Fertilizers Europe said on 14 October 2026 that it had withdrawn an anti-dumping complaint concerning Russian urea. The move removes one possible channel for additional trade-related costs on imports. Other trade and sanctions-related risks remain in place.
The announcement coincides with a European Commission clarification on how the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) treats carbon dioxide that is chemically incorporated into urea. The clarification affects how European and overseas fertiliser producers are compared for carbon-related exposure.
Commission guidance on CO2 chemically bound into urea
The Commission’s latest CBAM Q&A states that carbon dioxide chemically bound into urea cannot be treated as negative emissions. It says carbon dioxide produced during ammonia production and then transferred into urea production continues to be counted as an emission at the ammonia production stage.
The guidance also indicates that, although urea production uses CO2 as a feedstock, chemical incorporation does not automatically create a carbon credit under CBAM. Importers are therefore expected to evaluate upstream emissions tied to ammonia production rather than treating the finished fertiliser as capturing an equivalent quantity of carbon.
Factors influencing urea competitiveness across regions
Commercial comparisons between Russian, Middle Eastern, North African and European urea depend on multiple variables. These include natural-gas efficiency, plant technology, eligible carbon prices in the country of origin, logistics, and the quality of verified emissions data.
European producers argue that high gas and carbon costs threaten domestic production capacity. Importers, meanwhile, are expected to weigh headline commodity prices against the anticipated CBAM adjustment.
The CBAM effect can change the balance of price comparisons when embedded emissions are high. A low free-on-board (FOB) price may be offset by a border charge linked to embedded emissions, while lower-emissions production may support a higher commodity price if it reduces the importer’s CBAM cost.
Separate risk assessments for trade measures and CBAM liability
For banks and distributors, the distinction between trade-policy risk and carbon-cost risk is becoming more relevant. Anti-dumping measures may change through political or legal decisions, while CBAM exposure is tied to emissions generated by the underlying production process.
The CBAM approach requires separate verification and due diligence focused on upstream emissions. As a result, withdrawing the anti-dumping complaint does not remove uncertainty in the European fertiliser market, and attention remains on production costs, upstream emissions, and resulting CBAM liability when comparing competing urea supplies.