Skip to main content

Tag: prices

What price wheat?

Wheat fields in Ukraine. Photo: <a href="http://www.torange.biz">tOrange.biz</a> on <a href="https://flic.kr/p/k6WPqM">Flickr</a> (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">CC BY 2.0</a>)
Wheat fields in Ukraine. Photo: tOrange.biz on Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

When wheat prices rise, so do global food prices, along with conflict, inequality and instability. Over the past two decades, the world has witnessed multiple crises erupt over the social and political instability caused by rising costs for staple cereals. The global food crisis that impacted many parts of the world in 2007–2008 was a response, in part, to the prices for wheat and rice which had increased 130% and 70%, respectively, compared to the year before. More recently, spikes in grain prices catalyzed the 2011 Arab Spring.

With the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the resulting longer-term disruptions of the country’s rural economy, there is potential for another round of turmoil linked to prices for staple cereals.

Ukraine is a breadbasket for the world, with 57% of its land area arable for agriculture. Wheat production in the country increased roughly 10%, on average, between 2000 and 2020. In 2022, Ukraine ranked as the fifth largest wheat exporter globally, exporting $3.59 billion of wheat.

Today, global wheat prices are at their highest levels since 2012: $9 per bushel, based on data from the Chicago Board of Trade.

Wheat is a staple crop, essential to food security. It is consumed by over 2.5 billion people worldwide, including large proportions of the populations of many food-insecure regions in the world. Many of the wheat-consuming countries in these regions are far from wheat self-sufficient, relying on global imports to meet demand. This causes significant vulnerability in food supply and increases associated humanitarian risks. In 2019, important quantities of Ukrainian wheat were exported to low- and middle-income countries in North Africa and the Middle East. Although the impacts of current price increases are anticipated to be short-term, they are likely to be inequitably felt, as not all buyers are able to pay higher prices.

There are over 6 million hectares of wheat planted in farmers’ fields across Ukraine that will be due for harvest in June and July of 2022. The length and depth of the current crisis has potential implications for the fate of this in-field crop, and for its subsequent harvest and global distribution. Likewise, sanctions and trading restrictions on Russia, the world’s largest wheat exporter — exporting $7.92 billion of wheat in 2020 — are likely to place added pressure on international wheat markets. This comes at a time of rising costs in agriculture, including the soaring price of nitrogen fertilizer and increasing fuel and supply chain costs. The gap between supply and demand is also becoming wider with climatic instability — such as drought conditions — hitting both domestic production and export stocks in several countries.

Rising prices for staple cereals have historically led to instability, particularly in fragile regions where food security is low. The impacts of current high wheat prices are likely to be felt most significantly by populations in the Global South who rely on wheat imports.

The potential humanitarian crisis beyond the borders of the current conflict needs to be addressed to avoid deepening global divisions in equality of access to food. In the case of wheat, long-term solutions will require much higher levels of investment, coordination and cooperation between governments, development organizations and agro-industry. Without doubt, part of the solution lies in increasing wheat productivity and profitability in food-insecure regions where wheat has traditionally been grown, as well as supporting the expansion of wheat production into climatically suitable areas in countries which have traditionally relied on imports to meet local demand.

Explore our coverage and analysis of the Russia-Ukraine war and its impact on global food security.
Explore our coverage and analysis of the Russia-Ukraine war and its impact on global food security.

Study calls for better understanding of fertilizer prices faced by African smallholder farmers

A farm worker applies fertilizer in a field of Staha maize for seed production at Suba Agro's Mbezi farm in Tanzania. (Photo: Peter Lowe/CIMMYT)
A farm worker applies fertilizer in a field of Staha maize for seed production at Suba Agro’s Mbezi farm in Tanzania. (Photo: Peter Lowe/CIMMYT)

Crop yields in sub-Saharan Africa are generally low. This is in large part because of low fertilizer use. A recent study of six countries in sub-Saharan Africa showed that just 35% of farmers applied fertilizer. Some possible reasons for this could be that farmers may be unaware of the efficacy of fertilizer use; or have degraded soils that do not respond to fertilizer; they may not have the cash to purchase it; or because unpredictable rainfall makes such investments risky. It may also be because local fertilizer prices make their use insufficiently profitable for many farmers.

To better understand the potential fertilizer demand in a particular location, it is important to know how crops respond to fertilizer under local conditions, but it is critical to understand crop responses in terms of economic returns. This requires information about local market prices of fertilizers and other inputs, as well as the prices that a farmer could receive from selling the crop.

While national-level fertilizer prices may be available, it is necessary to consider the extent to which prices vary within countries, reflecting transportation costs and other factors. In the absence of such data, analysis of household-level behaviors requires assumptions about the prices smallholder farmers face — assumptions which may not be valid. For example, evaluations of the returns to production technologies settings have often assumed spatially invariant input and output prices or, in other words, that all farmers in a country face the same set of prices. This is at odds with what we know about economic remoteness and the highly variable market access conditions under which African smallholders operate.

An obstacle to using empirical data on sub-national disparities in fertilizer prices is the scarcity of such data. A new study focused on the spatial discrepancies in fertilizer prices. The study compiled local market urea price in eighteen countries in sub-Saharan Africa for the period between 2010-2018 and used spatial interpolation models — using points with known values to approximate values at other unknown points — to predict local prices at locations for which no empirical data was available. It was conducted by scientists at University of California, Davis, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). The authors note that this is the first major attempt to systematically describe the spatial variability of fertilizer prices within the target countries and test the ability to estimate the price at unsampled locations.

Predicted relative urea price (local price divided by the observed median national price) for areas with crop land in eight East African countries.
Predicted relative urea price (local price divided by the observed median national price) for areas with crop land in eight East African countries.

“Our study uncovers considerable spatial variation in fertilizer prices within African countries and gives a much more accurate representation of the economic realities faced by African smallholders than the picture suggested by using national average prices,” said Camila Bonilla Cedrez, PhD Candidate at University of California, Davis. “We show that in many countries, this variation can be predicted for unsampled locations by fitting models of prices as a function of longitude, latitude, and additional predictor variables that capture aspects of market access, demand, and environmental conditions.”

Urea prices were generally found to be more expensive in remote areas or away from large urban centers, ports of entry or blending facilities. There were some exceptions, though. In Benin, Ghana and Nigeria, prices went down when moving away from the coast, with the possible explanation being market prices in areas with higher demand are lower. In other locations, imports of fertilizer from neighboring countries with lower prices may be affecting prices in another country or region, much like political influence. Politically, well-connected villages can receive more input subsidies compared to the less connected ones.

“The performance of our price estimation methods and the simplicity of our approach suggest that large scale price mapping for rural areas is a cost-effective way to provide more useful price information for guiding policy, targeting interventions, and for enabling more realistic applied microeconomic research. For example, local price estimates could be incorporated into household-survey-based analysis of fertilizer adoption,” explained Jordan Chamberlin, CIMMYT spatial economist. “In addition, such predictive ‘price maps’ can be incorporated into targeting and planning frameworks for agricultural investments. For example, to target technology promotion efforts to the areas where those technologies are most likely to be profitable.”

Predicted relative urea price (local price divided by the observed median national price) for areas with crop land in nine West African countries.
Predicted relative urea price (local price divided by the observed median national price) for areas with crop land in nine West African countries.

“The evidence we have compiled in this paper suggests that, while investments in more comprehensive and spatially representative price data collection would be very useful, we may utilize spatial price prediction models to extend the value of existing data to better reflect local price variation through interpolation,” explained Robert J. Hijmans, professor at University of California, Davis. “Even if imperfect, such estimates almost certainly better reflect farmers’ economic realities than assumptions of spatially constant prices within a given country. We propose that spatial price estimation methods such as the ones we employ here serve for better approximating heterogeneous economic market landscapes.”

This study has illustrated new ways for incorporating spatial variation in prices into efforts to understand the profitability of agricultural technologies across rural areas in sub-Saharan Africa.  The authors suggest that an important avenue for future empirical work would be to evaluate the extent to which the subnational price variation documented is a useful explanatory factor for observed variation in smallholder fertilizer use in sub-Saharan Africa, after controlling for local agronomic responses and output prices. One way to do that may be to integrate input and output price predictions into spatial crop models, and then evaluate the degree to which modeled fertilizer use profitability predicts observed fertilizer use rates across different locations.

Read the full study:
Spatial variation in fertilizer prices in Sub-Saharan Africa