What else can be done to address the global food issue besides the grain deal between Russia and Ukraine?

 What else can be done to address the global food issue besides the grain deal between Russia and Ukraine? The issue might be mitigated by releasing 20 million tonnes of grain, but experts warn much more work needs to be done.

What else can be done to address the global food issue besides the grain deal between Russia and Ukraine?

The world was literally hungry than it had ever been for it. António Guterres, the secretary-general of the United Nations, was almost incessantly effusive when he announced a deal last week to resume Ukrainian grain exports, referring to it as a beacon on the Black Sea. In a world that needed it more than ever, he added, it was a beacon of hope, a beacon of opportunity, a beacon of relief. A first indication that the agreement was holding came on Wednesday when Ukraine announced that work had started to establish corridors for grain exports at three important southern ports.

Naval personnel are working in the ports of Odessa, Chornomorsk, and Pivdennyi to clear passageways for grain to be transported in caravans of ships through the Black Sea, according to Odessa military administration spokesman Serhiy Bratchuk.

If the Russia-Ukraine grain agreement is put into effect properly, it might lower the cost of basic food staples and fill food shortages in nations that are highly reliant on Ukrainian supplies. Even while the fighting is still going on, releasing these shipments—about 20 million tonnes of which have been stuck because of the fighting and a Russian blockade—could help alleviate the world food crisis that Moscow's invasion has stoked.

Ukraine and Russia are crucial to the world's food supply, as Grid has previously noted. Prior to the war, Russia was the world's top exporter of fertiliser, while Ukraine alone supplied over 45 million tonnes of grain to the global market. The war halted Ukrainian exports; those 20 million tonnes of grain are the result of the harvest from the previous year and are being held prisoner because Russia is blocking important Black Maritime freight routes and because Ukrainians are mineing sea passages to keep out Russian ships. Meanwhile, the impact of the sanctions on Russia has spread to other grain sources and the world's supply of fertilisers, affecting agriculture as far away as Peru and Indonesia.

Higher prices for everyone and less food for many are the results.

The agreement reached in Istanbul begs the issue of what else may be done to ameliorate the larger situation as the world waits to see if the grain deal itself will be implemented. What policies or initiatives, besides releasing the grain impounded in Ukrainian ports, might be effective?

20 million tonnes of grain are capable of?

Two significant advantages would result from the release of all that grain: it would increase food supplies for Ukraine's steadfast consumers and lower costs for essential necessities by increasing supply.

For the neighbouring nations who have relied on the food supply network that starts in those Black Sea ports for years, the grain stranded in Ukraine is very significant. For instance, Egypt is still waiting on the 300,000 tonnes of Ukrainian wheat that were scheduled to arrive in February and March. Other Middle Eastern and African nations are also experiencing shortages, including Lebanon, which imported 60 percent of its wheat before the conflict from Ukraine.

Some of Africa's most impoverished nations, including Somalia in particular, have suffered greatly as a result of the loss of Ukrainian grain. Before the war, Somalia, which had been struggling for years to feed itself, imported more than half of its wheat from Ukraine.

The agreement reached in Istanbul is meant to address the following: It is hoped that by releasing the grain, these and other short-term shortages can be resolved.

Meanwhile, enabling Russia to resume fertiliser shipments isn't simply a favour for Moscow; it will also benefit farmers everywhere, including those in far-off nations like Peru, which last year sourced 70% of its fertiliser needs from Russia.

According to Tjada D'Oyen McKenna, CEO of the aid organisation Mercy Corps, if it is executed, the deal will definitely help reduce food shortages, particularly for nations in the Middle East and Africa that rely significantly on grain imports from Russia and Ukraine. The 20 million tonnes of grain stranded in Ukraine must reach the most import-dependent countries that have felt the biggest impact of these shortages, she continued.

The news of the agreement, as well as the mere possibility of the grain's release, caused a decline in worldwide wheat prices as traders took into account the entry of Ukrainian grain onto the international market. It is hoped that prices will settle at a lower level if the embargo were to end and those 20 million tonnes really departed Ukrainian ports, increasing access to food for millions of people.

Lower pricing are one of the main goals of the pact, as Guterres stated last week. He claimed they would provide relief to poor nations on the brink of bankruptcy and the most vulnerable people on the brink of hunger.

The arrangement will facilitate grain shipments from Russia, which are a significant component of the global food supply chain. The markets were also anticipating an increase in Russian exports beyond Ukraine. Moscow made $11 billion from grain exports in only one year.

International relief agencies are also waiting for all that stranded grain, in addition to the waiting nations. The U.N. World Food Programme (WFP) relies significantly on food essentials from Russia and Ukraine; according to Ertharin Cousin, the organization's former executive director, approximately half of the wheat it distributes in impoverished and conflict-ridden nations comes from Ukraine. The expense of each procedure is up because of the war, she continued, and the number of people they can feed is also decreased.

The WFP and therefore the world's poorest people will be able to provide much-needed nutrition if the grain trapped in the conflict zone begins to flow to hungry consumers.

What else is possible?

The 20 million tonne grain problem won't be solved by itself, and there are still significant doubts about whether it can be. According to Grid, the present food supply problem began before the war; in 2021, around 828 million people experienced hunger, up 46 million from the previous year and 150 million more than in 2019.

Longer term, resolving this situation necessitates taking action about everything from the effects of climate change on agriculture to the economic ramifications of COVID-19, which deprived millions of people worldwide of their means of subsistence.

While the delivery of Ukrainian grain may be beneficial in the near term, the war must finally come to a stop or at the very least see a drop in the intensity of fighting in order to prevent more issues in the future. The upcoming crop in Ukraine is a major concern in this.

According to Grid, the most recent crop-planting season in Ukraine took place under the spectre of conflict. According to U.N. estimates, this caused a considerable reduction in the amount of spring crops that could be sown in the country — between 20 and 30 percent.

It is currently unknown how much of that smaller crop will be gathered in the upcoming months due to the ongoing nature of the war. In order to ensure that farming can continue, the Kyiv government has taken a number of initiatives, including exempting agricultural employees from military duty.

However, there are doubts in some regions of the nation about whether farmworkers will have access to their fields. According to a local estimate, only roughly 5.5 million of the 7.6 million hectares of land that were recently planted with winter wheat, rye, and barley will be suitable for harvesting.

Safety worries are not the only ones raised; the war has had a significant economic impact as well. For instance, transportation costs have increased, making it more difficult for Ukrainian farmers to transport the crop they are able to harvest via land routes to silos or adjacent ports.

Mykola Horbachov, the head of the Ukrainian Grain Association, an industry group, told the Associated Press earlier this month that most of the farmers are running the risk of going bankrupt very soon.

The end result: Serious doubts about Ukraine's agriculture sector's future persist even if the grain deal releases the harvest from the previous year. The agricultural minister for the nation recently issued a warning that the consequences could cause Ukrainian farmers to plant up to two thirds less wheat later this year. Mykola Solskyi recently told the Financial Times that farmers would reduce winter sowing of wheat and barley by 30 to 60%.

What would other nations do?

Other nations can help, according to experts, regardless of what Ukraine and Russia do to worsen or improve the global food problem. In order to do this, countries would need to look beyond their specific domestic demands and revise their worsening-only policies.

Several food-producing nations have reacted to declining food supply and rising food prices by limiting or outright banning the export of fertilisers and staple foods. The reason for the limitations is simple enough: At a time when much of the world is suffering from high rates of inflation, governments are attempting to guarantee they have enough food to go around at home. Global anger has already been stoked by rising costs, as Grid has previously reported.

According to World Bank data, 34 nations had lately restricted the export of food and fertiliser as of the beginning of June. The bank's experts caution that these moves are self-defeating because they limit the global supply, increasing food prices. Other nations react by enacting their own limitations, which feeds a spiralling cycle of trade moves that drive up costs.

One of the biggest exporters of wheat in the world, Russia, has placed restrictions and declared a temporary export ban on wheat and other crops in March. In May, India, which recently profited from a record wheat harvest, outlawed wheat exports. Wheat exports are now restricted in 22 additional nations. About 21% of the major staple's global trade is impacted by this. You probably got it already, but that raises pricing.

It's a short-sighted approach, according to experts, and it will hurt us in the long run. According to them, the solution is to do the exact opposite: remove export restrictions so that food and fertiliser can move more freely across international markets. The additional supply would aid in lowering prices. In order to keep markets operating and prevent inflationary pressure, McKenna told Grid that it is crucial to discourage stockpiling and promote free flow of food.

In fact, recent events demonstrate how export limitations can raise world prices. 36 countries moved to implement limits on the export of food and fertilisers in 2008 as a result of economic unrest and a jump in food prices around the world. According to analysts' analysis of the data, prices would have been 13% cheaper in the absence of those restrictions.

In order to urge governments to lift these limits, the heads of a number of international organisations, including the World Food Programme, International Monetary Fund, and others, came together this month.

The hungry grow more ravenous.

The issue with all of these suggestions and ideas is that it currently seems unlikely that they will be implemented. Even the lauded Ukraine-Russia grain agreement is in jeopardy since the enforcement provisions are intricate and could be compromised by activity on the front lines, in addition to the Russians launching missiles at the Ukrainian port of Odessa one day after the agreement was signed.

Many international experts are gravely concerned that, in a time of food scarcity, available supplies may wind up in the hands of those with power and money, away from struggling, poorer nations.

Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the head of the World Trade Organization, warned at a recent G-20 meeting that there is a risk that supplies may be diverted away from poorer countries to richer ones, repeating the experience for covid-19 vaccines, due to the fierce competition for food and essential inputs like fertiliser.

Another worldwide health catastrophe might result, but this time it might be caused by hunger rather than a brand-new disease. In the wake of the pandemic, the twin traumas of global energy prices and global food shortages mean that we've probably already begun our next health crisis, as Peter Sands, executive director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, told the Agence France-Presse news agency last month.

Thanks for Reading. Subscribe us for More Updates.