13
The 13th Bell
Politics, power, and the world
September 2026 IssueExplore
FOOD SECURITY

The Grain Deal Nobody Signed

Informal arrangements move more food through contested waters than any formal agreement does. Nobody wants to acknowledge them.

An airport cargo loader on the apron in front of a hangar
Bulk carriers move on schedules shaped by insurance terms as much as by diplomacy.
August 30, 20263 min read

Formal agreements on wartime shipping get announced, celebrated, and suspended. The tonnage keeps moving anyway, through arrangements that exist in practice and not on paper.

The mechanics are mundane. Insurers price a route, shipowners decide whether the premium works, and traders adjust origins and destinations until the arithmetic closes. Governments signal tolerance without committing to anything they would have to defend later.

This works, in the sense that food reaches buyers, and it is fragile in a way that formal arrangements are not. There is no dispute mechanism, no guarantee, and no recourse when a shipment is stopped.

It persists because everyone involved prefers deniable flexibility to a document. That preference is rational for each party and leaves importing countries with the least ability to plan carrying the risk.

The reason to care about an arrangement nobody signed is that it carries real tonnage, and the countries most dependent on that tonnage have the least ability to influence whether it continues.

Formal agreements have a property informal ones lack, and it is not enforceability. It is legibility. A signed document tells a buyer in an importing country what was promised, by whom, and what happens if it stops.

The depositary records of formal agreements exist precisely so that a state can check what it is owed. An arrangement conducted through insurance pricing and quiet tolerance leaves no equivalent trace.

The maritime layer is more structured than the political one, which is easy to miss. Shipping runs on a dense body of convention and survey requirement administered through the international maritime framework, and those obligations do not lapse because a corridor is contested.

So a vessel in a war risk area is simultaneously inside a functioning legal system for safety and construction, and outside any system at all for whether it will be allowed to sail. The first is codified and the second is a matter of who is currently tolerating what.

Insurance is where the two meet, and it is the closest thing to a governing mechanism. A premium is a price on the probability of interference, set by people with no authority over the interference and no obligation to keep offering the cover.

That makes the arrangement responsive in a way a treaty is not. It also makes it revocable without notice, by parties who owe nothing to the importing country and who will not be blamed when the price moves.

Governments prefer this and their reasons are not disreputable. A formal commitment in a contested waterway is a promise that may have to be enforced, and enforcement means a decision about the use of force that nobody wants to pre-commit to.

The charter's provisions on the use of force are the background to that reluctance. A state that guarantees passage has taken on an obligation whose discharge is constrained by law it did not write.

Deniability solves that problem for the guarantor and transfers it to the buyer. The tonnage moves, the risk is priced, and the party that cannot hedge is the one purchasing food on a thin margin months in advance.

What would help is unglamorous and partial: publishing what is actually known about volumes and routes, through the ordinary machinery of trade administration, so that importing states can plan against a number rather than a rumour.

That does not make the arrangement durable, because nothing short of a commitment would. It would at least stop the least powerful participants from being the only ones operating without information.

It is worth being precise about what an informal arrangement is not. It is not a failure of diplomacy, and treating it as one leads to the wrong prescription, which is usually a demand that somebody sign something they have no intention of honouring.

The arrangement works because it is cheap to enter and cheap to leave. Those are the same property described twice, and any reform that removes the second will remove the first, which is why the corridors that function are the ones nobody has formalised.

Thomas Rennick writes for The 13th Bell on world. This piece was edited and fact checked before publication.

Get The 13th Bell in your inbox