Who moved my cheese?

Many years ago, before the advent of internet and email, I placed a telephone order  for some office supplies: paper for the photocopier, pens, files etc. I also ordered 20 rolls of toilet paper.

A few days later a huge truck pulled up outside our ground floor office and the driver called through the window. “Are you the guy that ordered the toilet paper?” he shouted.

Somewhere along the line the order had got messed up; the truck was full of toilet paper: 20 packets of 200 rolls each. I explained to the delivery driver that we didn’t want or need 4,000 rolls of toilet paper, and finally managed to negotiate taking just one packet of 200 rolls. It took us years to get through it!

I remembered this story last week when I was in our local supermarket in Switzerland. I have never seen so much toilet paper: the shelves were full of it, and there were piles of it everywhere. I had seen a video of people fighting over toilet paper in Australia (of all places), and I suppose the Swiss wanted to be prepared in case of panic buying here. However, no one was panic buying toilet paper, and I suspect the supermarket had somewhat over-ordered.

My mission that day was not to buy toilet paper, but parmesan cheese. I couldn’t find any. I asked an employee. He pointed to some empty shelves in the cheese display and told me that they had run out. “Panic buying?” I joked. “Yes,” he replied. But he wasn’t joking.

I was wondering why anyone would panic buy parmesan, but then I saw the empty shelves where the pasta should have been. I realised that if you are stocking up on pasta, you would probably also want to stock up on parmesan. To test my theory I checked out the tomato sauces: there wasn’t a single can or bottle of the stuff left in the shop.

In theory, Switzerland is the one country in the world where you should never have to worry about running out of food. It is, as far as I am aware, the only country that maintains a three month strategic food stockpile.

Switzerland was also for a long while the only country in the world where every dwelling, school and office had to have a nuclear shelter. The shelter had to be kept clear, clean and stocked with enough food and drink to last until any nuclear holocaust ended.

As a child I had sometimes wondered what it would have been like to be the only survivor of nuclear war. Having lived in Switzerland for nearly 15 years I now wonder what the world would have been like if only the Swiss had survived a nuclear war.

Switzerland’s food stockpiles hit the headlines a few weeks ago when the government decided to no longer store the 15,000 tonnes of coffee that were part of their strategic stockpile. The government felt that coffee contained almost no calories, and hence was not a food. Their decision caused a social media storm, and the government eventually delayed their decision under pressure from local coffee companies. Coffee is important for Switzerland. Not only is the annual per capita consumption of 9kg double the 4.5kg consumed in the United States, 60 percent of the world’s coffee is traded through Switzerland.

As well as coffee, Switzerland stocks three of four months consumption of a whole list of staples including directly consumable foodstuffs such as sugar, rice and cooking oil, as well as products that need to be processed before consumption, such as bread grain. Fertilisers and animal feedstuffs are also stockpiled, as are petrol, diesel, heating oil and aviation fuel. Medicines such as painkillers and vaccines are also stockpiled.

The stocks are held and financed by 300 private companies. The coffee stocks are, for example, financed by a fee of 3.75 Swiss francs on every 100kg of imported beans, raising 2.7 million Swiss francs annually to compensate private companies for storing beans.

The government estimates that in total, the system of strategic stocks costs each of Switzerland’s inhabitants an average of about CHF 12 a year.

Although it may sound a silly idea, these stocks have come in handy recently. In 2018, the level of the River Rhine fell so low that ships carrying mineral oils and fertiliser could not get to Switzerland, and the Swiss dipped into their stockpiles. Also, during a global shortage of antibiotics in 2017, Swiss hospitals dodged a crisis because of their stock of the drugs.

In addition to these stocks, each Swiss resident is encouraged to have enough food and basic necessities at home to last them one week. In 2016 the government even produced a video (in German) to remind them of their civic duty to do so.

This basic list of necessities includes toilet paper, but apparently the government doesn’t include the stuff in strategic reserves.

Having failed to buy any parmesan I did pick up a packet of toilet paper on the way out. You never know!

© Commodity Conversations ®

Commodity Conversations Weekly Press Summary

As the world is still cautiously analysing the impact of the new coronavirus outbreak, it has been almost two years since the first cases of the African swine fever were detected in China and some of the long-term consequences are now clearer. For one, up to 25% of the world’s pig population died, while a new report suggested that only large-scale industrial pig farms were able to overcome the disease and are now reaping the benefits of soaring prices. In contrast, China’s 40 million small-scale farmers, who did not have the funds to recover their losses or the organisation to apply for government help, might have to stop herding pigs as a result. 

Some exciting news was reported by researchers around the world who have successfully tested safe and effective vaccines against swine fever. Teams in China and the US reported some successful tests, although experts warn against being too optimistic too soon. An important step will be to find a vaccine that is broadly applicable to different strains, on top of finding a way to address contamination in the wild boar population. In the meantime, the USDA published its action plan to deal with an outbreak in the US. The country would ban all shipments of pigs for at least three days in the case an infection was detected. 

Commodity markets were affected by the sudden drop in oil prices this week following the dispute between Saudi Arabia and Russia. Many agricultural producers found out that the price of their products is now tied to energy prices because they are used to make biofuels, such as EU rapeseed, American corn, Brazilian sugarcane and Indonesian palm oil. As one journalist put it, farmers are now also energy traders. On the other hand, some suggested that oil prices no longer have an impact on renewable energy investments in the short and medium-term. Only an unlikely structural shift in oil prices would change the situation for clean energy producers, like Brazil’s ethanol sector.

Cargill announced a partnership with Rainmaking to find solutions to decarbonise the shipping sector in Singapore. Rainmaking launched a similar program in Europe which finds viable technological solutions and encourages industry leaders to support them. In Sweden, Sekab and Vertoro from the Netherlands announced the construction of a demo plant that will make a proprietary blend of ethanol from waste wood products. The fuel will initially be used by the shipping industry but could also serve for cars and planes.

The private equity arm of the Rabobank Group, Rabo Corporate Investments, announced an investment in Protix BV, a Dutch producer of insect protein. The company makes an alternative to animal and fish feed using the larvae of the black soldier fly. Meanwhile, the plant-based meat producer Impossible Foods said it was able to address scaling issues and reduced prices by 15% for food service distributors. Its products still cost around USD 7.90/lb, compared to USD 1.79/lb for 81% ground beef, but better than the competitor Beyond Meat which is still selling for around USD 11.98/lb. 

Investors are now looking at synthetic palm oil, including a Bill Gates fund which announced an investment in C16 Biosciences, a start-up that produces palm oil from food waste. However, experts note that the current technology is far from being scalable, although it could help address a shortage of certified sustainable palm oil. In the same vein, PepsiCo expanded its commitment to source only sustainable palm oil to cover third-party suppliers instead of only direct suppliers. 

PepsiCo is also working to shift away from depending too much on sugary soft-drinks and announced that it will buy Rockstar, an energy-drink brand, for USD 3.85 billion in an attempt to increase its presence in the fast-growing category. Interestingly, however, sales data from Arca Continental and Coca-Cola Femsa in Mexico show that the consumption of sweet beverages continued to increase in the 2014-19 period despite the introduction of a sugar tax in 2014. This includes beverages with high and low sugar content.

Finally, Bloomberg compiled a great table of recent dramatic weather events and their impact on prices, such as warm weather in the EU, drought in Thailand and Australia, or a salinity buildup in Vietnam.

This summary was produced by ECRUU

Removing the clouds from your coffee

Last week the UK’s Channel 4 Dispatches programme highlighted child labour on Guatemala’s coffee farms. Posing as researchers, the Dispatches’ team visited farms they were told supply Starbucks or Nespresso. They found children as young as 11 or 12 working long hours in gruelling conditions for as little as £5 per day.

The programme found that most of the children were working to help feed their families, and highlighted the piteously small amount of money that coffee farmers receive for their beans. The programme put the the average cost of a cup of coffee in the UK at £2.50 of which the coffee shop receives 88p, staff receive 63p, and the taxman 38p. The programme estimated miscellaneous costs at 28p and profit for the brand owner (ie Starbucks or Nespresso) at 25p. This leaves 10p for the coffee supplier, of which only 1p goes to the farmer. A fraction of that 1p goes to the coffee pickers.

You can perhaps argue whether that breakdown is accurate, but whatever the exact figures, the coffee farmer receives only a tiny proportion of the final sale price of his production. Poverty is widespread in coffee-growing areas throughout the world, and local families often have no choice but to send their children out to work at a young age.

Although it is no excuse, this situation is not new. In his book ‘Uncommon Grounds – The history of coffee and how it transformed our world’, Mark Pendergast writes, “Children begin helping with the harvest when they are seven or eight. Though many campesinos keep their children out of school at other times for other reasons, it’s no coincidence that school vacation in Guatemala coincides with the coffee harvest.’

It is not clear whether the Dispatches team filmed the children during school vacation, or whether the children were skipping school to work, but both Starbucks and Nespresso have made clear that child labour is unacceptable at any time in their supply chain.

In a statement George Clooney, Nespresso’s ambassador, said “I was surprised and saddened to see this story. Clearly this board and this company still have work to do. And that work will be done. I would hope that this reporter will continue to investigate these conditions and report accurately if they do not improve.”

Meanwhile, also in a statement, Nespresso’s chief executive said that the company had launched an investigation to find out which farms were filmed and whether they supply Nespresso. “We will not resume purchases of coffee from farms in this area until the investigation is closed,” he added.

Starbucks also said that it had launched an investigation into the claims brought by Channel 4. “We can confirm we have not purchased coffee from the farms in question during the most recent harvest season, and we will not do so until we can verify that they are not in breach of C.A.F.E. Practices – our ethical sourcing program developed in partnership with Conservation International that provides comprehensive social, environmental and economic standards, including zero tolerance for child labour.”

However, in an interview with The Guardian, the Dispatches’ reporter said that it was far too easy to to announce an investigation and halt supplies from these regions, but doing so will further punish the farmers and the desperately poor families who rely on them. “The reason these kids are working is that their parents – and the farms they work on – are not paid enough,” he added.

Unfortunately, problems in the coffee supply chain are not limited to Guatemala. A Thomson Reuters Foundation investigation published last December, uncovered extensive slave labour in Brazil’s coffee industry. The investigation found that coffee produced by forced labor was stamped slavery-free by top certification schemes and sold at a premium to major brands such as Starbucks and Nespresso.

The coffee supply chain has two problems that are common to many commodities sourced in poor countries: lack of transparency and low prices. It therefore really encouraging that the coffee industry is launching two initiatives to combat these two problems.

The first is FarmerConnect, which is built around a blockchain core powered by IBM. The second, again powered by IBM, is the Thank My Farmer app that will be launched later this year. Working in conjunction with FarmerConnect the app will allow consumers to know exactly where their coffee comes from and allow them to contribute directly to the farmer, and/or to support social and educational projects in coffee growing regions.

We will be writing more about these promising initiatives in coming weeks, and of course we give them our full support.

© Commodity Conversations ®

Image by Pixabay

Commodity Conversations Weekly Press Summary

Michelin has been accused of “greenwashing” with its restaurant guide’s new sustainable gastronomy award. The chef of Michelin star restaurant Relae in Denmark complained it had been awarded the label without any independent audit being conducted. Environmentalists added that the label was vague and without any clear requirements. To top it off, some were quick to point out the irony of a tire company handing out sustainability awards. 

In any case, the traditional concept of restaurant dining could be on its way out. A deep-dive by The Counter looked at US data which, although confusing, pointed to the increasing number of restaurants closing down every year. While this is partly because more restaurants are opening up in the first place, with the chef and restaurateur culture becoming increasingly cool, it is mainly due to new eating habits. People either prefer to order in or eat on the go. As such, venture capital is being poured into so-called “cloud kitchens” that only cater to deliveries. 

The water bottle industry, too, could be facing significant changes going forward. In Washington, the Senate approved a bill banning new permits for water bottling operations and other states, such as Maine and Michigan, are looking to follow suit. Congress has set up an oversight committee to look into the operations of the bottled water industry, under which Nestle has been asked to submit data on sales, water extraction and the amount of plastic used, among other things. 

Nestle announced a USD 700 million investment to “meet the nutritional needs of Mexicans.” Under the plan, its 17 factories in Mexico will be upgraded to focus on products that either have lower sugar and fat content or are fortified with vitamins and probiotics, among other wellness food and beverage products. It will open a new coffee plant too but it hopes to offset the carbon emissions from that factory by planting 3 million trees in Mexico and Brazil within the next 18 months. 

In Australia, Nestle tied up with recycling company iQ Renew to collect and recycle soft plastics from homes. The trial will include around 2,000 homes with the aim of reaching 100,000 by the end of the year. Similarly, Unilever said it was working on creating a market for recycled plastics in Australia and New Zealand. It aims to use half as many new plastics and collect more than it uses by 2025. McDonald’s announced it was phasing out plastic cutlery by the end of the year and replacing it with fibre-based cutlery. The timing is probably good because 10 of the major food and beverage companies are being sued in the US by Earth Island Institute for their use of single-use plastics. The organisation hopes that the companies will be forced to clean up and recycle. Besides, supermarkets, in Australia and elsewhere, are worried they might eventually run out of food packaging because of the supply disruption out of China due to the coronavirus. 

Olam reported a net profit of SGD 313 million (USD 225 million) for Oct-Dec, four times as much as the previous year, thanks to divestments as well as better performance in several segments, such as coffee and grains. This brought the total 2019 net profit to SGD 564 million (USD 405 million), up 62% on year. The CEO said the group’s exposure to the new coronavirus and China was limited but added that it had affected consumption on a global scale, causing lower prices across commodities. In Nigeria, Olam is investing in tomato farming and finding better seeds. In Indonesia, it agreed to sell its 50% stake in Indonesian sugar refinery Far East Agri to Mitr Phol as part of its strategy to exit the sugar market. 

In Brazil, meat producers JBS and Marfrig have been accused of sourcing cattle from a farmer who murdered people trying to protect the Amazon forest in 2017. This is the emerging part of a much bigger issue known as “cattle laundering.” While the likes of JBS say they do everything they can to check that their direct suppliers are not involved in deforestation, the indirect suppliers are able to go around these checks by selling their cattle to companies that are vetted to supply directly. 

In the UK, meanwhile, a study found that the anti-meat lobby is contributing to growing mental health issues among livestock farmers. Part of the problem, however, is that meat farmers are stuck between shaming on platforms such as social media and pressure from big supermarkets to provide cheap meat. Greenpeace argued that livestock farmers should not be blamed. On the contrary, they should be helped to switch to farming something else. In the same vein, the European Commission is looking into its subsidy system designed to help promote agricultural products. It faced a backlash after data showed that EUR 60 million (USD 67 million) had been spent over three years to subsidise the marketing of meat products. 

Finally, Belgian researchers are taking the quest to replace dairy products to a new level. They are testing using larva fat to replace butter in bakery products. Apparently it tastes exactly the same. 

This summary was produced by ECRUU

AgriCensus Report

China’s soymeal, rapeseed meal futures soar on ASF vaccine report

2 Mar 2020 | Johnny Huang

Soymeal and rapeseed futures in China rallied sharply on Monday, as the market responded to an academic report detailing the successful test of a potential vaccine for African swine fever (ASF).

A medical team at the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) successfully trialled the ASF vaccine, releasing its findings in a research paper published in Science China’s journal.

“Our study shows that HLJ/-18-7GD is a safe and effective vaccine against ASF, and as such is expected to play an important role in controlling the spread of ASF,” the paper said.

The virus has killed million of hogs in China since August 2018, when it was first identified, and spread rapidly to claim the millions more hogs in neighbouring Vietnam before spreading further afield.

The report was enough to drive both soymeal and rapeseed meal futures – key sources of protein in animal feed – to reach a multi-month high on Monday.

The most liquid soymeal futures on the Dalian Commodity Exchange surged nearly 4% from the Friday close to hit a two-month higher of CNY2,719/mt ($390.66/mt).

For rapeseed meal, the most active future on the Zhengzhou Commodity Exchange jumped to its highest level in four months at CNY2,370/mt ($340.52/mt).

“These facts demonstrate that ASF cannot be controlled by culling infected pigs alone, and the development and application of an efficacious vaccine is urgently needed,” the paper added.

However, the rollout and use of such a vaccine across the market remains a long way off, with researchers emphasising that it is early days and there remains uncertainty ahead.

“The media had a misleading interpretation of the results,” said Zhu Zengyong, a researcher from CAAS, referring to the early media coverage that accompanied the first reports of the vaccine.

“The research and application of vaccine still has uncertainty in the future,” Zhu said.

Many market sources also believe that the rally lacks strong fundamental support.

“The rally was started by the vaccine rumour, but it was then dismissed. There were repercussions from equity and commodity markets today, along with a correction of crush margins,” said an analyst at a major Chinese crusher.

“The bullish trend today was not reasonable. It exceeded expectations,” one soymeal purchasing manager told Agricensus, adding that low soybean vessel arrivals and decent physical soymeal demand may have supported the futures.

AgriCensus Prices

Over 140 daily wheat, corn, soy, barley vegoils, meals and freight price assessments

Subscribe now

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

More on government intervention

Continuing on the theme from last week of government intervention, the following is an extract from my book The Sugar Casino, published in 2015:

In a freely functioning market supply and demand is, in theory at least, matched by price. If demand increases or supply falls, prices rise to encourage supply while at the same time reducing demand. If supply increases or demand drops then prices fall, sending a signal to producers to reduce output or to consumers to increase demand.

This process is what is often described as the “invisible hand”, the unobservable market force that helps the demand and supply of goods in a free market to reach equilibrium automatically. Adam Smith introduced the phrase in 1759 in reference to income distribution and then used it again in “The Wealth of Nations” in 1776. He argued that an economy works best in a free market scenario where everyone works for his or her own interest – and where the government leaves people to buy and sell freely among themselves.

The American baseball player Yogi Berra once said, “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is”.

In practice, markets may not always be efficient, and governments may need to interfere to correct those inefficiencies. This might happen if producers club together into a cartel to raise prices, requiring the government to intervene to break up the cartel. But even without a cartel a sugar mill might be so big in a particularly region that it could in its own right be a monopoly employer or buyer of cane, forcing down wages and cane prices, or a monopoly seller, forcing sugar prices higher.

In addition, sugar producers might not correctly price what economists call “collective goods”: these could be the environmental costs of factory pollution or heavy traffic on the roads at harvest time. Individual producers might not also correctly value the benefits of research into new cane varieties or of infrastructure investment such as railways or ports. On a wider scale governments, rather than markets, may better provide collective goods such as education and health services.

Inefficiencies sometimes creep into markets due to a lack of information. To counter that a government could encourage the setting up of commodity exchanges to facilitate trade and improve price transparency.

But governments also interfere in markets, not to correct market inefficiencies, but to obtain specific policy objectives such as the alleviation of poverty or a fairer distribution of wealth. Interfering in the market in this way can however have a cost: it can create price distortions that prevent the most productive and efficient allocation of resources. This “economic loss” has to be measured against the “social gain”, say, of a more equal income distribution.

Governments may also interfere in markets for diplomatic reasons, for example by applying a lower import tariff on sugar from one country compared to sugar from another. Lower import tariffs might be applied to curry favour from a neighbour or in exchange for lower tariffs on other goods within the framework of a Free Trade Area (FTA). Altruistic governments may also reduce or remove import tariffs on sugar imports as part of a policy to promote growth in developing countries.  Such an example would be the EU’s “Everything But Arms” agreements.

In the agricultural markets some governments, in particular China, may try to keep cane prices high in order to maintain rural incomes and to slow down the migration of the population to the cities. Other governments (or more correctly politicians) may try to keep cane prices high for less altruistic reasons: to win political votes. India is an obvious example of this; perhaps Thailand is a less obvious example.

Governments may also often interfere in markets to maintain employment. It would certainly be more cost efficient, say, for Bangladesh to close down their few remaining sugar mills and import the sugar they need from Brazil or Thailand. (The same also applies, but on a much larger scale, to China.) However, closing factories can result in a politically unacceptable increase in unemployment. Sugar industry employees in Bangladesh and China might be better off making something else other than sugar, but a reallocation of that sort takes time. It would involve short-term hardship for the employees concerned and would be a difficult “political sell” in the short term. And everyone knows that politicians operate in the short term: their time frame is the next election.

© Commodity Conversations ®

Commodity Conversations Weekly Press Summary

As the spread of the new coronavirus is expected to impact global trade flows, the US President said the government might offer farmers more trade aid in 2020 to compensate for the lack of purchases from China. The USDA said the news, announced on Twitter in all-caps, was a surprise. Meanwhile, lawmakers are looking at how the trade aid money – over USD 23 billion since 2018 – is being distributed. Critics point to the fact that foreign firms like Brazil’s JBS are receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in government funds.

The giant meat processor JBS received some more good news this week as the USDA ended a ban on raw beef imports from Brazil. The agency blocked Brazilian imports in 2017 on health and safety concerns. Otherwise, US efforts to isolate Iran have allowed it to take the position of biggest pistachio grower in the world. This deep-dive by Bloomberg looks at how geopolitics, climate change and resource mismanagement created challenges for Iranian producers, along with how investors are looking at new potential pistachio-growing countries, like Georgia, Uzbekistan, and Azerbaijan. 

China’s virus outbreak is having indirect but impactful consequences for the food industry worldwide, such as the fall in Chinese fertiliser production. India usually imports 50% of its diammonium phosphate from China but the lockdown of Hubei province is forcing India to look for alternative suppliers. In North Korea, the price of many basic goods started to fall again after a spike caused by the closure of the border with China. Sources reported that the price of imported goods dropped as distributors were forced to release their stocks.

China is also one of the largest producers of alternative sweeteners and Coca-Cola warned that the ongoing virus will lead to a shortage. Although China is the group’s third-biggest market, it expects that the coronavirus will only affect revenues by 1-2% in the quarter. Likewise, Danone said sales will be down about USD 100 million in the first quarter because of the virus. Danone also pledged to spend USD 2.2 billion over the next three years in order to “build climate change resilience” into the business. The money will go to reduce plastic waste and to lower the carbon footprint of its supply chain. 

The environment was also on the minds of British people as the UK is looking to launch post-Brexit trade talks. A YouGov poll showed that 57% of respondents thought the UK should enforce stricter environmental laws once it leaves the EU, while 37% said food safety standards should be strengthened, compared to 6% who thought they should be loosened. Moreover, farmers are worried as the environment secretary said he could not guarantee that food standards will not be lowered. British farmers are afraid they will be unable to compete amid cheap imports, funding cuts and a restriction on hiring immigrant workers. 

The Netherlands only narrowly approved the free-trade agreement with Canada, in force since 2017, amid pressure from local farmers afraid of competition from imports. Farmers across the bloc have also opposed efforts to sign new deals with Mercosur, Australia and New Zealand. Otherwise, the EU’s efforts to punish Cambodia for human rights violations are being challenged as the Cambodian Prime Minister said the state will compensate for losses faced by local companies. The EU ended about 20% of the preferential duties under the Everything But Arms scheme but the PM said he will offer tax breaks to affected exporters. 

Pakistan declared a state of emergency due to a locust outbreak that has destroyed crops, including wheat and cotton. The Prime Minister approved a plan which includes buying planes to spray pesticides. India’s agriculture ministry blamed the country for not reacting fast enough and letting the invasion spread, adding that some 400,000ha of crops in northern India had been affected. In response to a video of locusts in Xinjiang, China, the agriculture department said this was a desert variety which was unlikely to survive in China. Besides, the Himalaya provides an efficient wall against the migration of locusts, while the country has among the world’s best locust monitoring and extermination systems, it said. 

The situation is more serious in Africa, however, as locusts are devastating crops in South Sudan, having crossed over from Uganda. Locusts have also been reported in Kenya, where farmers asked the government to intervene to avoid significant crop losses. The UN warned that the locust invasion could spread to more countries which could potentially create a food crisis. Somalia has declared a national emergency and the UN is appealing for funds to fight the locusts with aerial spraying. Climate change is likely behind the outbreak, which is the worst in 25 years, the UN said.

As farmers struggle with volatile weather patterns and unpredictable trade development, a new tool appeared to help them generate more income: YouTube. The website revealed that farming videos have seen their popularity grow twice as fast as cosmetic videos. While some channels focus on sustainable or organic practices, the most popular YouTubers are young, large-scale, conventional farmers. We particularly liked this video on how to farm Rice Krispies. 

This summary was produced by ECRUU

Are governments back at the table?

Bloomberg published an interesting opinion piece last week on the resurgence of government in our daily lives.

Since the Reagan / Thatcher era, government has been seen as `the problem not the solution`, particularly in terms of the economy. Over the past 40 years, privatisation and other market liberalising measures have reduced the role of government, leaving space for `market-based solutions`.

The international commodity trade benefited from this trend. When I started in the commodity business in the late 1970s, it was dominated by state agencies. Prodintorg was the monopoly importer in the USSR, as was COFCO in China and BULOG in Indonesia, along with a host of other government agencies in many other countries. If you wanted to buy sugar from Brazil you could only buy it from the IAA, a stage agency. And if you wanted to buy sugar from Australia you had to deal with QSC, a quasi-state agency.

Most of these agencies were dismantled during the 1980s and 1990s as governments withdrew from the international agricultural commodity trade; our business was effectively privatised.

If the Bloomberg opinion writer is correct, the pendulum is now swinging the other way. Governments now have the support of voters to be increasingly interventionist.

Once again, international agricultural commodity markets are not immune from this trend. The Chinese government, through COFCO, is an increasingly important player in managing China’s food imports. The Russian government, through VTB, is becoming an increasingly important player in Russian grain exports. Meanwhile, other countries are becoming more interventionist in imposing tariffs and other trade barriers.

What effect might this have on our business?

First, politics could become more important than price as a market driver. Although not perfect, markets do a reasonable job of sending the right signals to producers and consumers, importers and exporters. When governments interfere, these market signals become distorted: farmers end up growing the wrong crops while importers import the wrong quantities or the wrong commodities. Markets are better than government committees at balancing supply and demand all along the food supply chain.

Second, the trade in food could be weaponized. Less democratic governments have sometimes used food supplies as leverage to gain power over dissenting groups, using starvation and famine as a political weapon. More solid democracies happily no longer do that, but they do use food as a weapon in their international relations. Look at Russia’s ban on food imports from the EU, or China’s import tariffs on agricultural imports from the US. These types of intervention can distort markets and lead to an inefficient allocation of resources. 

Third, we may see the return of corruption, both institutional and local. Putting a poorly-paid government bureaucrat in charge of a country’s food imports could lead him to favour one supplier over another – or to grant an import licence to a ‘friend or relation’. 

Localised corruption is rare in advanced democracies, but institutionalised corruption is widespread. If governments become more involved in our business, the power of the lobbyists will grow. It will be increasingly worthwhile, and profitable, to lobby for or against a tariff, or for or against an import or export ban. Politicians need money to get elected even in the most transparent democracies.

If the Bloomberg article is right, it could become even harder for the world’s grain and agricultural commodity traders to make a living.

First, trading companies got out of the business of bribing government officials long ago, and for both ethical and good business reasons they won’t want to get back into it.

Second, western agricultural trade houses may be handicapped if government-owned competitors trade for political rather than price reasons.

Third, politics increases risk. Throughout 2019, for example, the price differential between Brazilian and US soybeans could – and did – change at the click of a tweet. Traders like volatility as long as it is not political.

If the world wants to feed the estimated almost 10 billion people that will be will living on this planet in 2050, then it will need international free trade in agriculture. Let’s hope that the pendulum doesn’t swing too far in the wrong direction.

© Commodity Conversations ® 2020

Commodity Conversations Weekly Press Summary

The US is looking at resetting its tariff commitments under the WTO’s Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), or even exiting it altogether, according to sources who spoke with Bloomberg. The administration is reportedly blaming the WTO’s most-favored-nation (MFN) system for its trade deficit with areas like the EU and China but some analysts warn that US businesses could be hurt if they lost access to GPA tenders.  

The USDA launched its “Science Blueprint” this month, a 5-year plan designed, among other things, to mitigate the effects of climate change on agriculture. Some advocacy groups welcomed the news, saying that the simple act of mentioning climate change was a step forward. However, critics have been quick to point out that it will not be easy to undo the efforts to undermine the USDA’s scientific research over the last few years which led to around two-thirds of agency researchers quitting. 

The situation at the USDA seems to reflect what is going with the general public in the country. A survey by Yale University found that only 30% of Americans talked about the environmental impact of what they eat, while the rest said they didn’t know they should eat more plant-based food. Over half, however, said they would be willing to adjust their diets if they got more information on the topic. 

An ongoing lawsuit in Texas might help with that. The National Press Photographers Association sued the Department of Public Safety over a ban on taking photographs of feedlots with drones. Separately, an investigation by the Food & Environment Reporting Network found that residents of Texas’ cattle feedlot belt say they are suffering from “fecal dust storms” when the wind blows on the millions of tons of manure produced by the cattle, sometimes thick enough to create smog-like conditions. The haze, as well as the amonia, could cause health problems such as asthma. However, Texas’ “right to farm” law, which was initially designed to protect farmers from growing cities, protects the feedlots from any legal action from local residents. 

Nestle reported a net profit of CHF 12.6 billion (USD 12.89 billion) in 2019, up 24% on year and beating forecasts. The organic growth was up 3.5%, driven in part by strong demand for their Starbucks and Nescafe products. The group said it was working hard to guarantee a stable supply of food in China where most of its 30 factories have started operating again. It is still too early to assess the impact of the coronavirus, however, as China represents 8% of its global sales.
Looking forward, the CEO warned that organic growth would likely slow in 2020, adding that the group was planning more acquisitions in high-margin and “trendy” segments. The plant-based meat segment represents a “once in a generation opportunity,” he added, saying that plant-based tuna would be released later this year. On the other hand, Nestle may look to dispose of its US frozen food and water businesses which have not been doing well. In Nigeria, the company is due to start domestic production of milk following pressure from the government to reduce imports. 

Unilever said it would stop advertising its food and beverage products to children below 12 years to help reduce child obesity. It will also launch a “Responsibly Made for Kids” logo for products with lower calories and sugar content. Similarly, the UN is calling on regulating ads to children, especially fast food ads on social media. 

A report by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) analysed by The Guardian suggests that the cleaning systems (known as “scrubbers”) installed in ships to meet 2020 IMO pollution regulations, could result in more pollutants being released in the sea instead, contaminating seafood in the process. Some environmentalists have urged the IMO to ban the use of scrubbers until data, which the IMO says is currently insufficient to really assess risk, is clearer. The WWF, meanwhile, found that the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, China and Vietnam were responsible for 60% of the world’s annual ocean pollution, noting that Malaysia was the biggest consumer of single-use plastics. 

In Ukraine, the government gave the green light to Bunge, ADM, Cargill, Louis Dreyfus and Glencore to get together and create TechCo, a company designed to digitise documents related to the sale of agricultural products. There are no concerns about competition as this will only affect post-sales, it said. Something similar is happening in the sugar industry where Dubai-based sugar refiner Al Khaleej Sugar, Universa Block Chain and DMCC Tradeflow signed an agreement to collaborate over the development of a platform designed to boost international sugar trade volumes in Dubai. 

This summary was produced by ECRUU

AgriCensus Report

OPINION: Will China purchase more US ag goods?

14 Feb 2020 | Jonathan Kingsman

It is still too early to tell how badly – and for how long – the Coronavirus outbreak will affect the Chinese economy. But even before the virus hit, many grain traders were questioning whether China would, or could, honour the obligations made under the recently negotiated Phase One trade deal to increase purchases of American agricultural products. 

The conventional wisdom is that the trade wars will have a lasting negative effect on the US agricultural sector.  Observers compare the current situation to the two successive US grain export embargoes imposed by the Carter and Nixon administrations. As a result of those embargoes, the Japanese – at that time the biggest buyers of US soybeans – realised that they could not rely on the US and invested in South America to develop soybean production there. 

There is a strong argument to be made that history will repeat itself, and that China will reduce, rather than increase, its agricultural purchases from the US as it seeks to diversify supply. However, there are two counter arguments.

The first is that China’s diversification options are limited, at least as far as soybeans are concerned. Although genetic modification has allowed soybeans to be grown in a wider geographical area, Brazil and the US still dominate global exports with 77 million and 49 million tonnes respectively in 2018/19. The remaining 25 million tonnes of global exports were divided among just five other countries. 

It will be difficult in the short to medium term for China to diversify away from Brazil and the US. China could take a strategic decision to import an even greater percentage of their needs from Brazil, but this would further increase their dependence on Brazil.

The second argument is that it was the Chinese who imposed tariffs on US agricultural imports; the US did not embargo, or tax, exports. This is an important distinction. The Chinese government imposed tariffs as a bargaining tool in the trade negotiations—one of the few bargaining tools that they had. 

If the Chinese were now to reduce US imports they would not only be seen as unreliable and untrustworthy, they would also reduce their bargaining power in future trade negotiations. There is a wider trade picture to consider outside of agriculture.

This is not to say that US farmers should necessarily expect a rapid increase in their exports to China. It may take a while before soybean exports get back to the record of nearly 59 million tonnes shipped in 2016/17. 

Just five years ago traders were expecting that China would by now be importing 100 million tonnes of soybeans per year. African Swine Fever and the Coronavirus knocked the wind out of those demand growth estimates. It will take a while before demand recovers. 

But recover it will.  There has been some fear expressed that Chinese soybean imports have peaked. However, the Chinese middle class will continue to grow in both size and wealth. Their appetite for meat will grow with it, as too will soybean imports. 

But what about other agricultural imports? 

Alarm bells were rung recently when it emerged that China had bought about one million tonnes of wheat under their tariff rate quota from Australia, Canada and France, rather than from the US. However, this may actually be good news if it is a sign that China intends to follow a recent WTO ruling to reallocate unused import quota tonnages.

Corn and ethanol may be harder nuts to crack. Although China has signalled its intention to increase ethanol use, the country is unlikely to import significant quantities to achieve that end. As for corn the US, along with Argentina and Brazil, face growing competition from the Black Sea region. Ukraine has expanded production and has the potential to grow further. This should not be underestimated.

Ultimately it will come down to a question of price. The extent to which the US will participate in renewed Chinese import demand growth will depend on the competitiveness of US farmers. Politics are important in the grain trade, but price is even more so.

AgriCensus Prices

Over 140 daily wheat, corn, soy, barley vegoils, meals and freight price assessments

Subscribe now

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.