Reflections on Trade and Agrobiodiversity

Agriculture is the largest land user and considered one of the main causes of biodiversity loss. Public policies, including trade measures, have a major impact on the allocation of the resources in the sector, and therefore hold the potential to amplify or mitigate its impact on agrobiodiversity. Multiple strategies can be identified to help the sector improve sustainable practices and contribute to conservation objectives. There are two types of measures to look at: reductions in trade in harmful products or practices, and enhanced market access opportunities to sustain a diversified production system.

Trade can have unintended negative impacts on agrobiodiversity. One of them is through the increase in product demand, which tends to create specialization, intensification and expansion in production scale. While trade creates larger markets for products, it can expose resources to over exploitation and decreases the level of diversity. The First report on the State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture  released by FAO in 2019, documents a rapid decline of agrobiodiversity with only 9 plant species accounting for 66% of total crop production while 20% of food species are considered under threat of extinction and global forest area is in a continued decline. 

Overexploitation and decrease in the level of diversity are not the only areas where trade can have a negative impact. The European Union’s Trade and Biodiversity Report published earlier this year, recalls that “118 major invasive species have been accidentally released by trade and transport causing considerable ecosystem damage”. Agroecosystem damages includes examples of the longhorn beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis) and the introduction of the olive tree bacteria (Xylella fastidiosa), both causing costly post-entrance measures of containment and eradication. In addition, the growth in trade infrastructure and transportation services has had a direct negative effect on agrobiodiversity including through demand for land utilization, pollution and specialization in products suitable for trade – with long term conservation products being preferred. 

For these reasons, trade policy should look at how to integrate corrective measures to safeguard agrobiodiversity. For example, raising tariffs or reducing subsidies on products whose production or consumption has a negative impact on biodiversity could be a possibility. Another type of measures that could be applied are Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs), in the form of systematic inspection of shipments. These are already applied with limited success by many countries due to lack of harmonization criteria and often lack of resources, but their redesign – coupled with the inclusion of new mechanisms of enforcement in case of infractions – is advisable. In this context, a further alignment of trade measures with environmental agreements like the Convention of International Trade on Endangered Species (CITIES) to impede commercialization of the most endangered species will need to be considered more closely, along with enforcement mechanisms.

While both tariffs and NTMs can be valuable tools for conservation and sustainable production, the latter would probably be faster to implement and also more effective. Not only because NTMs represent the main instrument to regulate market access but also because their application could be more pertinent, as agrobiodiversity also has environment, human, animal and plant health arguments. 

Another aspect which will be equally important to look at is how to create the necessary incentives for sustainable practices through trade policy. For starters, trade can help with making it easier to access clean technologies and innovations which lower the cost of producing sustainably. Examples in this direction are the WTO negotiations on the reduction or elimination of tariff on environmental goods and services. In addition, the possibility to further differentiate sustainable products through certifications and standards is another strategy already applied through private and public initiatives that aim to reward these products for producing in a sustainable and biodiverse manner. Finally, trade can be beneficial to agrobiodiversity by granting market access to low input local crops seeking economic sustainability. Trade promotion of local crops along with protection of traditional knowledge would increase incentives to diversify production system and increase its economic sustainability. 

All of the above, however, will need to rely on appropriate indicators which will be extremely important to negotiate and establish measures that protect biodiversity for food and agriculture. Monitoring programmes for agrobiodiversity remain limited despite the numerous research projects on the links between biodiversity, climate change, inequality and food and agriculture. This lack of data means policy makers tend to rely on a few and disconnected agrobiodiversity indicators rather than a framework connecting biodiversity to trade and environment, which constrains the planning and prioritization of effective enforceable measures. In this context, a call for a multistakeholder, cross-disciplinary and multilateral cooperation is therefore needed to bring about these interconnections and to effectively discuss actions to take. 

In conclusion, we argue that trade holds the potential for a positive impact on agrobiodiversity. Through sound Trade Policy, it is possible to minimize if not revert Trade’s negative effects while bolstering agrobiodiverse products and services economic sustainability and impact. It is also paramount to align Trade Policy with other environmental and sustainability agreements, ensuring that they work in unison towards conservation. The Covid-19 crisis has induced a rethink on how to build not just back, but better. We shouldn’t miss this opportunity to put biodiversity conservation at the center of the discussion. 

Author Information:

Eleonora De Falcis, PhD

The Alliance Bioversity International and CIAT  

For more information please contact: e.defalcis@cgiar.org

Resources:

FAO. 2019. The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture, J. Bélanger & D. Pilling (eds.). FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments. Rome. 572 pp. 

Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/CA3129EN/CA3129EN.pdf

Bellora, C., Bureau, J., Bayramoglu, B., Gozlan, E. and Jean, S., 2020. Trade And Biodiversity. EP/EXPO/INTA/FWC/2019-01/Lot5/1/C/03. [online] European Parliament's Committee on International Trade (INTA).

Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2020/603494/EXPO_IDA(2020)603494_EN.pdf