The Central European Grain Import Ban Extension: The Stakes and Market Response
Background
Earlier this year, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Slovakia, sought unilateral grain import bans from Ukraine, citing the threats that cheaper grain prices were hindering the business and livelihoods of their domestic farmers and agricultural producers. These measures raised concerns from other EU member states, who saw these actions as abandoning a war-torn Ukraine in its hour of need. In April, however, Poland and the other EU member states agreed to lift the ban on Ukrainian imports after a deal was reached by the European Commission to “impose temporary curbs” on Ukrainian grain imports. The measures also covered Romania, who shared the same concerns as the other member states, but never took unilateral action. The measures included curbs on wheat, maize, oilseed, and sunflower, while the commission would investigate whether to extend the curbs to other commodities such as eggs and meat. All 5 countries would also receive 100m Euros from the EU to compensate farmers.
Pressure of Extension
On July 19, Poland, along with Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, and Romania, asked the EU to “extend trade curbs on Ukrainian grain amid concerns that Russia’s blockage of Black Sea shipments could put further pressure on their domestic markets.” Poland has been one of the strongest western supporters for Ukraine in its war against Russia, leading calls for solidarity as well as backing the removal of tariffs on Ukrainian foods. However, Poland is facing a highly contested election later this year, where the current right-wing government will depend on the support of farmers, a “cornerstone of its electorate”. There is likely to be strong resistance against an extension among EU member states, as many of these countries have been hit hard from sanctions on Russia and will see this as Poland and the others looking for special treatment. Diplomats from the EU have expressed their dissatisfaction with the extension, while Polish Prime Minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, has warned Brussels that the 5 countries will extend the band themselves if the EU does not comply, stating “we will be tough, determined and we will certainty defend the Polish farmers.” Last week, Russia ended its Black Sea grain deal. This places more pressure on Ukraine to identify other ways to export their grain. Western leaders have expressed that the end of the deal could exacerbate food insecurity in the global south.
What’s at Stake?
Regarding whether or not the extension will be approved, there are three important points at stake: The upcoming Fall elections in Poland and Slovakia, denunciation from Ukraine and other EU member countries, and the livelihood of farmers in the Central European region. The import bans, along with Russia’s exit from the Black Sea Deal, have put the livelihoods of Ukrainian farmers in jeopardy. As one farmer stated, “We have some reserves so we can survive for a month or so, but if we can’t sell it’s going to be a disaster.” After 17 months of conflict in Ukraine, which has resulted in economic hardship for the country, farmers would feel the brunt of the extension. On the other hand, an end to the extension would cause negative repercussions to the farmers of the 5 countries who continue to push for the extension of the ban. Poland and Slovakia are scheduled to hold parliamentary elections later this year, with both ruling parties of each country greatly needing the support of their rural farmers. Poland’s Law and Justice Party (PiS) is campaigning for a third consecutive term in power, and the party must secure the votes of Polish farmers if they want to secure a win in the parliamentary elections. A failure to extend a ban on grains from Ukraine could cost the PiS the votes needed to secure their desired win. Other EU member states have become increasingly angry at the 5 countries looking to extend the import ban. German agricultural minister, Cem Özdemir, was angered that the 5 countries wanted to extend the import bans, despite getting €100 million in EU money to compensate their domestic farmers, stating “It’s not acceptable that states receive funds from Brussels as a form of mitigation, and then still close their borders''. Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy commented that "Any extension of the restrictions is absolutely unacceptable and outright non-European. Europe has the institutional capacity to act more rationally than to close a border for a particular product.” At a crucial time for European leaders to continue their unified support for Ukraine, there is little room for division and disagreements, an eventuality that would play into Moscow’s hand.
Current and Likely Market Response
Before the import ban, it was a difficult task for Ukraine to export grain to traditional markets, in Africa and elsewhere, because of the high cost of transportation. As a result, much of the grain from Ukraine has remained in bordering countries, which initially fueled the anger from the 5 EU countries. On top of that, the initial extension of the Black Sea grain deal by Russia and Turkey reduced the demand for land routes that were set up by the EU for transporting grain. Recently, prices have increased because of Russia’s exit from the Black Sea Grain Initiative and from Russian attacks on Ukrainian shipping facilities. As a result, wheat prices soared to a five-month high, and a 2.6% increase in wheat futures trading in Chicago. In recent months, Ukrainian exports of maize, wheat, and barley to the EU have decreased because of the ban.
Source: Euronews
Though global grain supplies and markets have been sufficient, owing to plentiful harvests in Brazil and Australia, the grain export shortages from Ukraine are likely to create volatility in the price of grain. With few options for exporters, agricultural analyst Michael Magdovitz, says that Ukrainian farmers are likely to place some of their harvest into storage. This will decrease their ability to prepare for next year’s harvest, limiting Ukrainian grain production. Analysts also predict that Russia’s withdrawal from the grain deal could benefit the Russian economy, as a major grain exporter, as it is expected to hit a record high harvest this year. This allows Russia to provide free grain to African countries, who were formerly relying on grain exports from Ukraine.
In 2014, a study authored by Fellman, Helaine and Nekhay, titled Harvest failures, temporary export restrictions and global food security: the example of limited grain exports from Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, revealed that for countries like Ukraine, who export large amounts of grain, “the introduction of export restrictions could potentially result in decreases of domestic consumer prices to a level even below a situation with normal weather conditions.” The same study also discussed the 2008 export restrictions which resulted in Ukrainian wheat prices decreasing to 30% “below the world market price” and showed signs of “slower growth rate of domestic feed and milling wheat prices in the first half of the marketing year 2010/2011.” Though it might be difficult to compare previous export restrictions to the current import ban on Ukrainian grains, an extension of the ban would clearly spell long term trouble for Ukrainian grain farmers.
Climate change, El Niño and food security in China
Heavy rainfall in China has caused significant damage to wheat fields, leading to an increase in wheat prices. As the world's top consumer and producer of wheat, China's agricultural sector plays a crucial role in global food security. The impact of the recent extreme weather events on wheat production could be catastrophic for China’s food security, and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has announced measures being taken to mitigate the risks.
Henan province, accounting for 25% of China's wheat production, has suffered the worst rainfall near harvest in over a decade. This extreme weather pattern has caused flooding and landslides, resulting in the loss of lives, and further exacerbating concerns about food security. The recent occurrence of record-breaking heatwaves and droughts in China, including Shanghai's hottest May in a century, has raised alarm bells regarding the vulnerability of the country's food supply. Despite the current rain, officials remain worried that the drought may extend to the Yangtze River Basin, which provides China with two-thirds of its rice. Animals have already succumbed to the intense heat, further underscoring the urgency to address the water scarcity issue. El Niño, a natural phenomenon that brings even warmer temperatures originating from the Pacific, is also a cause for concern, as it could exacerbate China's food security challenges.
China's wheat production reached 140 million tonnes in 2022, highlighting its significance as a key crop for the nation and the world. The country is expected to have a bumper crop this year, which is a harvest with an unusually high yield. However, the heavy rains in the last few weeks have resulted in damaged wheat crops, pushing up prices in regions like Henan and causing concerns for both domestic and international markets. Due to the damage to wheat crops, animal feed markets have started to replace corn with cheaper wheat, leading to further price fluctuations. While the rains have temporarily supported prices, the long-term impact remains uncertain, as commodity analysts in Shanghai suggest that clarity will only emerge once the rainfall subsides, which could be as late as August.
Several government agencies agree with the Ministry of Emergency Management also predicting that rain, floods, and hailstorms are likely to persist until August. Northern China faces water-related disasters, the South may experience drought, and the East Coast, a key driver of economic growth, could encounter typhoon storms earlier than usual. Sichuan and Chongqing provinces face a significant risk of reduced rainfall, increasing the threat of drought and adding to the complexity of China's food security situation. Food security has been identified as a top priority by the Chinese government, with President Xi Jinping emphasising its critical importance to national security. Scientists have already warned that climate change will exacerbate global food security challenges in the future, making it crucial for China to address its vulnerabilities and develop resilient agricultural practices.
So far, markets have been focused on the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in Ukraine. On 6th June, following the sabotage and subsequent flooding of the surrounding area, the price of global wheat spiked 2.4% to US$6.39 per bushel. Corn and oats both rose by 1% and 0.73% respectively. Markets have likely priced in the upcoming possible disruptions in wheat supplies from China, but the extent to which the disasters could damage this year’s yield is yet to be seen, and could surprise analysts. The Kakhovka Dam’s destruction is a reminder to markets of the volatility of wheat supplies, especially to developed countries which are particularly affected by shortages.
Solidarity Lanes and Import Bans: The Dichotomy of Ukrainian Agricultural Exports in Eastern Europe
In mid April, five eastern EU nations – Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria – threatened or implemented unilateral import bans on Ukrainian grain and other food products to protect their agricultural sectors. After two weeks at the bargaining table, these European Union (EU) nations struck a deal with the European Commission (EC). In return for dropping their unilateral bans, the EC adopted exceptional and temporary preventative measures on certain Ukrainian imports under the Autonomous Trade Measures Regulation. Under these import restrictions, four agricultural products – staple grains like wheat and maize, as well as rapeseed and sunflower seed – originating from Ukraine can only enter the aforementioned European nations if they are in transit to other countries. In addition to these restrictions, which are in effect from 2 May 2023 to 5 June 2023, the EC is providing €9.77 million to Bulgaria, €15.93 million to Hungary, €39.33 million to Poland, €29.73 million to Romania and €5.24 million to Slovakia to alleviate the downward price pressures proliferating within their agriculture industries.
In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Black Sea Blockade, the EC established EU-Ukraine Solidarity Lanes, which are alternate transport routes within the EU facilitating the export of Ukrainian agricultural products. The United Nations-brokered Black Sea Grain Initiative – which lifted this blockade and was recently extended for two months on May 17 – has been unstable and unreliable. Consequently, these solidarity lanes have faced an increasing influx of Ukrainian agricultural products. While these trade routes represent a lifeline for war-stricken Ukraine, they exerted immense pressure on eastern European agricultural markets. Rather than simply transiting through these five ‘frontline’ nations, Ukrainian grain flooded their markets, creating a supply glut that jeopardised their domestic farmers' livelihoods (See Figure 1). Prices plummeted while supply skyrocketed. With the summer harvest ahead, the situation reached a tipping point, hence the threats and enactments of unilateral bans.
Figure 1. Imports of Cereals into Frontline Member States. Graph and data produced by the EC’s Directorate-General Taxation and Customs Union’s Surveillance System.
While protectionist sentiment sprouted from within the EU, it rapidly spread; calls to unilaterally ban Ukrainian grain imports emerged and gained traction within Moldova, Ukraine’s south-western neighbour. Specifically, the Moldovan Agriculture Minister proposed a plan to apply the EC’s measures while the farmers union released a statement calling for an import ban, citing a shortage in storage capacity for its summer grain harvest set to arrive in roughly one month. Alexander Slusari, the head of the Farmers’ Power Association, stated the following: “If Moldova does not restrict grain imports from Ukraine with its stocks of 10 million tonnes, it will be deposited in Moldovan silos and we will face a problem when we do not have storage for the new harvest.”
While this initial knee-jerk reaction within Moldova has dissipated largely due to retaliatory threats from Ukraine, the Moldovan affair and the ‘frontline fives’ import bans affirm the growing sentiment and empowerment within eastern Europe to abandon Kyiv when it is most in need. As Ukrainian Deputy Minister Olga Stefanishyna has stated, the “flow of Ukrainian agro-export is a matter of survival for the Ukrainian economy” amidst the full-scale Russian war of aggression. Due to the fragility of the Black Sea deal and the preventive measures’ looming June 5 expiry date, the EC should consider further financial or legislative measures to appease these agitated EU nations and ensure the flow of Ukrainian grain goes unchecked.
Commodities in the First Quarter: Inflation, War, and Geopolitics
Goldman Sachs’ 2023 commodity markets outlook had anticipated a substantial return of over 40 per-cent by the end of 2023 for commodities (S&P GSCI TR Index). As the first quarter of 2023 draws to a close, S&P GCSI spot prices closed the quarter at a -2.81 per-cent loss. As was the case in many financial markets, the S&P GCSI saw its biggest decline in the first quarter in the week of Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse – gold being the glaring exception. Of course, this is by no means indicative of how commodity markets will perform for the remainder of the year. Nevertheless, the impact of the ongoing banking on the inflation-duration investment cycle (elaborated below in Figure 1) for commodities remains to be assessed. This spotlight aims to do precisely that, considering some of the macroeconomic assumptions and models proposed in Goldman Sachs’ 2023 commodity outlook.
Understanding the Inflation-Duration Investment Cycle
The inflation-duration investment cycle is a tool useful for understanding investment in commodities and commodity market behaviour, relative to inflation and interest rates. It loosely correlates with the Merril Lynch Investment Clock – although it is a bit more specific to commodity markets.
Figure 1 - The Inflation-Duration Investment Cycle. Adapted from Goldman Sachs Commodity Outlook.
When Goldman Sachs published their 2023 Commodity Outlook, they affirmed that at present, the commodity market was still in the first stage of the inflation-duration investment cycle. Crucially, the 2023 Commodity Outlook explains that in addition to the current high-inflation, high-interest rate macroeconomic environment, commodity markets are confined in an underinvestment super cycle such that unless there is a sustained increase in capital expenditure (capex), increasing demand cannot trigger a supply-side response hence creating inflationary pressures in the short-term. The remainder of this spotlight will sum up the overarching macro-level geopolitical supply-side risks impacting three core sectors of the commodities market: agriculture, rare earth minerals, and energy markets.
Agriculture in Q12023
S&P agriculture indices (GSCI Agriculture, GSCI Livestock, and GSCI Grains) outperformed the S&P GSCI with GSCI Livestock being the best performing index considered in this spotlight, gaining 5.94 per-cent this quarter. Agriculture and Grains lost 0.61 per-cent and 2.57 per-cent, respectively.
At the macro-level there are two factors that will keep grain prices high, despite losses in value in the first quarter of 2023. These factors are the supply-side issues resulting from the Russo-Ukrainian War, despite the recent extension of the Black Sea Grain Initiative, and climate change – which is already having some impact on grain yields. As hypothesised at the start of the Russo-Ukrainian war, grain prices skyrocketed as the two countries contribute to about half of the world’s grain supplies. The wide use of grain in human and animal diet means that the precarity of grain supply will likely underpin most food-related price rises and contribute significantly to the cost of living crisis, globally. For that reason, the extension of the Black Sea Grain Deal on March 18 was of great relief for the global food supply chain. However, despite the extension there are two items still on the snag list: (i) a disagreement between Moscow and Kyiv over how much longer the Grain Deal will run for, and (ii) Russia banning major grain exporter – Cargill – from exporting Russian grain, which has already impacted futures’ prices.
Short-term risks impacting the supply of agricultural commodities also consist of grain supply, as they are crucial for animal feed. In addition to this, avian influenza outbreak in poultry supplies, which are not limited to just the United Kingdom, are having impact on related goods. Avian influenza outbreaks have been reported in the United Kingdom, United States, the rest of Europe, and there are fears that avian influenza and eventual egg shortages are also felt in South America. Long-term impacts of zoonotic diseases like avian influenza are difficult to quantify. Notwithstanding, after the outbreak of COVID-19 and the ensuing pandemic, there has been formal research dedicated to the matter which would suggest that countries with highly-industrialized, high-density agricultural industries run a higher risk of having disease outbreaks harm crop and livestock supplies. Thus, balancing land use and industrial density with growing populations’ driving up demand will be of importance if governments want to avoid severe shortages of crucial food items.
Energy Markets in 2023Q1
The three S&P energy indices considered in this spotlight – GCSI Natural Gas, Global Oil, and Global Clean Energy – all lost value quarter in 2023. Natural gas especially took a substantial hit, losing 44.43 per-cent of its value at the end of trading on March 31. Oil lost a little over five per-cent throughout the opening quarter whereas Global Clean Energy’s losses were below the one per-cent mark.
The stand out commodity here is natural gas (including LNG) and this is in large part because of the “geopolitical struggle between Europe and Russia” which will play a crucial role in dictating natural gas markets for the foreseeable future. As severe sanctions on Russian oil and gas were confirmed by the European Union throughout 2022, the bloc has not yet dealt with the fact that there is still strong demand and necessity for those commodities. Although some effort by means of REPowerEU have laid the groundwork for a shirt to alternative energy supplies, European countries have begun to look elsewhere for natural gas supplies. One such effort has been made by Italy who has looked to further increase imports of Algerian natural gas.
Another recent trend has been importing Indian-refined petroleum products derived from Russian oil, despite embargoes. This shows that short-term procurement of oil and gas into Europe could well become economically and politically costly until alternative energy supplies are not secured. As the necessity for reliable energy supplies begin to outweigh the political value of sanctions on Russia, European countries may well find themselves having to prioritise one over the other. A pessimistic outlook that may be, but it is already materialising; as France settled its first LNG deal in Yuan with China. As the BRICS countries begin to trade in their own currencies the return of a multi-polar energy market might lead to less market predictability and prolonged period of macro-scarcity.
On the other hand, the political and economic urgency to expedite the green energy transition is indicative of a positive outlook for renewables markets according to the International Energy Agency’s latest industry overview. Indeed, analysis and forecasts from McKinsey share this sentiment as they expect substantial growth in solar and wind energy. Bloomberg shares this sentiment in the hydrogen sector, too. As legislation and regulation gears itself towards carbon-neutrality in the world’s three largest economies – the United States, China, and the EU – there is a genuine legal basis for optimism in renewables markets. A medium to long-term risk to watch out for, however, would be the political and economic competition over the necessary resources – such as copper – for a green transition.
Rare Earth Metals in 2023Q1
In the opening quarter of the year, the S&P GCSI Core Battery Metals Index – which tracks stocks of rare earth metals (REM) pertinent to battery production – stagnated around the -0.34 per-cent mark. On the other hand the S&P GCSI Precious Metals Index soared 9.14 per-cent, though this was in large part due to investors backing gold and silver as the United States’ regional banking crisis erupted.
Although the relationship between geopolitical tensions and short-term supply risks of REMs is not yet at the scale of the relationship between geopolitical tensions and the supply of agricultural and energy commodities, there is reason to believe that this will not last very long. Essentially, this is because REMs and precious metals are crucial to the green energy transition and the production of key electronics’ components like semiconductors. REMs are also becoming ever-more important for the production and maintenance of modern-day defence systems. Thus, securing REM supply chains and secondary materials is a paramount task for states and businesses looking to establish a dominant presence at the international level. As of 2020 REM exports originated overwhelmingly from Asia with Myanmar, China, and Japan accounting for over half of all exports. The United States and its European allies, on the other hand, exported just over 10 per-cent of global REM exports. Furthermore, sanctions against Russia and Myanmar have further complicated access to REM imports for Western business and countries. This is exacerbated further by Beijing’s recent efforts to improve relations with Moscow and Naypyidaw – with the latter being crucial for China’s efforts to overcome the ‘Malacca Dilemma’.
In recognising this weak spot, both the Biden and Trump administrations took swift action to incentivise the reshoring production of crucial electronics, starting with the National Strategy for Critical and Emerging Technologies as a direct countermeasure to China’s efforts to increase its own electronics production. This was followed up with the CHIPS and Science Act and formal export controls, limiting semiconductors produced with American technology and inputs to China. In the meantime, the United States has sought to diversify its REM supplies from Africa, where China has a considerable geopolitical presence. What the impact the ongoing China-United States rivalry over REM supplies and semiconductor development will have on prices in the short-term remains to be seen, but the medium-to-long-term protectionism and antagonism between Beijing and Washington will likely lead to REMs enjoying substantial price increases considering their growing demand.
Summary: Outlook for 2023 and Beyond
The first quarter of 2023 carried forward many of 2022’s geopolitical dynamics and risks into global commodity markets. There have also been supply shocks, like avian influenza outbreaks and severe climate events, which have harmed the supply of crucial commodities that have further exacerbated the impacts of geopolitics on market activity.
This is particularly visible in agriculture markets where the uncertainty on how long the Black Sea Grain Initiative extension will last is a key risk to secure grain supplies globally. If Russia’s demands for a reduction of sanctions can be made credible by its recent rapprochement with China, then an extension of the Black Sea Grain Initiative beyond the current deadline will likely result from a reduction in Western sanctions. Conversely, if the West can find ways to cope with inflation and diversifying energy supplies, then Moscow might be forced to formally accept a longer extension. The outlook on the matter remains speculative, but the consequences of a no-extension scenario could spell disaster for global food supplies within the next quarter.
Although energy and REM markets are also mired by geopolitical power struggles and risks, the potential for a drastic spillover into commodity markets and the wider economy in the short-term is, at this stage, quite limited. Although, as REMs become more intertwined and necessary for future energy markets this outlook will likely change post-2023. This is because in the absence of short-term flashpoints, the increasing pursuance of protectionist and antagonising trade policies between Beijing and Washington will very likely undo much of the economic globalisation that occurred pre-COVID.
Hence, it is not likely that global commodity markets will break the macro-scarcity phase of the Inflation-Duration Investment Cycle in 2023 – and potentially prolong the under investment in commodities into 2024 and beyond. However, there is still a lot of 2023 to go and there is a lot of time for pressing issues to unfold and provide a clearer picture for commodity markets. Although, the current direction of the international regulatory and political environment does not offer much optimism for the long-term, with regards to increasing capex or securing crucial supply chains.
Cover photo credits to: Black Sea Grain Initiative FAQ | United Nations in Namibia
Extension of the Ukraine Black Sea Grain Initiative: Impact on Global Food Supply Chains
Since the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Ukrainian grain exports have been severely disrupted. Russian military vessels were carrying out a blockade of Ukrainian ports in the Black Sea for four months. On July 22 2022, an agreement was signed between Russia and Ukraine, mediated by the United Nations and Turkey, to maintain a safe maritime humanitarian corridor in the Black Sea, also known as the Black Sea Grain Initiative. Since then, about 900 ships carrying grain and other food items have departed from the Ukrainian ports of Chornomorsk, Odessa, and Yuzhny/Pivdennyi. When the time came of the end of the original deal, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the UN Secretary-General António Guterres both called for an extension of the deal, thereby enabling Russian and Ukrainian wheat and fertilisers to be exported through the Black Sea.
Initially, Ukraine and Russia had signed the deal for an initial 120 days last July, thereby averting a possible global food crisis. A subsequent November extension to the Black Sea Grain Initiative for an additional four months was due to expire on March 18, 2021, unless it was extended. While the UN and Ukrainian government backed the extension, the Kremlin was unhappy with specific provisions of the deal, thereby renewing fears of grain traders regarding potential risks to supplies and the potential increase in global grain prices. On March 18, 2023, the Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister elucidated that the deal had been extended for 120 days. However, Moscow reckoned that it had agreed to a 60-day extension only, and a Russian Foreign Ministry letter to the UN said that the country was only willing to extend beyond the stated 60 days in the face of ‘tangible progress' towards unblocking flows of Russian food and fertilisers to world markets. The Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, confirmed the rollover of the deal but did not comment on the exact duration of the extension.
As of March 2023, over 23 million tonnes of grain and other foodstuffs have been exported via the Black Sea Grain Initiative. Approximately 49 per-cent of the cargo constituted maize, the grain which was most affected by blockages in Ukrainian granaries at the start of the war, i.e. (75% of the 20 million tonnes of grain stored). It had to be displaced quickly to make room for the summer harvest. Wheat constituted 28 per-cent, sunflower products 11 per-cent and others 12 per-cent. Over 65 per-cent of the wheat exported through the Black Sea Grain Initiative went to developing countries. Maize was shipped to both developing and developed countries almost equally. 63 per-cent of wheat was exported to developing countries and 35 per-cent to developed countries. So far, approximately 456,000 tonnes of wheat departed Ukrainian ports to reach Ethiopia, Yemen, Djibouti, Somalia, and Afghanistan. The EU is a major global producer and exporter of wheat. In 2022, according to estimates, the EU exported approximately 36 million tonnes of soft wheat to Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan, Nigeria and others. The Russian invasion of Ukraine caused a significant surge in food prices in global markets; the prices of particular grains rose steeply. The impact on price and the types of grain which have been exported through the Black Sea Grain Initiative is made available by an infographic published by the the Council of the European Union.
The extension of the deal is a significant success. Grain traders were concerned about the effects on global food prices and what it would imply for Ukraine’s summer wheat harvest had it not been extended. Shipping industry Representatives also appreciated the smooth functioning of the grain corridor. They feared that any end to the agreement would lead to the instantaneous stopping of vessels travelling to the Black Sea. Guy Platten, the Secretary General of the International Chamber of Shipping, elucidated that while the corridor had been a great success, any failure in a roll-over would have caused significant concern for shipping companies, who would not want to endanger their vessels and crew and would find it difficult to obtain insurance.
Market experts had also shared the fears that at a time when developing countries like Pakistan have been impacted by their own fair share of climate catastrophes like floods, leading to a massive destruction of crops, surge in energy prices as well as shocks to global supply chains due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and high levels of inflation, a shock to grain exports, and subsequent rises in food prices would lead to a significant food crisis. Even in the developed world, for instance, in the EU, amid the cost of the living crisis and supply side shocks, higher global food prices would make essential edible items too expensive for people. Thus, the renewal of the agreement has been deemed a significant achievement.
Before the war, exports from Russia and Ukraine constituted about 30 per-cent of the global food trade. Between 5m to 6m tonnes of grain were exported each month from Ukraine’s seaports, according to the International Grains Council (IGC). The volume carried by ships via the grain corridor gained momentum towards the end of 2022, as per the Executive Director of the IGC, i.e. a very impressive level of export. In November and December 2022, Ukraine was close to approximately the same level as before the war in terms of exports by sea plus inland. While exports had slightly reduced in January and February 2023 due to poor weather, Ukrainian power outages affecting port facilities and delays in grain inspection delays, however, the overall success of the shipments of essential wheat, maize, oil seeds and barley from the Black Sea since August 2022 to countries reliant on grain imports had led to a fall of 30 per-cent in global wheat prices since its June peak. Thus, the 60-day extension of the agreement was widely praised and calmed fears of potential after effects on a wide range of industries and food prices.
Despite Kremlin’s concerns, it is likely that the UN and Turkey would mediate to have the agreement extended beyond the 60-day period and that Russia would agree to that because both Ukraine and Russia export considerable amounts of world’s grain and fertiliser, together supplying approximately 28 per-cent of global traded wheat and 75 per-cent of sunflower oil during peacetime. Moreover, as of 18 March, the UN Secretary General was adamant to seek ways to unblock Russian food and fertiliser shipments, which were blocked by sanctions targeting Russian oligarchs and the state agricultural bank. The Kremlin blames these sanctions for the ongoing food insecurity in the Global South. In the coming days, we may see easing of some sanctions that target Russian food exports, while overall sanctions may persist.
Wheat supply in a de-globalising world
International sanction regimes are disrupting supply chains across the world. In this research paper, analysts from London Politica’s Global Commodities Watch (GCW) provide an overview of the major stakeholders, critical infrastructure, trade routes, supply and demand side risks, and forecasted trends for wheat.