Trade and sustainability: analysing Specific Trade Concerns (STCs) through the Theory of Change

53 https://doi.org/10.7896/j.3045 Studies in Agricultural Economics 127 (2025) 53-66 Introduction The role of trade in reducing poverty and integrating developing countries in the global world is widely recognised (World Bank Group and World Trade Organization, 2015 and 2018). International trade and investment have been shown to be essential to fighting poverty and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations (UN) Agenda 2030. Despite recognising the benefits of liberalisation through reducing tariff barriers, trade has faced growing protectionism in recent years (Gunnella and Quaglietti, 2019; Mariotti, 2023; Zahoor et al., 2023). The World Trade Organization (WTO), the main engine of this liberalisation, is under fire due to growing geopolitical tensions and the recognition that global competition has resulted in an unfair distribution of the economic gains and losses from trade experienced by sectors, regions and workers around the world (Stanford, 2020; Dullien, 2018). The WTO is experiencing a crisis of legitimacy and needs to be prepared effectively to address the challenges of rapid economic, political, social, technological and environmental change (Oonagh, 2020). Discourses on the modernisation of the WTO refer to its three pillars: trade negotiations, trade policy monitoring and reform of the dispute settlement system (Mildner et al., 2022; Van der Loo, 2022). Increasing attention is also paid to promoting environmental and social sustainability through trade. Agenda 2030 recognises international trade as a means to achieve socio-economic development; however, understanding the linkages between trade policy and sustainable development remains challenging for policymakers (UNCTAD, 2015 and 2016). In recent years, the growing liberalisation of agricultural trade brought about by tariff reductions has been accompanied by an increasing use of non-tariff measures (NTMs) (Olper, 2017; Beguin, 2022; Grant and Arita, 2017; Matthews et al., 2017; Disdier and Fugazza, 2019; Beverelli et al., 2014). These are defined as measures other than the imposition of tariffs that have the potential to affect trade in terms of the quantity of goods traded, prices or both (DITC, UNCTAD, 2010). NTMs range from measures used as trade policy instruments with a mainly protectionist scope (the so-called non-technical measures) to technical measures with non-trade policy objectives aiming to protect health or the environment (UNCTAD, 2016). UNCTAD developed a comprehensive classification of NTMs in 2012, and it has been progressively updated to reflect the evolution of international trade (UNCTAD, 2019). Most NTMs are represented by Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) measures and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) regulations. Although the latter predominates in total trade in terms of the number of products covered and as a share of trade value covered, the former dominates in agri-food trade (Disdier and Fugazza, 2019; WTO ITC UNCTAD, 2021). Approximately 80% of world agricultural trade is estimated to be affected by SPS measures, representing 10% of total world trade (UNCTAD, 2016). Within the WTO, the SPS Agreement covers regulations on food safety and animal and plant health standards. SPS measures are primarily used to protect human health, animal or plant life and the environment, and thus directly address issues related to sustainable development. This increases friction between countries over SPS measures because of their potential to distort international trade (Roberts and Unnevehr, 2003). In turn, by affecting trade, they also indirectly impact sustainability through trade (UNCTAD, 2015 and 2016). Therefore, we can observe a reciprocal relationship between trade and sustainability, where one influences the other. Under the SPS Committee, a peer review system exists to allow countries to learn more about each other’s national Maria Rosaria PUPO D’ANDREA*, Roberto HENKE*, Angelo QUARTO** and Federica DEMARIA* Trade and sustainability: analysing Specific Trade Concerns (STCs) through the Theory of Change This study explores the link between trade and sustainability, focusing on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measures within the WTO framework. It highlights the importance of Specific Trade Concerns (STCs) as a dispute management tool and their implications for sustainability. Analysing three case studies – EU-China (African Swine Fever), EU-India (Methyl Bromide fumigation), and Senegal-EU (mango exports) – the paper identifies divergent, negotiable trade-offs, and cooperative behaviours among trading partners. The study applies the Theory of Change (ToC) framework to the three STCs to assess the effectiveness of linking trade with sustainability goals. Findings reveal that sustainability considerations are critical for resolving STCs and achieving policy coherence and integration. The EU-Senegal case demonstrates ToC alignment, showcasing the success of a cooperative approach in addressing sustainability. In contrast, unsolved issues in the EU-China and EU-India cases highlight faults in sustainability integration. The study underlines STCs’ potential for modernising the WTO by fostering the linkages between trade and sustainability through institutional change. Keywords: Specific trade concern (STC), Theory of Change (ToC), WTO, sustainability, European Union, China, Senegal, India JEL classifications: F13, F18, Q17. * Council for Research in Agriculture and Economics (CREA) - Policy and Bioeconomy Centre, Rome, Italy. Via Po 14, 00198 Rome, Italy. Corresponding author: [email protected].it. ** Sapienza University of Rome, 5 Piazzale Aldo Moro, 00185 – Rome, Italy. Received: 15 January 2025; Revised: 28 February 2025; Accepted: 3 March 2025. Maria Rosaria Pupo D’Andrea, Roberto Henke, Angelo Quarto and Federica Demaria 54 implementation of SPS measures when they are considered adversely affecting trade in light of international obligations (Posada et al., 2022; Hoekman et al., 2023). This system, called Specific Trade Concerns (STC), is considered a transparent monitoring tool to avoid trade disputes. STCs are raised orally in the SPS Committee, and progress made through bilateral discussions between trading partners is summarised in notes by the Secretariat. They are not formal disputes but are often a signal that a national measure taken by another WTO member is considered inconsistent with international rules (Horn et al., 2013). According to the literature, STCs have defused potential trade conflicts by resolving trade concerns non-litigiously (Horn et al., 2013; Posada et al., 2022; Holzer, 2019; Wolfe, 2020), leading some scholars to suggest using STCs to resolve trade frictions regarding national security issues in an expanded sense (Hoekman et al., 2023). The literature also highlights the need to strengthen STCs to enable full participation of all WTO members, especially the less developed ones with more limited administrative capacity, information or financial resources for proactive and constructive engagement (Wolfe, 2020). As STCs are raised because SPS measures are perceived to be overly trade-restrictive, thus affecting the achievement of sustainability goals, we analyse three STCs with the EU as a trading partner to identify potential problems that standards and their implementation pose for trade with a view on sustainability issues: a) EU-China on African Swine Fever (ASF), b) EU-India on Phytosanitary import restrictions, and c) Senegal-EU on the Rapid Alert System for mango imports. An extensive literature has analysed STCs as a good proxy for non-tariff measures that constitute trade barriers (Laget and Deuss, 2023; Orefice, 2016; Fontagné et al., 2015), but to the best of our knowledge, no study has explored the sustainability issues behind STCs and the different perception of such matters of trading partners. This study is developed within the TRADE4SD horizon project, and it aims to fill this gap through the three case studies, which are representative of the various behavioural dynamics of the EU and its partners in terms of reciprocity and asymmetries between countries regarding sustainability goals. Moreover, we try to add new evidence to Wolfe’s (2020) work on using STCs to manage conflicts within the WTO. In this context, we consider the Theory of Change (ToC) as a valuable tool to improve this system and contribute to resolving international frictions (Vogel, 2012), keeping in mind the goal of fostering positive linkages between trade and sustainable development. Institutions can contribute to building a bridge between trade and SDGs, ensuring that each component of the global value chain is actively involved in this integration process. Institutional building can be pursued mainly through two paths: policy coherence and policy integration (Cejudo and Michel, 2017). The ToC represents an effective instrument for assessing policy coherence among different institutional levels, contributing to constructing links between trade and sustainability, and cooperating rather than competing in pursuing common goals. At the same time, given the established goals, the ToC contributes to assessing policy integration among measures and interventions in different fields (agriculture, trade, labour, safety standards, ecoservices, etc.). Institutional building is necessary to solve international controversies, and it is an incremental endogenous process requiring the involvement of all the actors interested in it (Pain, 2022). Given the general framework of the ToC, we assess the extent to which this has been followed in the context of the three cases we chose to examine as well as whether there is a link between the stage the three cases are in and the proper setting of the ToC. It must be kept in mind, in fact, that the ToC is not a structured methodology but rather a process that needs to be built taking into consideration some relevant steps and interaction with the specific environment. Our main objective is to analyse our case studies by applying the main steps of the ToC with the ultimate aim of verifying whether the ToC makes STCs more efficient and can be used as a conflict smoothing tool in the WTO. Our analysis demonstrates the validity of the ToC in bringing out sustainability issues underlying STCs, avoiding deadlock and contributing to the resolution of frictions more easily and quickly. In this sense the results of the analysis are generalisable, and the process can be applied to other cases, confirming the validity of the ToC applied to STCs. This different reading of STCs through the lens of the ToC represents an example of WTO modernisation and a contribution to institutional change (Pain, 2022). In synthesis, the aim of this study is twofold: 1. To investigate how SPS measures may enhance the achievement of sustainability issues, as perceived by trading partners; 2. To outline a way to modernise the WTO in relation to sustainability through STC, with a view to increasing the participation of less developed countries following the principles of the ToC. In the following pages, we first highlight the growing importance of STCs and their role in defusing potential disputes. In section 3, three case studies highlight the different sustainability issues underlying the STCs, as perceived by the trading partners. Section 4 focuses on a possible pathway for modernising the WTO, suggesting that STCs may be used to manage conflicts in alignment with a general ToC framework. Section 5 discusses the extent to which the results of our case studies are consistent with the different steps of a ToC, with a particular focus on sustainable issues. The final section concludes. Appendix A attempts to apply the ToC to our case studies dealing with trade and sustainable issues. The relevance of STCs in WTO The economic effects of standards NTMs have been thoroughly discussed (Josling et al., 2004; Bureau et al., 1998; Tian, 2003; Disdier and van Tongeren, 2010). TBTs, SPS and other “technical” NTM policies impacting the quality of products, or the way in which commodities are manufactured and sold to end users are examples of NTMs that resemble Trade and sustainability: analysing Specific Trade Concerns (STCs) through the Theory of Change 55 standards. Unlike tariffs, their effect on trade is more nuanced. The rationale is that, in comparison to tariffs, NTMs are more varied and complex. NTMs fall into sixteen categories, ranging from trade-related non-technical measures (like subsidies, quotas, anti-dumping, pre-shipment inspections, etc.) to product-related technical measures (like technical requirements and conformity evaluations). In 1995, both NTMs were implemented following the Uruguay Round agreements. The SPS and TBT agreements aim to safeguard consumers and the environment, thwart protectionism, aid in industry standardisation, and establish technical limits for particular items. TBTs and SPSs are frequently applicable to a product in one or more industries simultaneously. As such, it occasionally affects an entire industry. It can help trade by bringing better information and fostering greater trust between partners, or it can harm trade by adding to the administrative load and raising compliance costs for both exporters and domestic businesses through new rules about the environment and industrial processes. For other WTO members to provide feedback in either scenario, an SPS or TBT must be informed at the WTO as soon as possible. Changes may be made following the comment period. After that, the NTM is approved and released, taking effect at least half a year later. The new TBT or SPS is only in effect during this enforcement period, despite the possibility of some consequences resulting from anticipations. Researchers have demonstrated a strong interest in product-related SPSs and TBTs since they address the majority of NTMs. WTO committees and councils are key fora where members raise trade concerns concerning measures that may affect trade. Since 1995, the use and discussion of trade issues increased and sometimes facilitated the resolution of trade issues between members. The database detailing trade problems makes it possible to classify them into different categories: a) Council for Trade in Goods (CTG), b) Market Access Committee (CMA), c) Committee for Import Licences (IL), d) SPS and TBT Committees. The graph below shows the current data from which TBT and SPS emerge as the main concerns raised. As Figure 1 displays, there are currently roughly less than 90,000 notifications between TBT and SPS. 35,246 are the SPS notified compared to about 54,700 TBT measures for the period 1995-august 2024 (see WTO website for detailed information). The impacts of SPSs and TBTs on trade are challenging to determine. In a study on the TBT and SPS regulations in the agri-food sector, Santeramo and Lamonaca (2019) provide insights into why there are diverse results in the literature. Different industries have distinct objectives for implementing TBTs and SPSs, leading to varying effects. To avoid diluting the significance of TBTs that are not restrictive, some research in the NTM literature has focused on STCs. Trade concerns related to specific issues, such as SPS measures or TBT, can be raised at the WTO at any time from the notification until after the measures are in effect. These complaints are known as SPS STCs and TBT STCs. According to the official data from the WTO, 835 TBT STCs and 585 SPS were raised between 1995 and 2024. In the STC literature, it is assumed that a concern is raised because a TBT or SPS measure is restricting trade, and STCs are indicators of the most restrictive measures (Beghin et al., 2015; Disdier et al., 2023; Fontagné and Orefice, 2018; Fontagné et al., 2015; Kamal and Zaki, 2018; Orefice, 2016). Once an STC has been lodged, it can be brought up again at subsequent meetings either by the same countries who raised it initially or by new ones joining the discussion. The dates of the complaints are meticulously recorded: the “first raised date” signifies the initial instance when a specific concern was raised against a particular TBT or SPS measures issue. In contrast, the “last raised date” indicates the most recent recorded instance at the WTO. It is worth noting that multiple raised dates may exist within this period. A concern is considered resolved when no new raised dates have been raised for at least two years. Food safety and animal health cover 66% of the measures subject to STCs, while plant health is less than 1/4 of the STCs (Figure 2 – STCs by objectives). 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Number of Trade Concerns New TCs Previously raised TCs Figure 1: Evolution of STCs over time (1995-2024). Source: WTO TCs database Maria Rosaria Pupo D’Andrea, Roberto Henke, Angelo Quarto and Federica Demaria 56 The chapters with the most STCs raised are Chapter 02 - Meat and Edible Meat Offal, which has 189 STCs raised, followed by Chapter 22 - Beverages, spirits, and Vinegar, which has 133 STCs raised. Chapter 08 - Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons has 122 STCs raised, and Chapter 04 - Dairy produce; birds’ eggs; natural honey; edible products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included has 104 STCs raised. As we review the notifications and their respective statuses, data analysis indicates that most trade concerns still need to be reported as resolved (82%). This high percentage suggests that many issues must be reported for resolution or updates. Only a tiny fraction is fully solved (13%), indicating that resolution rates might be low or that specific trade concerns take time to address. Even a smaller portion is discussed partially (5%), implying that while some progress has been made, these issues still need to be resolved entirely. This distribution may highlight challenges in the resolution process or a need for better tracking and reporting of these concerns. The disputes over SPS and TBT measures stem from many reasons, extending beyond protectionist motivations and reflecting cultural disparities. These disputes encompass a wide range of concerns, including issues surrounding the labelling of genetically modified organism (GMO)-free products and other related matters. When we examine the STCs categories using keywords, the analysis emphasises that the primary areas of concern are those associated with human health and food safety. When analysing keywords, “Human Health” (HH) appears most frequently (19.10%) and “Food Safety” (FS -19.34%) in the STCs, together accounting for over a third of the total (38.44% cumulative). This indicates that these topics are particularly significant and represent the primary specific trade concerns analysed and discussed in the three case studies presented in this article, as shown in Table 1 in the following section. Other significant keywords include Pesticides (6.89%), AH (7.32%), PH (7.20%), and MRLs (6.35%). These keywords collectively cover over 66% of the total entries by the cumulative percentage, highlighting their importance within the data. Less frequent keywords with lower individual frequencies but notable in specific contexts include “Zoonos” (2.47%), “Food Ad” (2.31%), and “Regionalization” (2.32%), contributing to a cumulative total of around 86%. Finally, comparing the involvement of developed and developing members in raising STCs and the responses from the respective countries indicate that developed members tend to raise STCs more often for developing members or emerging markets. The United States is the most active member, raising 680 concerns, followed closely by the EU with 668 concerns and Canada with 335 concerns. Other notable members raising concerns include China (279), Japan (260), and Australia (222). The EU is the leading respondent, addressing 369 concerns raised by other members. The United States also frequently responds to concerns, with 172 responses. Other significant respondents include China (157), India (132), Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, and the Russian Federation, each with 63 responses. The analysis of the data reveals some interesting interactions. Brazil and Mexico appear to be active raisers and respondents within the Americas, indicating an engaged dialogue within the region. Asian countries, such as Japan, China, and the Republic of Korea, also show significant activity, often responding to concerns from neighbouring or global counterparts. The United States has raised numerous concerns (680 in total), with China as one of the primary respondents (157 responses). This reflects frequent interactions where the United States addresses trade issues that may involve China, highlighting common areas of concern like intellectual property, market access, and regulatory standards. Interesting is the case between the EU member states and India (the EU raising 668 concerns, often receives responses from India - 132 responses); this interaction might represent discussions on trade barriers, such as tariffs, sanitary and phytosanitary standards, and compliance with regulatory norms. Another interesting interaction emerges between Brazil, with 208 concerns raised and 172 responses from the United States. This two-way engagement may indicate mutual trade interests, often around agricultural exports, tariffs, and technical standards, where an emerging country like Brazil frequently interacts with a developed trade partner like the United States. These interactions suggest a dynamic relationship between developed, emerging and developing countries in resolving specific trade concerns, often revolving around regulatory standards, market access, and product-specific regulations. Developed countries frequently raise concerns about market entry, compliance, and 36% 32% 20% Other 12% Animal Health Food Safety Planet Health Other Figure 2: STCs by objectives. Source: Authors’ computation is based on the WTO TCs database Trade and sustainability: analysing Specific Trade Concerns (STCs) through the Theory of Change 57 safety standards in developing markets, while developing countries address regulatory barriers and trade restrictions in developed markets. The perception of sustainability behind STCs In recent decades, the increasing liberalisation of trade and the concurrent interest in promoting sustainability through trade have led to a growing number of NTMs, mostly related to product and process standards. These include SPSs and TBTs, both of which aim to prevent the creation of undesirable barriers to trade. Although most NTMs are non-trade related, changing market access conditions can indirectly impact trade. The direction and magnitude of such effects on trade and welfare are controversial, depending on the type of NTM, the countries/products/standards involved, and the methodology applied (Santeramo and Lamonaca, 2019; Beghin et al., 2012; Roberts and Unnevehr, 2003; Curzi et al., 2020). The SPS Agreement allows WTO members to “provide the level of health protection they deem appropriate” while ensuring that this does not lead to overly restrictive trade measures. According to Miljkovic (2005), “selecting the appropriate level of protection is an act of sovereignty”. Members are encouraged to use international standards but may adopt higher levels of protection if they are based on scientific justification and applied in a transparent and nondiscriminatory manner. The international standards, guidelines, and recommendations referred to in the SPS Agreement are developed by three other international organisations (the so-called “Three sisters”), which have gained importance following their involvement in the SPS Agreement (Roberts and Unnevehr, 2003). The three organisations are: • the Codex Alimentarius Commission, • the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), • the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). The SPS Agreement is based on transparency obligations requiring Member countries to provide all information on the SPS measures they intend to introduce or modify. The system can be described as an inverted pyramid, with a significant number of notifications of SPS measures introduced or designed to be modified at the top and the actual number of disputes at the bottom (Figure 3). This system provides for an ongoing process of consultation between the parties after the notification, which is recognised as an essential step in limiting friction between countries (Posada et al., 2022; Wolfe, 2020). As can be seen, only a limited number of notifications result in STCs, and an even smaller number result in actual trade disputes. The three STCs analysed differ in many respects: the EU’s position in the STC and on trade, the international organisations involved in SPS, the sustainability issues involved, the global dimension of the STC, the number of times the STC was raised, and its status (Table 1). 35,067 Notifications of new measures or changes to existing measures 585 Specific Trade Concerns (questions raised at a full membership Committee) 54 Disputes Started Consultations requested in the Dispute Settlement Body 14 Disputes rulings Consultations requested in the Dispute Settlement Body Figure 3: The SPS inverted pyramid (1995 – 31 July 2024). Source: Authors’ Adaptation on WTO (https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_e.htm (accessed 27 November 2024) Table 1: Case studies on STCs. Case studies EU-China on ASF (STC m. 392) EU-India on Fumigation with MBr (STC n. 186) Senegal-EU on Mango (STC n. 272) EU position in STC Raising Raising with USA Supported by Canada, Chile, New Zealand Respondent Number of times STC was raised (until February 2024) 19 (since July 2015) 3 (since March 2004) 1 (June 2008) International organisations involved in SPS World Organisation for Animal Health - WOAH International Plant Protection Convention - IPPC International Plant Protection Convention - IPPC Primary subject keyword in STC document Animal Health Plant Health Food safety Other Keywords (from literature) Food security Climate change Food security Food security EU position in trade Exporter Exporter Importer Risk perception on sustainability issues China: Defensive approach for economic and social effects on its territory EU: economic concerns in defence of its pork industry India: Tradeoff between sustainability objectives (food security vs climate change) EU: the effects of MBr on climate change EU-Senegal: Cooperative approach between the two trading partners on economic, social and environmental concerns The global dimension of STC Yes Yes No Status of STC Still unsolved Solved concerning procedural issues (only with the EU) Solved Source: Authors’ elaboration Maria Rosaria Pupo D’Andrea, Roberto Henke, Angelo Quarto and Federica Demaria 58 provides for strict measures to apply regionalisation based on scientific evidence, entirely in line with international standards and based on risk mitigation measures in areas affected by animal disease, the Special ASF control rules have proved to be effective in preventing/controlling/slowing down the spread of diseases, while allowing safe trade to continue without lowering the safety level of traded/exported commodities (European Commission, 2019, 2021). On the other hand, considering the spread of the disease in the EU, China encourages bilateral applications for export licenses from EU MSs. In December 2021, a regional management agreement for ASF was signed, which is the first EU recognition of regionalisation. The deal allows France to export pork from unaffected regions, even if ASF has occurred elsewhere in France. The different positions on the impact of regionalisation, in turn, reflect the different expectations for achieving sustainability goals in both trading partners. China’s highly defensive position shows a high sensitivity to socio-economic concerns (food security) in a country characterised by a strong separation between pork production and consumption area (Yao et al., 2022). For its part, the EU seeks to protect its pig industry for economic reasons, as it is the world’s largest exporter of pigs and pig products and the second largest producer in the world after China, with a high concentration of pig meat production in a few MSs. The sector accounts for 8.5% of the total EU-27 agricultural output, the highest share of any meat sector (Augère-Granier, 2020). The STC shows a divergent perception of sustainable issues between the trading partners, one more pronounced on food security and the other on economic concerns. The length of STC, its recurrent nature, and the more general question of recognising regionalisation for managing outbreaks are clearly attributable to broader geopolitical tensions. The STC is still unsolved. The EU-India case The second STC concerns India’s Phytosanitary import restrictions, due to the requirement of fumigation of plants and plant material with Methyl bromide (MBr). The STC was raised by the EU and the US (three times, all in 2004), supported by Canada, Chile, and New Zealand. MBr, as a fumigant, is recognised as an essential tool for controlling some quarantine pests of plants and plant-derived materials. At the same time, MBr is a powerful ozone-depleting gas. For these reasons, MBr is regulated by two Multilateral Agreements: the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the IPPC. The production and consumption of MBr has been phased out worldwide by 2005 for developed countries and by 2015 for developing countries. There is an exemption to the ban for MBr for Quarantine and Pre-Shipment (QPS) use, considering the need for its use where there is no alternative. However, countries are encouraged to use options to MBr where they are technically and economically feasible. In the EU, the production and consumption of MBr for QPS purposes has been banned since March 2010, and MBr fumigation is not allowed for agricultural exports/imports. In 2004, a new import regulation came into force in India, requiring The EU-China case The first STC deals with Chinese import restrictions from the EU due to ASF. As no vaccine is currently available, prevention is the better way to avoid introducing infected material into ASF-free countries through appropriate import policies and biosecurity measures. To ensure traceability, the measures taken should ensure the identification of animals and products derived, the traceability of the movements, the biosecurity measures in place and surveillance. The EU first raised the STC in July 2015 and has done it 18 more times, most recently in November 2023. China has imposed a country-wide ban on imports of pigs and pig products from EU Member States (MS) where ASF has been detected and does not recognise the EU regionalisation applied by the international standards set by the WOAH. The EU raised concerns about China’s ban, considering it overly trade restrictive and inconsistent with China’s obligations under the SPS Agreement and WOAH standards (regionalisation). On the other hand, China believes the ban is necessary because of the ineffective control of the disease by the EU MSs with different levels of prevention and control imposed following the SPS Agreement. Regionalisation allows a country to limit the spread of the disease to a restricted area while allowing trade to continue in the rest of the territory. The key element of the approach is the clear epidemiological separation of the animals and herds or flocks belonging to sub-populations of zones from other animals and all factors presenting a risk. Only a few countries partially or fully recognise the EU regionalisation measures for ASF. In contrast, many countries do not recognise the EU regionalisation measures at all. However, the range of products affected by the ban on imports from the EU is very broad and varies from country to country1. ASF is a highly contagious infectious disease affecting domestic and wild animals of all breeds and ages. Its spread worldwide has become a primary global source of crisis for the pork industry, with a high socio-economic impact on the affected countries due to restrictions on meat exports and limitations on local forest activities (SánchezCordón et al., 2018). Furthermore, its proliferation poses a severe problem for global food security, as pork meat is one of the primary animal protein sources and is expected to account for 34% of all the protein from meat sources by 2030 (OECD/FAO, 2021). China is both the largest producer and consumer of pig meat in the world, accounting for over 40% of the total in 2021. The EU-China case study highlights the different perceptions of risk associated with food safety and food security between the two trading partners. The perceived failure to accommodate legitimate differences in food regulations is a crucial element that can increase resistance to trade liberalisation and lead to unanticipated policy decisions (Roberts and Unnevehr, 2003). China and the EU take divergent positions on regionalisation’s impact, an issue widely discussed in the WTO. According to the EU Commission, under the umbrella of the Animal Health Law legal framework, which 1 For details on trade barriers affecting EU exports to non-EU countries by the type of measures and by the product affected, see the DG Agri website https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/content/trade-barriers. Trade and sustainability: analysing Specific Trade Concerns (STCs) through the Theory of Change 59 pre-shipment fumigation treatment with MBr for most plants and plant products. Because of the ban, India allowed fumigation on arrival in India until 2017. However, due to the thinning of the ozone layer over the country, India first withdrew and then reinstated permission for fumigation at Indian ports. Since 2017, periodically (every six months), India has been granting a waiver from using MBr in exporting countries and allowing fumigation on arrival, subject to payment of a penalty by exporters. Concerns have been raised about procedural issues – lack of predictability and transparency of import procedures, extra costs for paying penalties – and India’s reluctance to accept alternatives to MBr. The analysis of the EU-India STC looks at the trade-off effects of the SPS implemented by India, which focuses more on food security than climate change. In this sense, although the STC was formally raised due to problems with the harmonisation of procedures (including the imposition of penalties on exporters), the underlying sustainability issues reveal a different level of awareness/needs of the two partners. Continuous dialogue between the EU and India was conducted to resolve the STC regarding the procedural issues (payment of penalty lifted in 2022). The Senegal-EU case The third STC was raised by Senegal (once in 2008) for problems with control, inspection and approval procedures. It concerns the EU’s restriction of mango imports from Senegal due to the interception of the fruit fly (an invasive pest considered the primary threat to the horticultural industry in Africa) in imports from Senegal. The mango sector in Senegal has grown dramatically in recent years, both in terms of production and exports. Still, its potential remains under-exploited due to the weakness of the production structures in the central Senegalese-producing regions. To strengthen measures to prevent the introduction and spread of harmful pests and diseases in the EU, a revised EU phytosanitary regime entered into force in December 2019, imposing additional requirements on all countries exporting mangoes to the EU (one of these is the submission to EU of a dossier detailing the “effective treatment” that is intended to be applied to all mango exports to ensure they are free from fruit flies). The EU and Senegal are working together to modernise the mango sector, make it compliant with the new EU SPS regulation, and continue exporting to the EU. The case of Senegal is an example of cooperative behaviour between the two partners. Both partners are aware of the mango sector’s importance in contributing to Senegal’s sustainable economic growth and its potential to provide employment opportunities, particularly for women and young people, and to support rural communities by reducing poverty and ensuring decent work (Maertens and Swinnen, 2009; GIZ, 2021; COLEACP, 2022). The STC has been declared solved. The analysis of the three STCs reveals that the two partners have different levels of awareness and needs regarding the underlying sustainability issues.We have identified three different behaviours regarding sustainability: • divergent (EC-China case), because the two trading partners pose divergent sustainability goals on the same issue (regionalisation), China more pronounced toward food security and the EU on economic concerns (the defence of its pig industry) in an ongoing and not yet concluded discussion; • negotiable trade-offs (EU-India case), because India presents a trade-off between sustainability objectives (food security vs climate change), focusing more on food security (the control of some quarantine pests of plants and plant-derived materials) while the EU on climate change (the effects of MBr on ozone layer); the two-trading partner reached a compromise solution on trade aspects; • cooperative (Senegal-EU case) because the two trading partners share the same sustainability goals, that is, the importance of the mango sector in contributing to Senegal’s sustainable economic growth. The STC is considered solved. The next step will be to outline a path towards WTO modernisation in relation to sustainability through STCs, increasing the participation of less developed countries, following the principles of the ToC. A way to WTO modernisation: the ToC The second objective of our study is to present a pathway for modernising the WTO by investigating the links between trade and sustainability through a constructive and ongoing process of cooperation and consensus-building aimed at overcoming trade-offs and developing win-win situations. This part of the work has been developed according to the logical framework of the ToC, which has dominated the institutional construction and capacity buildings of the major international agencies and agreements over the last decades (Vogel, 2012). The ToC is a methodology that assists organisations in planning, implementing, and evaluating initiatives to create social and environmental change (Lambert, 2023). It is conceived within the large framework of institutional change, and it is intrinsically connected to transition economics and economic development (Kingston and Caballero, 2009). This theory is beneficial for understanding, analysing and contributing to resolving international frictions. The key points of the ToC can be summarised as follows: 1) the theory attempts to hold together concepts such as context, actors and a sequence of logically-linked events leading to long-term change, although there may be many combinations and differently developed applications of these; 2) the approach is easily adaptable according to the nature, scope and level of detail of the change being implemented in different organisations and agencies; 3) the ToC is seen as a more realistic and flexible thinking tool than other current logical framework approaches. Following this theory, the main objective is to identify accelerators and enablers, bottlenecks and solutions to address bottlenecks to enhance the country’s ability Maria Rosaria Pupo D’Andrea, Roberto Henke, Angelo Quarto and Federica Demaria 60 to prioritise actions to achieve sustainable issues along the three pillars of sustainability: economic, social and environmental. Developing a comprehensive ToC requires a deep understanding of the underlying causes of a specific social issue. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge the diverse interventions addressing such causes. Practitioners should articulate their assumptions regarding how these interventions will lead to the desired outcomes. Additionally, they must create a precise plan for measuring and evaluating the impact of these interventions over time. Furthermore, the ToC needs to be communicated to stakeholders. This is one of the most common issues raised in the good implementation of the ToC since it ensures that everyone involved in the project comprehends the strategy for effecting positive change in the system. Many stakeholders’ inability to support and enhance linkages between activities and outcomes raises significant problems for the evaluation design (Connell and Kubisch, 1998). One of the most relevant factors in determining the feasibility of the ToC is the capacity of stakeholders and evaluators to identify, prioritise, and measure the key activities and contextual factors. The challenge posed by the theory of change approach is to theorise prospectively about these issues. The construction of a specific ToC should drive organisations to identify risks and challenges associated with a particular initiative, create the conditions for mitigating those risks, and evaluate the impacts. So, the crucial point is that there is not a generalised ToC but a context-specific identification of a process: from the inputs to the outputs and the final outcomes of an evidence-based central activity (Figure 4). The IPPC has also adopted the ToC approach, which aims to a deeper integration between the actors involved, 1 Problem definition 2 Definition of impact goals Inputs Activity Outcomes (Societal level) Outputs (Project level) Evidence based 6 Progress monitoring and evaluation 5 Definition of metrics for success 4 Stakeholders engagement 3 Assumptions and risks (strategies) Figure 4: The theoretical representation of a context-specific ToC. Source: Authors’ elaboration with a view to introducing the principles of environmental and social sustainability and meeting the UN Millennium Development Goals. To achieve this, the only fruitful way is to analyse specific cases, set up a process of learning from experience, build some good practices to inspire and lead the way to further steps (Wolfe, 2020). The foremost step of the ToC can be summarised in the following (Lambert, 2023): 1. Definition of the problem. Determine the causes of the problem and its main consequences. This phase involves research, stakeholder participation, and data collection to better understand the problem’s causes. 2. Definition of impact goals and strategy (mapping solution). Once the problem has been identified, objectives and possible solutions must be defined through a logical model that defines the initiative’s inputs, activities, outputs, and results. The model should be based on data collected and identify connections between activities and expected outcomes. 3. Identification of assumptions and risks. For the model to work well, it is important to identify all assumptions underlying the logical model and any potential risks that could affect the initiative’s success. This will help develop strategies to mitigate risks. 4. Stakeholder engagement. Throughout the ToC’s design process, it is important to involve stakeholders and collect feedback on their approach. 5. Definition of metrics for success. To monitor the initiative’s progress and assess its impact, it is important to define evaluation metrics. This can be achieved through both quantitative and qualitative measures, such as the number of people reached, changes in behaviour or attitudes of those involved, improvements in health or well-being, etc. 6. Progress monitoring and evaluation. Once the ToC is implemented, monitoring and evaluating progress over time is important. This will help identify all areas where the approach can be adapted and where action can have the most significant possible impact. Discussion of the results Considering the consensus on how to improve the use of STCs to reduce trade disputes to modernise WTO (Wolfe, 2020; Fabri et al., 2023; Posada et al., 2022) and keeping in mind the goal of fostering positive linkages between trade and sustainability, we try to add new evidence on the use of STCs to manage conflicts within the WTO following a ToC framework. The STC mechanism is a process that has the potential advantage to enhance cooperation, transparency and surveillance, promote policy learning and best practices, engage economic diplomacy to clarify misunderstandings, create a dialogue between experts, and thus provide a space for cooperation (Santana and Dobhal, 2024; Fabri et al., 2023). So, our goal is not to apply a ToC framework to our cases but to read, through the lens of the ToC, the strengths and weaknesses of STCs as a conflict management tool in the WTO when sustainability issues are considered. Trade and sustainability: analysing Specific Trade Concerns (STCs) through the Theory of Change 61 From the analysis of Table 2, in which the coherence of the three case studies examined with the steps of the ToC is highlighted, it emerges that the only case coherent with a ToC approach is the Senegal-EU, confirming the cooperative behaviour identified previously, in which the sustainability issues underlying the STC emerged from the very early steps (Problem definition). In this case, stakeholders (both public and private) of the two trading partners have cooperated to contribute to Senegal’s sustainable economic growth by modernising the mango sector and making it compliant with the new EU SPS regulation. The clear understanding of the problem on which the two partners converge has allowed them to identify the correct strategy involving, also through technical assistance programmes, local actors and small producers. This is the only case solved of the three presented regarding sustainability issues. It is worth noting that many international development organisations developed a ToC to build a logical framework under which to develop a specific project (USAID, 2017; CORAF, 2018; World Bank, 2021) or to evaluate the program (IEO UNDP, 2023; Ministero degli Affari Esteri e della Cooperazione Internazionale, 2021). EU-China and EU-India cases both appear inconsistent with the ToC framework. While the EU-India case is resolved on the trade side, it is not on the sustainability side, where the behaviour of negotiable trade-offs has emerged from the analysis in the above section. Both cases show weakness already in the definition of the problem (first step of the ToC), where it would be necessary to consider the (different) sustainability objectives of the two trading partners. This issue affects the subsequent steps regarding stakeholder engagement, as well as the definition of assumptions, risks, and strategy. The EU-China case is far from a solution both from a trade and sustainability point of view (it is the case where divergent behaviour emerges from the previous section). In both cases, there is a need to raise the level of ambition in bilateral economic and trade relations for sustainable development, involving stakeholders of a higher political level. Table 2: Coherence of the three case studies with the ToC framework. EU-China (African Swine fever) Coherence with the ToC EU-India (Fumigation) Coherence with the ToC Senegal-EU (Mango) Coherence with the ToC 1. Problem definition Bring out the sustainability issues underlying STC No Bring out the sustainability issues underlying STC No Bring out the sustainability issues underlying STC Yes 2. Goal definition and strategy Goal definition Restart trade flows, responding to concerns about the safety of trade This contributes to achieving the sustainability objectives of partner countries (economic sustainability for the EU and food security for China) Strategy - Enhancing cooperation and exchange of information - Increasing the level of ambition in bilateral economic and trade relations for sustainable development Partial Partial China promotes a Regional management agreement for ASF (like that signed with France in December 2021). This represents a point of vulnerability because China circumvents the problem by switching from a multilateral to a bilateral approach Goal definition Restart trade flows, responding to concerns about the safety of flows while respecting EU concerns about climate change This contributes to achieving the sustainability objectives of partner countries (climate change for the EU and food security for India) Strategy Bring the discussion regarding climate change to the table Partial Attention focused on trade barriers No Attention focused on food security only. Goal definition Contributing to Senegal’s sustainable economic growth and its potential to provide employment opportunities, particularly for women and young people, and to support rural communities by reducing poverty and ensuring decent work Strategy Modernise the Senegalese mango sector and bring it into compliance with the new EU SPS regulation. Yes Yes 3. Assumptions and risks - Widespread scepticism about the effectiveness of regionalisation applied by the EU (many countries do not recognise EU regionalisation) - Spread of ASF in the EU Member states despite the regionalisation system Yes - Delays regarding the approval of alternative methods/products to MBr - Deriving from the fact that for India, the concern about short-term risks (pests) is predominant compared to medium/long-term risks (climate change) Yes Weakness of the production structures of the main Senegalese producing regions Yes 4. Stakeholders engagement Technical and political level of institutional stakeholders No Technical and political level of institutional stakeholders No Public and private sectors along the supply chain Local actors and small producers NGO and donors Yes 5. Definition of metrics for success STC is not solved on both the trade and sustainability sides, and recurrent Elimination of the countrywide ban on imports from EU MSs where ASF was detected STC partially solved on the trade side but not on the sustainability side Reduction of MBr production and consumption for India’s QPS purpose STC solved both the trade and sustainability side Continue exporting to the EU 6. Progress monitoring and evaluation STC definitively solved STC definitively solved STC definitively solved Source: Authors’ elaboration