Breakdown of countries receiving grain exports by percentage received:
- 🇪🇸- 1.80 (or 19% of total weight)
- 🇹🇷– 1.29 (14%)
- 🇮🇹– 0.86 (9%)
- 🇨🇳- 0.84 (9%)
- 🇳🇱-0.55 (6%)
- 🇪🇬–0.42 (5%)
- 🇧🇩-0.27 (3%)
- 🇹🇩–0.25 (3%)
- 🇮🇱-0.24 (3%)
- 🇩🇪–0.22 (2%)
- Other countries - 2.59 (28%)
Countries with serious starvation rates,where more than 10% of the population suffers from malnutrition, got only 1.18 million tons (13%) of cereals, including 25% of wheat. In particular, 11 ships with 0.36 million tons of grain (4%) went to the poorest countries in Africa.
NATO countries and their allies - 6.15 million (66% of 9.3million). Poor countries/ countries with serious starvation rates - 1.18 (13%).
The grain deal is clearly helping rich develop countries while doing practically nothing for the poor countries. On top of that, the grain deal had two parts to it. First part was securing a corridor from Ukraine, and second was lifting sanctions that made shipping grain from Russia to poor countries difficult. This part of the deal was never implemented. Meanwhile, a large part of what kept farmers from planting was western sanctions on things like gas and fertilizer exports.
According to the UN, it has brought down grain prices. I can’t speak to the rest of the deal.
Could you cite the specific UN document here, not saying UN hasn’t said this, but details are kind of important here.
They have a few PR’s, including:
The thing that is out of place is that they seem to be pointing to a steady drop in food prices since the beginning of the invasion (March), as opposed to since the beginning of the Black Sea agreement. My first guess is that the prices are based on futures, so investors are responding to anticipation as opposed to immediately supply constraints.
It’s likely that the deal helped investor confidence, but as you note prices were stabilizing before the deal already.