Researchers reveal major losses in Ukraine's agricultural sector caused by full-scale war
As of early 2025, Ukraine's agricultural sector has suffered an estimated US$11.2 billion worth of direct losses caused by the full-scale war and temporary occupation of territories.
Source: estimates by researchers at Ukraine's Institute of Agrarian Economics
Details: The total amount comprises losses from:
destruction and damage to agricultural machinery – US$6.5 billion (58%);
destruction and disruption of grain storage facilities – US$1.9 billion (17%);
theft and loss of production resources and finished products – US$1.9 billion (17%);
other damage – US$0.9 billion (8%).
The researchers say the largest losses by type of agricultural machinery are:
tractors – around 30,000;
combine harvesters – 2,500;
seeders – 11,000;
ploughs – 8,700.
Background: In early May, it was reported that the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation will allocate US$150 million to support rural communities in Ukraine affected by the war. The funding is part of a two-year Emergency and Early Recovery Response Plan (EERRP).
Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
22 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump's attacks on international student enrollment could ultimately shake the economy
The Trump administration's statements and actions aimed at curtailing the number of international students in the US have sent a chill of uncertainty through higher education institutions. These American schools have become more reliant on the higher tuition paid by international students as state and federal support has waned. Now, their financial viability could be shaken. That could have a negative impact on US-born students seeking a college education, and economists and researchers warn that the ripple effects could extend well beyond the lawns of college campuses: A drop-off in international students could reverberate through the US labor market and broader economy in years to come. 'The skill premium, as we call it, is very large, which is why highly educated workers earn so much more,' said Michael Lovenheim, a labor economist and professor at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations. International students, he added, 'generate not only returns to themselves through higher wages, but they work in sectors that generate economic growth, they start businesses, they work in high-growth areas that generate more productivity and increase [Gross Domestic Product].' And that economic impact, he said, is 'positive and large.' During the 2023-24 academic year, 1.1 million international students were credited with supporting 378,175 jobs, half of which were at colleges and universities and the rest being in other sectors such as housing, food service, retail, transportation and insurance, according to NAFSA: Association of International Educators. All told, that amounted to a record-high economic contribution of $43.8 billion, according to the member-based organization. Reducing enrollment or hurting international students' desire to study in America, he added, will 'lessen our economic competitiveness in the medium run and maybe the long run as well, depending on how things play out.' The Trump administration's efforts to limit international students have already affected the Global Migration Center, an interdisciplinary research center at the University of California, Davis, said center director Giovanni Peri, an economist and UC-Davis professor who has researched the economic impacts of international migration. 'The new cohort of students that are coming (from other countries), we've already lost a few of them because of the uncertainty of the funding and the visa that we're providing,' Peri told CNN in an interview. 'A couple of people who were from Europe decided to go to England.' And the international students currently conducting research at the center are experiencing hardships as well, he added. 'They are really struggling with their funding; they are not traveling internationally. A couple of my students could not go to international conferences in the last couple of months because they were worried they would not have been able to come back' because of worries they'd get stopped at the border, Peri said. The research itself, he added, has become harder with reduced funding. 'It took a long time for the US to establish itself as, by far, the strongest university environment in the world,' he said. 'But things change, and things can change in a more permanent way.' If international students elect to instead study in Canada, Europe, Australia or other regions, that loss will ultimately damage the US economy, he said. 'The rate at which foreign students create firms in the United States after graduation is about four times as large as the rate at which Americans create,' Peri said, citing his research on the topic. 'So, there will be fewer companies created. There will be fewer scientists and engineers to fill other companies in the US; there will be less growth of companies, jobs, and lower income in many local economies.' The potential business generation effect already is hampered by immigration restrictions or challenges, Peri noted. In an earlier study, he and his colleagues found that because of immigration and visa restrictions, only 20% of international US Master's graduates remained in the US and worked for at least two years. There have been legislative proposals to give a green card to students who earn a degree in the US (a policy that Trump publicly supported), Peri said, adding that 'not only this has not happened, but we have made several steps in the opposite direction.' 'This is now a completely different world, but this idea of students who study in the US should be able, if the company makes an offer, to have a visa had such a consensus that was so broad and so bipartisan,' he said. 'Because everybody saw that the US helped these students and this human capital to be created and that some of the benefits could stay in the US if there is an option.' If the Trump administration's policies and approach toward international students don't change significantly, these negative consequences could be felt in the broader US economy in two to three years, he added. Not excusing the 'brutality' of the Trump administration's approach, recent events could drive a meaningful debate around the internationalization of the American student body, David Bell, a history professor at Princeton, wrote Tuesday in a New York Times opinion piece. Bell noted that 1.1 million international students enrolled in the 2023-2024 school year — four times the enrollment 45 years ago. 'Like many large social changes, this one happened without much conscious planning or debate,' he wrote. 'Foreign students kept applying in ever greater numbers, and universities happily admitted them, since non-Americans receive merit- and need-based financial assistance at much lower rates than Americans do. It has taken Donald Trump's crude and vengeful swipe at Harvard to draw much attention to the subject.' In a follow-up interview with CNN, Bell noted the potential trade-offs with expanding international enrollment: On one hand, universities can serve as engines for future economic growth and further global relationships; on the other hand, universities potentially could fall short when serving homegrown applicants. 'The past couple of decades, the trend has been very, very strongly toward a steady increase in the number of international students, and I think it may be worth asking whether we should be continuing with that increase, or should we keep (enrollment) at the current level or even decrease the level of international students slightly,' Bell said. 'Not doing anything precipitous, not doing anything brutal as the administration seems to be attempting to do, but simply keeping an eye on the situation and recognizing the trade-offs.'
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
BofA's Hartnett Says Stocks Are Close to Setting Off Sell Signal
(Bloomberg) -- Global stocks are close to triggering a sell signal as both fund inflows and the market breadth are running too hot, says Bank of America Corp. strategist Michael Hartnett. Next Stop: Rancho Cucamonga! ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract Where Public Transit Systems Are Bouncing Back Around the World US Housing Agency Vulnerable to Fraud After DOGE Cuts, Documents Warn The Global Struggle to Build Safer Cars He cited a data point that stock and high-yield bond inflows have totaled 0.9% of fund managers' overall assets in the past four weeks. In his view, investors should sell if the ratio increases to more than 1%. At the same time, about 84% of country indexes are trading above their 50- and 200-day moving averages, suggesting the market is in overbought territory, Hartnett said. Global equities hit a record high this week on optimism around US-China trade negotiations and as robust economic data eased recession fears in the US. The focus later on Friday is on the US jobs report as investors look for confirmation of a healthy labor market. In terms of flows, global equity funds have attracted about $515 billion so far this year, tracking their second-biggest inflows on record, according to the weekly Bank of America note citing EPFR Global data. Hartnett has recommended international equities over US stocks, adding that the S&P 500's rebound is not supported by earnings growth. The index closed Thursday at 5,939.30 points, about 3% below its February record. --With assistance from Michael Msika. Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
BofA's Hartnett Says Stocks Are Close to Setting Off Sell Signal
(Bloomberg) -- Global stocks are close to triggering a sell signal as both fund inflows and the market breadth are running too hot, says Bank of America Corp. strategist Michael Hartnett. Next Stop: Rancho Cucamonga! ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract Where Public Transit Systems Are Bouncing Back Around the World US Housing Agency Vulnerable to Fraud After DOGE Cuts, Documents Warn The Global Struggle to Build Safer Cars He cited a data point that stock and high-yield bond inflows have totaled 0.9% of fund managers' overall assets in the past four weeks. In his view, investors should sell if the ratio increases to more than 1%. At the same time, about 84% of country indexes are trading above their 50- and 200-day moving averages, suggesting the market is in overbought territory, Hartnett said. Global equities hit a record high this week on optimism around US-China trade negotiations and as robust economic data eased recession fears in the US. The focus later on Friday is on the US jobs report as investors look for confirmation of a healthy labor market. In terms of flows, global equity funds have attracted about $515 billion so far this year, tracking their second-biggest inflows on record, according to the weekly Bank of America note citing EPFR Global data. Hartnett has recommended international equities over US stocks, adding that the S&P 500's rebound is not supported by earnings growth. The index closed Thursday at 5,939.30 points, about 3% below its February record. --With assistance from Michael Msika. Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
