D4.3 Discussion paper on the political economy of trade regimes

This discussion paper focuses on the political economy of agrifood trade, drawing from the 15 MATS case studies (CS). It highlights commonalities and differences in the light of relevant SDG, the EU Green Deal, other Standards and Regulations, and of Actor/Stakeholder inclusiveness in each CS. A grid of trade and other policies and instruments along these parameters shows their expected sustainability results, positive and negative, across the CS.

Human and natural resources availability, market signals, societal demands, cultural priorities, and sustainability concerns act as the prime motivators for operator decisions. Trade policy instruments are among the most important government tools, acting at the end of the food value chains (VC) ‘from farm to fork’. These instruments, in turn, shape the policy framework for inputs, energy, production, processing, investment, wholesale and retail trading locally, and for exports, marketing, consumption, and recycling. Notwithstanding the probability of unintended (unexpected) consequences, one would hope that the collective costs of not making the framework effective would outweigh the smaller short-term gains of gaming this process.

We find that ‘more sustainable agricultural trade’ can result from what could also be called ‘smarter’ (or ‘greener’), and enforceable, policymaking. Clearly, the success of these policies in delivering these benefits will depend not only on their effective implementation, but also on independent, in-built ex ante/ex post monitoring, impact assessment, and adaptation where necessary – especially for SMEs, women, and the more vulnerable market participants. Public engagement and inclusiveness will also be crucial to achieve the desired outcomes. Making agricultural trade more sustainable requires a specific combination of nudging, incentives, mandatory and voluntary standards, and import prescriptions. The progressive implementation of some of the new European Green Deal (and FF55) regulatory instruments can provide a useful impetus as well, together with foreign policies and development policy changes introduced by the European Commission and Member States. This could go for all MATS partner countries, in appropriate ways, and provided that development-friendly European regulations can be expected to bring about tangible social, economic, and environmental benefits for all.