Documentation For Food And Fertilizers Export Restriction Tracker Tracking Export Policy Responses Affecting Global Food Markets During Crisis

In response to the Ukraine-Russia crisis, as it was the case in previous crisis (e.g.COVID19 pandemic), some governments have implemented export restrictions and other trade policy measures to secure their food supply and protect inputs for their farmers. This behavior can increase global food prices, with consequences including the exacerbation of hunger and income losses for producers in exportrestricting countries. Intergovernmental organizations and other actors need current information on food trade policy to curb detrimental reactive policy and enable cooperation. To address this need, we provide the Food & Fertilizer Export Restriction Tracker, an extension of the previous work of food trade policy tracking done during COVID-19 pandemic. Gathering data from sources including the media, national governments, expert input, we provide up-to-date information on food trade policies implemented during the crisis and the likely magnitude of their effects.

In response to the COVID-19 crisis, some governments have implemented export restrictions and other trade policy measures to secure their food supply. This behavior can increase global food prices, with consequences including the exacerbation of hunger and income losses for producers in export-restrict-ing countries. Intergovernmental organizations and other actors need current information on food trade policy to curb detrimental reactive policy and enable cooperation. To address this need, we provide the COVID-19 Food Trade Policy Tracker. Gathering data from sources including the media, national gov-ernments, expert input, the OECD, and the IMF, we provide up-to-date information on food trade poli-cies implemented during the COVID-19 crisis and the likely magnitude of their effects.

Representing a continuation of the debate on export restrictions and export controls, this adroitly-crafted book expertly navigates the complexities of international trade law. Under the aegis of global security, it features a number of diverse yet interconnected topics on export restrictions and export controls and highlights the multi-faceted trade, economic, and security challenges faced by developed and developing countries.

This paper investigates the drivers of export restrictions on agricultural products based on an original dataset developed at IFPRI. We focus on four food price crises when export restrictions (e.g., ban, tax, licensing etc.) were applied: the 2008 and 2010 food price crises, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the 2022 crisis associated with the Russia-Ukraine war. Although the justifications for such trade policies have been discussed in the literature, the ability to forecast their implementation remains understudied. The probit model used in this study suggests that the inflation rate has a higher power to predict export restrictions than do international commodity prices. The probability of export restrictions increases more when price change is measured from a reference level in the long interval than the short interval. Among the covariates, agricultural land per capita, commodity share in production and export, weather condition increases the chances of imposing export restrictions. Per capita income, population density, share of agriculture in GDP, urbanization rate, political economy indicators - all have a negative influence on this likelihood.

Progress toward reducing global hunger has stalled since the mid-2010s. In fact, hunger is on the rise again, driven by slowing economic growth and protracted conflict, intensified by the impacts of climate change and economic shocks in many low- and middle-income countries. In addition, food systems worldwide have suffered disruptions in recent years, caused by the COVID-19-related global recession and associated supply chain disruptions, and exacerbated by the war in Ukraine. These factors have also jeopardized efforts at addressing the challenges to food system sustainability. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the related sustainable development goals (SDGs), defined in 2015, recognize these challenges and set ambitious targets to end hunger and all forms of malnutrition and to make agriculture and food systems sustainable by 2030. Many other fora have restated and reiterated these ambitions, including the 2021 United Nations Food System Summit (UNFSS). While governments around the world have subscribed to these ambitions, collectively they have not been very specific as to how to achieve the SDGs and related goals and targets, except for three means of implementation (MOI) involving (i) increases in research and development, (ii) reductions in trade distortions, and (iii) improved functioning and reduced volatility in food markets. This paper is part of a wider effort at assessing the international community’s follow-through on the above ambitions and the related (implicit or explicit) commitments made toward action for achieving them. While not presenting new research findings, we bring together available evidence and scenario analyses to assess the progress made toward the ambitions for transforming food systems, the actions taken in regard of the internationally concerted agenda, and the potential for accelerating progress. The number of hungry people in the world has risen from 564 million in 2015, when the SDGs were agreed, to 735 million in 2022. While declines to between 570 and 590 million by 2030 are projected, this is far above the 470 million projected in the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukraine war. The share of the world’s people unable to afford healthy diets is projected to decline from 42 percent in 2021 to a still far too high 36 percent by 2030. On the means of implementation, levels of spending on agricultural research and development have increased, particularly in key developing countries such as Brazil, China and India. However, rates of investment remain too low for comfort, particularly in low-income countries. Also, little progress has been made in reducing agricultural trade distortions and many countries continue to use trade policy measures, such as export restrictions, which have proven to increase the volatility of both world and domestic food prices. We conclude that progress toward the SDG-2 targets has been dismal, and that the food system challenges have only become bigger. But we also find that it is not too late to accelerate progress and that the desired food system transformation can still be achieved over a reasonable timespan and at manageable incremental cost. Doing so will require unprecedented concerted and coherent action on multiple fronts, which may prove the biggest obstacle of all.

Russia’s war in Ukraine has exacerbated food insecurity that had already been on the rise for half a decade. Low-income countries are affected the most. This note suggests that the food and fertilizer price shock would add $9 billion in 2022 and 2023 to the import bills of the 48 most affected countries. The budgetary cost of protecting vulnerable households in these countries amounts to $5–7 billion. Strong and timely action on a global scale is needed to support vulnerable households through international humanitarian assistance and domestic fiscal measures; to maintain open trade; to enhance food production and distribution; and to invest in climate-resilient agriculture. The IMF has been stepping up its engagement to help tackle the global food crisis, working closely with partners, by providing policy advice, capacity building and financing. IMF financing is a third line of defense in meeting external financing needs associated with the global food shock, which should ideally be covered by donor grants and concessional borrowing from MDBs. A new food shock window under the emergency financing instruments is expected to be approved soon to further strengthen its lending response to the food crisis.

This paper analyzes the implications of the Russian-Ukraine crisis on global and regional food security. We start with a global vulnerability analysis to identify most vulnerable regions and countries. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is particularly vulnerable to trade shocks because of its high food import dependence. Thus, we provide descriptive evidence characterizing how food systems and policies impact vulnerability to the price shock in selected MENA countries: Egypt, Sudan, and Yemen. Within these countries, we show that the crisis will differentially impact poor and non-poor households as well as rural and urban households. Although the absolute level of food insecurity may still be higher in rural areas where larger numbers of poor households are located, urban poor are likely to suffer most because of the Russia-Ukraine crisis and associated hikes in food prices, especially in those countries where social protection and food subsidies are missing. On the policy side, we review lessons from previous food crises and identify actions needed to take (and to avoid) to protect most vulnerable countries and households in the short-term while also highlighting long-term policy options to diversify food, fertilizer and energy production and trade.

The 2023 Africa Agriculture Trade Monitor, a flagship publication of AKADEMIYA2063 and the International Food Policy Research Institute, provides an overview of trade in agriculture in Africa, including analysis of short- and long-term trends and drivers behind Africa’s global trade, intra-African trade, and trade within Africa’s regional economic communities. The 2023 report highlights the growing treat of climate change to trade; looks closely at the impact of the Russia-Ukraine war on food security and poverty; draws on the report’s robust trade database to analyze African agrifood trade and nutrition; examines the types of trade agreements that successfully boost trade, and the implications for the African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement; and includes focused chapters on the competitiveness of cotton value chains in Africa and world trade and on trade integration in Economic Community of Central African States.