Trade Policies for Agricultural Exports: Policy and Regulation

Agricultural trade is a vital component of the global economy, with the value of agricultural exports reaching over $1.8 trillion in 2019. For many countries, agricultural exports are a significant source of income, employment, and foreign exchange, and they play a crucial role in supporting rural development, food security, and economic growth. However, agricultural trade is also subject to a complex web of policies, regulations, and agreements at the national, regional, and international levels, which can have significant impacts on the competitiveness, sustainability, and equity of agricultural exports.

Trade policies for agricultural exports refer to the various measures and instruments that governments use to regulate and promote the production, marketing, and sale of agricultural products in international markets. These policies can include tariffs, quotas, subsidies, standards, and other non-tariff measures, as well as bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade agreements and institutions.

The objectives of trade policies for agricultural exports can vary depending on the country, commodity, and context, but they often aim to:

Increase market access and competitiveness for domestic agricultural producers and exporters
Protect domestic agricultural sectors from foreign competition and price volatility
Promote food security, rural development, and environmental sustainability
Ensure food safety, quality, and traceability for consumers
Comply with international trade rules and obligations

The design and implementation of trade policies for agricultural exports involve a complex interplay of economic, political, and social factors, as well as the interests and influence of various stakeholders, such as farmers, agribusinesses, consumers, and civil society organizations. Trade policies can have significant distributional impacts, creating winners and losers among different groups and sectors, and they can also have unintended consequences and spillover effects on other policy areas, such as environmental protection, public health, and human rights.

Historical and Current Context of Agricultural Trade

Evolution of Agricultural Trade and Trade Policies

Agricultural trade has a long and complex history, dating back to ancient times when civilizations exchanged food, spices, and other agricultural products along the Silk Road and other trade routes. However, the modern era of agricultural trade and trade policies began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with the rise of industrialization, colonialism, and globalization.

During this period, many countries adopted protectionist trade policies, such as high tariffs and import quotas, to shield their domestic agricultural sectors from foreign competition and to promote self-sufficiency and food security. These policies were often motivated by political and strategic considerations, as well as by the desire to support rural livelihoods and to maintain social stability.

After World War II, there was a gradual shift towards trade liberalization and multilateralism, as countries sought to promote economic growth, reduce poverty, and foster international cooperation. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), established in 1947, provided a framework for reducing trade barriers and resolving trade disputes, although agriculture was largely excluded from its initial rounds of negotiations.

In the 1980s and 1990s, there was a renewed push for agricultural trade liberalization, driven by the increasing globalization of food supply chains, the growth of agribusiness and multinational corporations, and the pressure from developing countries to access developed country markets. The Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations concluded in 1994, resulted in the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), which aimed to reduce trade-distorting domestic support, export subsidies, and market access barriers for agricultural products.

The AoA marked a significant step towards the integration of agriculture into the multilateral trading system, but it also faced criticisms and limitations, such as the unequal distribution of benefits and costs among countries and producers, the lack of progress on reducing trade-distorting support in developed countries, and the limited scope for promoting food security, rural development, and environmental sustainability.

Since the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, there have been further efforts to reform and liberalize agricultural trade, through the Doha Development Round of negotiations launched in 2001. However, these negotiations have stalled due to disagreements over issues such as domestic support, market access, and special and differential treatment for developing countries.

In recent years, there has been a proliferation of bilateral and regional trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), and the European Union-Mercosur trade deal, which have sought to further liberalize agricultural trade and address new issues, such as e-commerce, intellectual property rights, and labor and environmental standards. However, these agreements have also faced criticisms and opposition from various stakeholders, who have raised concerns about their impacts on food security, rural livelihoods, biodiversity, and public health.

Current Patterns and Trends in Agricultural Trade

Agricultural trade has grown significantly in recent decades, driven by factors such as population growth, urbanization, rising incomes, and changing consumer preferences. In 2019, global agricultural exports reached a value of over $1.8 trillion, accounting for around 10% of total merchandise trade. The top agricultural exporters in 2019 were the European Union, the United States, Brazil, China, and Canada, while the top agricultural importers were the European Union, China, the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

The composition of agricultural trade has also shifted over time, with a growing share of high-value and processed products, such as fruits, vegetables, meat, dairy, and packaged foods, compared to traditional bulk commodities, such as grains and oilseeds. This shift reflects the increasing demand for convenience, quality, and variety in food products, as well as the growth of global value chains and the role of agribusiness and food companies in shaping food systems.

However, agricultural trade also remains highly concentrated and unequal, with a small number of countries and companies dominating global markets and value chains. For example, the top five agricultural exporting countries accounted for around 40% of global agricultural exports in 2019, while the top five agricultural commodities (soybeans, corn, wheat, palm oil, and meat) accounted for around 20% of global agricultural trade.

Moreover, many developing countries, particularly in Africa and South Asia, remain net food importers and face significant challenges in participating in and benefiting from agricultural trade, due to factors such as low productivity, poor infrastructure, limited access to finance and technology, and trade barriers and distortions in developed country markets.

The COVID-19 pandemic has also had significant impacts on agricultural trade and food systems, disrupting supply chains, altering consumer behavior, and exacerbating existing inequalities and vulnerabilities. The pandemic has highlighted the importance of resilient and diversified food systems, as well as the need for greater international cooperation and coordination to address global challenges, such as food insecurity, climate change, and biodiversity loss.

In this context, there is a growing recognition of the need to reform and rebalance trade policies for agricultural exports, to promote a more sustainable, inclusive, and resilient global food system. This requires a holistic and integrated approach that considers the multiple dimensions and impacts of agricultural trade, as well as the diverse interests and needs of different stakeholders, from farmers and consumers to policymakers and civil society organizations.

Types and Instruments of Trade Policies for Agricultural Exports

Tariffs and Quotas

Tariffs and quotas are among the most common and visible types of trade policies for agricultural exports. Tariffs are taxes imposed on imported goods, which can raise the price of imported products and protect domestic producers from foreign competition. Quotas are quantitative restrictions on the amount of a particular good that can be imported, which can limit the supply of imported products and support domestic prices.

Tariffs on agricultural products can take different forms, such as ad valorem tariffs (expressed as a percentage of the value of the imported product), specific tariffs (expressed as a fixed amount per unit of the imported product), or compound tariffs (combining ad valorem and specific tariffs). Tariffs can also vary depending on the product, the country of origin, and the season, and they can be subject to preferential rates or exemptions under trade agreements or unilateral concessions.

Quotas on agricultural products can also take different forms, such as absolute quotas (fixed limits on the quantity of imports), tariff rate quotas (TRQs) (allowing a certain quantity of imports at a lower tariff rate and applying a higher tariff rate to imports above that quantity), or voluntary export restraints (VERs) (negotiated agreements between importing and exporting countries to limit the quantity or value of exports).

Tariffs and quotas can have significant impacts on agricultural trade and food systems, by affecting the prices, availability, and diversity of food products, as well as the incomes and livelihoods of farmers and other actors in the food supply chain. High tariffs and restrictive quotas can protect domestic producers from foreign competition and support domestic prices, but they can also raise food prices for consumers, limit consumer choice and product variety, and create inefficiencies and distortions in resource allocation.

Moreover, tariffs and quotas can have distributional impacts, benefiting some producers and sectors at the expense of others, and creating winners and losers among countries and regions. For example, high tariffs on imported food products can benefit domestic farmers but harm food processing industries and consumers, while preferential tariffs or quotas for certain countries or regions can create trade diversion and discrimination against other trading partners.

Subsidies and Domestic Support

Subsidies and domestic support are another important type of trade policy for agricultural exports. Subsidies are financial payments or other forms of assistance provided by governments to farmers, agribusinesses, or other actors in the food supply chain, which can affect the production, prices, and trade of agricultural products. Domestic support refers to the overall level and composition of subsidies and other forms of assistance provided to the agricultural sector, which can distort trade and competition in global markets.

Subsidies and domestic support can take various forms, such as direct payments to farmers based on output, input use, or land area; price support programs that maintain domestic prices above market levels; subsidized credit, insurance, or infrastructure for farmers and agribusinesses; or public research, extension, and marketing services for the agricultural sector.

The WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) classifies domestic support into three "boxes" based on their potential to distort trade: the "amber box" (subject to reduction commitments and limits), the "blue box" (exempt from reduction commitments but subject to conditions), and the "green box" (exempt from reduction commitments and minimally trade-distorting). However, the classification and measurement of domestic support remain contentious issues in agricultural trade negotiations, with disagreements over the scope, definition, and impact of different types of support.

Subsidies and domestic support can have significant impacts on agricultural trade and food systems, by influencing the competitiveness, profitability, and sustainability of different types of producers and production systems. On the one hand, subsidies and domestic support can help to address market failures, support rural livelihoods, and promote food security and environmental sustainability, by providing incentives for the adoption of sustainable practices, the provision of public goods, and the management of risks and uncertainties.

On the other hand, subsidies and domestic support can also create trade distortions and imbalances, by artificially lowering the costs of production and export for subsidized producers, and by displacing or discouraging production and trade by non-subsidized or less-subsidized producers. Moreover, subsidies and domestic support can have distributional impacts, benefiting larger and more politically connected producers and sectors, while disadvantaging smaller and more marginalized producers and communities.

Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs)

Non-tariff measures (NTMs) are a broad and diverse category of trade policies that can affect agricultural exports, beyond tariffs and quotas. NTMs can include a wide range of measures, such as sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, technical trade barriers (TBT), pre-shipment inspections, import licensing, export restrictions, and trade remedies (e.g. anti-dumping duties, countervailing duties, and safeguards).

SPS measures are measures applied to protect human, animal, or plant life or health from risks arising from pests, diseases, additives, contaminants, or toxins in food and feed. TBT measures are technical regulations, standards, and conformity assessment procedures that define specific characteristics of products or their related processes and production methods. Both SPS and TBT measures can affect agricultural trade by setting requirements for product quality, safety, labeling, packaging, or other attributes.

Other types of NTMs can also affect agricultural trade by creating additional costs, delays, or uncertainties for exporters and importers. For example, pre-shipment inspections and import licensing can add administrative burdens and compliance costs for traders, while export restrictions can limit the availability and raise the prices of agricultural products in global markets.

NTMs can have both positive and negative impacts on agricultural trade and food systems, depending on their design, implementation, and context. On the positive side, NTMs can help to ensure food safety, quality, and sustainability, protect public health and the environment, and promote consumer information and choice. NTMs can also create opportunities for product differentiation, value addition, and market segmentation, based on attributes such as organic, fair trade, or geographical indications.

On the negative side, NTMs can also create trade barriers and distortions, by imposing unnecessary or discriminatory requirements on imported products, or by creating inconsistencies and duplications among different countries' regulations. NTMs can also create compliance costs and capacity constraints for exporters, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises and for producers in developing countries, who may lack the resources and expertise to meet complex and changing requirements.

Moreover, NTMs can be used as disguised forms of protectionism, by setting standards or procedures that favor domestic producers over foreign competitors, or by creating delays and uncertainties that discourage trade. The WTO agreements on SPS and TBT aim to ensure that NTMs are based on scientific principles, are not more trade-restrictive than necessary, and do not discriminate against imported products. However, the implementation and enforcement of these agreements remain challenging, given the complexity and diversity of NTMs and the limited capacity of many countries to participate in and benefit from the multilateral trading system.

Trade Agreements and Negotiations

Trade agreements and negotiations are another important aspect of trade policies for agricultural exports. Trade agreements are formal arrangements between two or more countries to reduce trade barriers and promote trade and investment flows. Trade negotiations are the processes by which countries engage in dialogue and bargaining to reach trade agreements or to resolve trade disputes.

Trade agreements can take different forms, such as bilateral agreements between two countries, regional agreements among a group of countries in a particular geographic area, or multilateral agreements among a larger number of countries, such as the WTO. Trade agreements can cover a wide range of issues related to agricultural trade, such as tariffs, quotas, subsidies, NTMs, intellectual property rights, investment, services, and sustainable development.

Trade negotiations can also take place at different levels and forums, such as the WTO, regional trade blocs (e.g. the European Union, NAFTA/USMCA, Mercosur), or bilateral dialogues between countries. Trade negotiations often involve complex and lengthy processes of agenda-setting, stakeholder consultations, technical discussions, and political bargaining, which can take years or even decades to conclude.

Trade agreements and negotiations can have significant impacts on agricultural trade and food systems, by creating new market opportunities, reducing trade costs and uncertainties, and promoting policy coordination and harmonization among countries. Trade agreements can also create competitive pressures and adjustment costs for domestic producers and sectors, and can have distributional impacts on different regions, industries, and social groups.

The impact of trade agreements on agricultural trade and food systems depends on various factors, such as the level of ambition and coverage of the agreement, the capacity and competitiveness of the participating countries, the complementarity or substitutability of their agricultural sectors, and the coherence and consistency of their domestic policies and regulations.

In recent years, there has been a growing debate about the benefits and costs of trade agreements for agricultural trade and food systems, particularly in the context of the Doha Round impasse and the proliferation of bilateral and regional trade agreements. Some stakeholders argue that trade agreements can promote economic growth, poverty reduction, and food security, by creating new market opportunities and reducing trade distortions and inefficiencies. Others argue that trade agreements can exacerbate inequalities, environmental degradation, and public health risks, by promoting industrial agriculture, undermining local food systems, and limiting policy space for sustainable development.

There is also a growing recognition of the need to reform and rebalance trade agreements and negotiations, to better address the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, digitalization, and the COVID-19 pandemic. This requires a more inclusive, transparent, and coherent approach to trade policymaking, that involves a wider range of stakeholders and perspectives, and that aligns trade policies with other policy objectives, such as the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Key Actors and Institutions in Agricultural Trade Policy

National Governments and Ministries

National governments and ministries are the primary actors in shaping and implementing trade policies for agricultural exports. Governments have the sovereign authority to negotiate and enter into trade agreements, set tariffs and other trade measures, and regulate domestic agricultural and food policies. Ministries of agriculture, trade, and foreign affairs are typically the lead agencies responsible for formulating and coordinating agricultural trade policies, in consultation with other relevant ministries and stakeholders.

National governments and ministries can have different objectives and approaches to agricultural trade policy, depending on their political, economic, and social contexts. Some governments may prioritize the protection and support of domestic agricultural producers, particularly in politically sensitive or strategically important sectors, such as grains, dairy, or sugar. Other governments may prioritize the promotion of agricultural exports and the opening of new markets, particularly in sectors where they have a comparative advantage or where there is strong demand from trading partners.

National governments and ministries can also face various constraints and challenges in formulating and implementing agricultural trade policies, such as limited technical capacity and resources, competing domestic interests and lobbies, and international pressures and obligations. Governments need to balance multiple and sometimes conflicting objectives, such as ensuring food security and rural livelihoods, promoting economic growth and competitiveness, and complying with WTO rules and other trade agreements.

Moreover, national governments and ministries need to coordinate and align their agricultural trade policies with other policy areas, such as environmental protection, public health, and social development. This requires a whole-of-government approach that involves cross-sectoral dialogue, policy coherence, and multi-stakeholder engagement.

International Organizations and Trade Institutions

International organizations and trade institutions play a critical role in setting the rules, norms, and standards for agricultural trade, and in providing platforms for dialogue, negotiation, and dispute settlement among countries.

The most important international organizations and trade institutions for agricultural trade include:

The World Trade Organization (WTO): The WTO is the primary global institution for trade rules and negotiations, with 164 member countries as of 2021. The WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) sets the framework for reducing trade-distorting support, improving market access, and disciplining export subsidies in agricultural trade. The WTO also provides a dispute settlement mechanism for resolving trade conflicts among members.
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): The FAO is a specialized agency of the United Nations that leads international efforts to defeat hunger and improve nutrition and food security. The FAO provides technical assistance, policy advice, and capacity building to member countries on agricultural and food issues, including trade-related matters.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): The OECD is an intergovernmental organization of 38 mostly high-income countries that promotes policies to improve economic and social well-being. The OECD provides data, analysis, and recommendations on agricultural policies and trade, and hosts the annual Agricultural Ministerial Meeting and other forums for policy dialogue.
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD): UNCTAD is the main UN body dealing with trade, investment, and development issues, particularly for developing countries. UNCTAD provides research, technical assistance, and capacity building on trade and development issues, including on agricultural trade and commodities.
Regional trade blocs and agreements: There are various regional trade blocs and agreements that include provisions on agricultural trade, such as the European Union (EU), the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). These regional frameworks can provide additional rules and disciplines on agricultural trade, as well as opportunities for policy coordination and harmonization among member countries.

International organizations and trade institutions can have both positive and negative impacts on agricultural trade and food systems, depending on their design, implementation, and context. On the positive side, they can provide a stable and predictable framework for trade, reduce trade barriers and distortions, and promote policy coordination and cooperation among countries. They can also provide technical assistance and capacity building to help developing countries participate in and benefit from agricultural trade.

On the negative side, international organizations and trade institutions can also perpetuate inequalities and power imbalances in the global trading system, by reflecting the interests and priorities of dominant countries and companies, and by limiting policy space for developing countries to pursue their own agricultural and food security strategies. They can also create compliance costs and capacity constraints for smaller and poorer countries, which may lack the resources and expertise to engage effectively in trade negotiations and dispute settlement processes.

Private Sector and Agribusiness Firms

The private sector and agribusiness firms are major actors in agricultural trade and food systems, as they are involved in the production, processing, distribution, and marketing of agricultural and food products across borders. The private sector includes a wide range of firms and industries, from small-scale farmers and cooperatives to large-scale agribusiness corporations and multinational companies.

Private sector and agribusiness firms can have significant influence on agricultural trade policies and outcomes, through their market power, lobbying activities, and participation in trade negotiations and dispute settlement processes. They can also shape consumer preferences and food systems through their marketing strategies, product innovations, and supply chain management practices.

Some of the largest and most influential agribusiness firms in the world include:

Bayer (Germany): A multinational pharmaceutical and chemical company that is also the world's largest supplier of seeds and pesticides, following its acquisition of Monsanto in 2018.
Cargill (USA): A global food corporation that is involved in the trading, processing, and distribution of agricultural commodities, as well as in animal nutrition, bio-industrial products, and financial services.
Nestle (Switzerland): The world's largest food and beverage company, with a wide range of products and brands in categories such as coffee, dairy, confectionery, and pet care.
JBS (Brazil): The world's largest meat processing company, with operations in beef, pork, and poultry, as well as in leather and biodiesel.
Syngenta (Switzerland): A global agribusiness company that produces seeds and agrochemicals, particularly for crops such as corn, soybeans, cereals, and vegetables.

Private sector and agribusiness firms can have both positive and negative impacts on agricultural trade and food systems, depending on their strategies, practices, and contexts. On the positive side, they can provide investment, technology, and expertise to improve agricultural productivity, reduce food losses and waste, and create jobs and income opportunities along the value chain. They can also respond to changing consumer demands and preferences, such as for healthy, sustainable, and ethical food products.

On the negative side, private sector and agribusiness firms can also exacerbate inequalities, environmental degradation, and public health risks, by promoting industrial agriculture, monocultures, and processed foods, and by externalizing social and environmental costs. They can also concentrate market power and value capture in the hands of a few large companies, at the expense of small-scale producers, local communities, and developing countries.

Moreover, private sector and agribusiness firms can influence trade policies and negotiations in ways that favor their interests and agendas, such as by lobbying for greater market access, stronger intellectual property rights, and weaker environmental and social regulations. This can create tensions and conflicts with other stakeholders, such as civil society organizations, consumer groups, and small-scale farmer movements, who may have different visions and priorities for agricultural trade and food systems.

Civil Society and Non-Governmental Organizations

Civil society and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are important actors in shaping and influencing agricultural trade policies and outcomes, by representing the interests and concerns of various stakeholders, such as farmers, workers, consumers, and environmental and social groups.

Civil society and NGOs can play various roles in agricultural trade policy, such as:

Advocacy and campaigning: Civil society and NGOs can raise awareness and mobilize public opinion on issues related to agricultural trade and food systems, such as food security, smallholder rights, environmental sustainability, and corporate accountability. They can also lobby governments and international organizations to adopt or reform trade policies and agreements in line with their objectives and values.
Research and analysis: Civil society and NGOs can provide independent and critical analysis of the impacts and implications of agricultural trade policies and practices, based on field research, case studies, and stakeholder consultations. They can also propose alternative policies and solutions that prioritize social and environmental justice, such as agroecology, fair trade, and food sovereignty.
Capacity building and empowerment: Civil society and NGOs can provide training, information, and support to marginalized and vulnerable groups, such as small-scale farmers, women, and indigenous peoples, to enhance their capacity to participate in and benefit from agricultural trade and food systems. They can also facilitate networking and alliance-building among these groups, to strengthen their collective voice and bargaining power.
Monitoring and accountability: Civil society and NGOs can monitor the implementation and impacts of agricultural trade policies and agreements, and hold governments and companies accountable for their commitments and obligations. They can also use legal and advocacy tools, such as public campaigns, shareholder resolutions, and complaint mechanisms, to expose and redress violations of human rights, labor standards, and environmental norms in agricultural trade and food systems.

Some examples of influential civil society and NGOs in agricultural trade policy include:

La Via Campesina: A global movement of small-scale farmers, peasants, and indigenous peoples that advocates for food sovereignty, agroecology, and the rights of rural communities in trade and food policies.
Oxfam: An international development and humanitarian organization that campaigns for fairer trade rules, corporate accountability, and smallholder empowerment in agriculture and food systems.
Greenpeace: An environmental NGO that campaigns against the negative impacts of industrial agriculture, genetic engineering, and corporate control in food and farming, and promotes ecological and sustainable alternatives.
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP): A research and advocacy organization that analyzes the impacts of trade and agricultural policies on farmers, communities, and the environment, and proposes policy solutions for a more just and sustainable food system.

Civil society and NGOs can have both positive and negative impacts on agricultural trade and food systems, depending on their strategies, alliances, and contexts. On the positive side, they can provide a critical and independent voice that challenges dominant narratives and power structures and proposes alternative visions and solutions based on social and environmental justice. They can also enhance the transparency, accountability, and legitimacy of trade policy processes, by bringing in the perspectives and concerns of marginalized and affected stakeholders.

On the negative side, civil society and NGOs can also face various challenges and limitations in influencing agricultural trade policies and outcomes, such as limited resources and capacity, political and legal constraints, and backlash and repression from powerful actors. They can also have internal tensions and contradictions, such as between professionalization and grassroots activism, or between pragmatic engagement and radical critique of the trade and food systems.

Moreover, civil society and NGOs can sometimes be co-opted or instrumentalized by other actors, such as governments, companies, or donors, to legitimize or greenwash their own agendas and practices. This can undermine the independence and credibility of civil society and NGOs, and create divisions and competition among them.

Challenges and Opportunities for Reforming Trade Policies for Agricultural Exports

Adapting to Changing Global Contexts and Challenges

One of the key challenges and opportunities for reforming trade policies for agricultural exports is to adapt to the changing global contexts and challenges of the 21st century. The world has undergone significant transformations in recent decades, such as globalization, digitalization, urbanization, and climate change, which have profound implications for agricultural trade and food systems.

Some of the major global challenges and trends that affect agricultural trade policies include:

Climate change and environmental degradation: Agriculture is both a contributor to and a victim of climate change and environmental degradation, through its impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, biodiversity loss, water scarcity, and soil degradation. Trade policies need to incentivize and support the transition to more sustainable and resilient agricultural practices and value chains, such as agroecology, climate-smart agriculture, and regenerative agriculture.
Changing consumer preferences and diets: Consumers around the world are increasingly demanding healthier, more sustainable, and ethically produced food products, such as organic, plant-based, and fair trade. Trade policies need to enable and promote the production and trade of these products, while also ensuring their safety, quality, and affordability for all consumers.
Technological innovations and digital transformation: New technologies, such as precision agriculture, biotechnology, and digital platforms, are transforming the way food is produced, traded, and consumed. Trade policies need to foster innovation, knowledge sharing, and capacity building, while also addressing the risks and challenges of these technologies, such as digital divides, intellectual property rights, and data privacy and security.
Geopolitical tensions and power shifts: The global trading system is facing increasing tensions and uncertainties, due to factors such as the rise of protectionism, unilateralism, and nationalism, as well as the shifting power dynamics among major economies, such as the United States, China, and the European Union. Trade policies need to promote cooperation, dialogue, and rule-based approaches, while also recognizing the legitimate interests and concerns of different countries and regions.
Social and economic inequalities: Agricultural trade and food systems are marked by significant social and economic inequalities, both within and between countries, in terms of access to resources, markets, and benefits. Trade policies need to address these inequalities and promote inclusive and equitable development, through measures such as special and differential treatment for developing countries, support for small-scale farmers and cooperatives, and gender-responsive and youth-sensitive approaches.

Adapting trade policies to these global challenges and trends requires a systemic and holistic approach that goes beyond narrow economic and commercial considerations, and takes into account the social, environmental, and political dimensions of agricultural trade and food systems. It also requires a more inclusive and participatory approach that involves all relevant stakeholders, including farmers, workers, consumers, and civil society organizations, in the design, implementation, and monitoring of trade policies.

Aligning Trade Policies with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Another key challenge and opportunity for reforming trade policies for agricultural exports is to align them with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which provide a universal and integrated framework for addressing the social, economic, and environmental challenges of the 21st century. The SDGs were adopted by all United Nations member states in 2015, as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and include 17 goals and 169 targets across various areas, such as poverty, hunger, health, education, gender equality, climate action, and partnerships.

Agricultural trade and food systems are directly or indirectly related to many of the SDGs, such as:

SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Agricultural trade can contribute to reducing poverty and hunger, by providing market opportunities and income for farmers and rural communities, and by improving food security and nutrition through the availability and affordability of diverse and nutritious foods.
SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure): Agricultural trade can promote economic growth and job creation, by fostering investments, innovation, and value addition in the agri-food sector, and by enabling the participation of small and medium enterprises in regional and global value chains.
SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 13 (Climate Action): Agricultural trade can support sustainable consumption and production patterns, and contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, by promoting resource-efficient and low-carbon practices and technologies, reducing food loss and waste, and incentivizing the adoption of sustainable standards and certifications.
SDG 15 (Life on Land) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): Agricultural trade can help to protect and restore terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity, by promoting sustainable land management practices and conservation efforts, and by fostering multi-stakeholder partnerships and cooperation at the local, national, and international levels.

However, aligning trade policies with the SDGs also poses various challenges and trade-offs, given the complex and sometimes conflicting objectives and interests involved. For example, promoting agricultural exports and market access may increase economic growth and job creation, but it may also exacerbate environmental degradation and social inequalities, if not accompanied by appropriate safeguards and regulations.

Similarly, supporting small-scale farmers and local food systems may enhance food security and resilience, but it may also limit economies of scale and competitiveness in global markets.

Therefore, aligning trade policies with the SDGs requires a careful and context-specific balancing of different goals and targets, based on a thorough assessment of the potential impacts and trade-offs, and a broad consultation with relevant stakeholders. It also requires a more coherent and integrated approach to policymaking, that breaks down silos between different sectors and levels of governance and promotes synergies and co-benefits across different areas, such as agriculture, environment, health, and social development.

Some examples of trade policy measures that can support the alignment with the SDGs include:

Promoting the use of sustainability standards and certifications in agricultural trade, such as organic, fair trade, and sustainable forest management, through preferential market access, technical assistance, and capacity building for producers and exporters.
Reforming subsidies and support measures that incentivize unsustainable and inequitable practices, such as fossil fuel subsidies, and redirecting them towards sustainable and inclusive practices, such as agroecology, climate-smart agriculture, and rural development.
Strengthening the transparency, accountability, and participation of trade policy processes, by enhancing the access to information and decision-making for all stakeholders, establishing monitoring and review mechanisms, and promoting multi-stakeholder dialogues and partnerships.
Enhancing the policy coherence and coordination between trade and other areas, such as environment, health, and social policies, by conducting impact assessments, promoting cross-sectoral cooperation, and aligning trade agreements with international conventions and frameworks, such as the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Trade for Small-Scale Farmers and Developing Countries

A third key challenge and opportunity for reforming trade policies for agricultural exports is to promote inclusive and equitable trade for small-scale farmers and developing countries, who often face significant barriers and disadvantages in accessing and benefiting from global markets. Small-scale farmers, who account for a significant share of agricultural production and employment in many developing countries, are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of trade liberalization and competition, due to their limited resources, bargaining power, and access to information, technology, and infrastructure.

Developing countries, especially least developed countries (LDCs), also face various challenges in participating in and benefiting from agricultural trade, such as high trade costs, limited productive and export capacities, and exposure to price volatility and external shocks.

Moreover, many developing countries are net food importers and face food security risks from relying on international markets for their food supply.

Therefore, promoting inclusive and equitable trade for small-scale farmers and developing countries requires a differentiated and targeted approach that takes into account their specific needs, constraints, and priorities.

Some examples of trade policy measures that can support this goal include:

Providing special and differential treatment (SDT) for developing countries and LDCs in trade agreements, such as longer transition periods, lower tariff reductions, and exemptions from certain disciplines, to allow them policy space and flexibility to pursue their development objectives and protect sensitive sectors.
Promoting market access for small-scale farmers and developing countries, through measures such as tariff preferences, simplified rules of origin, and streamlined standards and certification requirements, as well as through capacity building and technical assistance to meet market requirements and standards.
Supporting regional trade and integration among developing countries, through initiatives such as the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and the South-South trade agreements, to promote intra-regional trade, value chain development, and economic diversification, and to reduce dependence on volatile global markets.
Strengthening the bargaining power and voice of small-scale farmers and developing countries in trade policy processes, by promoting their effective participation and representation in trade negotiations and decision-making, and by supporting their collective action and organization through cooperatives, associations, and networks.
Addressing the trade-related aspects of food security, by ensuring that trade policies and agreements do not undermine the right to food and the ability of countries to pursue their own agricultural and food security strategies, and by promoting measures such as food reserves, safety nets, and local procurement for food assistance programs.

Promoting inclusive and equitable trade for small-scale farmers and developing countries also requires a more holistic and integrated approach that goes beyond trade policy alone, and addresses the broader social, economic, and political factors that shape the opportunities and challenges for these groups.

This includes measures such as:

Investing in rural infrastructure, such as roads, irrigation, and storage facilities, to reduce trade costs and improve market access for small-scale farmers and remote areas.
Promoting access to education, training, and extension services for small-scale farmers, especially women and youth, to enhance their skills, knowledge, and innovation capacities, and to enable them to participate in higher-value activities and markets.
Strengthening social protection and safety nets for small-scale farmers and rural communities, to reduce their vulnerability to shocks and stresses, and to enable them to invest in productive activities and take advantage of market opportunities.
Addressing power imbalances and inequalities in agricultural value chains, by promoting fair and transparent contracts, prices, and benefit-sharing arrangements between farmers, traders, and processors, and by regulating the market power and practices of large agribusiness firms and retailers.

Enhancing Policy Coherence and Coordination in Agricultural Trade Governance

A fourth key challenge and opportunity for reforming trade policies for agricultural exports is to enhance policy coherence and coordination in agricultural trade governance, both within and across countries and sectors. Agricultural trade policies are often shaped by a complex web of international, regional, and bilateral trade agreements, as well as by domestic policies and regulations in areas such as agriculture, environment, health, and social development. However, these policies and agreements are not always well coordinated or aligned, and may sometimes have conflicting or contradictory objectives and impacts.

For example, trade agreements may promote the liberalization and expansion of agricultural exports, while environmental policies may seek to limit the negative impacts of agricultural production on biodiversity, water, and climate change. Similarly, domestic support policies may seek to protect and support small-scale farmers and local food systems, while trade policies may expose them to increased competition and market volatility.

Enhancing policy coherence and coordination in agricultural trade governance requires a more integrated and systemic approach that takes into account the multiple and interconnected dimensions of agricultural trade and food systems, and promotes synergies and co-benefits across different policy areas and levels.

Some examples of measures that can support this goal include:

Conducting ex-ante and ex-post impact assessments of trade agreements and policies, to identify and address potential conflicts and trade-offs with other policy objectives, such as sustainable development, food security, and human rights, and to inform evidence-based decision-making and negotiation processes.
Promoting inter-ministerial and cross-sectoral cooperation and dialogue on agricultural trade and related policies, through mechanisms such as joint task forces, stakeholder consultations, and policy coordination committees, to ensure that different policy objectives and interests are taken into account and balanced.
Aligning trade agreements and policies with relevant international frameworks and agreements, such as the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Sustainable Development Goals, to ensure that they are mutually supportive and contribute to common global goals and targets.
Strengthening the monitoring, reporting, and review of trade agreements and policies, through mechanisms such as trade policy reviews, sustainable development chapters, and dispute settlement procedures, to ensure that they are implemented effectively and deliver on their intended objectives and benefits.
Promoting multi-stakeholder partnerships and dialogues on agricultural trade and food systems, involving governments, the private sector, civil society, and international organizations, to foster shared understanding, trust, and collaboration, and to mobilize resources and expertise for joint action and innovation.

Enhancing policy coherence and coordination in agricultural trade governance also requires a paradigm shift in the way trade is conceived and pursued, from a narrow focus on liberalization and market access to a broader focus on sustainable and inclusive development. This implies reframing trade as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself, and recognizing that trade policies and agreements are not neutral or apolitical, but reflect certain values, interests, and power relations that need to be made explicit and negotiated.

It also implies embracing a more pluralistic and flexible approach to trade governance, that allows for different models and pathways of agricultural development and food systems, based on the diverse realities, needs, and aspirations of countries and communities. This may involve, for example, promoting alternative trade arrangements and practices, such as fair trade, solidarity economy, and food sovereignty, that prioritize social and ecological values over purely economic ones, and that empower local actors and networks to shape their food futures.

Conclusion

Trade policies for agricultural exports play a crucial role in shaping the opportunities and challenges for farmers, food systems, and sustainable development around the world. As we have seen, these policies encompass a wide range of measures and instruments, such as tariffs, subsidies, standards, and agreements, that influence the production, distribution, and consumption of agricultural products across borders. They also involve a complex web of actors and institutions, from governments and agribusinesses to international organizations and civil society groups, with different interests, values, and power relations.

Reforming trade policies for agricultural exports is therefore a complex and contested process that requires navigating multiple and sometimes conflicting objectives and challenges. On one hand, trade policies can promote economic growth, job creation, and food security, by providing market opportunities and incomes for farmers, and by improving the availability and affordability of food for consumers. On the other hand, trade policies can also exacerbate environmental degradation, social inequalities, and power imbalances, by favoring large-scale and export-oriented agriculture, and by undermining the livelihoods and rights of small-scale farmers and local communities.

To address these challenges and harness the opportunities of agricultural trade for sustainable development, we need a new approach to trade policy that is more holistic, inclusive, and coherent. This approach should align trade policies with the Sustainable Development Goals, by promoting sustainable and resilient agriculture, reducing poverty and hunger, and protecting biodiversity and ecosystems. It should also promote inclusive and equitable trade for small-scale farmers and developing countries, by providing targeted support, capacity building, and market access, and by addressing power imbalances and inequalities in agricultural value chains.

Moreover, this approach should enhance policy coherence and coordination in agricultural trade governance, by breaking down silos between different policy areas and levels, and by promoting multi-stakeholder partnerships and dialogues. This requires a paradigm shift in the way trade is conceived and pursued, from a narrow focus on liberalization and market access to a broader focus on sustainable and inclusive development, and from a one-size-fits-all model to a more pluralistic and flexible one that recognizes the diversity of agricultural systems and food cultures around the world.

Ultimately, reforming trade policies for agricultural exports is not only a technical or economic challenge but also a political and ethical one. It requires questioning the dominant narratives and assumptions about trade, growth, and development, and reimagining alternative ways of organizing our food systems and economies based on the principles of sustainability, equity, and resilience. It also requires mobilizing the collective agency and creativity of all stakeholders, from farmers and consumers to policymakers and researchers, to co-create and experiment with new models and solutions that work for people and the planet.

As we face the urgent challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, and rising inequalities, reforming trade policies for agricultural exports is not just an option, but an imperative. By working together across sectors, borders, and disciplines, we can build a more just, sustainable, and resilient food future for all.