On certain aspects of implementing the Istanbul agreements on food and fertiliser
Russian MFA
When the so-called Black Sea Initiative to export Ukrainian grain from the ports of Odessa, Yuzhny and Chernomorsk expired on November 18, Russia, it must be recalled, did not object to a technical extension of 120 days, until March 18, 2023. This was a difficult decision for us, but we did it to uphold our commitment to ensuring global food security, all while strictly subjecting it to achieving tangible results under the Russia-UN Memorandum for exporting Russian agricultural products, which constitutes the second part of the Istanbul package.
At the same time, we see that the Black Sea Initiative still suffers from serious imbalances in its implementation both in terms of the geography of those who receive Ukrainian food exports, as well as the products it exports. These shipments were presented as part of a humanitarian undertaking, while mostly going to high-income countries. Poorer countries have received 3 percent of these shipments at best. In addition, fodder corn and feeder grain account for 70 percent of the shipments. This means that the initiative evolved into a business project with the idea that those who need these food products would be able to buy them at a lower price.
Still, we continue facing criticism of underperforming under this agreement. In particular, Ukraine’s Minister of Infrastructure Alexander Kubrakov alleged that Russia was sabotaging the grain deal. He seems to have forgotten that it was Kiev that used the humanitarian sea corridor for military aims, resulting in the suspension of the initiative from October 29 to November 2, and almost derailing the whole agreement due to the lack of key security guarantees. In addition to this, the Ukrainians are the ones rushing their cargo ships to Istanbul for purely lucrative purposes – all they want is to sell more as quickly as possible. This led to an artificial accumulation of ships in the harbour and all the hysteria over inspection delays.
In this connection, it is worth recalling that Russia has been executing the agreements in good faith ever since it signed them in Istanbul on July 22. Launched on July 26, the Joint Coordination Centre formed by Russia, Türkiye, Ukraine and the United Nations engages in practical efforts to facilitate Ukrainian bulk food exports. The first cargo ship left Odessa carrying fodder corn on August 1.
Russian representatives have been acting in strict compliance with the JCC rules of procedure and regulations as agreed and approved, including the number of inspection groups – each party must provide three groups of two inspectors each daily. Some ships fail to pass the inspection right away, which is sometimes attributable to errors in shipment documents or high fumigation levels in the hold. In fact, three Russian experts suffered from poisoning due to excessive fumigation. The critics have also failed to take the weather factor into account, including storms, which can delay ship inspections.
We have yet to see any tangible progress in carrying out the Russia-UN Memorandum for normalising exports of Russian agricultural products. Despite the exemptions for food and fertiliser announced by the West, including the Europeans as part of the 9th package of sanctions against Russia, Russian producers and suppliers continue to be plagued by blocked bank transfers, prohibitive insurance rates and restricted port access. Therefore, all we get from Washington, Brussels and London are empty words, while the countries in need continue to suffer not only from the crisis created by unaffordable food and fertiliser prices, but also from a real lack of these products.
Even the initiative to send Russia’s fertiliser to the poorest countries free of charge has been stalled. Some of these shipments (20,000 tonnes) were sent from the Netherlands to Malawi. Latvia, Estonia and Belgium persist in preventing our bulk items from leaving their ports. The transhipping of ammonia used in fertiliser production at Yuzhny port has yet to begin, even though there is a provision to this effect both in the Black Sea Initiative and the Russia-UN Memorandum. Kiev bears sole responsibility for preventing the resumption of ammonia deliveries for an annual volume of 7 million tonnes, which can be used to produce 25 million tonnes of fertiliser, and eventually feed 150 million people.
These are only some of the telling examples that demonstrate who is not only failing to ensure global food security, but also who is seeking to profit from the needs of African, Asian, and Latin American countries, including regarding fertilisers, while pursuing a neo-colonial, narrow-minded agenda.