《联合国粮农组织(FAO):2019-2020年东欧、高加索和中亚国家农业粮食贸易政策回顾报告(英文版)(156页).pdf》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《联合国粮农组织(FAO):2019-2020年东欧、高加索和中亚国家农业粮食贸易政策回顾报告(英文版)(156页).pdf(156页珍藏版)》请在三个皮匠报告上搜索。
1、REVIEW OF AGRIFOOD TRADE POLICIES IN THE EASTERN EUROPE,CAUCASUS AND CENTRAL ASIA COUNTRIES 20192020Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsRome,2022REVIEW OF AGRIFOOD TRADE POLICIES IN THE EASTERN EUROPE,CAUCASUS AND CENTRAL ASIA COUNTRIES 20192020Required citation:FAO.2022.Review of
2、 agrifood trade policies in the Eastern Europe,Caucasus and Central Asia countries 20192020.Rome.https:/doi.org/10.4060/cc0064enThe designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agr
3、iculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO)concerning the legal or development status of any country,territory,city or area or of its authorities,or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers,whether or not these hav
4、e been patented,does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.ISBN 978-92-5-137083-4 FA,2022Some rights reserved.This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike3.0IGO l
5、icence(CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO;https:/creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/deed.ru).Under the terms of this licence,this work may be copied,redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes,provided that the work is appropriately cited.In any use of this work,there should be no suggestion t
6、hat FAO endorses any specific organization,products or services.The use of the FAO logo is not permitted.If the work is adapted,then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence.If a translation of this work is created,it must include the following disclaimer along with
7、the required citation:“This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO).FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation.The original Language edition shall be the authoritative edition.Disputes arising under the licence that
8、cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and arbitration as described in Article 8 of the licence except as otherwise provided herein.The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization http:/www.wipo.int/amc/ru/mediation/rules/i
9、ndex.html and any arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law(UNCITRAL).Third-party materials.Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party,such as tables,figures or images,are
10、 responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder.The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.Sales,rights and licensing.FAO information products
11、 are available on the FAO website(www.fao.org/publications)and can be purchased through:publications-salesfao.org.Requests for commercial use should be submitted via:www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request.Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to:copyrightfao.org.Cover photo:iSto
12、ckPhoto on the back cover:iStockiiiContentsFigures,tables,boxes.ivForeword .viiAbout the authors .ixAbbreviations and acronyms .xiiiPart 1.Key developments in agricultural trade in the Eastern Europe,Caucasus and Central Asia countries in 20192020 .1Part 2.Impact of the COViD-19 pandemic on the agri
13、food trade and trade policy in the Eastern Europe,Caucasus and Central Asia.21Part 3.Country agricultural trade policies review .33Azerbaijan.34Armenia.40Belarus .46Georgia.52Kazakhstan .58Kyrgyzstan.64The Republic of Moldova.70Russian Federation.78Tajikistan .90Turkmenistan.96Uzbekistan .102Ukraine
14、.110Annexes .117ivFIGURESFigure 1.1.Agricultural export and import shares in total value of exports and imports of all commodities in the EECCA region countries,2020.4Figure 1.2.Agricultural trade turnover in the EECCA region,20182020,USD billions .5Figure 1.3.Agricultural trade balance in the EECCA
15、 region countries,20182020,USD millions.6Figure 1.4.Trends of agricultural trade,2020 to 2019,percentage change .6Figure 1.5.Main destinations of agricultural exports from EECCA countries,20182020,percentage share .7Figure 1.6.Geographical structure of agricultural imports to the EECCA countries,201
16、82020,percentage share .8Figure 1.7.Product structure of agricultural exports of the EECCA countries(aggregate),20192020,value in USD millions.9Figure 1.8.Product structure of agricultural imports in the EECCA region countries(aggregate),20192020,value in USD millions.10Figure 1.9.Intra-EAEU agricul
17、tural exports and imports,20182020,value in USD millions,percentage share .11Figure 1.10.Geographical structure of intra-EAEU agricultural exports and imports,20182020,percentage share.12Figure 2.1.Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on GDP of the EECCA region countries,2020.23Figure 2.2.Dynamics of con
18、sumer prices and national currency exchange rates in the EECCA countries,December 2020 to December 2019 growth rate,percent.25Figure 2.3.State expenses for support of socioeconomic development of the regions countries during the pandemic,January 2020 April 2021.26Figure 3.1.Structure of financing of
19、 the State Programme for Development Agriculture from the federal and regional budgets,20192020,percentage of total financing.85vTABLESTable 1.1.Applied and bound MFN import duty rates on agricultural products,20182020,percentage .14Table 1.2.Export duties applied in some countries of the EECCA regi
20、on .15Table 1.3.The volumes of budget financing for agriculture in the countries of the region,20182020,million monetary units.18Table 2.1.State policy measures taken in the EECCA countries during the pandemic.30Table 3.1.Import restrictions of agricultural goods imposed due to SPS requirements or b
21、ased on risk assessment .37Table 3.2.State support to agriculture in Kyrgyzstan,million soms .69Table 3.3.Subsidies approved within the Programme of state support to Moldavian agricultural producers from the funds of the Agency for Intervention and Payments in Agriculture of the Republic of Moldova,
22、20182020,million lei .77Table 3.4.Federal budget funds allocated for support to the agrifood sector and development of rural areas,billion rubles.88BOXBox 1.1.Examples of digitalization of procedures in agrifood trade in the EECCA region countries .16viThis review is the fifth issue in the series of
23、 publications covering analysis of agricultural trade and changes in trade policies of the Eastern Europe,Caucasus and Central Asia(EECCA)countries.1 Like the previous review,it has been prepared under the framework of FAOs Regional Initiative on Transforming Food Systems and Facilitating Market Acc
24、ess and Integration in Europe and Central Asia(formerly the Regional Initiative on Improving Agrifood Trade and Market Integration).The Regional Initiative aims to provide support to FAO Member Nations as they improve their agricultural trade policies,to account for the specifics of small and medium
25、-sized enterprises and to enhance the inclusivity and efficiency of agrifood systems.To achieve this goal,the Regional Initiative promotes the capacity building of Members to understand the prospects of trade agreements and to set up a mechanism for their implementation,as well as to harmonize natio
26、nal food safety and quality standards with international standards.This publication has resulted from the work of the Agricultural Trade Expert Network in Europe and Central Asia established with FAO support.The Network is a neutral and independent platform for the exchange of knowledge and expertis
27、e in this field.It currently includes experts from the leading research institutions and analytical centres in all the EECCA countries and some European Union countries.The Networks mandate includes improving the awareness of the private sector and civil society about the consequences of trade polic
28、y changes and involving stakeholders in a more efficient way in the dialogue with governments on the development and improvement of such policies.This publication seeks to study the trends in agricultural trade in the EECCA countries and monitor recent policy changes that influence their dynamics an
29、d composition.The annual review contributes to the building of the analytical base on agricultural trade and trade policy in Europe and Central Asia.Transparent information on changes made in trade policy,in turn,fosters stronger partnerships among countries and the normalization of trade relations.
30、The structure of this publication is similar to previous issues.An introductory chapter summarizes key agricultural trade trends in 12 EECCA countries in 20192020.The current publication also includes a thematic chapter analysing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agrifood trade and trade polici
31、es in the region and demonstrating how the pandemic has severely affected the socioeconomic development of the EECCA countries.Agriculture,however,has suffered less compared to other sectors since governments designated agriculture and food provision as strategic sectors which most often were not bo
32、und by national quarantine restrictions.Active application of foreign trade policy measures during the pandemic also demonstrated the efficiency of public-private dialogue in agrifood production and trade in many countries in the region.This important institution has great potential and will require
33、 additional efforts to strengthen it.The tools such as the international Agricultural Market Information System(AMIS)and transfer of knowledge on the methods for calculation of food balances and estimation of food reserves are useful for the public-private dialogue.Apart from the thematic chapters,t
34、he publication contains 12 country chapters highlighting in greater detail the changes in agricultural and trade policies of Azerbaijan,Armenia,Belarus,Georgia,Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan,the Republic of Moldova,the Russian Federation,Tajikistan,Turkmenistan,Uzbekistan,and Ukraine.Each chapter reviews rec
35、ent trends in the development of each countrys agricultural trade policy in 20192020 including key measures taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.It covers the trade measures implemented by national governments that influence agricultural product exports and imports,the participation of the cou
36、ntries in multilateral,regional and bilateral trade agreements,and recent changes in domestic support to agricultural producers.1 This review covers 12 EECCA countries:Azerbaijan,Armenia,Belarus,Georgia,Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan,the Republic ofMoldova,the Russian Federation,Tajikistan,Turkmenistan,Uzbek
37、istan and Ukraine(https:/www.oecd.org/env/outreach/listofeeccacountries.htm).viiForewordThe collaborative effort of authors from 12 countries revealed a considerable transformation of the trade policies of the regions countries in 20192020.Overall,analysis of the changes made to the policies during
38、the period under study showed that the COVID-19 pandemic had substantially disturbed the tendency towards foreign trade policy liberalization observed in previous years.Specifically,many countries adopted political decisions to tighten their export policies,which could have both short-term adverse i
39、mplications for the importing countries in the region and a long-term negative effect on domestic producers of the agricultural products covered by the bans and restrictions.Nevertheless,a positive aggregate balance of foreign trade in agricultural goods was maintained in the region in 20192020.Many
40、 countries drew conclusions from the difficulties emerging in traditional ways of carrying on foreign trade and tried to implement digital technology as much as possible at various stages of agrifood product supply chains.In particular,some countries achieved progress in digitalization of the certif
41、ication process and in paperless declaration of goods crossing the border.Inaddition,the practice of video inspection of goods was introduced to minimize pandemic spread risks.As a result,both an opportunity and a need to accumulate knowledge and share experience on development and implementation of
42、 new technology in agricultural production and trade emerged.First and foremost,we express our great appreciation to the national experts and country chapter authors who provided information on recent changes in trade policies of their states and on the measures taken to overcome consequences of the
43、 pandemic.We thank Alla Saranina(Markets and Trade Division,FAO)for assistance in the technical preparation of the materials,and Odette Boya,proofreader,for editing.The Russian version of this report has been prepared as of October 2021.This is the English translation of the publication originally p
44、ublished in the Russian language,which can be downloaded following this link:https:/www.fao.org/3/cc0064ru/cc0064ru.pdf.viiiIryna Kobuta,Alfinura SharafeyevaMarkets and Trade Division,FAO,RomeReview coordinators:AzerbaijanElchin Atababayev is a candidate of Agricultural Sciences,senior research fell
45、ow in the Water Management and Ecology laboratory at the University of Architecture and Construction,Baku,Azerbaijan.Author of dozens of scientific papers,he specializes in sustainable development,food security,and competitiveness of the agrifood system.He has practical experience in the establishme
46、nt of agrifood supply chains and specialized production farmer cooperatives,investment project assessment according to the World Bank methodology,and sectoral risk assessment.He worked at the Fund for Promotion of Exports and Investments of Azerbaijan(AZPROMO),in World Bank Group projects,in FAO pro
47、jects(in particular,as the national rapporteur for the Millennium Development Goals(2013),as a national agriculture expert in the project“Building the Countrys Capacity for Implementation of the National Contribution to Fulfilment of Climate Commitments”(2020),as a national consultant in the joint F
48、AO-EBRD project“Review of the Tea Sector in Azerbaijan and Georgia”(2019-2021),as well as in projects within the Eastern Partnership framework(such as“Support for Regional and Rural development”(2019)and“Improved Promotion and Marketing of Traditional Food Products”(2020-2021).ArmeniaHasmik Hovhanes
49、ian is an associate professor in the Faculty of Economics and Management at Yerevan State University.She has vast teaching experience on agricultural policy,foreign trade and international economy,and has been working in the fields of business research,agriculture,foreign trade and investment policy
50、 for more than 15 years.She is a specialist in agricultural trade,international management,marketing and international trade policy.She has been the President of the Union of Young Economists of Armenia since 2021.Belarus Natalia Kireyenka is a head of the Chair of Agro-Industrial Complex(AIC)Innova
51、tive Development at the Institute for AIC Staff Advanced Training and Retraining,Belarusian State Agrarian Technical University.She holds a Doctor of Economics and is a Professor.She is a FAO expert for agricultural and trade policies in Europe and Central Asia;a member of the Eurasian Economic Comm
52、issions Advisory Committee for Agro-Industrial Complex;and an expert in the working group at the Eurasian Economic Commissions Advisory Committee for Agro-Industrial Complex in the area of exchange trade in agricultural products.She has authored more than 220publications on food security,improvement
53、 of agricultural trade policy,sales,marketing and logistics in the AIC.GeorgiaShalva Pipia is Founder and Executive Director of the Institute for Rural Development and Agricultural Policy(from October 2014 to the present day)and Deputy Director of the Agricultural Program of the United States Agency
54、 for International Development(USAID)in Tbilisi,Georgia.Agraduate of the Caucasus Business School in Tbilisi,he earned a Master of Business Administration(MBA)degree in finance.During his career,he was the Deputy Minister of Agriculture(20122013)and the Minister of Agriculture of Georgia(20132014).F
55、or many years he managed agricultural projects in the international organization Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture(CNFA)and in NIRAS international multidisciplinary consulting company(donors of the projects included USAID,the Danish International Development Agency(DANIDA),and the Swiss Agenc
56、y for Development and Cooperation(SDC).He worked as an expert in USAID and SDC agricultural projects,and took part in the OSCE mission in Georgia.He was the lending director at Intellect Bank(19992002),and the executive director of Multiplex Swiss Holding Company(20082009).ixAbout the authorsKazakhs
57、tanNurlan Kulbatyrov is Deputy Director of the QazTrade Trade Policy Development Centre JSC under the Ministry of Trade and Integration of the Republic of Kazakhstan.A graduate of the Russian State Agrarian University Moscow Timiryazev Agricultural Academy he started his professional activity at the
58、 Institute of Economic Research under the Ministry of National Economy of Kazakhstan.He later became a member of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor national team based at Nazarbayev University.He participated in the development of such documents as the Strategic Plan for Development of Kazakhstan t
59、hrough 2025,the Layout of Rational Distribution of Production Capacities,and the Business Climate national report.He is a national coordinator of the OECD-Kazakhstan Country Cooperation Programme.KyrgyzstanRoman Mogilevskii is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Public Policy and Administra
60、tion,University of Central Asia,Bishkek(Kyrgyzstan).He is a candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences,associate professor.He has vast experience as a researcher and numerous publications in fields such as foreign trade,agricultural economics,public finance,macroeconomics,and social policy in C
61、entral Asian and other EECCA countries.Over the years,he worked as an economic policy advisor for the governments of Kyrgyzstan,Republic of Moldova,Tajikistan,Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan,and for many international organizations including the Asian Development Bank,the World Bank,and various speciali
62、zed United Nations agencies(UNDP,FAO,UNICEF).Republic of MoldovaAlexandru Stratan is Director of the National Institute for Economic Research,Chisinau,the Republic of Moldova.At the Academy of Sciences of Moldova(ASM)he is Corresponding Member,Doctor of Economics,and Professor.He started his work ac
63、tivities at the Agrarian University of the Republic of Moldova,worked in public administration structures,and as a consultant in various international projects financed by the European Commission,the Global Environment Facility,OECD,NATO,FAO,the International Visegrad Fund,etc.His rich research expe
64、rience includes more than 200 publications on agricultural economics,entrepreneurship,and micro-and macroeconomy in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS.Russian Federation Olga Shik is an expert in the Agrarian Policy Department at the Institute for Agrarian Studies,Higher School
65、of Economics where she is also Candidate of Economic Sciences.She is consultant to the Inter-American Development Bank for amethodology of agrarian policy assessment.A member ofthe technical working group in the Agricultural Incentives Consortium,she has also worked on research projects of internati
66、onal organizations(the World Bank,OECD,FAO),public authorities,and research institutes.Renata Yanbykh is a section head at the Agricultural Policy Section at the Institute for Agrarian Studies,Higher Schools of Economics where she is also Doctor of Economics,Associate Professor,and 2nd class State C
67、ouncillor.She was an advisor on agrarian issues to Deputy Heads of the Russian Federation Government:Ya.M.Urinson in 19971998,and A.V.Gordeyev in 20002002.She participated in the drafting of the State Programmes for Development of Agriculture and Regulation of the Markets of Agricultural Products,Ra
68、w Materials and Food for 20082012 and 20132020 as well as in their annual monitoring.She worked on international projects with the World Bank,the OECD,the European Union Institute for Prospective Technological Studies(JRC-IPTS),the Giessen University(Germany),the University of Iowa(USA),and Pierre M
69、endes-France University(France).Natalia Karlova is a section head in the Section of Agrarian Markets at the Institute for Agrarian Studies,Higher School of Economics as well as Candidate of Economic Sciences.She is an economic advisor for the Research and Forecasting Department at the Central Bank o
70、f the Russian Federation.She has more than 20 years of working experience in analysis and forecasting of development of agrifood markets.She participated in research projects commissioned by public authorities,international organizations(IMF,World Bank,OECD,FAO),and agribusiness.TajikistanMavzuna Ka
71、rimova is a head of the Section for Economic Theory and Foreign Economic Relations at the Institute of Economics and Demography of the National Academy of Sciences of Tajikistan,and Director of the Centre for socioeconomic Education and Development NGO,Doctor of Economics.She has authored more than
72、189 scientific xpapers,including six individual and 25 joint monographs and textbooks.She is an expert in the Industry,Fuel and Energy Complex,and Foreign Economic Activities sections of the UNDP project“Monitoring the Progress of the Medium-Term Development Programme for 2016-2020”at the Ministry o
73、f Economic Development and Trade of the Republic of Tajikistan;an expert in the Industry sector of the UNDP Project“Development of the Medium-Term Development Programme for 2021-2026”;and a member of the working group for drafting of the State Programme of Export Development in the Republic of Tajik
74、istan for 2021-2025 at the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Republic of Tajikistan.TurkmenistanYury Aronskiy is a Chairman of the National Public Association“Union of Economists of Turkmenistan”,and member of the Coordination Council of the International Union of Economists.He was c
75、hair of the Turkmen Institute of National Economy for more than 15 years and is Candidate of Economic Sciences.Since the country acquired independence,he has been participating in the implementation of various international projects and programmes in Turkmenistan in the field of economic reforms,imp
76、rovement of social policy,and the education system.He has published 81 scientific and education methodological papers in various countries.UzbekistanDaria Ilina is Project Manager of the Project for the AIC Development and Food Security at the Institute of Forecasting and Macroeconomic Research unde
77、r the Ministry of Economic Development and Poverty Reduction of the Republic of Uzbekistan.She earned a Masters Degree from the Tashkent Institute of Irrigation and Reclamation in 2010.She has 13 years of work experience in research on structural reforms,agrifood policy,agricultural reform,food secu
78、rity,and development of medium-and long-term forecasts.She has worked in UNDP,Asian Development Bank,FAO,and World Bank projects.She participated in the development of the Strategy for Improvement of Well-Being of the Uzbekistan Population for 20132015,the Strategy 2030,and in an adaptation of the S
79、ustainable Development Goals(SDGs)for Uzbekistan.UkraineTamara Ostashko is a Head of the Department of Sectoral Forecasting and Market Conditions at the Institute for Economics and Forecasting of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.She is Doctor of Economics and Corresponding Member of the N
80、ational Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine.She has authored more than 160 publications on agrarian economy,rural development,and agricultural and trade policies.She has also participated in the implementation of the International Finance Corporations(IFC)project“Land privatization and farm reor
81、ganization in Ukraine”(19962000),the Programme of the UK Department for International Development(DFID)for support of rural areas in Ukraine(20022005),and the USAID project“Reforming agricultural and regulatory policy and legislation of Ukraine”(20052007).Publication coordinators and editors:Iryna K
82、obuta is an Economist in the FAO Markets and Trade Division,engaged in country capacity building for the formulation of agricultural trade policies based on the World Trade Organization(WTO)rules,and delivers trainings on trade agreements and export promotion.Prior to joining FAO headquarters,she wo
83、rked as the Trade Economist at the FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia,and a deputy delivery manager of the FAO regional initiative on improving agrifood trade and market integration.Before joining FAO,she worked with the UNDP for ten years,as Project Manager of the Aid for Trade project
84、 in Ukraine and the Team Leader of the International Integration Team in the UNDP Blue Ribbon Analytical and Advisory Centre.She cooperated with the World Bank and OECD in research projects.She holds a PhD in Economics.Alfinura Sharafeyeva is a trade policy expert with seven years of consultancy exp
85、erience with the Markets and Trade Division,FAO.Her main area of expertise covers various aspects of the agricultural trade policies in the EECCA countries.She holds a PhD in agricultural economics from the University of Adelaide,Australia.Her PhD thesis addresses issues with trade facilitation and
86、agrifood exports in Central Asian countries.xixiixiiiAbbreviations and acronymsACDA Agro Credit and Development Agency under the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of AzerbaijanAFSA Food Safety Agency of the Republic of AzerbaijanAIC Agro-industrial complex AIP Agency for Interventions and Paym
87、entsAMS Aggregate Measure of SupportAMIS FAO Agricultural Market Information SystemASF African swine fever CCI Chamber of Commerce and IndustryCCT Common Customs TariffCIS Commonwealth of Independent StatesCNFA Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture(international organization)DANIDA Danish Interna
88、tional Development Agency DTC Digital Trade CentreEAEU Eurasian Economic UnionEBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentECA Export Credit AgencyEEC Eurasian Economic CommissionEECCA Eastern Europe,Caucasus and Central AsiaEFTA European Free Trade AssociationEPCA Enhanced Partnership and C
89、ooperation AgreementFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsFEA Foreign economic activitiesFoA Financing of AgricultureFTA Free trade areaGF Guarantee FundGDP Gross domestic productGlobal G.A.P.International standard for good agricultural practices GSP+Generalized System of Prefer
90、ences Plus IDC Interdepartmental CommissionIFC International Finance CorporationIFOAM International Federation of Organic Agriculture MovementsIMF International Monetary FundJSC Joint-stock companyKR Kyrgyz RepublicMFN Most Favoured NationNBM National Bank of MoldovaOECD Organization for Economic Co
91、-operation and DevelopmentOJSC Open joint-stock companyxivpp Percentage pointRA Republic of ArmeniaREC Russian Export CentreREX EU Registered Exporter system RF Russian FederationRK Republic of KazakhstanRKDF Russian-Kyrgyz Development FundSDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SME Small a
92、nd medium-sized enterpriseSPS Sanitary and phytosanitary(measures)TARIM Integrated Customs Tariff of the Republic of MoldovaUCC FEA Ukrainian Classification of Commodities for Foreign Economic ActivitiesUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNCTAD UN Conference on Trade and DevelopmentUNICEF UN C
93、hildrens FundUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentVAT Value-added taxWOAH World Organization for Animal HealthWTO World Trade Organization1Part 1 Key developments inagricultural trade in the Eastern Europe,Caucasus and Central Asia(EECCA)countries in 201920202Key developments in a
94、gricultural trade in the EECCA countries in 20192020Alfinura SharafeyevaFAO/Alexander SchimmeckHighlightsIn 2020,agricultural trade and trade policy of the EECCA countries2 were marked by the following changes and trends in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic:yThe regions agricultural sector suffer
95、ed less than other sectors amidst the general economic downfall.yThe share of agricultural products in the aggregate imports and exports of the regions countries increased slightly in 2020 compared to 2019.yThe total foreign agricultural trade balance in the region remained positive.yChinas share in
96、 the aggregate exports from the regions countries continued to grow.yThe commodity structure of exports and imports changed marginally compared to 2019.yMost countries in the region adopted programmes of additional support to agriculture because of COVID-19.yActive work was carried out to digitalize
97、 foreign trade transactions.2 This review covers 12 EECCA countries:Azerbaijan,Armenia,Belarus,Georgia,Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan,the Republic of Moldova,the Russian Federation,Tajikistan,Turkmenistan,Uzbekistan and Ukraine.Developments of agricultural exports and imports in the regionIn 2020,following s
98、teady growth in previous years,aggregate exports and imports of all commodities in the EECCA region shrank appreciably.At the same time,some increase in aggregate exports and a minor decrease in imports of the agrifood commodity group was recorded(Figure 1.1).The share of this commodity group in the
99、 total value of exports and imports across the region amounted to about 13 percent,having risen by 3 and 1 percentage points(pp)as compared to the 2019 figures,respectively.The highest share of agricultural exports in total goods exports was observed in Ukraine(45 percent),the Republic of Moldova(44
100、 percent),Armenia(30 percent),and Georgia(28 percent),with a slight year-on-year increase in some of these countries.The agricultural export contribution to aggregate deliveries abroad was still substantially lower in Azerbaijan(7 percent),Kazakhstan(7 percent),the Russian Federation(8 percent),and
101、Turkmenistan(12 percent).An increase in the share of agricultural imports in the total value of import purchases was observed in most countries of the region in 20192020.For example,in Tajikistan,where this indicator is the highest(26 percent),it increased by 6 pp compared to 2018 and by 3 pp compar
102、ed to 2020.In 2020,a marked rise of the share of agrifood imports was recorded also in Ukraine,by 27 percent year-on-year(up to 12 percent of the total commodity imports),and in Azerbaijan,by 26 percent(up to 18 percent).The share of agricultural commodity imports in total imports reached 14 percent
103、 in Belarus,15 percent in Georgia,16 percent FAO4Review of agrifood trade policies in the Eastern Europe,Caucasus and Central Asia countries 20192020 Agricultural export and import shares in total value of exports and imports of all commodities in the post-Soviet region countries,2020UkraineRepublic
104、of MoldovaArmeniaGeorgiaBelarusKyrgyzstanUzbekistanTajikistanTurkmenistanRussianFederationKazakhstanAzerbaijanTotal Agricultural exports in total exports,%45%44%30%28%21%15%13%12%12%8%7%7%13%Agricultural importsin total imports,%12%16%18%15%14%16%12%26%10%13%11%18%13%Value of agricultural exports,mi
105、llion USD22 2821 0937479435 7202748 3663 28689666 255Value of agricultural imports,million USD 6 552 850 814 1 210 4 230 539 2 325 819 529 29 525 3 965 1 906 53 264%01020304050FIGURE 1.1Source:calculations based on data from UN Comtrade,Trade Data Monitor and country-chapter authors.inKyr
106、gyzstan,16 percent in the Republic of Moldova,and 12 percent in Uzbekistan.The share of agricultural imports in total foreign supplies increased to a lesser extent in the Russian Federation to 13 percent,in Kazakhstan to 11percent,and in Armenia to 18 percent.In Turkmenistan,this indicator decreased
107、 by 8 percent,down to 10 percent of the aggregate commodity imports in 2020.The aggregate agricultural exports from countries in the region continued to demonstrate a growing trend in value terms:in 2019,they were almost USD 5 billion higher than in 2018,having reached USD 63 billion,while in 2020,t
108、hey increased by another USD 3 billion plus,up to USD 66.3billion(Figure 1.2).At the same time,a minor decline in the aggregate agricultural imports to the regions countries was observed in 2020:they decreased by USD 600 million compared to the previous year(down to USD 53 billion).Overall,the posit
109、ive foreign trade balance in agricultural commodities increased by almost twice during 20182020,amounting to USD 13 billion in 2020.At the country level,however,the situation radically differed from the regional trend the year of 2020 was marked by dramatic contraction of agricultural exports in val
110、ue terms.In particular,while all the countries,except the Russian Federation,Georgia,Tajikistan and Turkmenistan,achieved growth in the value of agrifood exports in 2019,the next year it occurred only in the Russian Federation(14 percent increase),Georgia(6 percent),Belarus(3percent),and Ukraine(0.3
111、 percent).The largest drop inexports relative to 2019 was recorded in the Republic of Moldova(by 20 percent),Uzbekistan(by 10 percent),and Kyrgyzstan(by 8 percent).Noteworthy,the export decline in the Republic of Moldova was mainly caused by the consequences of drought which resulted in a steep fall
112、 of agricultural production outputs.The reduced exports in other countries were mainly due to political decisions as well as delays in trading transactions and logistical failures due to the COVID-19 pandemic.5Part 1.Key developments in agricultural trade in the EECCA countries in 20192020Agricultur
113、al trade turnover in the EECCA region,20182020,USD billions Export Import Trade balance201858.251.46.8 201963.053.89.2202066.353.313.0 USD billions0070FIGURE 1.2Source:calculations based on data from UN Comtrade,Trade Data Monitor and country-chapter authors.Similarly,on the agrifood impo
114、rts side:following a rise in 2019,imports decreased significantly in most countries in the region.Exceptions are Kazakhstan(1 percent increase in 2020 as compared to 2019),the Republic of Moldova(4percent),Tajikistan(8 percent),Uzbekistan(11 percent),and Ukraine 13 percent).The largest drop of impor
115、ts was recorded in Kyrgyzstan(20 percent down from 2019 levels),Belarus(9 percent),Armenia(7 percent),and Turkmenistan(7 percent).Like in the case of exports,the reduction of import deliveries in value terms and their declining dynamics were caused by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.Foreign trad
116、e balance.The international trade balance in agricultural products in 2020 demonstrated mixed trends:a considerable(almost five times)decrease in its negative value occurred in the Russian Federation,whereas a negative balance in Uzbekistan increased almost fourfold compared to the previous year lev
117、el(Figure 1.3).Besides,there was an increase in the positive balance in Belarus in2020(14 percent up as compared to 2019)and its decline in Ukraine(11 percent down)and the Republic of Moldova(18 percent).Armenia,Azerbaijan,Georgia and Kyrgyzstan had a decrease in the negative agrifood trade balance
118、by 1,4,8 and 21 percent,respectively,in 2020 compared to the previous year.Meanwhile,it increased by 4 percent year-on-year in Kazakhstan and by 8 percent in Tajikistan in 2020.6Review of agrifood trade policies in the Eastern Europe,Caucasus and Central Asia countries 20192020Trends of agricultural
119、 trade,2020 to 2019,percentage change-25-20-15-10-505-1-1-4-736414111381-9-4-3-3-8-20-10-10-7ExportImportTrade balance%UzbekistanRepublic of MoldovaAzerbaijanGeorgiaBelarusKyrgyzstanUkraineTajikistanTurkmenistanRussianFederationKazakhstanArmeniaFIGURE 1.4Source:calculations based on data
120、from UN Comtrade,Trade Data Monitor and country-chapter authors.Agricultural trade balance in the EECCA region countries,20182020,USD millions20000000000001920182020-10 000-5 0000
121、5 00010 00015 00020 000-920-1 033-1 010-137-98-678298811 49039739724423816119913 56216 47215 730-396-364-267-467-535-678-361-380-265-426-584-647-323-150-6475 1985 554 1 1592018 20192020USD millionsUkraineRepublic of MoldovaArmeniaGeorgiaBelarusKyrgyzstanUzbekistanTajikistanTurkmenistanRussian Federa
122、tionKazakhstanAzerbaijanFIGURE 1.3Source:calculations based on data from UN Comtrade,Trade Data Monitor and country-chapter authors.7Part 1.Key developments in agricultural trade in the EECCA countries in 20192020Geographical structure of exports.Despite some decline in trade volumes in several coun
123、tries of the region,there was a continuing tendency towards diversification of the geographical structure of agricultural commodity supplies to foreign markets in 20192020.Chinas share in the regions aggregate agrifood exports retained its growth and increased by 3 to 4 pp reaching 15 percent in 202
124、0(Figure 1.5).At the same time,a reduction of some exports to traditional destinations within the region was recorded,namely to Belarus,Kazakhstan,the Russian Federation,and Ukraine.Nevertheless,like in previous years,the intra-regional exports accounted for almost one-third of the delivery volume.T
125、he regions aggregate exports to the European Union countries dropped by USD 321 million in 2020 compared to the previous year,however its share remained substantial at 18 percent.At the country level,redistribution of export flows to the Russian Federation was observed in the region.The 20182020 per
126、iod saw an emerging decrease in exports to this destination from Azerbaijan,Belarus,Georgia and Kazakhstan while the volumes of exports from Armenia,Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan,on the contrary,increased.Meanwhile,a growth of exports to China from countries such as Belarus,Kazakhstan and Ukraine was re
127、corded.In contrast,the share of exports to China from Kyrgyzstan,Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in 2020 shrank amid the pandemic.Despite some reduction in most countries in the region,agrifood exports to the European Union countries continued to make up a substantial share of exports in 2020 from the Rep
128、ublic of Moldova,Ukraine,Georgia,and the Russian Federation 53,30,17 and 11 percent,respectively (Figure 1.5).Main destinations of agricultural exports from EECCA countries,20182020,percentage share0204060808888882018202020
129、0000192018 to Belarusto Kazakhstanto Russian Federation to Ukraine to China to other CIS countries to the EUto other countries of the worldUkraineRepublic of MoldovaArmeniaGeorgiaBelarusKyrgyzstanUzbekistanTajikistanAggregateexportRussian FederationKazakhs
130、tanAzerbaijanFIGURE 1.5Source:calculations based on data from UN Comtrade,Trade Data Monitor,and country-chapter authors.8Review of agrifood trade policies in the Eastern Europe,Caucasus and Central Asia countries 20192020Geographical structure of imports.One-third of the aggregate agricultural impo
131、rts in 20192020 accounted for mutual trade within the region.Imports from Belarus amounted to nearly 10 percent of total regional imports,less than 5 percent imported from Kazakhstan,15 percent from the Russian Federation,3 percent from Ukraine,and 5percent from other CIS countries(Figure 1.6).TheEu
132、ropean Union continued to be the largest supplier of agricultural products to the EECCA countries,with its share in the regions aggregate imports still growing.Thevolume of imports from the European Union increased by 7 percent,or USD 819million in absolute terms,between 2018 and 2020.In 2020,howeve
133、r,the growth of imports from the European Union slowed down to only 1 percent,or USD 144 million,year-on-year.Amid the pandemic in 2020,a decline in aggregate imports from China was recorded,with a 2 pp,or 416 million,decrease relative to the previous year.Inparticular,Tajikistan imposed a ban on de
134、liveries ofagricultural commodities from China(apples,pears,ginger,mandarins,and partially walnuts,glass-grown tomatoes and cucumbers)for an indefinite period because of the COVID-19 pandemic.In 2020,a reduction of imports from the traditional agrifood suppliers Kazakhstan and Ukraine was recorded b
135、oth in the regions aggregate imports and in the purchase structure of some countries in the region.Due to the measures implemented because of the pandemic,a drastic decline inimports from Kazakhstan occurred in Azerbaijan,Georgia,Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.In contrast,minor growth of imports from thi
136、s country was observed in Armenia,with deliveries from other CIS countries having decreased.Growth of imports from the Russian Federation was observed in every country in the region,except for the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine.The most tangible increase was recorded in the Russian deliveries to Az
137、erbaijan and Uzbekistan:they grew by almost 10 pp in 2020 versus 2018 and amounted to about 30 percent of the overall agrifood imports in these countries.As a remarkable event in Kyrgyzstan,it had almost no imports from China in 2020 despite growth of import deliveries in previous years.Geographical
138、 structure of agricultural imports to the EECCA countries,20182020,percentage shareFIGURE 1.600708090200000000000018 UkraineRepublic of MoldovaArmeniaGeorgia
139、BelarusKyrgyzstanUzbekistanTajikistanRussianFederationKazakhstanAzerbaijanAggregateexportfrom Belarusfrom Kazakhstanfrom Russian Federation from Ukrainefrom China from other CIS countriesfrom the EUfrom other countries of the worldSource:calculations based on data from UN Comtrade,Trade Data Monitor
140、 and country-chapter authors.9Part 1.Key developments in agricultural trade in the EECCA countries in 20192020Overall,reduction of imports from China was registered in almost all countries of the region.The European Union remained an important supplier of agrifood products to Ukraine(it accounted fo
141、r 50 percent of the total agrifood imports to that country in 2020)as well as to the Republic of Moldova(40 percent),Belarus and the Russian Federation(about 25 percent in each).Import structure by product.Some contraction of aggregate imports of almost every key commodity group was observed in the
142、region in 2020.The most substantial decline was recorded in imports of meat(by 10 percent)and vegetables(by 16 percent)(Figure 1.8).Like in previous years,fruit and nuts had the largest share in the aggregate agricultural imports:this commodity group accounted for 14 percent of all imports in the re
143、gions countries in 2020.EAEU.Agricultural trade among the Eurasian Economic Union(EAEU)member countries continued to grow in 20192020.Belarus remained the largest supplier of agricultural products within the EAEU:it accounted for nearly 48 percent of the intra-Union exports(with a minor decrease ver
144、sus the previous year,by 2 pp).Exports to the EAEU countries amounted to 82 percent in Belarus total Export structure by product.The commodity structure of agricultural exports changed insignificantly in 2020.There was some increase in exports of cereals(by 6 percent,to USD 20.4 billion),sugar and c
145、onfectionery(by 26 percent,to USD 1.3 billion),fats and oils(by 18 percent,to USD 10.5 billion)relative to 2019(Figure 1.7).Whereas there was a decrease in exports of such commodity groups as vegetables(by 11 percent relative to 2019)and excisable products alcoholic beverages and tobacco(by 4 and 8
146、percent,respectively).exports in 2020,somewhat less than in 2019(85 percent).Almost 85 percent of the Belarussian exports during the period under review went to the Russian Federation.A minor decrease in exports to the EAEU countries occurred in Kazakhstan:the volume of deliveries in 2020 decreased
147、by USD 144 million,or 1 pp,compared to 2019.Meanwhile,deliveries to the EAEU countries from the Russian Federation continued to grow,with countrys share in the intra-EAEU exports having reached almost 41 percent.In country-specific terms,exports from the Russian Federation amounted to nearly 99 perc
148、ent of the Unions entire exports to Belarus,91 percent of exports to Armenia,and 85 percent of exports to Kazakhstan.InKyrgyzstan,there was an increase in the share of supply Product structure of agricultural exports of the EECCA countries(aggregate),20192020,value in USD millions02 0004 0006 0008 0
149、0010 00012 00014 00016 00018 00020 00020192020USD millions10-Cereals15-Fats and oils03-Fish12-Oil seeds and fruits23-Residues and wasteof food industry04-Dairy products,eggs,honey02-Meat22-Alcoholicand non-alcoholicbeverages08-Fruits and nuts07-Vegetables24-Tobacco16-Prepared meatand fish products11
150、-Products of the milling industry19-Preparation of flour;pastrycooks;etc 17-Sugar andsugar confectioneryOther agriculturalproductsFIGURE 1.7Source:calculations based on data from UN Comtrade,Trade Data Monitor and country-chapter authors.10Review of agrifood trade policies in the Eastern Europe,Cauc
151、asus and Central Asia countries 20192020from the Russian Federation in the total imports from the EAEU countries to this country from 50 percent in 2018 to 60percent in 2020.Besides,slight growth was recorded in Armenias mutual trade with its EAEU partners.In particular,the share of deliveries to th
152、e EAEU market in Armenias total exports increased from 51 to 56 percent during 20182020,with their volume in 2020 being USD 747 million.Nevertheless,the share of Armenias supplies in the aggregate EAEU imports remained low,at 2 percent.In country-specific terms,a gradual rise of Armenian commodity d
153、eliveries to Belarus was recorded:they grew in 2020 almost twice compared to 2018.Similarly,imports to Armenia from Belarus were growing,though,at a smaller rate.Deliveries to Kyrgyzstan are carried out mainly from the Russian Federation(almost 60 percent of total imports from the EAEU)and Kazakhsta
154、n(45 percent).Bilateral trade in agrifood products between Armenia and Kyrgyzstan is still almost absent.Generally,one of the most important COVID-19 pandemic implications for agricultural trade were temporary bans or restrictions on export of wheat and other agricultural products by the regions lea
155、ding exporters Belarus,Kazakhstan,and the Russian Federation.The restrictions were introduced both by individual countries and within the EAEU trade policy framework.They adversely affected the markets of traditional trade partners such as Tajikistan:demand for flour and wheat soared in the country,
156、thereby leading to growth of domestic prices and limited access to these goods.In some instances(e.g.in Kyrgyzstan),export bans were imposed on the commodity groups traditionally imported by the country.According to expert estimates,it rather reflects the governments psychological response to the ac
157、ute external shock and is not related to any real risks of outflow of those products from the domestic market.Product structure of agricultural imports in the EECCA region countries(aggregate),20192020,value in USD millions01 0002 0003 0004 0005 0006 0007 0008 0002019.2020.USD millions21-Miscellaneo
158、use edible preperations18-Cocoa and cocoa preperations20-Products of processingof vegetables,fruits,nuts or other parts of plants09-Coffee,tea,etc.15-Fats and oils03-Fish12-Oil seeds and fruits23-Residues and wasteof food industry04-Dairy products,eggs,honey02-Meat22-Alcoholicand non-alcoholicbevera
159、ges08-Fruits and nuts07-Vegetables24-Tobacco19-Preparation of flour;pastrycooks;etcOther agriculturalproductsFIGURE 1.8Source:calculations based on data from UN Comtrade,Trade Data Monitor and country-chapter authors.11Part 1.Key developments in agricultural trade in the EECCA countries in 20192020I
160、ntra-EAEU agricultural exports and imports,20182020,value in USD millions,percentage share 05001 0001 5002 0002 5003 0003 5004 0004 5005 000010%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%)ExportsUSD millionsExport to the EAEU countries,2018Exports to the EEC countries,2019Exports to the EEC countries,2020Share of
161、exports to the EAEU countries,%of total exports,2018Share of exports to the EAEU countries,%of total exports,2019Share of exports to the EAEU countries,%of total exports,2020from Armeniafrom Belarusfrom Kyrgyzstanfrom the Russian Federationfrom KazakhstanFIGURE 1.901 0002 0003 0004 0005 0006 0000%10
162、%20%30%40%50%60%b)ImportsImports from the EAEU countries,2018Imports from the EAEU countries,2019Imports from the EAEU countries,2020Share of imports from the EAEU countries,%of total imports,2018Share of imports from the EAEU countries,%of total imports,2019Share of imports from the EAEU countries,
163、%of total imports,2020USD millionsto Armeniato Belarusto Kyrgyzstanto the Russian Federationto KazakhstanSource:calculations based on data from UN Comtrade,Trade Data Monitor and country-chapter authors;the authors calculations.12Review of agrifood trade policies in the Eastern Europe,Caucasus and C
164、entral Asia countries 20192020Geographical structure of intra-EAEU agricultural exports and imports,20182020,percentage share00708090200000018)Exportfrom Armeniafrom Belarusfrom Kazakhstanfrom Kyrgyzstanfrom the Russian Fed
165、erationto Armeniato Belarusto Kyrgyzstanto the Russian Federationto the EAEUto Kazakhstan020406080100b)Importfrom Armeniafrom Belarusfrom Kazakhstanfrom Kyrgyzstanfrom the Russian Federation20202000000192018from the EAEUto Armeniato Belarusto Ky
166、rgyzstanto the Russian Federationto KazakhstanFIGURE 1.10.Source:calculations based on data from UN Comtrade,Trade Data Monitor and country-chapter authors;the authors calculations.13Part 1.Key developments in agricultural trade in the EECCA countries in 20192020Agricultural trade policiesImport pol
167、icyA number of changes occurred in the import policies of the EECCA region countries in 20192020.A large-scale revision of import duties on agricultural goods in Uzbekistan was the most remarkable event.The duties were zeroed agricultural inputs to promote development of domestic industries such as
168、fats and oils,production of liquorice and other medicinal plants,production of honey,silk farming,and fruit and vegetable farming.At the same time,a 20 percent excise tax was imposed on white sugar and on some imported tobacco product types.As the COVID-19 pandemic broke out,however,import duties an
169、d excise taxes on some goods were zeroed to prevent any increases of food product prices in the domestic market.As part of its commitments to the WTO,the Russian Federation abolished the tariff quota on imports of pork meat and replaced it by a 25 percent flat rate import duty instead of the two-lev
170、el tariff applied earlier(0 percent on in-quota deliveries and 65 percent on deliveries above the quota).Besides,the country expanded the list of food products subject to a reduced Value-added tax(VAT)rate in 20192020:in particular,some types of domestic and imported fruit and berries as well as dai
171、ry products were added to it.Since the beginning of 2019,zero-rate import duties have been set for some goods(mainly vegetable and fruit)supplied to the Russian Federation from the Republic of Moldova,which were later extended to 31 March 2021.This measure allowed for a substantial increase in the e
172、xports of Moldavian-made products to the Russian market.Ukraine continued to maintain the removal of zero-rate import duty preferences for imports of goods originating from the Russian Federation,as a mirror measure in response to the Russian Federations suspension of the Agreement on the CIS Free T
173、rade Area in relation to Ukraine.Armenia continued to harmonize its import tariffs with the rates of the EAEU Common Customs Tariff(CCT),which resulted in higher import duties on most agricultural goods.The average applied Most Favoured Nation rate for agricultural goods in 2019 was 9 percent wherea
174、s it was at 7 percent in 2013,prior to the countrys accession to the EAEU.No major change was recorded in import duty rates in Azerbaijan,Georgia,the Republic of Moldova and Turkmenistan.In Tajikistan,a number of key imported food products,mainly sugar,vegetable oil,wheat and rice,were exempted from
175、 VAT(of 18 percent)to reduce domestic market prices in 2020.Similar steps to stabilize domestic prices were undertaken in Azerbaijan where imports of cereals and bran were exempted from the 18 percent VAT along with introduction of zero-rate import duties on meat,fruit and vegetable.In view of the C
176、OVID-19 spread and to ensure uninterrupted supply of food to the domestic markets of the EAEU member countries,a tariff preference was provided for some socially important food products in the form of import duties exemption in their imports from third countries.Besides,some EECCA region countries c
177、ontinued to apply import tariff quotas on imports of some agricultural product categories in 20192020.The Republic of Moldova sets tariff quotas on imports of white sugar and sugar products annually for all countries but the CIS member states and Ukraine(provisions of the CIS Free Trade Agreement ap
178、ply to the latter countries).Meanwhile,some countries in the region do not use the established quotas or do not fully use them.For example,Ukraine did not fill the tariff rate quota on imports of raw cane sugar amounting to 267.8 thousand tonnes at a 2 percent in-quota import duty rate in 2019 and 2
179、020.This is explained by the fact that the Ukrainian manufacturers fully met the needs of domestic sugar refineries.Similarly,amid development of domestic rice production,the quota amount allocated to the Russian Federation within the framework of the Free Trade Agreement between the EAEU and Viet N
180、am was reduced in favour of Armenia and Belarus.Besides,according to its commitments to the WTO,the Russian Federation in 2020 proceeded with gradual abolition of the import tariff quotas on meat that were in force since 2003.The ban on import of a large list of agricultural goods from Ukraine to th
181、e Russian Federations customs territory,imposed by the RF Government in August 2014,continued to be in force in 20192020.As a response,Ukraine also banned the import of Russian-made goods according to its own list.Since 2 July 2020,due to the implementation of a state system of electronic freight tr
182、acing,the Russian Federation has lifted the ban on transit of sanctioned agricultural goods across its territory by road and by rail.Like in previous years,most countries in the region imposed temporary bans on the import of some agricultural products based on the SPS requirements and technical regu
183、lations.For example,Azerbaijan introduced temporary bans on imports of poultry and animal products according to its risk assessment policy in 20192020 because of disease outbreaks in its trade partner countries.Bans were occasionally imposed also in Belarus,Kazakhstan,and the Russian Federation.Geor
184、gia 14Review of agrifood trade policies in the Eastern Europe,Caucasus and Central Asia countries 20192020and Uzbekistan,on the contrary,did not impose any bans based on the SPS requirements and technical regulations in 20192020(according to country-chapter authors).Some countries,for example Georgi
185、a and Tajikistan,set short-term bans on import of agrifood products from the countries where the COVID-19 sites were found.Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova continued reforms of their national legislation on the SPS regulation toharmonize it with the European Union acquis as part of implementation
186、 of their Association Agreement with the EU.In view of the global epidemiological situation related to the COVID-19 spread,procedures for import ofagricultural products in the EAEU countries were simplified to ensure their uninterrupted supplies.Inparticular,the use of the certificates of origin iss
187、ued by developing and least developed countries was simplified.Itallowed using a paper or electronic copy of the certificate with subsequent provision of its original copy no later than within six months.Besides,the Russian Federation began to integrate its plant quarantine information systems with
188、similar systems in Belarus,Uzbekistan,Serbia,Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan,including for exchange of electronic phytosanitary certificates.Online video inspections methodology was designed in many countries of the region in 2020.Export policyIn 20192020,export duties on some agricultural goods were used
189、 in Azerbaijan,Belarus,Kazakhstan,the Russian Federation,Tajikistan,Turkmenistan,Uzbekistan,and Ukraine.In particular,they were applied to such products as wheat,oil seeds,live animals,cotton fibre,raw hides and tanned leather(Table 1.2).In 2020,because of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak,some countri
190、es introduced short-term bans or restrictions on export of cereals and oil crops as well as some other agricultural goods (see Table2.1 in Part 2 below).To support agrifood exports,some countries,for example Azerbaijan,the Russian Federation,Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan,applied transport subsidies in
191、 20192020.InTurkmenistan,for example,internal preferential transport tariffs were in force even during the period when rail traffic was suspended and freight turnover declined amid the pandemic.Uzbekistan,in turn,created a strong system of support for exporters and manufacturers of agricultural prod
192、ucts in 20192020.In particular,some part of transport costs for export of lemons(up to 25 percent),fruit and vegetable Applied and bound MFN import duty rates on agricultural products,20182020,percentageTABLE 1.1.CountriesAverage applied MFN rate Average bound rate20019Azerbaijann/a14.5n/
193、an/aArmenia9.29.0n/a14.7Belarus11.311.3n/an/aGeorgia6.55.95.912.6Kazakhstan9.69.4n/a10.0Kyrgyzstan9.19.28.913.1Republic of Moldova11.211.111.714.0Russian Federation11.210.59.710.9Tajikistann/an/an/a11.1Uzbekistann/an/a11.4n/aUkraine9.29.19.111.0Note:n/a not available;data for Azerbaijan and Uzbekist
194、an are available in the WTO database since 2020,no data for Turkmenistan are availableSource:WTO(2021).15Part 1.Key developments in agricultural trade in the EECCA countries in 20192020Export duties applied in some countries of the EECCA regionTABLE 1.2CountryProductExport duty rateValidity periodAz
195、erbaijanPotatoesOnions and cabbage1 USD/kg 2 USD/kg 6 30 April 2019BelarusRape or colza seeds Raw hides and skinsTanned leather100 EUR/t500 EUR/t10%,but at least 90 EUR/tRemained in force in 20192020KazakhstanRaw hides and skinsWool0%10%,but at least 50 EUR/tUntil 21 December 2021Remained in force i
196、n 20192020Russian FederationTunaWheatRape seedsSunflower seeds5%0%6.5%,but at least 11.4 EUR/t 6.5%,but at least 9.75 EUR/tRemained in force in 20192020TajikistanCotton fibreRaw skins and hidesSilk-worm cocoons10%300 EUR/t20%,but at least 100 EUR/tSince March 2020UzbekistanTanned leather5%In 2019 an
197、d 2020UkraineFlax,sunflower and false flax seeds Live animalsHides and skins10%10%20%In 2019 and 2020Source:country-chapter authors.products,eggs and poultry meat,natural grape wines and cognac distillate(up to 50 percent)has been covered by subsidies since 2020.As part of export promotion activitie
198、s,a special state institute of support for export of non-primary commodities(including agrifood products)is functioning in the Russian Federation the Russian Export Centre JSC(REC)which recovers costs of various export activities including costs of the food product transportation.The marginal transp
199、ort cost compensation coefficient is 1/3 of the transported product value,the compensation rate being 25 percent of the transportation costs but within the established limit.In Ukraine,amendments were made to the Tax Code in 2020 to support agricultural production,according to which the value-added
200、tax rate was reduced from 20 to 14 percent for export,import and domestic sales of some agricultural product categories including cattle,wheat and corn.The practice of signing memoranda between the line ministry and grain exporters to ensure effective interaction among the grain market actors,commen
201、ced in 2011,continued in 20192020.In particular,a memorandum of understanding to agree upon the grain market balance indicators in 2019/20 marketing year was signed in 2019 to ensure food security and avoid application of export restrictions.In 2020,the Ministry for Development of Economy,Trade and
202、Agriculture signed an annex to the memorandum with the grain market stakeholders in which the parties agreed upon the maximum indicative volume of grain exports for 2020/21 marketing year at 17.5 million tonnes of wheat and 1000 tonnes of rye.During the years under review,all countries in the region
203、 continued,in varying degrees,to develop and apply export promotion programmes,inter alia focused on encouraging agricultural exports.The greatest attention was paid to digitalization of trade procedures,and to marketing and information support to export(Box 1.1).16Review of agrifood trade policies
204、in the Eastern Europe,Caucasus and Central Asia countries 20192020Trade agreementsThe 20192020 period was marked by a more active process for the accession of some countries of the region to the World Trade Organization(WTO).For example,after a nearly 15-year-long pause,Uzbekistan in 2020 resumed me
205、etings of the working party,after which the country sent the updated Memorandum on the Foreign Trade Regime to the WTO within the framework of negotiations for examination of its accession application.An Interagency Commission under the Government of Uzbekistan for Work with the WTO was established.
206、In 2020,a meeting of the WTO General Council granted Turkmenistan observer status.The countrys president tasked the government with preparing and carrying out further necessary measures and work for accession to the WTO and acquisition of full membership in the organization.Negotiations of Working P
207、arties for the accession to the WTO continued also in Azerbaijan and Belarus in 2019,but less actively.In 2020,no commission meetings were held due to the COVID-19 pandemic.In Belarus,the work for final endorsement of the countrys commitments to the WTO was postponed until 2021.Deepening of integrat
208、ion was taking place within the EAEU trade policy framework,mainly with countries in the Asian region.Implementation of free trade agreements with Viet Examples of digitalization of procedures in agrifood trade in the EECCA region countriesBOX 1.1.yAzerbaijan has created trade facilitation infrastru
209、cture,including the Digital Trade Centre(DTC).DTC is a multifunctional portal of online trade and e-commerce created with governmental involvement and with the governmental guarantees.It operates according to the“all services in one space”principle.Along with numerous transborder electronic services
210、 for facilitation of trade transactions,the portal offers services for customs clearance,online registration of companies,opening of bank accounts in the online mode,etc.Application of generally accepted methods of identification and electronic signatures as well as their international recognition i
211、s of fundamental importance to the DTC operation.yIn Belarus,5 811 Belarusian and 533 foreign enterprises have been registered and information about 20 990 goods(including agricultural)and services has been provided at Export.by portal during 2020.The Belarusian Universal Commodity Exchange OJSCs el
212、ectronic trading platform(https:/www.butb.by)is actively developing.In 2020,7.5 percent of the countrys total agricultural product exports was sold via the Exchanges Agricultural Products section.The Belarusian public association of farmers created the information resource http:/market.fermer1.by,wi
213、th the development of inter-farmer connections and establishment of a trading platform being its key purpose.yIn Kazakhstan,a“single window”for exporters was created on the basis of the QazTrade Centre for Trade Policy Development JSC in 2019.The company is the single centre of support to exporters,
214、and acts as an agent between exporters and public authorities.Within the Acceleration programme framework,exporters are provided support by granting them a premium status on A international Internet platform where agrifood products are also sold.This tool was particularly relevant during the pandemi
215、c and quarantine measures,allowing suppliers of goods to participate at the online international exhibitions.yIn Tajikistan,the tajtrade.tj information trade portal and a“single window”for formalization of export,import and transit transactions were officially launched in 2019.The portal contains in
216、formation on procedures for 53 export and import and transit commodities(including 20 export products,30 import products,and 3 transit products;1 500 commodity items in total),including a number of agrifood products.yIn the Russian Federation,ECert additional module within the VetIS Federal State In
217、formation System was put into operation in 2020.The module is intended for veterinary certification of freights supervised by the State Veterinary Supervision Authority which are exported to foreign countries.It allowed reducing the time necessary to draw up veterinary supporting documents due to au
218、tomatization of the process and ensuring the establishment of a single centralized database with information about every batch of goods being exported.Source:Information provided by country-chapter authors.17Part 1.Key developments in agricultural trade in the EECCA countries in 20192020Nam,Singapor
219、e and Serbia continued during 2019 and 2020.Negotiations on the establishment of a free trade area(FTA)with Iran(Islamic Republic of)and on conclusion of free trade agreements with Egypt,Israel and India began.Active cooperation with China was taking place,including as part of the One Belt One Road
220、initiative.Uzbekistan was granted EAEU observer status in December 2020.Trade policy in the Republic of Moldova focuses on the development of strong trade relations with the European Union countries within the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area(DCFTA)framework.In 2020,tariff quotas on exports of
221、 some goods to the European Union countries were revised upwards.In 2020,the first five-year period since the entry into force of the economic part of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement expired,laying the ground for its review over the next five years.Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova signed the
222、 Political,Free Trade and Strategic Partnership Agreement with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 2020.The Agreement is based on Association Agreements between these two countries and the European Union,andwill replace them in bilateral relations.Similarly,Georgia and the Un
223、ited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland signed the Strategic Partnership and Cooperation Agreement in 2020.In early 2021,Armenia ratified the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement with the European Union that envisages deeper cooperation in six areas:a better investment climate
224、;a more empowered civil society;cooperation in anti-crime activities;more transparent procurement procedures;amendments to the legislation on food security and consumer protection;and adoption of European Union environmental standards.Changes in food and agricultural supportIn 2020,contraction of st
225、ate support to agriculture compared to two previous years was observed in almost all countries in the region.Exceptions where growth versus 2019 was recorded was observed in the Republic of Moldova(30 percent increase in the support in USD equivalent),Kazakhstan(+23 percent),Turkmenistan(+6percent),
226、Uzbekistan(+2 percent)and Ukraine(+2percent)(Table 1.3).In the Republic of Moldova,financing of the agricultural sector amounted to USD 109 million in 2020.Additional USD 17 million was allocated to compensate for damage caused by drought in 2020.There were no programmes intended to mitigate negativ
227、e consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in the agrifood sector.At the same time,agricultural producers could benefit from a number of measures covering the entire economy.Besides,the Russian Federation allocated 60 million Moldavian lei to the Republic of Moldova in 2020 for partial compensation for
228、 the damage caused to sown corn from drought in 2020 as well as to prepare the soil for the 2021 harvest.State support to agriculture in Kazakhstan increased almost eightfold in 2020 compared to 2018,which is with the countrys commitments to the WTO.In 2020 USD 600 million was disbursed for these pu
229、rposes as compared to USD 486 million in 2019 and only USD 80 million in 2018.In 2020,additional USD 134 million was disbursed to fund support programmes in the agricultural sector due to the COVID-19 pandemic.In the same year,certain changes occurred in the domestic policy of state support to agric
230、ulture,aiming to reduce inefficient subsidies and improve the efficiency of some agricultural support instruments.Following the reform,the share of subsidies in plant growing was 67.3 percent;whereas,the share of animal husbandry was 32.7 percent.Slight increases in state support to agriculture were
231、 observed also in Turkmenistan,Uzbekistan and Ukraine.An important development in Turkmenistan,a special agricultural land fund was established for the manufacture of agricultural products included in the government order.Land plots from this fund are granted to agricultural producers for use for up
232、 to 99 years,which is believed to strengthen farmers interest in production ramp-up.In 20192020,state purchase prices of wheat,wheat flour and cotton remained in force.Uzbekistan has been gradually eliminating the practice of crop production based on government orders since the 2020 harvest.The prac
233、tice of setting purchase prices of raw cotton has been abolished since the 2020 harvest,whereas raw cotton producers are granted the right to free variety placement of the released cotton plant.In 2020,the rates of water resource use tax for the water volumes used for irrigation were reduced to miti
234、gate the adverse effects of the pandemic.Besides,agricultural land tax deferral was granted for the pandemic period:the tax due date was postponed from 1 September to 1 December 2020.Ukraine made amendments to its legislation in 2020 which confirm the priority of state support to small farms,includi
235、ng family farms,owning or using up to 100 hectares of agricultural land.Other prioritized areas include animal husbandry(including niche branches such as sheep raising,goat raising,and aquaculture);support to organic production,horticulture,vegetable growing and berry production;and irrigation and r
236、estoration of drainage systems.No specific measures of support to the agricultural 18Review of agrifood trade policies in the Eastern Europe,Caucasus and Central Asia countries 20192020sector due to the COVID-19 pandemic were implemented in 2020.At the same time,agricultural producers could access a
237、 number of government-adopted measures aimed at supporting the economy as a whole.The largest reduction of budget financing for the agricultural sector in 2020 occurred in Tajikistan,where it decreased by 39 percent compared to the 2019 level.Asmall amount,USD 2 million,was disbursed for support to
238、the agricultural sector because of the COVID-19 pandemic.In Georgia,state support for agriculture decreased by 30percent in 2020 compared to the previous year(in USD equivalent),to USD 69 million.This cutback,however,was balanced by considerable financing under the programmes adopted in response to
239、COVID-19,amounting to USD 45million.Georgia did not apply any amber box measures of support to agriculture in 20192020.The level of budget financing for agriculture in Belarus decreased by 10 percent in 2020.Non-product-specific support measures made up 90 percent of the amber box measures.A package
240、 of legislative acts was adopted in 20192020,which provide for measures of financial rehabilitation,management efficiency improvement for insolvent agricultural organizations,and regional development.The volumes of budget financing for agriculture in the countries of the region,20182020,million mone
241、tary unitsTABLE 1.3.CountryCurrency 201820192020COVID-19(2020)Azerbaijan*national currency1 018 1 141 1 164 USD599 671 685 Armenia*national currency25 955 27 717 27 547 69 300 USD54 58 56 142 Belarus*national currency1 484 2 075 1 892 120 USD72998877050Georgia*national currency150 196 151 139 USD596
242、94845Kazakhstan*national currency27 700 185 930 247 712 55 400 USD80486600134Kyrgyzstan*national currency5 8585 4235 052USD857865Republic of Moldova*national currency1 4571 4831 882300USD878410917Russian Federation*national currency440 248481 670474 01816 520USD7 0107 4456 574229Tajikistan*national
243、currency57693061820USD6398602Turkmenistan*national currency15 291 16 792 17 788 USD4 369 4 798 5 082 Uzbekistan*national currency3 6004 6435 395 USD446525536Ukraine(2018*)20192020*national currency10 43112 23312 516USD369433443Notes:*actual financing;*actual financing from federal and regional budge
244、ts;*planned financing.Source:data by country-chapter authors.19Part 1.Key developments in agricultural trade in the EECCA countries in 20192020Agriculture support in Kyrgyzstan decreased by 17 percent in 2020 due to state budget cutbacks amid the pandemic.The largest reduction took place in the prog
245、rammes of subsidization of the loans provided to agricultural producers.The state support for the sector declined by USD 20 million as compared to support levels in 2018,amounting to USD 65 million in 2020.In the Russian Federation,two new subsidy schemes began to operate in 2020 via the“compensatin
246、g”and“stimulating”subsidies which replaced payments of uniform subsidies.The compensating subsidies include per hectare subsidies,subsidies to milk producers,partial compensation for the costs of procurement of pedigree livestock and elite seeds,support for traditional subsectors,and subsidies for a
247、gricultural insurance.The stimulating subsidies assume support for priority subsectors to be chosen by regional authorities from a state-defined list that includes grain and leguminous crops,oil crops,flax and hemp,field-grown vegetables,fruit and berries,grapes,milk,single-purpose cattle,and sheep
248、meat.A new state programme was developed in 2019,focusing not on agriculture but on development of rural infrastructure and improvement of the quality of the rural populations life.The total actual support to agriculture in Armenia(green and amber box measures)was USD 56 million in 2020,which is 2.4
249、 percent lower than the 2019 level,according to the country-chapter authors calculations.Of that amount,67 percent was allocated for support to irrigation activities.The country has taken a series of measures to overcome adverse economic effects of the pandemic,including in the agricultural sector:c
250、o-financing of targeted loans/leasing,provision of loans to food and processing industry enterprises depending on their commodity turnover,and employment support.ConclusionThe analysis of the changes occurring in the EECCA region in 20192020 showed that the COVID-19 pandemic had substantially distur
251、bed the tendency towards foreign trade policy liberalization observed in previous years.In particular,many countries adopted political decisions to tighten their export policies,which entailed both short-term adverse implications for the importing countries in the region and a long-term negative eff
252、ect on domestic manufacturers of the products covered by the bans and restrictions.Maintenance or renewal of such bans and restrictions can lead to the loss of incentives for production and export of agrifood commodities.Nevertheless,a positive aggregate balance of foreign agricultural product trade
253、 was maintained in the region in 20192020.Many countries drew conclusions from the difficulties emerging in traditional ways of carrying on international trade and attempted to implement digital technology as much as possible at various stages of agrifood product supply chains.In particular,some cou
254、ntries achieved progress in digitalization of the certification process and in paperless declaration of goods crossing the border;in addition,the practice of video inspection of goods was introduced to minimize pandemic spread risks.In view of that,both an opportunity and a need to accumulate knowle
255、dge and share experience on development and implementation of new technology in agricultural production and trade emerged.Alongside the pandemic,the agricultural sector in some countries was seriously affected by natural events such as drought in 2020.In the Republic of Moldova,in particular,the con
256、sequences of the drought were stronger in their negative effect than the COVID-19 pandemic impact:the countrys agricultural production output contracted by nearly 30 percent compared to the previous year.Overall,agriculture and agricultural trade in the EECCA space countries suffered less than other
257、 economic sectors amid a serious economic downfall.Moreover,the countries in the region continued to build new trade relations actively and re-activated integration processes despite the crisis.20Review of agrifood trade policies in the Eastern Europe,Caucasus and Central Asia countries 2019202021PA
258、RT 2Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the agrifood trade and trade policy in the Eastern Europe,Caucasus and Central Asia(EECCA)countries22Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the agrifood trade and trade policy in the EECCA countriesRoman MogilevskiiImpact of the pandemic on the socioeconomic develo
259、pment of the Eastern Europe,Caucasus and Central Asia countriesThe EECCA countries were severely hit by the COVID-19 pandemic.Many of them are among the countries which suffered the heaviest damage in terms of registered COVID-19 incidence and deaths per 1 million population as well as excess mortal
260、ity.3 Economic losses turned out to be severe as well.According to official data from national 3 Data and analysis of the indicators of public health damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic can be found at:https:/ourworldindata.org/coronavirus statistical agencies,nine of the regions 12countries reco
261、rded negative gross domestic product(GDP)growth rates,whereas economic slowdown was observed in each and every of them(see Figure 2.1).Themost extensive damage occurred in small open economies of Kyrgyzstan(with the most tangible GDP decline and growth rate decrease in 2020:-8.6 percent and-12.8 per
262、cent,respectively),Armenia,Georgia,and the Republic of Moldova.The least impacted by the pandemic was the economy of Belarus.FAO23Part 2.Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the agrifood trade and trade policy in the EECCA countriesShutterstockImpact of the COVID-19 pandemic on GDP of the EECCA region
263、 countries,2020-25-20-15-10-50510152025GDP growth rate,2020,%Loss of GDP in 2020,%of 2019 GDPGrowth rate of gross agricultural output,2020,%UkraineRepublic of MoldovaArmeniaGeorgiaBelarusKyrgyzstanUzbekistanTajikistanTurkmenistanRussian FederationKazakhstanAzerbaijanFIGURE 2.1Note:GDP losses were ca
264、lculated as deviation of the actual GDP growth rates in countries in 2020 from their average GDP growth rates for 2015-2019.Sources:statistical agencies of the regions countries,World Development Indicators,4 Asian Development Outlook 20215(data for Turkmenistan).4 https:/databank.worldbank.org/sour
265、ce/world-development-indicators5 https:/www.adb.org/publications/asian-development-outlook-202124Review of agrifood trade policies in the Eastern Europe,Caucasus and Central Asia countries 20192020The losses were triggered by a broad range of causes.Toprevent COVID-19 from spreading,all countries in
266、 the region(except Belarus and Turkmenistan)introduced rather tough quarantine measures in March-May 2020,later extending them with varying intensity.For this reason,a large number of sectors halted their operations almost completely or slowed them down substantially,particularly in consumer service
267、s,air transport,tourism,etc.Restrictions on cross-border movement of persons reduced labour mobility dramatically,which caused adverse shocks on both the demand side(temporary decrease in migrants remittances supporting household consumption in many countries in the region)and on the supply side(sho
268、rtage of labour in construction and projects of foreign investors employing international specialists).Inmany cases,economic losses were caused not only by the quarantine restrictions imposed inside a country but also by the measures undertaken in neighbouring countries or even in other parts of the
269、 world(see some examples of this kind below).Economic activity in the region was also adversely affected by a drop in global energy prices that occurred in the first quarter of 2020.In the longer term,the most serious economic and social losses can be connected with forced transition of schools and
270、higher educational institutions to distance learning which the education systems in most countries were not ready for and that resulted in an obvious deterioration of quality of education.Meanwhile,agriculture was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic relatively marginally or not at all.Gross agricultur
271、al output grew in 2020 compared to 2019 in all countries of the region except in the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine6(see Figure 2.1);agricultural output growth rates were higher than,or equal to,the average values for 2015-2019 in half of the countries under review.One of the reasons for the limite
272、d damage to the regions agriculture caused by the pandemic consists of the sectors relatively low dependence on imported production resources(seed material,fertilizers,veterinary medicines,plant protection agents,etc.)in many(though not all)EECCA countries.The resources supplied from abroad are ofte
273、n more effective,hence agricultural productivity under normal conditions decreases when they are not sufficiently used.In a critical situation like the pandemic,however,relying solely on domestic resources can turn into an advantage.Production sustainability in agriculture in the regions countries w
274、as also promoted by the fact that,by contrast with construction and services,migrants labour is used infrequently in the region,and therefore restrictions on cross-border movement of persons barely affected the sectors work.6 Agriculture of these two countries was severely hit by drought;see below.T
275、he country economies in this region were strongly affected by the behaviour of global prices of various primary commodities in 2020 and early 2021.The pandemic-related severe contraction of international air travel and other transportation led to a reduction of demand and drop in prices of oil7 and
276、other energy commodities,thus forcing most countries in the region to devalue their currencies against the US dollar.Such a development entailed a surge of consumer and especially food inflation in most EECCA countries which relied heavily on imports(see Figure 2.2).It was amplified by a significant
277、 rise in global food prices attributable to intense finance injections into the developed economies as part of their governments response to the pandemic and of the strict quarantine measures introduced8.According to the FAO Food Price Index,9 world food prices grew by 40 percent in May 2021 year-on
278、-year;in particular,price growth was 125percent for vegetable oil,57 percent for sugar,37percent for cereals,28 percent for dairy products,and 10 percent for meat.As a result,food inflation rates in 2020 turned out higher than or equal to 5 percent in ten of eleven countries in the region(data for T
279、urkmenistan not available)whereas they exceeded 10 percent in the Central Asian countries.Clearly,the rise in prices of food products is quite tangible to the population,especially to its lower-income part,and calls for response from governments.Therefore,while the quarantine measures were the main
280、pandemic-related upheaval for the EECCA economies in the first half of 2020,food inflation has started to play the role of the main shock since the second half of 2020.In response to the pandemic-related challenges to socioeconomic development,governments of all EECCA countries undertook a package o
281、f measures aimed at preventing or mitigating the loss of revenues of individual,enterprises and the state budget.The measures included,in varying proportions,increasing the health care system spending,providing tax preferences and deferments,preferential loans and their repayment deferments to enter
282、prises and individuals,rendering direct support to vulnerable populations in the form of cash benefits and food aid,mobilizing foreign assistance,etc.The measures are reviewed in more detail below to the extent relating to agricultural trade policy.7 The crude oil price index published by the IMF dr
283、opped three times in April 2020 versus December 2019(https:/www.imf.org/en/Research/commodity-prices).8 https:/www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb4479en/;https:/www.forbes.ru/finansy-i-investicii/432965-vozvrashchenie-v-90-e-pochemu-rost-globalnoy-inflyacii-ne-povod-dlya9 http:/www.fao.org/worldfoods
284、ituation/foodpricesindex/en/25Part 2.Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the agrifood trade and trade policy in the EECCA countriesAccording to the database of the International Monetary Fund(IMF),10 the total value of the package of state programmes aimed at mitigating consequences of the pandemic i
285、n the regions countries varies within 0-6 percent of GDP(Figure 2.3).According to the same source,the global average amount of this spending is 15.3 percent of the global GDP.If we exclude from consideration the worlds most developed economies possessing huge resources to provide large-scale assista
286、nce,the median value of the total cost of the state support measures across the other 152 countries included in the above-mentioned database is 3.5 percent of GDP.Hence,anti-pandemic 10 https:/www.imf.org/en/Topics/imf-and-covid19/Fiscal-Policies-Database-in-Response-to-COVID-19.According to the IMF
287、 information,these data includes various forms of state support to the economies,considering both actually incurred and planned expenses.These estimates may differ from the values operated with by governments of the regions countries.expenses in the EECCA countries were at a level typical of most de
288、veloped countries.Remarkably,a positive correlation between the economic development level and the volume of state support measures is observed on the global scale(see median values for different country groups in Figure 3).However,there is clearly no such correlation among the countries of the regi
289、on under review(for example,Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation did not spend more resources relative to GDP to combat the pandemic than some countries in the region with a lower GDP(Georgia,Kyrgyzstan,Uzbekistan).Dynamics of consumer prices and national currency exchange rates in the EECCA countr
290、ies,December 2020 to December 2019 growth rate,percent-303691215182124Exchange rate of the national currency against the US dollarConsumer price indexFood price index%UkraineRepublicof MoldovaArmeniaGeorgiaBelarusKyrgyzstanUzbekistanTajikistanTurkmenistanRussianFederationKazakhstanAzerbaijanFIGURE 2
291、.2Sources:statistical agencies and central banks in the regions countries.26Review of agrifood trade policies in the Eastern Europe,Caucasus and Central Asia countries 20192020Pandemic-related shocks which had an impact on agrifood tradeThe economy-wide shocks caused by the COVID-19 pandemic embrace
292、d also agrifood trade in the EECCA countries.Two key forms of the pandemic effect on the trade can be singled out:yshocks related to the pandemics global effects and having led to devaluation of currencies of the regions countries and to the growth of global food prices;and yshocks related to region
293、al or national effects of the pandemic,including imposition of quarantine measures,decline of peoples income and demand for food,and measures undertaken by the states to support their economy.Presented below is a qualitative assessment of the impact the shocks had on various components of agrifood t
294、rade in the countries under review.Devaluation of national currencies.The devaluation of national currencies against the US dollar,Euro and Chinese yuan,which took place in many countries of the region early in the pandemic,resulted in the improvement of their products price competitiveness outside
295、the region.All other things being equal,that encouraged growth of agrifood exports to the above-mentioned markets.In contrast,prices of the products imported from outside the region increased as a consequence of the devaluation.The change in the total value of imports depended on price elasticity of
296、 demand for various imported products and had no unique direction:it was positive(growth versus 2019)in some countries of the region and negative in others.A larger share of agrifood trade in the EECCA region11 accounts for deliveries among countries in the region.Since devaluation against the US do
297、llar was not taking place uniformly,some currencies could slightly strengthen against other ones(for example,the Russian ruble strengthened against the Belarusian ruble and weakened against the Uzbekistani som).Therefore,devaluation effects 11 More than 50 percent of agrifood trade turnover in all t
298、he regions countries,except for the Republic of Moldova,the Russian Federation and Ukraine(data from UN Comtrade or national customs services for 20192020).In the above-mentioned three countries,the intra-region trade also makes up a sizable share of their trade turnover.State expenses for support o
299、f socioeconomic development of the regions countries during the pandemic,January 2020 April 202103691215G20Median valuesCountries of the region%GDPUkraineRepublicof MoldovaArmeniaGeorgiaBelarusKyrgyzstanUzbekistanTajikistanTurkmenistanRussianFederationKazakhstanAzerbaijanDeveloping countriesLow inco
300、me developing countriesPost-Soviet countriesFIGURE 2.3Note:country breakdown into groups as per the data source used.Source:IMF database of fiscal measures.27Part 2.Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the agrifood trade and trade policy in the EECCA countriessome crossing points remained open on each
301、 of the borders;therefore,exchange of goods among the countries was going on,though at a slower than normal pace because of the emerging queues and sophisticated border crossing procedures(checking the drivers for negative COVID-19 tests and the like).All that resulted in contraction of both exports
302、 and imports of agrifood commodities,loss of perishable products,and growing transport costs.At the same time,the damage caused by the decrease in the number of active border crossing points did not reach any substantial figure because most of them were reopened two or three months after the pandemi
303、c had begun.Foreign trade in agrifood commodities was also indirectly affected by difficulties in the transportation of freights inside countries and in their access to markets and shops during the validity period of quarantine restrictions.Demand for food.The economic downturn caused by the pandemi
304、c had an impact on the demand for food.Decline in individual incomes in the region and the restrictions imposed on restaurants and other public catering enterprises reduced the demand for food products with high income elasticity.They include relatively expensive,high-quality and nutritionally valua
305、ble products(some categories of meat,fish,dairy products,fruit and vegetables,and finished food products)a considerable part of which are imported.Due to the shift of school education to distance learning mode,forced curtailment of school feeding programmes occurred.It is also worth mentioning the p
306、anic that began in the consumer market because of high uncertainty at the start of the pandemic and resulted in price growth and,in some cases,in temporary shortage of some key food products.The panic settled soon but it contributed to a general feeling of instability which influenced the choice of
307、state regulation measures concerning agrifood trade in some countries of the region(see below).Besides,shocks for agrifood trade,unrelated to the pandemic,happened in some countries.These include the above-mentioned drought in the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine where gross agricultural output decli
308、ned by 27.1 percent and 10.1 percent,respectively,in 2020.That led to slowdown/lack of growth of total agrifood product exports from these countries despite favourable market conditions and some increase in imports.A detailed analysis of the changes in foreign trade in agrifood products,which took p
309、lace in the EECCA countries in 2020,is presented in Part 1 of this review.for the part of trade turnover that accounts for intra-region trade were much less pronounced.Growth of global food prices.The above-mentioned growth of global food prices,which accelerated in the second half of 2020 and conti
310、nued in 2021,related to alarge part of the goods exported by the EECCA countries.Wheat and other cereals,wheat flour,sugar,oil seeds and vegetable oil that is,the goods which have become much more expensive in the world market account for more than 50 percent of the total agricultural exports of the
311、 group of countries under review.Accordingly,it created conditions for boosting deliveries of such goods abroad,which was made use of by the Russian Federation(according to UN Comtrade data,the Russian exports increased by 14 percent in 2020 compared to 2019).Inother countries of the region which ar
312、e large exporters of agrifood products(Belarus,Kazakhstan,Republic of Moldova,Ukraine),considerable growth of exports was not observed because of drought or other reasons.Onthe other hand,countries importing agricultural products(those of South Caucasus and Central Asia,except Kazakhstan)had to eith
313、er reduce physical volumes of imports of select products,or to increase expenses for their procurement,or sometimes both.Quarantine measures.The measures undertaken by governments of the regions countries and/or their neighbours to restrict international mobility of persons for the purpose of preven
314、ting/limiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2 virus mainly affected the movement of persons(labour migration,tourism,business,study and other travels)but also influenced freight transportation servicing agrifood trade.In particular,such restrictive measures were adopted by China thereby affecting trade wit
315、h this country.Since November 2020,12 the Chinese authorities have toughened requirements on the receipt of cargos arriving from abroad,allowing only containerized cargos to cross the border.This measure severely hit Kazakhstani exports of cereals and oil crops usually shipped in bags in covered rai
316、lroad cars.The quantity of railroad cars from Kazakhstan waiting on the border,or returned to the place of their departure,numbered in the thousands.Similar measures,but for road transport(prohibited entry into the countrys territory except for the exchange of truck trailers on the border)were impos
317、ed by China on the China-Kyrgyzstan border as well.Trade in some areas of the region(for example,in Central Asia)was also complicated due to temporary closure of a great number of state border crossing points,especially those designed for road transport.Nevertheless,to date,12 https:/kursiv.kz/news/
318、otraslevye-temy/2021-04/vagony-s-zernom-dlya-kitaya-vozvraschayut-v-kazakhstan 28Review of agrifood trade policies in the Eastern Europe,Caucasus and Central Asia countries 20192020Measures taken in agrifood trade policies and their efficiency levelConsidering the scale of challenges to food securit
319、y and the pandemic-related degree of uncertainty,governments of the EECCA countries took a variety of agrifood trade policy measures aiming to ensure availability and affordability of food products in their countries.The measures were short-term and extraordinary in most cases,differing from the lon
320、g-term policies that the national governments had pursued before the pandemic.All the state regulation measures implemented in the region which influenced agrifood trade can be divided into four groups:yensuring unhindered import of food products;yrestricting export of food to prevent its outflow fr
321、om the domestic market;ysupporting domestic food producers;and ysupporting food consumers by stabilizing their income and protecting against price growth.The main types of measures belonging to each of these groups are reviewed below.Specific examples are provided in Table 2.1 demonstrating that eac
322、h country uses its own selection of regulatory instruments.Unhindered import.The logic behind this measure is to facilitate an inflow of food,foraging from abroad what is necessary to fill the domestic market.Therewith,the considerations concerning the restriction of competition in the domestic mark
323、et to protect domestic producers,which shaped policies in some countries of the region,were de facto deemed less important for some time.The following types/subgroups of the measures introduced in terms of import of key food products can be singled out:yreducing or zeroing import duty rates(cereals,
324、flour,vegetables,baby food,etc.),and introducing tariff quotas for critical import goods(sugar);yreducing or zeroing VAT rates for import;ysubsidizing import;yfacilitating trade procedures(for example,“green corridors”on the borders);and yalleviating regulation of import of genetically modified orga
325、nisms(GMOs).Analysing the import-related measures,consideration should also be given to the fact that domestic producers in the countries under review were granted additional protection due to the above-mentioned devaluation of national currencies.Under such conditions,the reduction of the tariff an
326、d technical protection against imports appears quite reasonable.Restrictions on export.The measures taken to restrict export of food can be broken down into:yimposing bans on export of key food products;ysetting quantitative export quotas;yintroducing export duties with fixed and floating13 rates;yi
327、mplementing an authorization-based procedure for export of some goods(in particular,sunflower seeds as per the EAEU boards resolution);and ydecelerating structural reforms concerning export promotion.These measures were substantiated by the need to prevent food outflow from the domestic market.They
328、were often taken in a hurry,without regard to whether there was any real risk for availability of food products.In particular,bans on the export of such goods as wheat and vegetable oil were imposed in the countries which traditionally import these goods and do not subsidize domestic prices(Kyrgyzst
329、an,Tajikistan),therefore risks of undesired export actually did not exist.The governments of the countries exporting these products(Belarus,Kazakhstan,the Russian Federation)were also introducing short-term export restrictions regardless of whether or not there were any reserve depletion risks or wh
330、ether export restrictions were economically expedient.Thus,most measures taken were psychological rather than dictated by rational considerations,and had no direct implications for trade flows in the region.Some measures(export duties)not so much limited export as represented tax instruments for par
331、tial withdrawal of the excess profits earned by exporters not due to their effective activities but owing to external factors(global price growth,devaluation of national currencies).Introduction of export 13 In case of a floating rate,its value is set weekly(or at other intervals)depending on curren
332、t export delivery prices.In particular,such a mechanism was introduced in the Russian Federation for export of cereals(see the Resolution of the Russian Federation Government No.117 of 6 February 2021).It can be seen that the export duty rate calculation mechanism laid out in the Resolution uses dol
333、lar prices.It means that the rate will change automatically as prices in global markets vary.To use a floating rate and mitigate devaluation shocks,prices nominated in national currency can be used in the mechanism.29Part 2.Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the agrifood trade and trade policy in the EECCA countriesduties under such circumstances appears justified.In some cases,the considerations