EU, Kyiv Ponder Alternatives to Black Sea Grain Shipments

Brussels and Kyiv Seek Alternatives for Ukrainian Grain Exports

Brussels and Kyiv are exploring various options to transport Ukrainian grain to global markets after Russia’s withdrawal from the Black Sea grain initiative and its attacks on Ukrainian sea and river ports. However, experts doubt that any land routes can fully replace the blocked seaports.

The United States, along with its EU allies and other partners, will collaborate to find new ways to export Ukrainian crops, according to National Security Council spokesman John Kirby. However, he acknowledged that land transportation is not as efficient or fast as using the Black Sea ports.

Volodymyr Dubovyk, a visiting professor at The Fletcher School at Tufts University, compared the current situation to the Russian blockade of the Ukrainian Black Sea coastline between February and July 2022. He highlighted the risks of sea mines and Russian attacks, which have made it impossible for ships to transport Ukrainian goods through the Black Sea.

EU Solidarity Lanes

In May 2022, the European Commission introduced the Solidarity Lanes Action Plan to establish alternative routes for Ukrainian exports via rail, road, and inland waterways. These routes pass through Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia.

According to the EU, the Solidarity Lanes have facilitated the export of approximately 60% of Ukraine’s grain since the start of the war. However, political pressure from farmers in neighboring EU countries has complicated the effort. These farmers fear that Ukrainian grain will flood their domestic markets and drive down prices for their own crops.

The EU allowed the five Solidarity Lane countries to ban domestic sales of Ukrainian wheat, maize, and oilseeds until September 15, 2023, while still permitting the transit of grain through their territories. Several of these countries have called for an extension of the ban since the expiration of the Black Sea grain initiative, and the EU has promised to consider it.

The Baltic Route

One potential route being considered is through Poland to seaports in the Baltic states. Lithuania has proposed this scheme to the European Commission, highlighting the existing infrastructure’s capacity to handle Ukrainian grain. The Lithuanian Ministry of Transport and Communications suggested resolving bottlenecks at the Ukraine-Poland border by shifting customs and other controls to the Baltic ports.

However, the most direct route from Ukraine to the Baltic ports passes through Belarus, a Russian ally, making it inaccessible. The only alternative route to Klaipeda is through Poland, which has a different gauge of railways than Ukraine and the Baltic states. Therefore, cargo handling would be required at the borders for off-loading and reloading the grain.

The Estonian port of Tallinn is also ready to handle Ukrainian grain, but logistically, using Polish ports would be more sensible due to geographical proximity.

The Balkan Route

Croatia and Montenegro have offered their rail networks and ports on the Adriatic Sea as alternative export routes for Ukrainian grain. However, Ukrainian experts believe that the infrastructure in Europe is not capable of handling the volume of grain that Ukraine could transport.

Leonid Kozachenko, the president of the Ukrainian Agrarian Confederation, considers routes leading across Moldova and the Danube River to Black Sea ports in Bulgaria and Romania more viable than other land corridors through Europe. However, recent attacks by Russia on a Ukrainian grain storage facility in the Danube port city of Reni have highlighted the risks involved.

Impact on Food Prices

Experts agree that any land transport of Ukrainian produce will increase the cost of food in Europe and worldwide. The International Monetary Fund estimates that Russia’s withdrawal from the Black Sea initiative could drive global grain prices up by 10-15%. The cost of transporting Ukrainian crops has already significantly increased, causing Ukrainian farmers to incur losses.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The article discusses the challenges faced by Ukraine in exporting its grain due to the withdrawal of Russia from the Black Sea grain initiative and the attacks on Ukrainian sea and river ports. These challenges are directly related to SDG 2, which aims to end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. The article also mentions the need for alternative routes and infrastructure improvements, which align with SDG 9 on industry, innovation, and infrastructure. Additionally, the involvement of the European Union and other partners in finding solutions reflects SDG 17 on partnerships for the goals.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 2.3: By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers.
• Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure.
• Target 17.6: Enhance North-South, South-South, and triangular regional and international cooperation on and access to science, technology, and innovation.

The article highlights the need for improved infrastructure and alternative routes to ensure the export of Ukrainian grain. This aligns with Target 9.1 of SDG 9, which focuses on developing quality, reliable, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure. Additionally, the involvement of the European Union and other partners in finding solutions reflects Target 17.6 of SDG 17, which aims to enhance regional and international cooperation on science, technology, and innovation. The article also indirectly addresses Target 2.3 of SDG 2, as the challenges faced in exporting grain can impact the incomes of small-scale food producers in Ukraine.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 2.3.1: Volume of production per labor unit by classes of farming/pastoral/forestry enterprise size.
• Indicator 9.1.1: Proportion of the rural population who live within two kilometers of an all-season road.
• Indicator 17.6.1: Number of science and/or technology cooperation agreements and projects between countries.

The article does not explicitly mention specific indicators, but based on the identified targets, the following indicators can be used to measure progress:

– Indicator 2.3.1: This indicator can measure the increase in agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers in Ukraine.

– Indicator 9.1.1: This indicator can measure the accessibility of reliable infrastructure, such as roads, to the rural population in Ukraine.

– Indicator 17.6.1: This indicator can measure the number of cooperation agreements and projects between Ukraine, the European Union, and other partners in finding solutions for grain export.

4. Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.

Source: voanews.com

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.