deeper downside—January marked a transition in which freight availability, vessel positioning, and execution risk became binding constraints on trade flows.

Tight vessel availability across key bulk classes, combined with heightened insurance premiums linked to sanctions exposure and Middle East war-related risk, materially increased landed costs. These dynamics transformed freight from a passive input into an active mechanism of price enforcement, particularly on CFR-based markets.

This shift explains why urea prices continued to advance despite selective demand: markets no longer cleared on price alone, but on execution capacity.

Source: Baltic Exchange – Dry Bulk & Fertilizer Freight

5.2 Route-Specific Pressure – Persian Gulf as the Epicenter

Freight escalation was most pronounced on routes originating from the Persian Gulf, where geopolitical risk perception, insurance adjustments, and port congestion converged. Key urea export corridors—including Persian Gulf to Brazil and Persian Gulf to South Asia—saw freight rates rise throughout the month.

Even modest nominal freight increases translated into a significant impact on CFR, given already elevated FOB levels. In several cases, freight alone accounted for the difference between viable and non-viable buying decisions, effectively setting hard CFR price floors independent of producer pricing strategy.

This environment reduced arbitrage flexibility and discouraged opportunistic buying, reinforcing seller leverage across export origins.

Source: Baltic Exchange; Armaiti MEX Freight Assessments; Green Gubre Group analysis

Figure 7 – Urea Freight Escalation and CFR Price Enforcement

Source: Baltic Exchange; Armaiti MEX; Green Gubre Group synthesis

5.3 Port Congestion and Execution Risk

Freight pressure in January was compounded by persistent congestion at both loading and discharge ports. Jetty congestion, anchorage delays, and slow discharge rates—evident in Iranian ports—reduced effective vessel turnaround and absorbed available tonnage.

As a result, freight tightness was not solely a function of vessel count, but of time inefficiency. Each additional day spent at anchorage or awaiting berth reduced system-wide capacity, magnifying freight pressure even in the absence of new cargo demand.

This execution risk translated directly into pricing behavior. Buyers are increasingly factoring freight uncertainty into procurement decisions, reinforcing an upward bias in CFR negotiations.

Source: World Bank – Maritime Logistics & Trade Disruptions

Table 7 – Freight Market Drivers and Impact on Urea Pricing (January 2026)

Source: Baltic Exchange; World Bank; Green Gubre Group analysis

5.4 Strategic Interpretation

In January 2026, it was confirmed that freight had become a price-setting variable rather than merely a cost input. Once logistics capacity and vessel availability became constrained, traditional demand signals lost explanatory power. Prices rose not because buyers chased material, but because material could not move freely.

For urea exporters, freight conditions reinforced disciplined selling strategies. For importers, the month highlighted the risk of delayed procurement in environments where logistics—not production—are the limiting factor.

Freight thus functioned as the final enforcement layer in January’s structurally tight fertilizer market, linking geopolitical risk, port congestion, and pricing into a single constraint-driven system.

Source: Baltic Exchange – Dry Bulk Market Outlook

9. Outlook – Q1 to Q2 2026

9.1 Macro Positioning – Volatility Within Structural Support

Entering Q2 2026, global fertilizer markets are expected to remain volatile in execution but structurally supported in price formation. The correction cycle that dominated November 2025 has clearly ended, and markets are now operating within a framework defined by logistics constraints, cost floors, and embedded geopolitical risk, rather than demand-driven price discovery.

Price direction across nutrients will likely remain asymmetric: upside potential exists during periods of logistical stress or procurement concentration, while downside risk is limited by elevated freight and insurance costs, as well as upstream input economics. As a result, price movements are expected to be stepwise rather than trendless, with consolidation phases punctuated by episodic repricing.

Source: International Fertilizer Association (IFA) – Global Market Outlook

9.2 Urea – Event-Driven Risk with Structural Floor

Urea markets are expected to remain the most reactive segment of the fertilizer complex through Q1–Q2 2026. Price behavior will hinge on a few high-impact variables rather than on broad demand recovery.

Key drivers include:

• India’s procurement timing, which continues to act as a global price catalyst rather than a volume absorber
• China’s export management, particularly policy signaling around quota flexibility
• Persistence of logistics congestion, especially in Middle East export corridors and Atlantic Basin routes
  
  

While volatility around tenders and policy announcements is likely, downside risk remains constrained. Elevated freight costs and execution risk make it increasingly challenging to sustain sub-structural price levels, even during demand pauses.

Source: IFA; ICIS – Urea Market Outlook

Figure 9 – Urea Market Risk Asymmetry (Q1–Q2 2026, Conceptual)

Source: IFA; ICIS; Green Gubre Group synthesis

9.3 Ammonia – Stability Extending into Early Q2

Ammonia pricing is expected to remain firm into early Q2 2026, supported by contract structures, limited spot liquidity, and persistent energy cost pressure. Unlike urea, ammonia markets are unlikely to experience sharp price movements unless disrupted by major energy shocks or unexpected production outages.

Ammonia's stability will continue to provide a cost anchor for downstream nitrogen products, limiting the scope for aggressive discounting across the fertilizer chain. Any adjustment is expected to be gradual and contract-led rather than market-driven.

Source: ICIS – Ammonia Market Outlook

9.4 Sulphur and Phosphates – Gradual Normalization, Not Recovery

Sulphur and phosphate markets are expected to continue along a measured normalization path through Q1–Q2 2026. The extreme tightness observed in late 2025 has eased, but elevated cost structures and disciplined supply behavior prevent sharp corrections.

For sulphur, normalization will remain constrained by phosphate-linked demand and by competition for logistics at key ports. For phosphates, elevated ammonia and sulphur input costs will continue to enforce price floors, even as India and Brazil maintain selective buying strategies.

Neither market is positioned for rapid recovery, but equally, neither shows conditions consistent with structural weakness.

Source: FAO; ICIS – Phosphates & Sulphur Outlook

Table 9 – Outlook by Nutrient (Q1–Q2 2026)

Source: IFA; FAO; ICIS; Green Gubre Group analysis

9.5 Freight and Geopolitics – Persistent Risk Asymmetry

Freight and geopolitics are expected to remain structural variables rather than episodic risks through Q2 2026. Vessel availability, insurance premiums, and port congestion—particularly linked to Middle East trade flows—will continue to define execution risk and price floors.

Rather than amplifying volatility, these factors are likely to limit downside flexibility, reinforcing the asymmetric risk profile observed in January 2026. Markets are expected to price geopolitical risk as a persistent cost layer, not a temporary disturbance.

Source: World Bank – Commodity Markets Outlook

9.6 Strategic Takeaway

The Q1–Q2 2026 outlook confirms a market environment where discipline outweighs demand, and execution capacity outweighs theoretical availability. Fertilizer markets are unlikely to revert to pre-2025 price dynamics in the near term.

For market participants, the strategic implication is clear:

Success in Q2 2026 will depend less on predicting demand and more on managing logistics, timing procurement, and controlling execution risk.

Source: International Fertilizer Association (IFA) – Global Outlook

Conclusion

January 2026 marked a decisive structural inflection point in global fertilizer markets. The month confirmed the transition from the post-correction stabilization observed in December 2025 to a phase of logistics-constrained price escalation, in which execution capacity—not marginal demand—became the dominant determinant of market outcomes.

Unlike speculative rallies driven by sentiment or paper positioning, January’s price advances werephysically validated. Persistent port congestion, tight vessel availability, elevated freight and insurance costs, and disciplined producer behavior collectively reduced adequate supply elasticity across nutrients. As a result, prices advanced and consolidated at higher levels despite selective and cautious end-user demand.

This shift fundamentally altered the mechanics of price discovery. Markets no longer cleared through price alone; they are removed throughlogistics availability, execution timing, and risk tolerance. Urea absorbed the most significant volatility due to its exposure to freight and tender-driven demand, while ammonia remained firm as the cost anchor of the nitrogen complex. Sulphur and phosphates entered controlled normalization phases, supported by upstream cost floors and constrained logistics rather than demand recovery.

Geopolitical conditions in the Middle East further reinforced this environment. While fertilizer production and exports remained operational, war-related risk was increasingly priced as astructural premium embedded in freight, insurance, and operational planning. This risk normalization supported price stability rather than amplifying volatility, favoring disciplined supply chains over opportunistic trading.

Taken together, January 2026 confirmed that fertilizer markets have entered a regime in whichdownside flexibility is structurally limited, and upside risk materializes episodically through logistics disruptions, procurement concentration, or geopolitical escalation.

For market participants, the implication is clear

Competitive advantage in 2026 will be driven less by forecasting absolute price direction and more by controlling execution risk, logistics visibility, and geopolitical exposure.

Source: World Bank – Commodity Markets Outlook

Table 10 – January 2026: Structural Takeaways Across the Fertilizer Comple

Source: World Bank; IFA; ICIS; Baltic Exchange; Green Gubre Group synthesis

References & Data Sources

• Argus Media – Global Fertilizer & Petrochemical Pricing
• CRU Group – Fertilizers & Metals Market Analysis
• Armaiti Mercantile Exchange (Armaiti MEX) – Daily Fertilizer & Freight 
• International Fertilizer Association (IFA) – Global Fertilizer Market Intelligence
• World Bank – Commodity Markets Outlook & Input Cost Analysis
• FAO – Fertilizer Statistics & Global Nutrient Trade
• Trading Economics – Fertilizer, Urea & Sulphur Price Indicators
• ICIS – Market Intelligence
• Baltic Exchange – Dry Bulk & Fertilizer Freight Indices
• European Commission – CBAM & Fertilizer Regulatory Framework
• USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) – Fertilizer Market Reports