The U.S. LNG Pause: Implications for the Global Fertiliser and Food Markets
Peter Fawley
The U.S. LNG Pause
On January 26, the Biden administration announced a temporary pause on approvals of new liquified natural gas (LNG) export projects. The pause applies to proposed or future projects that have not yet received authorisation from the United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) to export LNG to countries that do not have a free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States. This is significant as many of the largest importers of U.S. LNG–including members of the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, and China–do not have FTAs with the United States. Without the DOE authorisation, an LNG project will not be allowed to export to these countries. The policy will not affect existing export projects or those currently under construction. The Department of Energy has not offered any indication for how long the pause will be in effect.
This pause will have political and economic implications across the globe, and is expected to apply further pressure to the LNG market, fertiliser prices, and agricultural production. The following analysis will first delve into the rationale for the pause, the expected impact it will have on global LNG supplies, and the associated risks this poses for the fertiliser and food markets. It will then examine the impact of this policy change on India’s agricultural sector, given that the country is heavily reliant on LNG imports to manufacture fertilisers for agricultural production. The article will conclude with brief remarks about the pause.
Reasons for the Pause
According to the Biden administration, the current review framework is outdated and does not properly account for the contemporary LNG market. The White House’s announcement cited issues related to the consideration of energy costs and environmental impacts. The pause will allow DOE to update the underlying analysis and review process for LNG export authorisations to ensure that they more adequately account for current considerations and are aligned with the public interest.
There are also likely political motivations at play, given the upcoming election in the United States. Both climate considerations and domestic energy prices are expected to garner significant attention during the lead up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election. The Biden administration has been under increasing pressure from environmental activists, the political left, and domestic industry regarding the U.S. LNG industry’s impact on climate goals and domestic energy prices. In fact, over 60 U.S policymakers recently sent a letter to DOE urging its leadership to reexamine how it factors in public interests when authorising new licences for LNG export projects.
These groups have argued that the stark increase in recent U.S. LNG exports is incompatible with U.S. climate commitments and policy objectives, as the LNG value chain has a sizeable emissions footprint. Moreover, there is a concern about the standard it sets for future policy. An implicit and uncontested acceptance of LNG could signal that the U.S is wholly committed to continued use of fossil fuels as an energy source, leading to more industry investments in fossil fuels at the expense of renewable energy technologies. In an unusual political alliance, large U.S. industrial manufacturers are lobbying alongside environmentalists to curb LNG exports. These consumers, who are dependent on natural gas for their manufacturing processes, worry that additional LNG export projects will raise domestic natural gas prices. Therefore, the pause may then be interpreted as an acknowledgement of these concerns and an attempt to reassure supporters that the Biden administration is committed to furthering its climate goals and securing lower domestic energy prices.
Impact on LNG Supplies
Since the pause only pertains to prospective projects, there will be no impact on current U.S. LNG export capacity. However, the pause may constrain supply and reduce forecasted global output as the new policy indefinitely halts progress on proposed LNG projects that are currently awaiting DOE authorisation. In the long-term, this announcement has the potential to tighten the LNG market, potentially resulting in increased natural gas prices and other commercial ramifications. Because the U.S. is currently the world’s largest LNG exporter, a drop in expected future U.S. supplies may force LNG importers to seek to diversify their supply. Some LNG buyers will likely redirect their attention to other, more certain sources of LNG, such as Qatar or Australia. Additionally, industry may be more keen to invest in projects in countries that have less regulatory ambiguity related to LNG projects.
Risk for the Global Fertiliser and Food Markets
Natural gas is key to the production of nitrogen-based fertilisers, which are the most common fertilisers on the market. With regard to the use of natural gas in fertiliser production, most of it (approximately 80 per cent) is employed as a raw material feedstock, while the remaining amount is used to power the synthesis process. Farmers and industry prefer natural gas as a feedstock as it enables the efficient production of effective fertilisers at the least cost.
The U.S. pause on new LNG projects is an unsettling signal to already fragile natural gas markets given the existence of relatively tight current supplies and a forecasted shortfall in future supply levels. This announcement will exacerbate vulnerabilities and put increased pressure on global supplies, potentially leading to greater volatility and price escalation. Additionally, increased global demand for natural gas will further strain the LNG market. Therefore, global fertiliser prices may increase given that natural gas is an integral input in fertiliser production. Natural gas supply uncertainty stemming from the U.S. announcement may not only impact market prices for fertiliser, but could also increase government subsidies needed to support the agricultural industry to protect farmers from price volatility. Due to the increased subsidy outlay, government expenditure on other publicly-funded programs could plausibly be reduced.
The last time there was a significant shock to the natural gas market, fertiliser shortages and greater food insecurity ensued. Following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, there was a stark increase in natural gas prices, which led to a rise in the cost of fertiliser production. This prompted many firms to curtail output, causing fertiliser prices to soar to multi-year highs. Higher fertiliser costs will theoretically induce farmers to switch from nitrogen-dependent crops (e.g., corn and wheat) to less fertiliser-intensive crops or decrease their overall usage of fertilisers, both of which may jeopardise overall agricultural yield. Given that fertiliser usage and agricultural output are positively correlated, surging fertiliser costs in 2022 translated into higher food prices across the world. While inflationary pressures have subsided in recent time, global food markets remain vulnerable to fertiliser prices and associated supply shocks. This is especially true for countries that are largely dependent on their agricultural industry for both economic output and domestic consumption. Food insecurity and global food supplies may also be further constrained by unrelated impacts on crop yields, such as extreme weather and droughts.
Case Study: India
The future LNG supply shortfall and its impact on fertiliser and food markets may be felt most acutely by India. The country is considered an agrarian economy, as many of its citizens – particularly the rural populations – depend on domestic agricultural production for income and food supplies. Fertiliser use is rampant in India and the country’s agricultural industry relies heavily on nitrogen-based fertilisers for agricultural production. With a steadily rising population and a finite amount of arable land, expanded fertiliser usage will be necessary to increase crop production per acre. As a majority of India’s fertiliser is synthesised from imported LNG, the expected increased demand for fertiliser will necessitate more LNG imports.
LNG imports to India are projected to significantly rise in 2024, with analysts forecasting a year-on-year growth of approximately 10 per cent. Over the long-term, the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that overall natural gas imports to India will grow from 3.6 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) in 2022 to 13.7 Bcf/d in 2050, a 4.9 per cent average annual increase. The agricultural industry is a substantial contributor to this growth. This trend is only expected to continue, as India has announced that it plans to phase out urea (a nitrogenous fertiliser) imports by 2025 in order to further develop its domestic fertiliser industry. To ensure adequate supplies for domestic urea production, India is expected to increase its natural gas demand and associated reliance on LNG imports. A recent agreement between Deepak Fertilisers, a large Indian fertiliser firm, and multinational energy company Equinor exemplifies this. The agreement secures supplies of LNG (0.65 million tons annually) for 15 years, starting in 2026.
Concluding Remarks
The U.S. pause on new LNG export facilities will have ramifications for the global natural gas market and supply chain. While current export capacity will not be jeopardised, the policy change will delay future projects and may put investment plans into question. The pause will also have implications for downstream markets in which natural gas is an important input, such as the fertiliser market. There are a couple of questions that now loom over the LNG industry: (1) what will be the duration of the pause; and (2) to what extent will the pause affect LNG markets?
While the U.S. Department of Energy has given no firm timeline for the pause, analysts estimate – based on previous updates – that the DOE review will likely last through at least the end of 2024. The expectation is that the longer the pause remains in effect, the more uncertainty it will create, especially as it relates to private industry investment decisions and confidence in U.S. LNG in the long-term. In addition to the fertiliser and food markets, transportation, electricity generation, chemical, ceramic, textile, and metallurgical industries may all be affected by the pause. One potentially positive consequence is that because LNG is often thought of as a transitional fuel (between coal and renewable energies), a large enough impact on LNG supplies could accelerate the energy transition directly from coal to renewable sources of energy, providing a boost to the clean energy technologies market. However, the pause may also create tensions with trading partners as it could be interpreted as an export control or a discriminatory trade practice, both of which stand in violation of the principles of the multilateral rules-based trading system. This may expose the U.S. to potential challenges and disputes at the World Trade Organization. Although it may be some time before we are provided concrete answers to these questions, the results of the 2024 U.S. presidential election will provide some insight into what LNG policies in the U.S. will look like going forward.
We’ve Got a Fungal Problem: A Looming Threat to Global Wheat Production and Food Security
Wheat is one of the most important staple crops in the world, providing food and income for billions of people. However, wheat production is facing a serious challenge from fusarium blight, a fungal disease that infects wheat ears and reduces grain quality and yield. It also produces mycotoxins, which are harmful to human and animal health. The fungus is influenced by weather conditions, especially temperature and rainfall, and is expected to worsen under climate change scenarios. This spotlight examines the current and projected impacts of fusarium blight on wheat production, prices, and security, and discusses the political implications.
Current Impacts of Fusarium Blight
Fusarium blight is a widespread and devastating disease of wheat, affecting all major wheat-producing regions in the world. The fungus lowers yields and reduces the quality of wheat grains by lowering their test weight, protein content, and germination rate. It also contaminates wheat grains with mycotoxins, such as deoxynivalenol (DON) and zearalenone (ZEA), which can cause acute and chronic health problems in humans and animals, such as vomiting, diarrhoea, reproductive disorders, immune suppression, and cancer. This presence of mycotoxins in wheat affects its marketability and trade, as many countries have set maximum allowable levels for mycotoxins in food and feed.
Fusarium blight outbreaks are highly variable and depend on several factors, such as the susceptibility of wheat cultivars, the timing and duration of flowering, and the weather conditions during flowering and post-flowering. Warm, wet, humid conditions during flowering favour infection by fusarium species, causing ear blights and seed-borne infection. Further rainfall and humid conditions allow secondary infections to occur, allowing further fungal growth and mycotoxin production. Therefore, fusarium blight epidemics are often associated with wet seasons or regions with high rainfall or irrigation.
In terms of specific numbers, the FHB epidemic has been reported to lead to a 10–70% of production loss during epidemic years. For example, in China, a 5–10% yield loss is common due to FHB, but it can reach up to 100% in epidemic years, affecting around 7 million hectares of wheat fields.
These factors can create a supply shortage, which in turn can drive up the price of wheat in the commodity market. However, the exact impact on wheat prices can vary depending on a range of factors, including the severity of the outbreak, the region’s reliance on wheat production, and the global wheat market conditions at the time of the outbreak.
Winter Wheat
Commodity wheat, sometimes referred to as winter or common wheat , accounts for the vast majority of production worldwide as it contains higher protein than other varieties, this allows for a wider range of uses and a higher number of possible products produced from the wheat itself. Winter wheat is planted in the autumn and harvested in the following summer. It is grown in temperate regions of the world, such as Europe, North America, China, and India. Winter wheat also provides soil cover and erosion control during the winter months.
Blight is much more common in winter wheat than in spring wheat because winter wheat has a longer exposure to the risk factors that favour fusarium infection. These risk factors include warm and humid weather during flowering, and susceptible varieties. Winter wheat also tends to flower earlier than spring wheat, which coincides with the peak period of fusarium spore production and dispersal.
Projected Impacts of Fusarium Blight under Climate Change
Climate change is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, storms, and hail. These events can directly affect wheat production by damaging crops or reducing yields. However, climate change can also indirectly affect wheat production by altering the distribution and severity of plant diseases, such as fusarium blight.
The extent to which fusarium blight may affect the prices of winter wheat depends on several factors, such as the magnitude and frequency of fusarium epidemics, the availability and cost of fungicides and resistant varieties, the demand and supply of wheat in the global market, and the regulations and standards for mycotoxin contamination. Fusarium blight can reduce the quantity and quality of winter wheat, which may lower its market value and increase its production costs. Fusarium blight may also pose a threat to food safety and security, as mycotoxins can cause adverse health effects in humans and animals. Therefore, fusarium blight can have negative impacts on the income and welfare of farmers, consumers, processors, traders, and regulators.
Several studies have projected the impacts of climate change on fusarium blight using crop models coupled with disease models and climate scenarios. The results vary depending on the location, time horizon, emission scenario, and model assumptions. However, some general trends can be observed:
Climate change will advance wheat anthesis dates, the stage of the wheat life cycle that allows for full flowering, it is at this stage that wheat is vulnerable to blight and rainfall during this period is predictive of incidents of blight. Due to higher temperatures and shorter growing seasons this may reduce the exposure of wheat to fusarium infection during flowering, as the peak of infection may occur before or after anthesis. However, this may also increase the risk of heat stress and drought stress during grain filling, which can reduce wheat yields and quality.
Climate change will increase the incidence and severity of fusarium blight in regions where rainfall and humidity are projected to increase, especially during flowering. This may enhance the infection by fusarium species and the production of mycotoxins in wheat grains. However, this may also reduce the risk of water stress and increase the water use efficiency of wheat crops.
Climate change will decrease the incidence and severity of fusarium blight in regions where rainfall and humidity are projected to decrease, especially during flowering. This may reduce the infection by fusarium species and the production of mycotoxins in wheat grains. However, this may also increase the risk of water stress and reduce the water use efficiency of wheat crops.
Implications for Wheat Prices and Security
The impacts of fusarium blight on wheat production, quality, and trade have significant implications for wheat prices and security. Wheat prices are determined by the interaction of supply and demand factors in global markets. Supply factors include production, stocks, trade policies, weather shocks, and diseases. Demand factors include consumption, income, population growth, preferences, and biofuel policies. Wheat security refers to the availability, accessibility, utilisation, and stability of wheat for food and feed purposes.
Fusarium blight can affect both supply and demand factors of wheat prices and security. On the supply side, fusarium blight can reduce wheat production by lowering yields and quality. This can create a supply shortage in domestic or international markets, leading to higher prices. Fusarium blight can also affect wheat trade by reducing exports or increasing imports. This can create a trade imbalance or a trade disruption in regional or global markets, leading to price volatility. Fusarium blight can also affect wheat stocks by reducing storage or increasing disposal. This can create a stock depletion or a stock accumulation in national or global markets, leading to price instability.
On the demand side, fusarium blight can reduce wheat consumption by lowering preferences or increasing health risks, even as states maintain high standards, the share of global wheat that meets those standards will decrease thereby decreasing supply and decreasing the amount of high quality wheat products available to consumers. This can create a demand decline in domestic or international markets, leading to lower prices.
On the supply side, fusarium blight can also affect wheat income by reducing profits or increasing costs. This can create an income loss or an income transfer in producer or consumer groups, leading to price inequality. Fusarium blight can also affect wheat population by reducing growth or increasing mortality. This can create a wheat population decrease or a population displacement in rural or urban areas, leading to price insecurity.
Wider Consequences and Political Risk
The wider consequences of fusarium blight in winter wheat are related to its potential effects on food security, public health, trade, and environment. Fusarium blight can reduce the availability and accessibility of wheat as a staple food for millions of people around the world. Fusarium blight can also compromise the nutritional quality and safety of wheat products due to mycotoxin contamination. Fusarium blight can affect the trade relations between countries that produce or import winter wheat, as different countries may have different standards and regulations for mycotoxin levels. Fusarium blight can also have environmental implications, as it may increase the use of fungicides that can have negative effects on biodiversity and water quality.
The political risk of fusarium blight in winter wheat can be explained as the possibility of conflicts or disputes arising from the different interests and perspectives of various stakeholders involved in the production, consumption, and trade of wheat. For example, fusarium blight can create tensions between wheat exporters and importers, as the former may face lower demand and higher costs due to quality issues, while the latter may face higher prices and lower supply due to scarcity issues. Fusarium blight can also create challenges for policymakers and regulators, as they have to balance the needs and expectations of different groups, such as farmers, consumers, processors, traders, and environmentalists. Fusarium blight can also affect the stability and security of regions or countries that depend heavily on wheat as a food source, as it can cause food shortages, malnutrition, and health problems. Fusarium blight can also trigger social unrest or violence, as people may protest or riot against the authorities or other groups for their perceived failures or injustices related to wheat production or distribution.
Conclusion
In conclusion, fusarium blight emerges as a looming threat to global wheat production and security, with its multifaceted impacts on yield, grain quality, human and animal health, and international trade. The intertwined relationship between fusarium blight and climate change exacerbates the challenge, requiring comprehensive and adaptive strategies. Beyond its immediate economic consequences, the disease's far-reaching effects on food security, public health, trade relations, and environmental sustainability underscore the urgency for collaborative international efforts. Addressing fusarium blight demands not only innovative agricultural practices, resistant crop varieties, and stringent regulatory standards but also necessitates a holistic approach, involving policymakers, researchers, farmers, and consumers to ensure the resilience of global wheat production systems in the face of this pressing threat.
Rice Bowls and Revitalization: Navigating China's Complex Food Security Landscape
Introduction
CCP Chairman Xi Jinping has proclaimed that the “Chinese people should hold their rice bowls firmly in their own hands, with grains mainly produced by themselves”. Yet this directly conflicts with his other stated goal of “rural revitalisation”, the effort to identify high value crops and agricultural industries for the purpose of raising farmer’s incomes and to alleviate rural poverty. Such tensions denote the contrast between two old visions of the state's duty to Chinese citizens, with both outlooks sharing little in common with the other.
This is reflective of the dual problems China faces over the coming decades: how to continue on the path of uplifting the rural poor from poverty, whilst simultaneously restricting their choice of crops to core staples in the interest of national food security.
This spotlight presents the problems facing China’s domestic food supply and increasing foreign dependence while discussing the complications caused by goals of both economic uplift of citizens and the long term protection of the nation’s dwindling farmland. Additionally, this spotlight analyses historic trends in Chinese food production and demand and their subsequent effect on global food prices, before reviewing the possible Taiwan-related motivations of the Chinese state.
This spotlight concludes that the proclaimed “guozhidazhe”, meaning a national priority or a main affair of the state, can be considered both as a push for food security while at the same time demonstrating a deliberate decision to prioritise the food security of the urban middle classes over the rural poor, this tradeoff itself having political and social consequences.
Rural Policy Background
The Deng Xiaoping market reforms of the 1980s seem to fade further and further into the rear view mirror as China trundles along towards true self-sufficiency. That’s when collective farms, a staple of most early communist regimes, were split and farmers were permitted to sell any crop they wished at market price.
Current Chairman, Xi Jingping, takes the opposite view, that Chinese farmers must forget the days when premium sellers such as flowers and fruit were harvested on China’s dwindling and already small stocks of arable land. Instead, farmers must focus on harvesting the staples that keep a nation going, a factory’s workers churning, and the nation’s stockpiles ever expanding. As such, China has been building up huge stockpiles in basic foodstuffs such as wheat, rice, and corn (around a year’s national supply of each). This has raised the global price of grain, with China now hoarding over half the world’s supply.
China is not blessed with good conditions for agricultural production. China has long been troubled by famine, with the emperors of antiquity usually looking to fill bellies as the first step to win hearts and minds. Today, China attempts to feed a fifth of humanity with less than 10% of the world’s farmland and only 7% of the world’s fresh water. Despite this, it manages to produce around a quarter of the world’s grain and ranks first across the globe for the production of cereals, fruit, vegetables, meat, poultry, eggs, and fishery products.
China's food security strategy today faces several challenges and trade-offs. One of them is the dilemma between increasing farmer's incomes and promoting the production of basic foodstuffs over cash crops. Cash crops are crops that are grown for sale rather than for domestic consumption, such as cotton, tobacco, tea, and fruits. Cash crops can provide higher returns for farmers and stimulate rural development, but they also compete with food crops for land, water, and other resources. This is causing confusion and resentment on the ground, where generations of shifting national priorities have been felt in the pockets of China’s rural population.
Another challenge is the dependence of China's food security on the stability of the global food market and the geopolitical situation. China is the world's largest importer of agricultural products, including soybeans, corn, wheat, rice, and dairy products. Between 2000 and 2020, the country’s food self-sufficiency ratio decreased from 93.6 percent to 65.8 percent. This is predominantly due to changing diet patterns with imports of edible oils, sugar, meat, and processed foods increasing.
This has been spurred on by the increasingly large Chinese urban middle class. More concerned with food safety than their parents, and dismayed from Chinese brands by decades of little to no strict food safety regulations in the country, these people turn increasingly to internationally imported goods. Additionally, there have been many contaminated and unsafe food scandals in China this side of the millennium, for example a large proportion of parents are still loyal to foreign baby formula as the result of six babies dying and hundreds of thousands being poisoned as a result of contaminated domestically produced formula in 2008.
China is also the largest producer of meat on the planet as stated earlier. This has been achieved by diverting many of the basic foodstuffs to livestock instead of to humans. China consumes around 175 million tonnes of corn in animal feed each year and imports approximately 100 million tonnes of soybeans to also use in animal feed. The growing urban middle class has increased demand for animal products domestically, such that corn used for animal feeds tripled from around 20% in the 1960s to 64% by 1994. This has contributed to state concerns over food security, with more of the staples going to livestock than ever before and the population's nutritional intake increasing in complexity. The reliance on imported food to meet those needs presents China with a problem, not just in terms of quantity for those at the bottom, but also in terms of quality and variety for those in the newly established middle class. China, therefore, is aiming to increase staple harvests not just to meet the needs of the population in terms of calories but also in terms of happiness and nutrition in an evermore complex and dangerous world the CCP perceives in the face of climate and geopolitical threats.
Additionally, it is difficult for food producers to make any meaningful profit farming staples, due to the price controls instituted from the top down. Therefore, another of Xi’s policy staples seems set for the chopping block. Xi has identified the uplifting of the rural poor as a priority for the CCP by allowing them to grow crops of high market value and invest in profitable agricultural industries to achieve rural revitalisation.
China has further diversified its uses for corn into the production of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). Reforms in the mid-2010s led to a mass sell-off of the nation’s then corn reserves and allowed for HFCS output to increase and for idle capacity to be reignited. HFCS sells for around a third of the price of natural sugar in China and garners a fifth of the domestic sweetener market. Chinese HFCS has also been exported abroad and disrupted the sugar industries of a number of southeast Asian states, with already declining sugar consumption causing concern in the Philippines where sugar cane harvests regularly outstrip demand and where around half of Chinese HFCS ends up. As the CCP pushes for more corn to be grown domestically and therefore be bought within strict price controls, the HFCS industry may further disrupt the growth in sugar demand awaited by many burgeoning economies in the region, particularly India, Indonesia, and Vietnam where imports of Chinese HFCS rank just behind the Philippines.
The Filipino government enacted trade restrictions on Chinese HFCS to protect domestic sugar production, further export of HFCS will increase tensions, place economic pressure on a key Filipino national industry, and inflame tensions in the region.
However, many question what happened to the “Grain to Green” goal set in the 1990s of planting forests to counter soil erosion and limit desertification. China’s food dependence is predicted to continue increasing, as a result of arable land loss. China in 2019 only possessed 95% of the arable land it held in 2013, this has been attributed to overuse of fertilisers, neglect of land, and climate change. Extreme weather, environmental degradation, water scarcity, and pollution all look to be ready to make the problem worse in the coming years and decades. Researchers from both China and the US judged that climate change and the loss of parts of the ozone layer were responsible for a 10% drop in average crop yields from 1981 to 2010.
The implications for global commodities
A fifth of humanity drastically changing the quantities and types of food they eat has unsurprisingly had major effects on the global price of food in the past. The food price hike of 2007-2008 pushed approximately 400 million people into poverty worldwide and was partly blamed by many on China and India’s rising demand for foreign agriculture leading to increased consumer competition on international markets and therefore higher prices.
However, if China stays on course to increase the amount of food produced domestically, at least in the short to medium term, based on the lack of attention paid to the slowly dwindling supply of arable land, then demand internationally for agricultural commodities like wheat, rice, and corn is bound to fall, possibly leading to a reduction in prices for these basic products and the foodstuffs they produce in combination with other materials and ingredients. Some of the poorest and most import-dependent countries on Earth should expect less competition at the table from now on as China prioritises the stomachs of its people over its farmers’ wallets.
Why Change So Much So Quickly?
China’s buildup of stockpiles on top of increasing domestic food production has many analysts worried. With tensions over Taiwan at a high, it raises the possibility that China’s move to increase food security is an attempt to prepare for future US-led sanctions and blockades as a consequence of invading what it considers to be a rebel province.
Alternatively, the justifications of the policy make sense in the opposite terms, not that conflict is planned but that shocks to the global food system, such as the collapse of the Ukraine Russia grain deal of which China was a major beneficiary, are only expected to increase as a result of conflicts in the region, or on the other side of the world.
It can be easily understood that the push for national food security is one caused by external factors alone, but the initiative’s counteraction against ideals of rural revitalisation demonstrate a definite domestic consequence and a readjustment of the urban/rural political and economic relationship in China. Even as improved physical and digital infrastructure draw the educated and successful back to small towns and villages, there has been very little progress towards bridging the urban/rural divide. In 1995, urban workers made three times their rural counterparts, today the ratio is roughly the same even in the face of government efforts to close the gap.
The realignment taking place, for farmers to grow low income but highly needed crops to keep both basic food prices low and maintain a steady supply of cheap other foodstuffs such as meat and sweetener, illuminates China’s prioritisation of the urban middle classes with more complex dietary expectations over the farmers and rural poor reaching to claim their share of the Chinese dream.
Conclusion
China's dual objectives of ensuring food security and promoting rural revitalisation underscore a complex challenge. Balancing the imperative for self-sufficiency with the need to uplift rural communities reveals tensions between historical legacies, socioeconomic aspirations, and global realities. The intricate interplay between these goals not only impacts China's domestic landscape but also resonates internationally through changing trade dynamics and geopolitical considerations. The nation's journey to navigate these complexities will define its agricultural trajectory, with far-reaching implications for both its citizens and the global community.
Image credit: Colin W via Wikimedia Commons
Cry For Me Argentina: What the current soybean rally tells us about climate change and food security
Soybeans are a fundamental commodity for the global food chain. While only a tiny fraction of the crop is used directly for human consumption, soybeans are a crucial component of animal feed, and as such indirectly significant for human consumption. This means that soybeans can have a substantial impact on food prices in general. For this reason, the out of season increase in price of soybean futures (ZSH3: CBOT) and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) like the Teucrium Soybean Fund ($SOYB: NASDAQ) could be a potential warning sign of how climate change might adversely impact global food security. This is because many analysts are associating the increase in price to the ongoing summer drought in Argentina and Brazil – two key exporters, accounting for half of global supply of soybeans. Cultivation of the crop in Brazil occurs traditionally in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, whereas in Argentina cultivation is spread across the Argentine Pampas and the province of Santiago del Estero.
Reuters reported on January 12 2023 that up to 90-per-cent of the expected harvest in Rio Grande do Sul will be wiped out in the absence of heavy rainfall – this lack of rainfall in Rio Grande do Sul was also highlighted in the latest agroclimatic monthly report published by the Brazilian Meteorological Institute. Likewise La Bolsa de Cereales (Buenos Aires’ grain exchange) reports that in the event of a severe drought the country will miss its expected harvest by 12.5 megatons, while a mild drought would dampen this loss to seven megatons. According to the same report, the impact of this dry winter could be a reduction of two per-cent of the value of Argentina’s entire agricultural industry this year. The impact this has had on futures is not so pronounced, however. Since December 1 2022 the value of ZSH3 futures contracts maturing in March 2023 increased 3.75 per cent from $1,489.40 to 1,435.60, peaking at $1,546.40 on January 17 2023. Likewise in the same timeframe, $SOYB has risen a modest 1.48 per cent from $27.05 to $27.45, finding resistance at $28.50 on January 12 and January 17 2023.
In the context of near-record global inflation over the last year and a summer drought in South America, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact causal mechanism of the higher-than-average prices of soybean futures. However, the arid weather conditions in Argentina and Brazil have sprung short-term supply shocks which could be driving this out of season rise in soybean prices. Furthermore, other grain ETFs focussing on different crops, such as wheat ($WEAT) and maize ($CORN) are seemingly returning to pre-covid price fluctuations, although they are still dealing with spillover from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In the long-term, increasing temperatures and decreasing rainfall will potentially reduce supply. Nevertheless, the impact on price remains unclear. Whether climate change will impact harvest cycles, and by extension price fluctuations, or if harvest cycles and price fluctuations occur with the same seasonality as they have done, thus far, remains to be seen.
The untimely nature of this modest increase in soybean prices and the timing of the droughts in Argentina and Brazil do raise concerns for the long-term supply and price of grains in the context of deteriorating climate change. Both in Argentina and Brazil, average temperatures have increased by over 1 degree celsius since records began in the 1930s. Although historical rainfall data for Brazil is not as readily available, the decrease in average rainfall in Argentina since record-keeping began has been around 50mm/year.
Whilst the recent links between extreme climate events, crop cycles, and commodity prices are cause for concern in the long-run, we ought to be prudent in overstating the negative impacts on crop prices and food security. Yield gaps – the difference between attainable/expected yield and actual yield – in economically developed countries exporting barley, maize, soybeans, and wheat have been decreasing as total output has marginally increased. Other environmental and physiological concerns impacting crop health – such as disease and crop resilience – have also been improving yields with the help of new technologies.
In summary, the current supply-side issues will probably make for a very expensive year for soybean futures and, because of the crop’s use in animal feed and oils, probably will have some impact on supermarket shelves too. The impact of the current drought could well be corrected if inflation subsides or indeed, if a recession occurs. But this remains to be seen. With this and next week’s forecasts pointing to some rain in Junín, Buenos Aires – one of the larger soybean pastures in the province – and Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil, there is still hope that some of the South American soybean harvest can be rescued.