Ukraine grain ship departs for Ireland under new UN deal
‘We look forward to the Navi Star arriving at port in approximately two weeks’
A ship carrying thousands of tonnes of corn left Ukraine today and is bound for Ireland
A ship carrying thousands of tonnes of corn left Ukraine today and is bound for Ireland
Ciara O'Loughlin
Yesterday
Three more ships carrying thousands of tons of grain left Ukrainian ports on Friday, with one bound for Ireland.
This is the latest sign that a negotiated deal to export grain trapped since Russia invaded Ukraine nearly six months ago is slowly moving forward, but major hurdles lie ahead to get food to the countries that need it most.
The ships bound for Ireland, the United Kingdom and Turkey follow the first grain shipment to pass through the Black Sea since the start of the war.
The Panama-flagged Navistar left Odesa for Ireland with 33,000 tonnes of grain and this will be received by Irish grain and animal feed company R&H Hall.
A spokesperson for the company said: “R&H Hall can confirm that they will receive its 33,000 tonnes of cargo in Foynes and Dublin Ports on its arrival.
"As a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, until an agreement was secured, no ship was permitted to depart Black Sea ports since February 24, the day the war commenced.
“The recommencement of sailings from the Black Sea of vessels such as the Navi Star is the first step in returning some degree of certainty to the global food supply chain in what remains a volatile situation.
"We look forward to the Navi Star arriving at port in approximately two weeks.”
The passage of the vessel heading for Lebanon earlier this week was the first under the breakthrough deal brokered by Turkey and the United Nations with Russia and Ukraine.
The Black Sea region is dubbed the world’s breadbasket, with Ukraine and Russia key global suppliers of wheat, corn, barley and sunflower oil that millions of impoverished people in Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia rely on for survival.
While the shipments have raised hopes of easing a global food crisis, much of the grain that Ukraine is trying to export is used for animal feed, not for people to eat, experts say.
The first vessels to leave are among more than a dozen bulk carriers and cargo ships that had been loaded with grain but stuck in ports since Russia invaded in late February.
And the cargoes are not expected to have a significant impact on the global price of corn, wheat and soybeans for several reasons.
For starters, the exports under the deal are off to a slow, cautious start due to the threat of explosive mines floating off Ukraine’s Black Sea coastline.
And while Ukraine is a major exporter of wheat to developing nations, there are other countries, such as the United States and Canada, with far greater production levels that can affect global wheat prices. And they face the threat of drought.
“Ukraine is about 10pc of the international trade in wheat, but in terms of production it is not even 5pc,” said David Laborde, an expert on agriculture and trade at the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington.
The three ships left on Friday with over 58,000 tons of corn, but that is still a fraction of the 20 million tons of grains that Ukraine says are trapped in the country’s silos and ports and that must be shipped out to make space for this year’s harvest.
Around six million tonnes of the trapped grain is wheat, but just half of that is for human consumption, Mr Laborde said.
There is an expectation that Ukraine could produce 30pc to 40pc less grain over the coming next 12 months due to the war, though other estimates put that figure at 70pc.
Grain prices peaked after Russia’s invasion, and while some have since come down to their pre-war levels, they are still higher than before the Covid-19 pandemic.
Corn prices are 70pc higher than at the end of February 2020, said Jonathan Haines, senior analyst at data and analytics firm Gro Intelligence. He said wheat prices are around 60pc higher than in February 2020.
One reason prices remain high is the impact of drought on harvests in North America, China and other regions, as well as the higher price of fertiliser needed for farming.
“When fertiliser prices are high, farmers may use less fertiliser. And when they use less fertiliser, they will produce less. And if they will produce less, supply will continue to remain insufficient,” Mr Laborde said.
The three ships that departed Ukraine on Friday give hope that exports will ramp up to developing nations, where many are facing the increased threat of food shortages and hunger.
“The movement of three additional vessels overnight is a very positive sign and will continue to build confidence that we’re moving in the right direction,” Mr Haines said.
“If the flow of grain from Ukraine continues to expand, it will help relieve global supply constraints.”
The Turkish-flagged Polarnet, carrying 12,000 tons of corn, left the Chornomorsk port destined for Karasu, Turkey.
The Panama-flagged Navi Star left Odesa’s port for Ireland with 33,000 tonnes of corn. The Maltese-flagged Rojen left Chornomorsk for the United Kingdom carrying over 13,000 tonnes of corn, the UN said.
It added that the Joint Coordination Centre — run by officials from Ukraine, Russia, Turkey and the UN overseeing the deal signed in Istanbul last month — authorised the three ships and inspected a ship headed for Ukraine.
The Barbados-flagged Fulmar S was inspected in Istanbul and is headed for the Chornomorsk port.
The checks seek to ensure that outbound cargo ships carry only grain, fertiliser or food and not any other commodities and that inbound ships are not carrying weapons.
The vessels are accompanied by Ukrainian pilot ships for safe passage because of explosive mines strewn in the Black Sea.
After Turkey, which has relations with both Russia and Ukraine, helped broker the food deal two weeks ago, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin later on Friday in Sochi, Russia.
That meeting follows another face-to-face meeting the two leaders had in Iran three weeks ago.
With reporting from PA.
Three more ships carrying thousands of tons of grain left Ukrainian ports on Friday, with one bound for Ireland.
This is the latest sign that a negotiated deal to export grain trapped since Russia invaded Ukraine nearly six months ago is slowly moving forward, but major hurdles lie ahead to get food to the countries that need it most.
The ships bound for Ireland, the United Kingdom and Turkey follow the first grain shipment to pass through the Black Sea since the start of the war.
The Panama-flagged Navistar left Odesa for Ireland with 33,000 tonnes of grain and this will be received by Irish grain and animal feed company R&H Hall.
A spokesperson for the company said: “R&H Hall can confirm that they will receive its 33,000 tonnes of cargo in Foynes and Dublin Ports on its arrival.
"As a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, until an agreement was secured, no ship was permitted to depart Black Sea ports since February 24, the day the war commenced.
“The recommencement of sailings from the Black Sea of vessels such as the Navi Star is the first step in returning some degree of certainty to the global food supply chain in what remains a volatile situation.
"We look forward to the Navi Star arriving at port in approximately two weeks.”
The passage of the vessel heading for Lebanon earlier this week was the first under the breakthrough deal brokered by Turkey and the United Nations with Russia and Ukraine.
The Black Sea region is dubbed the world’s breadbasket, with Ukraine and Russia key global suppliers of wheat, corn, barley and sunflower oil that millions of impoverished people in Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia rely on for survival.
While the shipments have raised hopes of easing a global food crisis, much of the grain that Ukraine is trying to export is used for animal feed, not for people to eat, experts say.
The first vessels to leave are among more than a dozen bulk carriers and cargo ships that had been loaded with grain but stuck in ports since Russia invaded in late February.
And the cargoes are not expected to have a significant impact on the global price of corn, wheat and soybeans for several reasons.
For starters, the exports under the deal are off to a slow, cautious start due to the threat of explosive mines floating off Ukraine’s Black Sea coastline.
And while Ukraine is a major exporter of wheat to developing nations, there are other countries, such as the United States and Canada, with far greater production levels that can affect global wheat prices. And they face the threat of drought.
“Ukraine is about 10pc of the international trade in wheat, but in terms of production it is not even 5pc,” said David Laborde, an expert on agriculture and trade at the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington.
The three ships left on Friday with over 58,000 tons of corn, but that is still a fraction of the 20 million tons of grains that Ukraine says are trapped in the country’s silos and ports and that must be shipped out to make space for this year’s harvest.
Around six million tonnes of the trapped grain is wheat, but just half of that is for human consumption, Mr Laborde said.
There is an expectation that Ukraine could produce 30pc to 40pc less grain over the coming next 12 months due to the war, though other estimates put that figure at 70pc.
Grain prices peaked after Russia’s invasion, and while some have since come down to their pre-war levels, they are still higher than before the Covid-19 pandemic.
Corn prices are 70pc higher than at the end of February 2020, said Jonathan Haines, senior analyst at data and analytics firm Gro Intelligence. He said wheat prices are around 60pc higher than in February 2020.
One reason prices remain high is the impact of drought on harvests in North America, China and other regions, as well as the higher price of fertiliser needed for farming.
“When fertiliser prices are high, farmers may use less fertiliser. And when they use less fertiliser, they will produce less. And if they will produce less, supply will continue to remain insufficient,” Mr Laborde said.
The three ships that departed Ukraine on Friday give hope that exports will ramp up to developing nations, where many are facing the increased threat of food shortages and hunger.
“The movement of three additional vessels overnight is a very positive sign and will continue to build confidence that we’re moving in the right direction,” Mr Haines said.
“If the flow of grain from Ukraine continues to expand, it will help relieve global supply constraints.”
The Turkish-flagged Polarnet, carrying 12,000 tons of corn, left the Chornomorsk port destined for Karasu, Turkey.
The Panama-flagged Navi Star left Odesa’s port for Ireland with 33,000 tonnes of corn. The Maltese-flagged Rojen left Chornomorsk for the United Kingdom carrying over 13,000 tonnes of corn, the UN said.
It added that the Joint Coordination Centre — run by officials from Ukraine, Russia, Turkey and the UN overseeing the deal signed in Istanbul last month — authorised the three ships and inspected a ship headed for Ukraine.
The Barbados-flagged Fulmar S was inspected in Istanbul and is headed for the Chornomorsk port.
The checks seek to ensure that outbound cargo ships carry only grain, fertiliser or food and not any other commodities and that inbound ships are not carrying weapons.
The vessels are accompanied by Ukrainian pilot ships for safe passage because of explosive mines strewn in the Black Sea.
After Turkey, which has relations with both Russia and Ukraine, helped broker the food deal two weeks ago, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin later on Friday in Sochi, Russia.
That meeting follows another face-to-face meeting the two leaders had in Iran three weeks ago.
With reporting from PA.
Ukraine war: first grain ship leaves Odesa, but EU should have seen food and energy crises coming
THE CONVERSATION
Published: August 1, 2022
Winter is coming
As if food shortages weren’t enough, a historical over-reliance on Russian fossil fuels is causing a serious energy crisis in Europe. In 2006, when the state-owned Russian gas monopoly Gazprom cut off supply to Ukraine – the major transit country for Russian gas to Europe – it sounded warning signals to EU institutions and member states about the problem of relying on Russia as a supplier.
This interruption decreased the pressure in pipelines, resulting in supply issues in nine countries in central and eastern Europe. At the time, Finland, Slovakia and the Baltic States relied on 100% of gas imports from Russia while Germany imported 40%.
There was plenty of rhetoric among policy-makers and diplomats in Brussels regarding the need for diversification away from Russian resources. But little was done. One of the problems is that energy policy remains the business of individual EU member states. Lithuania, for instance – became proactive in avoiding the Kremlin’s manipulation of energy policy as a geopolitical lever.
Lithuania has reduced its dependence on Russian resources with the launch of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal at Klaipeda on the Baltic Coast, which started operating in 2014. This LNG terminal is also used to supply Estonia, Latvia and Finland.
Faced with potentially serious supply issues ahead of the coming winter, the EU published a communication on July 20 titled: “Save gas for a safe winter”. It includes recommendations to work towards a complete cut-off of Russian gas, the first step of which is for member states to implement a voluntary gas reduction of 15% over the next eight months.
The recommendation is flawed: the reduction is not legally binding as the EU doesn’t make decisions about individual member states’ energy policies, so the plan might not be applied by all states. Another problem is that the recommendations include exceptions for island states and some industrial sectors, so is by no means comprehensive.
But the CEO of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol, has said that measures being taken by European countries for sourcing energy elsewhere while conserving gas would not be sufficient if Russia completely shut down gas supplies to Europe. Russia has already reduced the flow of gas through its Nord Stream 1 pipeline to Germany to 20% of its capacity.
The EU’s recommendations do little to address either the prospect of interruptions in supply, nor the need to diversify energy sources for the future. The severity of the looming energy crisis could have been minimised if EU member states had seriously implemented renewable energy policies after Gazprom’s interruption of gas to Ukraine in 2006.
Published: August 1, 2022
The first ship out of Odesa since the start of the Russian blockade was the Sierra Leone-flagged ship Razoni, carrying 26,000 tons of corn.
EPA-EFE/Turkish Defence Ministry handout
Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has resulted in four interrelated security crises. The war in Ukraine is a tragedy for human security, but it affects geopolitical security as well as food and energy security.
These four crises have been compounded by the failure of coercive diplomacy. This is a form of diplomacy which uses either sticks or carrots to encourage “an adversary” – in this case Russia – to change its behaviour.
Since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, the EU and US have sought to coerce Putin to row back on his aggression against Ukraine by imposing sanctions, but to no avail. Now, eight years on, Putin’s war against Ukraine reflects the failure of this coercive diplomacy.
Analysts and policy makers in the west have been on the back foot since the annexation of Crimea. Their tendency to react, rather than adopt a proactive stance, has given Putin carte blanche to pursue his own ends in Ukraine.
We can help you make informed decisions with our independent journalism.Get newsletter
Two recent developments illustrate the shortcomings of this passive foreign policy adopted by the US and the EU towards Russia. These two developments reflect the severity of the looming food and energy crises triggered by Putin’s war. They are indicative of divisions in the west – especially among EU member states – in establishing a coherent foreign policy towards Russia since the early 2000s.
Food shortage
Russia’s blockade of Ukrainian ports since the start of the war prevented Ukraine’s exports of sunflower-seeds, oil, corn and wheat. A Ukrainian-Russian deal on the export of Ukrainian grain was struck on July 22 2022.
The deal, negotiated by UN secretary general António Guterres and Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was perceived as a small step in seeking to address aspects of food insecurity. It aimed at selling 20 million tonnes of Ukraine’s harvest from 2021 within 130 days.
Read more: Ukraine war: Black Sea grain deal exposes Moscow's long-term diplomatic game
The first shipment of grain has left Odesa in Sierra Leone-flagged ship Razoni which was carrying 26,000 tons of corn. But the crews of ships moving in and out of the port of Odesa will be nervous.
Russian missiles struck the port of Odesa just one day after the deal was signed – despite earlier assurances that Russia would not take advantage of the de-mining and opening of Ukrainian ports. Russia claimed that this was a legitimate strike aimed at destroying military equipment including US missiles.
Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has resulted in four interrelated security crises. The war in Ukraine is a tragedy for human security, but it affects geopolitical security as well as food and energy security.
These four crises have been compounded by the failure of coercive diplomacy. This is a form of diplomacy which uses either sticks or carrots to encourage “an adversary” – in this case Russia – to change its behaviour.
Since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, the EU and US have sought to coerce Putin to row back on his aggression against Ukraine by imposing sanctions, but to no avail. Now, eight years on, Putin’s war against Ukraine reflects the failure of this coercive diplomacy.
Analysts and policy makers in the west have been on the back foot since the annexation of Crimea. Their tendency to react, rather than adopt a proactive stance, has given Putin carte blanche to pursue his own ends in Ukraine.
We can help you make informed decisions with our independent journalism.Get newsletter
Two recent developments illustrate the shortcomings of this passive foreign policy adopted by the US and the EU towards Russia. These two developments reflect the severity of the looming food and energy crises triggered by Putin’s war. They are indicative of divisions in the west – especially among EU member states – in establishing a coherent foreign policy towards Russia since the early 2000s.
Food shortage
Russia’s blockade of Ukrainian ports since the start of the war prevented Ukraine’s exports of sunflower-seeds, oil, corn and wheat. A Ukrainian-Russian deal on the export of Ukrainian grain was struck on July 22 2022.
The deal, negotiated by UN secretary general António Guterres and Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was perceived as a small step in seeking to address aspects of food insecurity. It aimed at selling 20 million tonnes of Ukraine’s harvest from 2021 within 130 days.
Read more: Ukraine war: Black Sea grain deal exposes Moscow's long-term diplomatic game
The first shipment of grain has left Odesa in Sierra Leone-flagged ship Razoni which was carrying 26,000 tons of corn. But the crews of ships moving in and out of the port of Odesa will be nervous.
Russian missiles struck the port of Odesa just one day after the deal was signed – despite earlier assurances that Russia would not take advantage of the de-mining and opening of Ukrainian ports. Russia claimed that this was a legitimate strike aimed at destroying military equipment including US missiles.
Harvest time in Ukraine: but how much of this wheat will reach the people who so desperately need it? EPA-EFE/Roman Pilipey
When the deal was struck the prices for grain decreased by 5%. Both Russia’s non-compliance with the agreement and the continuation of the war makes it impossible to estimate how the global price for grain will be affected. Equally difficult to predict is how much grain will actually be exported in due course.
When the deal was struck the prices for grain decreased by 5%. Both Russia’s non-compliance with the agreement and the continuation of the war makes it impossible to estimate how the global price for grain will be affected. Equally difficult to predict is how much grain will actually be exported in due course.
Winter is coming
As if food shortages weren’t enough, a historical over-reliance on Russian fossil fuels is causing a serious energy crisis in Europe. In 2006, when the state-owned Russian gas monopoly Gazprom cut off supply to Ukraine – the major transit country for Russian gas to Europe – it sounded warning signals to EU institutions and member states about the problem of relying on Russia as a supplier.
This interruption decreased the pressure in pipelines, resulting in supply issues in nine countries in central and eastern Europe. At the time, Finland, Slovakia and the Baltic States relied on 100% of gas imports from Russia while Germany imported 40%.
There was plenty of rhetoric among policy-makers and diplomats in Brussels regarding the need for diversification away from Russian resources. But little was done. One of the problems is that energy policy remains the business of individual EU member states. Lithuania, for instance – became proactive in avoiding the Kremlin’s manipulation of energy policy as a geopolitical lever.
Lithuania has reduced its dependence on Russian resources with the launch of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal at Klaipeda on the Baltic Coast, which started operating in 2014. This LNG terminal is also used to supply Estonia, Latvia and Finland.
Faced with potentially serious supply issues ahead of the coming winter, the EU published a communication on July 20 titled: “Save gas for a safe winter”. It includes recommendations to work towards a complete cut-off of Russian gas, the first step of which is for member states to implement a voluntary gas reduction of 15% over the next eight months.
The recommendation is flawed: the reduction is not legally binding as the EU doesn’t make decisions about individual member states’ energy policies, so the plan might not be applied by all states. Another problem is that the recommendations include exceptions for island states and some industrial sectors, so is by no means comprehensive.
But the CEO of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol, has said that measures being taken by European countries for sourcing energy elsewhere while conserving gas would not be sufficient if Russia completely shut down gas supplies to Europe. Russia has already reduced the flow of gas through its Nord Stream 1 pipeline to Germany to 20% of its capacity.
The EU’s recommendations do little to address either the prospect of interruptions in supply, nor the need to diversify energy sources for the future. The severity of the looming energy crisis could have been minimised if EU member states had seriously implemented renewable energy policies after Gazprom’s interruption of gas to Ukraine in 2006.
No comments:
Post a Comment