bodog casino

Tell us a little bit about yourself and your background.

I am a born and raised Nebraskan from Lincoln. I have always been interested in learning about and experiencing other cultures, so I chose to major in Global Studies, a highly interdisciplinary field that allows you to create a unique professional track. Later, I added two minors: Arabic Studies and Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. Last summer, I studied abroad in Amman, Jordan, where I worked on my Arabic language skills. This experience solidified my interest in working abroad in the future. I became interested in international trade when I learned about its role in global development. My internship this summer has shown me the many opportunities available through the trade community, and I am eager to explore those options.

Congratulations on being the fourth recipient of the Steve Nelson Yeutter Institute International Trade Internship Award! What does receiving this prestigious award mean to you personally and professionally?

This award has been life-changing for me. I am grateful to the Yeutter Institute for creating opportunities such as the Nelson/Yeutter International Trade Internship Award for UNL students. Washington, D.C. is no easy feat, but the support from the Yeutter Institute gave me the confidence to make the most of my time there. Professionally, I felt motivated to make as many connections as possible during my time in D.C. and to develop my future career opportunities.

Were there specific goals or outcomes you hoped to achieve during your internship?

I didn’t have a very comprehensive background in international trade, but I was eager to learn. I wanted to absorb as much about trade as I could during the 13 weeks I was there. Additionally, I wanted to identify which aspect of trade interested me the most. I discovered that agricultural trade intrigued me the most because of the direct correlation between agricultural trade policy and community development, especially in developing economies. I now have the opportunity to explore this interest further as I collaborate with the Yeutter Institute to organize a Husker Trade Talk.

How did you develop an interest in foreign affairs and international trade? And has your internship with WITA changed your trajectory for your plans after college?

My mom is an anthropologist and has been traveling the world all her life. Hearing about her experiences abroad initially piqued my interest in foreign affairs. I also have many international friends who resettled in Lincoln after being displaced. Ultimately, I decided to pursue a career focused on global development. While working at WITA, I learned about international trade’s role in development and developed an interest in the agricultural sector. Many opportunities in Agri-trade allow you to work in the field and connect with local farmers. I am now exploring regional representative positions with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other opportunities to work abroad. Working with WITA has reaffirmed my desire to work abroad, and I now have a better understanding of which organizations employ field workers. Overall, I feel much more confident in my ability to utilize career resources and tap into my networks to determine my next steps after graduation.

Finally, what advice would you offer to other UNL students interested in pursuing opportunities in international trade and agriculture through programs like the Yeutter Institute?

I can’t stress enough how important it is to take advantage of every opportunity that comes your way. I almost didn’t apply for this internship because I felt underqualified due to my lack of background in international trade. After this summer, I can truthfully say that this internship has been the most influential experience in my academic and professional journey. International trade touches many different sectors and can be applied to a wide range of interests. The trade community is a tight-knit and accessible network, and everyone I met who works in trade has been incredibly kind and helpful.

The post bodog sportsbook review|Most Popular_track. Later, I added appeared first on bodog.

The LDC-specific priorities are placed in four key areas: (a) agriculture and food security, (b) fisheries subsidies, (c) decisions on graduation, and (d) paragraph 8 of the MC12 outcome document. Of these, LDC graduation is the most critical, especially for the LDCs already on the path to coming out of the category within three to five years. Bangladesh, along with Nepal and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, will formally come out from the UN-defined category by the end of 2026. More LDCs will follow these countries. There are 45 LDCs, of which 15 are now on the path to graduation, and 10 are WTO members. Last December, Bhutan came out from the list.

In the document placed bodog poker review for MC13, LDCs categorically emphasised ‘the need for fresh support measures by the development partners targeted to LDCs after graduation to ensure smooth and sustainable transition.’

Five months ago, in October last, the General Council meeting of the WTO decided to encourage members of the organisations to provide a smooth and sustainable transition period for the graduated LDCs before withdrawing the unilateral tariff or duty-free and quota-free (DFQF) market access to these countries have been enjoying as LDCs. The decision becomes a big boost to the LDCs, although it is not binding. It is also unlikely that the scheduled ministerial conference will make it binding instead of keeping it voluntary or ‘best endeavour’ for the member countries. In that case, a continuation of the benefits for the LDCs after graduation will entirely depend on the willingness of the market access-providing countries. In other words, LDCs have to negotiate separately or bilaterally to enjoy the benefit for an extended period.

Federation of Bangladesh Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FBCCI), at a proposal regarding MC13, urged the Bangladesh government to take proactive action plans to negotiate with the respective DFQF and GSP granting countries and preferential trade agreements partners for extension of all support measures for at least three years after the graduation following the European Union’s Everything But Arms (EBA) extension for three years for graduating LDCs. EU and the United Kingdom (UK) currently offer DFQF benefits for all the graduated LDCs for three additional years.

In the last ministerial conference, LDCs stressed the extension of international support measures (ISM) available under WTO in favour of graduating LDCs and proposed to phase out unilateral trade preferences granted to these countries for six years or a period determined by the preference-giving country. It was not accepted at the conference, however. The continuation of the trade-related benefits is necessary to ensure the smooth graduation and contain any abrupt disruption in trade in goods and services of the countries, as per the spirit of the UN General Assembly Resolution.

Between 2018 and 2022, LDCs’ exports of goods and services increased at an average annual rate of 7.1 per cent, according to the estimate provided by the WTO secretariat. LDCs’ share in global trade in goods and commercial services increased from 0.95 per cent in 2018 to 1.02 per cent in 2022. And LDCs’ share in global exports reached 1.23 per cent in 2022, which is far below the target set in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Target 17.11 of SDGs underscored doubling the least developed countries’ share of global exports by 2020. It means that LDCs’ share in global exports should be at least 1.92 per cent in 2020, which was 0.96 per cent in 2015, the year of launching the SDGs. Thus, the countries need continuous support in the multilateral trade forum.

Moreover, those advancing to become non-LDC also require support to make the transition smooth and effective. It is, however, challenging to secure support in the upcoming conference as some developed countries, mainly the United States (US), have strong reservations. Advanced developed countries like India are also less interested in backing the LDC’s demand. So, there is no alternative to persistent, tough negotiation, no matter how disappointing that is.

The LDC-specific international support measures also include exemption from the prohibition of export subsidies and an extended transition period up to 2033 for the LDCs on implementing the Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), especially for pharmaceutical products. Currently, there is no provision for a transition period, so when an LDC officially becomes a non-LDC, it will not be able to enjoy the benefits, which means it has to abolish the export subsidies immediately and face stringent IP requirements.

Developed and developing countries have already put several issues of their interests on the negotiation table and are working hectically to get some of those in the outcome documents. Decisions on prohibiting fisheries subsidies, permanent solutions on public stockholding (PSH) of foods, and reforms of the WTO’s dispute settlement system are top agendas where Bangladesh and all the LDCs can do little but watch. The withdrawal of suspension of e-commerce taxation is also critical, where Bangladesh has some interests. Then, plurilateral deals on domestic regulations on services trade and e-commerce are also proposed by some members. As the final days of the conference approaches, the temperature of intense fighting rises.

To read the full editorial as it appears on The Financial Express, click here.

The post Bodog Poker|Welcome Bonus_final days of the conference appeared first on bodog.

On 15 September, the European Commission allowed a temporary ban on Ukrainian grain imports (maize, wheat, rapeseed and sunflower seed) to expire. The ban had been introduced on 2 May 2023 under pressure from five EU countries bordering Ukraine (Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia), which feared their own producers would be harmed. Initially set for one month until 5 June, the ban was subsequently extended.

It is unclear what impact the end of the ban will have as Hungary, Poland and Slovakia have also introduced unilateral bans. Nevertheless, ending the EU-level import restrictions (which applied only in the five countries) was the right decision for several reasons.

First, Ukraine, which has been fighting Russian aggression for more than a year and a half, deserves exceptional support from the EU, also in the economic and trade spheres. Grain is one of Ukraine’s most critical exports. Russia has largely blocked the maritime export route since it withdrew, on 17 July 2023, from the United Nations sponsored Black Sea Grain Initiative (BSGI). Thus, facilitating exports to the EU, and via the EU to third countries, provides a respite for Ukrainian agriculture producers and the country’s balance of payments.

Second, the temporary ban introduced in May was problematic from the bodog sportsbook review point of view of the integrity of the European single market and the EU’s common trade policy. In the long run, it was ineffective because grain imports from Ukraine could enter the ‘bordering’ countries via other member states within the EU customs union and common market.

Third, it was good that the Commission did not give in to the aggressive pressure from some EU countries, which demanded an extension of the ban until the end of 2023. The Commission’s decisions should be determined by the EU Treaties and EU strategic interests in the long run, rather than attempts to please various lobbies in individual countries and to meet their short-term political needs.

Fourth, advocates of the extension used disputable economic arguments. In particular, there is little evidence in the available statistics for the supposed massive influx of Ukrainian grain to the EU. Volumes of the two main grain import items (wheat and maize) were declining from their peaks in Q4 2022 and Q1 2023 already before the introduction of the temporary ban.

In the 12 months from August 2022 to July 2023, total EU imports from Ukraine amounted to the equivalent of 4.6% of EU average wheat production and 22.2% of average maize production in 2018-2022. However, EU maize production in this period decreased by more than 20 million tonnes compared to 2021 because of a bad harvest. The imports from Ukraine only compensated partly for this gap. Meanwhile, the EU increased its grain exports to African countries, so global grain export flows were just rerouted.

Fifth, the Commission’s decision is good for stabilising global food markets and keeping global food prices affordable, especially in the context of the expiry of the BSGI. This is a critical issue for food security in developing economies, particularly in Africa and the Middle East.

However, the Commission’s decision also has drawbacks.

As a condition for not extending the EU import ban, Ukraine was forced by the Commission to introduce export control measures “…to prevent any market distortions in the neighbouring Member States”. What is meant by “any market distortions” remains unclear and may be a subject of arbitrary interpretation. Incidentally, distortions can be caused by internal policies and institutional solutions in EU countries, rather than imports from Ukraine.

The Commission’s press release suggests export licensing as an instrument of export control in Ukraine. This is not a good policy tool, especially in Ukraine’s imperfect institutional environment where it may encourage corruption.

Most likely, this was an attempt by the Commission to reach a compromise with the five bordering EU countries. Unfortunately, this attempt failed. The continuing unilateral import bans in Hungary, Poland and Slovakia also extend the restricted food product list. Ongoing election campaigns in Poland and Slovakia do not help in making rational policy decisions.

The unilateral bans are grave policy mistakes. First, they are an open infringement of the EU Treaties, according to which trade policy is the exclusive competence of the EU governing bodies. Second, they undermine the EU policies on Ukraine. Third, they partly undermine the impressive records of the three rebelling countries (and their societies) in supporting Ukraine. They bring into question their solidarity with the struggling nation and their sincerity in endorsing Ukraine’s EU membership aspiration.

Ukraine has filed lawsuits against the three countries at the World Trade Organisation, and is considering introducing retaliatory import bans. In response, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia have withdrawn from the Coordination Platform, which monitors Ukrainian grain exports. Poland’s prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki threatens to introduce additional trade sanctions against Ukraine. Such a scenario can only please the Kremlin.  

Dr. Marek Dabrowski is a Non-Resident Scholar at Bruegel, co-founder and Fellow at CASE – Centre for Social and Economic Research in Warsaw and Visiting Professor at the Central European University in Vienna.

To read the full first glance, click here.

The post bodog poker review|Most Popular_before the introduction appeared first on bodog.

The G7 statement didn’t define those terms. It didn’t even mention that the foremost object of both decoupling and de-risking is China. That’s diplomacy for you.

The leaders of the seven countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Germany, France and Italy) simply said they were coordinating their approaches to economic resilience and economic security “based on diversifying partnerships and de-risking, not decoupling.”

As often happens in diplomacy, the vagueness was intentional. It conveniently papered over differences between the U.S. and some of its allies. “Economic resiliency” and “economic security” are diplo-speak for avoiding overreliance on China (and to some extent Russia) for key products and avoiding supplying those countries with strategically sensitive technologies.

On the surface, decoupling (the trendy word until recently) implies taking separation from China further than de-risking (the European Commission president’s word). De-risking suggests diversifying, ending exclusive reliance on China, rather than withdrawal.

In practice, though, much of the decoupling to date has also been diversification. For communique purposes, the difference between decoupling and de-risking is semantics. That’s why the U.S. could agree to the communique even though there are real differences between the U.S. and its allies in their concerns about reliance on China.

Those differences reflect their differing geopolitical situations, especially with regard to Taiwan. A Chinese military attack on the island seems increasingly possible — possible enough that U.S. officials have to plan for it even as they pray it never happens.

Washington’s allies don’t. In the event of an attack, Japan could end up supporting the U.S., at least logistically. It’s a prisoner of its history and geography. The European allies would be far less inclined to Bodog Poker see an attack on Taiwan as their problem. They might be cajoled into joining a coalition of the willing, but that is far from guaranteed.

The U.S., then, has greater reason to worry about providing China with technologies that strengthen it militarily. It has more serious fears of being cut off by China from critical products during hostilities.

When governments are planning for war, national security ranks higher in their concerns than economic efficiency. This can be a hard swallow for those who believe, as many in exporting sectors like agriculture do, that financial markets allocate capital more efficiently than governments and free trade produces the best economic outcomes.

But it explains why some Republican believers in free markets have voted for Biden administration industrial-policy initiatives. And why Republicans are solidly behind the Biden administration’s stepped-up efforts to block exports of the most advanced semiconductor technologies to China, despite warnings from U.S. high-tech companies that restrictions will have long-term economic consequences.

European countries share some of the same concerns about China as the U.S., but they’re nowhere near as worried about national security. Referring to Taiwan, French President Emmanuel Macron has warned Europe not to get “caught up in crises that are not ours.”

Europeans are displeased with the Biden administration’s high-tech subsidies and buy-American rules, which they see as drawing investment away from them as much as from China. Some Europeans are also leery of U.S. efforts to block exports of high-tech products to China. The Dutch government, however, eventually went along with the U.S. and restricted Dutch companies’ exports of the most advanced semiconductor manufacturing equipment to China.

Europe, in sum, prefers “de-risking” because it doesn’t want as much economic separation from China as the U.S. The Biden administration accepted “de-risking” because it’s sufficiently vague to let allies march to different drummers.

Actually, so is decoupling. For all the talk of it over the last few years, for all the government’s industrial-policy moves, for all its export restrictions, for all the announcements by companies of plans to move manufacturing back to the U.S. or to Asian countries other than China, U.S.-China trade in goods set a record in 2022, as did U.S. exports to China.

U.S. ag exports to China also set a record in fiscal 2022 at $36.4 billion.

Though the U.S. and China are rivals, American companies’ supply chains are deeply imbedded in China. China is the largest trading partner of the U.S. and of about 120 countries, including American allies like Japan, South Korea and Germany.

China has dominant world market share in some product lines, like drones and solar panels, and is a critical supplier of countless thousands of others. In a war, China would unquestionably cut off exports to the U.S., which makes it logical to decrease reliance on China.

But short of war, how far disentangling today’s supply chains can or will go is unclear, regardless of which diplomatic euphemism is used to describe it.

Urban C. Lehner joined DTN as editor-in-chief in July 2003. He became vice president of the editorial operations of DTN and the Progressive Farmer in July 2010. He is a past president of the North American Agricultural Journalists and in August 2009 was named “Writer of the Year” by the American Agricultural Editors’ Association.

To read the full blog post, please click here.

The post bodog casino|Welcome Bonus_back to the U.S. or to appeared first on bodog.

The post bodog poker review|Most Popular_Ronald Reagan Building appeared first on bodog.

Yesterday’s article in The Globe and Mail had Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala talking about it still being possible to bring in the first two issues listed above without commenting on other items before the Members. See The Globe and Mail, Global agreement on COVID-19 vaccine rights waiver within reach, WTO chief says, June 8, 2022, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-global-agreement-on-covid-19-vaccine-rightswaiver-within-reach-WTO/ (“An international agreement on waiving intellectual property rights for COVID-19 vaccines is within reach ahead of a global trade meeting next week, the head of the World Trade Organization said on Wednesday. In a telephone interview, Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala also said an agreement could be reached on fishing subsidies in time for the meeting, when 120 trade ministers from around the world gather at the body’s Geneva headquarters.”).

As reviewed in prior posts, there are a range of matters that have been discussed including a number of joint statement initiatives (at least one of which is concluded among willing Members). See May 11, 2022: Less than five weeks to the WTO’s 12th Ministerial Conference — what are likely deliverables?, https://currentthoughtsontrade.com/2022/05/11/less-than-five-weeks-to-the-wtos-12th-ministerialconference-what-are-likely-deliverables/. How many of the issues that have been being worked on will result in actual outcomes or simply be included in a future work program is the question heading into next week. Most bets would say the Ministerial Conference will be lucky to achieve even modest success.

There are a host of documents that are posted on the WTO webcite as documents for the Ministerial. See WTO, MINISTERIAL CONFERENCES: TWELFTH WTO MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE, https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/mc12_e/documents_e.htm. There is a dray text and revision for fisheries subsidies (but not the current iteration). There is no dray text for the pandemic response as yet although both the IP flexibility dray forwarded to the membership in recent weeks and the broader package of provisions have been in the public domain, but donʼt reflect recent negotiations. The agricultural negotiating group chair’s dray of a text from November 2021 is on the webcite but again doesnʼt reflect developments from 2022. There are lists of issues various developing country groups and least developed countries would like to see as well as a Brazilian paper proposing having ministerial meetings every year versus the current every two years (which has twice slipped to only once in four years). While all these documents provide some background on issues of interest to at least some of the Members, the core documents will likely be those added by Sunday reflecting hoped for outcomes.

The world needs the WTO to be successful next week. Fisheries subsidies are a major problem and fish stocks globally have paid the price of the inaction by WTO Members. The pandemic has raised important issues for trade playing a more important role in minimizing negative effects and improving equitable access to vaccines. And the food insecurity issues which have been grossly worsened by the ongoing Russian war in Ukraine are critical for tens of millions of the world’s population, with trade being an important element to addressing the current issue. And the WTO is in need of fundamental reform if it is to be able to address changing global needs in a timely manner, something it has been unable to do in its first twenty 27 years.

The divisions among WTO Members on the path forward for the WTO and the opposition of many to working with the Russian Federation argue for a minimalist package in fact at next week’s Ministerial Conference. Even a minimalist package may prove illusive in today’s world. Let’s hope for a meaningful success next week.

Terence Stewart, former Managing Partner, Law Offices of Stewart and Stewart, and author of the blog, Current Thoughts on Trade.

To read the full commentary from Current Thoughts on Trade, please click here.

The post bodog online casino|Welcome Bonus_There are a host of documents appeared first on bodog.

The United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) released an updated evaluation of risks on food security both for Ukrainians and for the world from the ongoing conflict last week (March 25), See FAO, Information Note, The importance of Ukraine and the Russian Federation for global agricultural markets and the risks associated with the current conflict, 25 March 2022 Update. The Executive Summary (pages 1-4) is copied below.

“Executive Summary

“1. Market structure, trade profiles and recent price trends

“1.1 Market shares

“• The Russian Federation and Ukraine are among the most important producers of agricultural commodities in the world. Both countries are net exporters of agricultural products, and they both play leading supply roles in global markets of foodstuffs and fertilisers, where exportable supplies are often concentrated in a handful of countries. This concentration could expose these markets to increased vulnerability to shocks and volatility.

“• In 2021, either the Russian Federation or Ukraine (or both) ranked amongst the top three global exporters of wheat, maize, rapeseed, sunflower seeds and sunflower oil, while the Russian Federation also stood as the world’s top exporter of nitrogen fertilizers, the second leading supplier of potassium fertilizers and the third largest exporter of phosphorous fertilizers.

“1.2 Trade profiles

“• Many countries that are highly dependent on imported foodstuffs and fertilizers, including numerous that fall into the Least Developed Country (LDC) and Low-Income Food-Deficit Country (LIFDC) groups, rely on Ukrainian and Russian food supplies to meet their consumption needs. Many of these countries, already prior to the conflict, had been grappling with the negative effects of high international food and fertilizer prices.

“Risk analysis: Assessing the risks emanating from the conflict

“2.1 Trade risks

“• In Ukraine, the escalation of the conflict raises concerns on whether crops will be harvested and products exported. The war has already led to port closures, the suspension of oilseed crushing operations and the introduction of export licensing requirements for some products. All of these could take a toll on the country’s exports of grains and vegetable oils in the months ahead. Much uncertainty also surrounds Russian export prospects, given sales difficulties that may arise as a result of economic sanctions imposed on the country.

“2.2 Price risks

“• FAO’s simulations gauging the potential impacts of a sudden and steep reduction in grain and sunflower seed exports by the two countries indicate that these shortfalls might only be partially compensated by alternative sources during the 2022/23 marketing season. The capacity of many exporting countries to boost output and shipments may be limited by high production and input costs. Worryingly, the resulting global supply gap could raise international food and feed prices by 8 to 22 percent above their already elevated baseline levels.

“• If the conflict keeps crude oil prices at high levels and prolongs the two countries’ reduced global export participation beyond the 2022/23 season, a considerable supply gap would remain in global grain and sunflowerseed markets, even as alternative producing countries expand their output in response to the higher output prices. This would keep international prices elevated well above baseline levels.

“2.3 Logistical risks

“• In Ukraine, there are also concerns that the conflict may result in damages to inland transport infrastructure and seaports, as well as storage and processing infrastructure. This is all the more so given the limited capacity of alternatives, such as rail transport for seaports or smaller processing facilities for modern oilseeds crushing facilities, to compensate for their lack of operation.

“• More generally, apprehensions also exist regarding increasing insurance premia for vessels destined to berth in the Black Sea region, as these could exacerbate the already elevated costs of maritime transportation, compounding further the effects on the final costs of internationally sourced food paid by importers.

“2.4 Production risks

“• Although early production prospects for 2022/23 winter crops were favourable in both Ukraine and the
Russian Federation, in Ukraine, the conflict may prevent farmers from attending to their fields and harvesting and marketing their crops, while disruptions to essential public services could also negatively affect agricultural activities.

“• Current indications are that, as a result of the conflict, between 20 and 30 percent of areas sown to winter crops in Ukraine will remain unharvested during the 2022/23 season, with the yields of these crops also likely to be adversely affected. Furthermore, considerable uncertainties surround Ukrainian farmers’ capacity to plant crops during the fast approaching spring crop cycle.

“• The conflict is also likely to affect the ability of Ukraine to control its animal disease burden, significantly increasing the risk of proliferation of animal diseases, notably of African swine fever (ASF), within Ukraine and in neighbouring countries.

“• In the case of the Russian Federation, although no major disruption to crops already in the ground appears imminent, uncertainties exist over the impact that the international sanctions imposed on the country will have on food exports. Any loss of export markets could depress farmer incomes, thereby negatively affecting future planting decisions.

“• Economic sanctions imposed on the Russian Federation could also disrupt its imports of agricultural inputs, notably pesticides and seeds, on which the country is highly dependent. This could result in less plantings, lower yields and lower qualities, exposing the Russian agricultural sector and global food supplies, at large, to non-negligible risks.

“2.5 Humanitarian risks

“• The conflict is set to increase humanitarian needs in Ukraine, while deepening those of millions of people that prior to its escalation were already displaced or requiring assistance due to the more than eight-year conflict in the eastern part of the country. By directly constraining agricultural production, limiting economic activity and raising prices, the conflict will further undercut the purchasing power of local populations, with consequent increases in food insecurity and malnutrition.

“• Humanitarian needs in neighbouring countries, where displaced populations are seeking refuge, are also set to increase substantially.

“• Globally, if the conflict results in a sudden and prolonged reduction in food exports by Ukraine and the Russian Federation, it will exert additional upward pressure on international food commodity prices to the detriment of economically vulnerable countries, in particular. FAO’s simulations suggest that under such a scenario, the global number of undernourished people could increase by 8 to 13 million people in 2022/23, with the most pronounced increases taking place in Asia-Pacific, followed by sub-Saharan Africa, and the Near East and North Africa. If the war lasts, impacts will go well beyond 2022/23.

“2.6 Energy risks

“• The Russian Federation is a key player in the global energy market. As a highly energy-intensive industry, especially in developed regions, agriculture will inevitably be affected by the sharp increase in energy prices that has accompanied the conflict.

“• Agriculture absorbs high amounts of energy directly, through the use of fuel, gas and electricity, and indirectly, through the use of agri-chemicals such as fertilisers, pesticides and lubricants.

“• With prices of fertilizers and other energy-intensive products rising as a consequence of the conflict, overall input prices are expected to experience a considerable boost. The higher prices of these inputs will first translate into higher production costs and eventually into higher food prices. They could also lead to lower input use levels, depressing yields and harvests in the 2022/23 season, thus giving further upside risk to the state of global food security in the coming years.

“• Higher energy prices also make agricultural feedstocks (especially maize, sugar and oilseeds/vegetable oils) competitive for the production of bio-energy and, given the large size of the energy market relative to the food market, this could pull food prices up to their energy parity equivalents.

“2.7 Exchange rate, debt, and growth risks

“• The Ukrainian hryvnia reached a record low against the United States dollar (USD) in early March 2022, with likely repercussions for Ukrainian agriculture, including a boost to its export competitiveness and curbs on its ability to import.

“• Although their extent remains unclear at this stage, conflict-induced damages to Ukraine’s productive capacity and infrastructure are expected to entail very high recovery and reconstruction costs.

“• The economic sanctions imposed on the Russian Federation have also led to a significant depreciation of the Russian rouble. Although this should make Russian exports of agricultural commodities more affordable, a lasting rouble depreciation would negatively affect investment and productivity growth prospects in the country.

“• Weakening economic activity and a depreciated rouble are also expected to have serious effects on countries in Central Asia through the reduction of remittance flows, as for many of these countries remittances constitute a significant part of gross domestic product (GDP)

“• The current conflict may also have global spillovers. While its impact on the global economy remains uncertain at this stage and will depend on several factors, the most vulnerable countries and populations are expected to be hit hard by slower economic growth and increased inflation, at a time when the world is still attempting to recover from the recession triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic.

“• Agriculture is the backbone of the economies of many developing countries, the majority of which rely on the United States dollar for their borrowing needs. As such, a lasting appreciation of the USD vis-à-vis other currencies may have negative significant economic consequences for these countries, including for their agrifood sectors. Moreover, the potential reduction of GDP growth in several parts of the world will affect global demand for agrifood products with negative consequences for global food security. Lower GDP growth will also likely reduce the availability of funds for development, especially if global military expenses increase.

“Policy recommendations

“• In order to prevent or limit the conflict’s detrimental impacts on the food and agricultural sectors of Ukraine and the Russian Federation, every effort should be made to keep international trade in food and fertilizers open to meet domestic and global demand. Supply chains should be kept fully operational, including by protecting standing crops, livestock, food processing infrastructure, and all logistical systems.

“• In order to absorb conflict-induced shocks and remain resilient, countries that depend on food imports from Ukraine and the Russian Federation will need to find alternative export suppliers for their food needs. They should also rely on existing food stocks and enhance the diversity of their domestic production bases.

“• The food security impacts of the conflict on vulnerable groups necessitate timely monitoring and well-targeted social protection interventions to alleviate the hardship caused by the conflict and to foster a fast recovery from it. To assist the internally displaced people, refugees and groups directly affected by the conflict, the reach of Ukraine’s national social protection system should be expanded by registering additional population groups within the Unified Social Information System.

“• In countries hosting refugees, access to existing social protection systems and job opportunities should also be eased by lifting legal access barriers and, where needed, by increasing the capacity of host countries’ social protection systems to absorb additional caseloads.

“• Countries affected by potential disruptions ensuing from the conflict must carefully weigh measures they put in place against their potentially detrimental effect on international markets including over the longer term. Particularly, export restrictions must be avoided. They exacerbate price volatility, limit the buffer capacity of the global market, and have negative impacts over the medium term.

“• The spread of African swine fever (ASF) and other animal diseases must be contained by improving biosecurity and good husbandry practices at all geographical levels, by taking steps to facilitate early detection, timely reporting and rapid disease containment, and by implementing measures that support virus detection, such as surveillance schemes and targeted sampling of animals.

“• Market transparency and policy dialogue should be strengthened, as they play key roles when agricultural commodity markets are under uncertainty and disruptions need to be minimised to ensure that international markets continue to function properly and that trade in food and agricultural products flows smoothly.”

Figure 15 of the paper (page 10) identifies countries largely dependent on Ukraine and Russia for wheat.

The FAO’s latest Food Price Index (released March 4, 2022, shows agricultural products already at all time highs.

As reviewed in a prior post, countries imposing sanctions on Russia, including the G-7 and the EU, are working to minimize the food security issues. March 26, 2022:  Blockage of Accession of Belarus to WTO, additional sanctions on Russia and other recent developments. More immediately, President Putin’s war places global food security under increased pressure. We recall that the implementation of our sanctions against Russia takes into account the need to avoid impact on global agricultural trade. We remain determined to monitor the situation closely and do what is necessary to prevent and respond to the evolving global food security crisis. We will make coherent use of all instruments and funding mechanisms to address food security, and build resilience in the agriculture sector in line with climate and environment goals. We will address potential agricultural production and trade disruptions, in particular in vulnerable countries. We commit to provide a sustainable food supply in Ukraine and support continued Ukrainian production efforts. 18. We will work with and step up our collective contribution to relevant international institutions including the World Food Programme (WFP), in parallel with Multilateral Development Banks and International Financial Institutions, to provide support to countries with acute food insecurity. We call for an extraordinary session of the Council of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to address the consequences on world food security and agriculture arising from the Russian aggression against Ukraine. We call on all participants of the Agriculture Markets Information System (AMIS) to continue to share information and explore options to keep prices under control, including making stocks available, in particular to the WFP. We will avoid export bans and other trade-restrictive measures, maintain open and transparent markets, and call on others to do likewise, consistent with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, including WTO notification requirements.’”).

The issue is taking center stage at the WTO as reviewed in a recent press notice from the WTO on the Director-General’s comments at an informal meeting of the General Council. Some of the news release is copied below.

“’For dozens of poor countries and tens of millions of people, basic food security is in danger,” she warned. “These countries already have been some of the slowest economic recoveries from the pandemic, and international cooperation on trade is necessary to help mitigate risks of poverty, hunger, even famine and social unrest.’

“The Director-General noted that the UN Secretary-General has set up a three-tiered steering committee involving heads of government, heads of international organizations and technical experts to deal with the issue of surging energy and food prices. 

“The WTO is also expected to play a key role in finding solutions to the food crisis, the Director-General noted. The chair of the WTO’s agriculture negotiations, Ambassador Gloria Abraham Peralta of Costa Rica, is planning a food security conference that will take place at the end of April.  WTO Secretariat staff have also been carrying out analysis on food security issues which will be shared with members shortly.

“’We at the WTO have a solid basis on which to consider workable solutions to the present crisis,” the DG declared.

“In the near-term, international cooperation on trade will be needed to minimize the impact of supply crunches for key commodities where prices are already high by historical standards and to keep markets functioning smoothly, the Director-General said. While only 12 members have imposed export restrictions on food to date, coordinated government action is needed to avoid a repeat of the cascading export restrictions that exacerbated the rise of food prices in the crisis of 2008-2010.

“In addition, countries with buffer stocks that can afford to share could coordinate the release of wheat, barley, other cereals and grains and oils into international markets, thereby alleviating the supply squeeze.  Countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, Argentina, and France could increase wheat cultivation while others such as China, Germany, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Nigeria could increase global supply of fertilizer. Africa, with plentiful land and other resources, can also take steps to produce more food itself by using more adaptable varieties of wheat, maize and other crops.

“Trade facilitation measures could also be brought into play to ease the free flow of goods, while efforts should be made to allow the UN’s World Food Programme full access to humanitarian purchases. Prompt notification and information sharing regarding food supplies and stockpiles can help the international community better manage the situation and keep markets functioning more smoothly.”

WTO Members have a poor track record of not retreating from sharing core commodities during periods of shortages, which actions result in increased price volatility and significant harm to food importing nations. The transparency exercise as part of the COVID-19 pandemic on actions on both medical goods and agricultural products has improved the ability to understand actions being taken. But to date, Members continue to take actions to restrict exports when internal food security concerns arise.

I have written with former colleagues a number of papers in the past looking at the food security problems during earlier periods in the last fifteen years and the risks of social unrest that arise for many countries when core commodities become unaffordable. They are imbedded below.

Let’s hope that the focus of the G-7, EU and agricultural exporting countries and the attention being given to the issue at the WTO will result in a minimization of increased food insecurity to people around the world in the coming months.

Terence Stewart, former Managing Partner, Law Offices of Stewart and Stewart, and author of the blog, Current Thoughts on Trade.

To read the full commentary from Current Thoughts on Trade, please click here. 

The post bodog poker review|Most Popular_papers in the past looking appeared first on bodog.

The post bodog sportsbook review|Most Popular_and the absence of parallel appeared first on bodog.

Farmers might be able to mitigate some of the harm global warming causes to agriculture by re-optimising their production decisions in response to changing conditions. Research by Arnaud Costinot et al. (2016) uses granular field-level global projections from the UN Food and Agricultural Organization of crop-specific potential yields with and without climate change to estimate how farmers could reallocate planting decisions as temperature and precipitation change. Their work finds large projected gains from shifting production away from the most affected crops. As the world warms, gradual evolution in the crop mix chosen by local producers in the coming decades could substantially offset some of the potential losses.  

Just as some crops suffer disproportionately from global warming, some regions do too. In the hottest parts of the world, even perfectly optimised planting decisions will likely be insufficient to protect agricultural production from future extremes. For example, Costinot et al. find that climate change will reduce agricultural productivity in Malawi by about 50% later this century in a high-emissions scenario, even when farmers re-optimise their future crop allocations. Similarly, empirical research by Schlenker and Lobell (2010) finds severe impacts across a wide range of crops in sub-Saharan Africa. As temperatures rise in the hottest and poorest parts of the world, the outlook for agricultural production appears bleak. 

Could the hottest, most vulnerable countries adapt to climate change by shifting their economies away from agriculture altogether? The same research that suggests rising temperatures could devastate agriculture in hot, poor countries also implies that farming in more temperate regions, like Canada or Russia, could benefit somewhat. This suggests that hot countries could adapt effectively to global warming if they could move labour into non-agricultural sectors and increase imports bodog sportsbook review of food, with agricultural specialisation across the world shifting away from the equator. Conversely, if regions hit hard by extreme heat, such as those in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, continue to specialise heavily in farming as they do today, their economies and people will likely suffer greatly. My research (Nath 2021) quantifies the potential adaptation gains from reallocating global agricultural specialisation, and examines whether such gains are likely to be realised in practice. 

In order for hot countries to adapt to global warming by shifting production away from agriculture, the first requirement is for non-agricultural production to be less vulnerable than farming to extreme heat, such that comparative advantage in agriculture – not just absolute advantage – shifts away from the equator. Given that existing work (e.g. Somanathan et al. 2021, Zhang et al. 2018) finds that temperature also affects manufacturing productivity, it is not immediately clear whether hot places have any potential to gain by moving away from farming. 

My analysis addresses this question. Using firm-level panel data from 17 countries spanning a wide range of income levels and climate conditions to estimate the impact of future temperature extremes on labour productivity in manufacturing and services, I find that warming is likely to reduce productivity much less in non-agricultural sectors than in agriculture. While some firms in poorer countries can suffer large productivity losses from exposure to extreme heat – up to 0.4 percentage point reductions in annual revenue per worker from each exposure to a day above 100°F – firms in richer countries and places that experience heat more frequently appear to have adapted such that they are much less vulnerable. Figure 1 shows the estimated effects of extreme temperatures on manufacturing productivity across the full range of local contexts. 

Figure 1 Impact of extreme temperatures on labour productivity in manufacturing across global contexts

On average, my paper projects, rising temperatures will reduce global manufacturing productivity by about 1.7% by late century in the high-emissions scenario. By contrast, previous estimates across a range of studies suggest that the corresponding decline in agricultural productivity will be about 20% (e.g. Cline 2007, Iglesias and Rosenzweig 2010). In the hardest hit countries, future temperature extremes reduce manufacturing productivity by about 5–14% in manufacturing, as compared to 40–60% in agriculture. This suggests that hotter, poorer countries could achieve large adaptation benefits if they were able to reallocate production away from farming and toward less-affected manufacturing sectors as the climate heats up. 

But there is a second condition required for the global reallocation of agriculture to contribute to climate change adaptation: specialisation in agriculture must actually respond to shifting comparative advantage. In practice, the patterns of agricultural specialisation we observe in the world today do not seem to follow traditional definitions of comparative advantage. While the simplest Ricardian model would predict that countries specialise in the sector with higher relative productivity, the opposite appears to be the case in the data. Lagakos and Waugh (2013) calculate that the 90th-percentile richest countries in the world have an average price-adjusted value-added per worker four times greater than the 10th-percentile poorest countries in manufacturing, but 45 times greater in agriculture. In other words, if relative productivities predicted specialisation, we would already expect most of Canada’s economy to be in farming and for there to be very few farmers in Malawi, even without climate change. And yet, agriculture’s share of employment averages 65% in 10th-percentile countries, and only 3% in 90th-percentile countries. 

Why do poor countries specialise in agriculture despite their low productivity? Gollin et al. (2007), among others in the macro-development literature, refer to this phenomenon as “the food problem”. The basic idea is that because food is a subsistence good, people with low incomes in poor countries with relatively high food prices must spend a larger share of their budget on eating enough food to survive. For supply to meet demand in such places, these high expenditure shares on food necessarily require high production shares in agriculture, at least in the absence of trade. In principle, poor countries with unproductive farms could meet domestic demand for food through imports, but in practice this mechanism is extremely weak in most developing countries. The stylised fact calculated in my paper is that the average person in the poorest quartile of the world consumes 91% domestically produced food compared with 45% in the richest quartile. In these relatively closed economies, high production shares in agriculture follow from the need for domestic populations to meet their subsistence needs to eat. 

The exceedingly low levels of trade in poor countries stand as a critical barrier to climate change adaptation. Instead of agricultural specialisation shifting away from the hardest-hit regions as the world heats up, my model projections suggest that warming will keep more workers stuck on farms in hotter, poorer countries as falling agricultural productivity in these places exacerbates the food problem. As climate change makes people poorer and food more expensive, it raises the budget share and consequently the production share of agriculture in the absence of a major increase in food imports. With production remaining concentrated in the sector experiencing dramatic declines in productivity, people in these places project to suffer greatly. Figure 2 shows that projected climate damages in many poor countries approach or exceed 10% of income just from the effects of rising temperatures on productivity (excluding other climate harms, such as health effects or hurricane damages). Figure 3 shows the corresponding large projected increases in food prices in poor countries, as domestic consumption of food continues to rely on increasingly vulnerable domestic agricultural production.

Figure 2 Willingness-to-pay to avoid the productivity effects of future extreme temperatures

Figure 3 Projected impact of global warming on domestic food price index

The model projections in my paper suggest that trade does very little to cushion climate impacts, largely because the places that are most vulnerable bodog online casino to global warming are also least open to trade, so warming causes only modest adjustments in trade flows. I also consider an alternative hypothetical scenario in which poor countries trade as freely as richer countries in the OECD. In that scenario, the developing world moves dramatically toward importing food and shifting specialisation toward less vulnerable non-agricultural sectors, and the costs of rising temperatures are nearly 70% lower for the poorest quartile of the world. While the exact magnitude of such model projections should be interpreted with caution, as they extrapolate far from the patterns of trade we observe today, these estimates do imply that greater global openness to trade could substantially reduce the damage from a warming world. More research is needed on the particular causes of low levels of trade in poor countries; with tariffs, poor quality infrastructure, and red tape barriers such as processing delays, fees, and bribe payments all likely playing important roles. My analysis suggests that understanding the mechanisms and potential policy instruments that facilitate greater global openness to trade could have critical implications for climate change adaptation. 

More broadly, as the literature on climate-change economics evolves, applications of spatial economics are playing an increasing role in analysing potential mechanisms of adaptation. In other examples, work by Cruz and Rossi-Hansberg (2021) considers the role of international migration, Desmet et al. (2021) evaluates how sea level rise affects coastal populations and investment, and Rudik et al. (2021) focuses on spatial dynamics within the US. Reducing carbon emissions is the best and only reliable way to avoid the threat posed by global warming, but as long as global climate policy remains insufficient to reverse the trajectory of rising emissions, there is an increasing need for research on reducing vulnerability to whatever temperature change occurs over the coming century.

Ishan Nath is an economist working on topics related to climate change, growth, trade, and development. He is currently a postdoctoral fellow in the International Economics Section at Princeton, and will join the research department at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco in July, 2022. 

To read the full commentary by VoxEU, please click here.

The post bodog casino|Welcome Bonus_I find that warming is appeared first on bodog.

Exports provide a vital financial contribution to America’s agricultural producers — on average, about a third of U.S. farm income. Half of our country’s annual soybean crop is sold abroad.

The post bodog poker review|Most Popular_and International Trade appeared first on bodog.