Making Agricultural Trade More Sustainable: What Countries Are Actually Doing (Augmented with Chatgpt 5)

By Leke Abaniwonda — Industry 5.0 Innovation Consultant & Specialist

Imagecredit — Pexels

Introduction

Sustainability in agriculture is no longer a niche concern — it is central to economic growth, food security, and climate resilience. As global supply chains deepen and environmental risks intensify, governments increasingly rely on trade policy to drive sustainable outcomes in agriculture. According to a recent OECD analysis, 130 trade-related measureshave been adopted by OECD countries and the European Union to promote the environmental sustainability of agriculture. OECD+1

This evolving policy landscape raises critical questions: What do these measures do? How effective are they in reconciling environmental objectives with trade flows? And what remains unaddressed?

Drawing on this OECD research, I explore how countries are aligning trade and sustainability — and how organizations can leverage those trends through an Industry 5.0 lens.

1. The Policy Landscape: Rising Use of Trade Measures for Environmental Goals

Key Findings from OECD

• In a stock-take conducted by OECD researchers, 130 trade-related measures tied to agricultural sustainability were identified across 15 OECD countries + the EU between 1997 and 2024. OECD+1

• Most (93%) of these measures are environmental-cooperation provisions embedded in regional trade agreements (RTAs). OECD

• According to the OECD, more than 60% of these measures were introduced between 2018 and 2024, underscoring a rapid acceleration in environmental trade policy. OECD

• The environmental objectives vary: approximately 84 of the 130 measures explicitly aim to promote “sustainable agricultural production.” Other prioritized goals include water management, biodiversity, and climate change mitigation. OECD

Types of Measures

OECD classifies the 130 measures into three broad categories: OECD+1

• Environmental Cooperation in RTAs (Type A): Countries agree to collaborate on sustainability issues, such as conservation, climate, and resource management.

• Conditional Trade Preferences (Type B): Preferential tariffs or quotas conditioned on demonstrating environmental performance.

• Regulatory Market-Access Measures (Type C): Access to certain programs or markets is made contingent on compliance with environmental criteria.

These mechanisms reflect a shift: trade policy is being used not just to liberalize markets, but to embed environmental standards in the structure of trade itself.

2. Economic and Environmental Trade-offs

Trade Costs and Barriers

• Non-tariff measures (NTMs) remain highly prevalent in agro-food trade. More than 90% of agro-food productsare subject to at least one NTM, which is well above the average for other sectors. OECD

• Technical barriers (TBT) and sanitary & phytosanitary (SPS) measures are the most common. These measures can increase import costs—for some products, by as much as 15%. OECD

• While many NTMs hinder trade, not all do: in certain cases, SPS or TBT rules (e.g., on residue levels or labeling) improve market access by addressing information asymmetries. OECD

Imagecredit — Pexels

Environmental Gains & Risks

• Agricultural and food systems account for roughly one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions — making sustainability here a major climate lever. OECD

• Trade can help reallocate production to more resource-efficient regions, potentially improving land / water-use efficiency and reducing local environmental stress. OECD

• However, there are concerns about unintended environmental externalities: weak regulations in one country can incentivize unsustainable practices to meet export demand. OECD+1

• Moreover, compliance costs and administrative burdens from environmental trade measures may disproportionately affect smaller producers and emerging economies. OECD

3. Food Loss and Waste: The Policy Response

Sustainability in agriculture is not only about how products are grown — but also how much of them are wasted. According to OECD data, about 30% of food produced globally is either lost or wasted, which represents a critical opportunity for policy intervention. OECD

The OECD’s 2025 policy review, “Beyond Food Loss and Waste Reduction Targets,” draws on data from 42 national ministries (plus the European Commission) to evaluate policy effectiveness. OECD+1 Key take-aways include:

• Many countries have set ambitious FLW (food loss and waste) reduction targets aligned with SDG 12.3, but policy implementation lags behind. OECD

• There is a fragmented landscape: some countries rely on awareness campaigns and voluntary initiatives, while fewer use mandatory regulation or fiscal measures. OECD

• Stronger data systems are needed: without consistent measurement frameworks, governments struggle to evaluate which interventions actually reduce food waste. OECD

4. Strategic Implications and the Role of Industry 5.0

The OECD’s findings suggest that trade policy is increasingly being used to drive environmental sustainability — but the complexity of these measures and their uneven implementation present real risks.

This is precisely where Industry 5.0 thinking becomes invaluable. As a consultant, I see three critical opportunities for public and private actors:

1. Designing Trade-Policy with Systemic Alignment

   • Embed environmental criteria into trade agreements, not just as side clauses but as fundamental co-operation mechanisms.

   • Use conditional preferences (tariff or quota) to incentivize verified sustainable production practices in exporting countries.

   • Harmonize sustainability provisions across agreements to reduce compliance burden and drive scale.

2. Building Data & Decision Infrastructure

   • Create real-time dashboards that integrate trade flows, environmental performance, and risk exposure.

   • Use digital technologies (e-certification, traceability, remote audits) to streamline SPS / TBT compliance — improving both trade efficiency and environmental integrity. OECD

   • Support small and medium producers with capacity-building and tools to meet sustainability thresholds.

3. Accelerating Innovation in Food Systems

   • Promote public-private partnerships to develop validated methodologies for on-farm emissions, water footprinting, and carbon sequestration.

   • Leverage trade policy as a lever to scale circular agriculture practices, regenerative farming, and waste-reduction technologies.

   • Link trade finance instruments to sustainability outcomes: trade-linked green financing, pay-for-performance trade preferences.

5. Risks, Trade-offs, and Considerations

• Administrative burden: Environmental trade measures risk creating red tape. Without streamlined systems, compliance costs may outweigh benefits for small producers.

• Market distortions: Well-intentioned provisions may distort markets if not designed carefully — especially in fragile economies.

• Enforcement: Many cooperation provisions are non-binding, raising questions about accountability and impact.

• Equity: There is a risk that sustainability trade measures favor large, better-resourced producers. Policymakers must build in capacity support for smaller farmers.

Imagecredit — Pexels

Conclusion

The OECD’s recent work makes one thing clear: trade policy is no longer just an economic instrument — it is a sustainability tool. Governments are deploying a broader mix of trade-related measures to promote greener agriculture, and these policies are proliferating rapidly.

Yet, to be effective, these mechanisms must be accompanied by strong data systems, inclusive innovation, and long-term design thinking. This is exactly where an Industry 5.0 approach adds unique value — by aligning human agency, ecological outcomes, and trade architecture into a coherent, scalable strategy.

For corporate innovators and policymakers alike, the imperative is simple: invest in systemic infrastructure — not just targets. Trade, when designed rightly, can move from a channel of profit to a vehicle of planetary regeneration.