Interlinkages Between Agri-Food Trade and the SDGs at the Global, Regional and Local Level
Full text
Journal of International Development, 2025; 37:951–977 https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3994 951 Journal of International Development REVIEW ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS Interlinkages Between AgriFood Trade and the SDGs at the Global, Regional and Local Level ArmahN.A.Ralph1 | QuarteyPeter1 | TurksonEboFestus1,2 | AbbeyN.Emmanuel1,2 | MawuenyegaM.Butu1,2 | Huan-NiemiEllen3 1Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana | 2Department of Economics, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana | 3The National Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Helsinki,Finland Correspondence: Abbey N. Emmanuel ([email protected]) Received: 22 May 2024 | Revised: 30 December 2024 | Accepted: 29 January 2025 Funding: This paper is publishing the results from the Trade4SD research project funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101000551. Keywords: agrifood| economic| environmental| guidance| opportunities| SDGs| social| trade ABSTRACT This study is a structured review on the interlinkages between agrifood trade and the SDGs in the environmental, social and economic dimensions to identify any missed opportunities that agrifood trade could positively impact the SDGs and provide policy guidance for the missed opportunities at the global, regional and national levels. A great deal of diversity in the papers at the global level, and papers at the regional level are similar, but there is additional analysis on promoting regional markets and value chains. Papers at the local level are productspecific to emphasise how the trade of specific agricultural commodities would affect the achievement of particular SDGs in question. There is a concern regarding whether agrifood trade can promote sustainability and the attainment of the SDGs. This is particularly important given that gains from trade are not entirely equitable. Questions relating to concrete innovations, policies and behavioural changes that can ensure systemic transformations remain critical and need to be addressed. 1 | Introduction Agrifood trade, mainly involving the international exchange of agricultural products, is important in addressing the challenges of global food security (Smith and Glauber2020; Mary2019). This notwithstanding, there are concerns about the extent to which trade is interlinked with sustainability and more specifically the sustainable development goals (SDGs). An increase in agrifood trade can undermine the SDGs related to the environment such as climate change, biodiversity loss and natural resource degradation. Gatti etal.(2021) argued that trade could have devastating effects on the environment as it may encourage agricultural extensification and threaten forest cover. Mausch etal.(2020) also showed how increased trade can lead to environmental degradation and social inequality. Agrifood trade could be useful in promoting the SDGs. The World Bank(2018) argues that economies that are involved in agrifood trade are more likely to grow quickly, innovate, boost productivity and ensure better living standards and higher incomes. Lee etal.(2012) provide the advantages of trade through participation in global value chains and argue that trade encourages economic growth and lowers poverty. Trade is thus likely to provide better jobs, lower product prices and stimulate the growth necessary to alleviate poverty. Therefore, international agrifood trade has an important role to play in promoting sustainable development at the global, regional and local/ This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2025 The Author(s). Journal of International Development published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
952 Journal of International Development, 2025 countryspecific levels (World Bank2018). However, effective policy measures are needed in preventing or limiting the damage to ecosystem because of expansion in agricultural trade and production due to trade liberalisation. This paper provides a structured literature review on the relationships between international agrifood trade and sustainability to better understand how agrifood trade is promoting or deterring the achievement of SDGs. There are many studies linking agrifood trade with sustainability, but studies exploring the nexus between agrifood trade and the list of SDGS categorised in the three dimensions of sustainability— environmental, social and economic—is rare. HuanNiemi etal.(2022) conducted a scoping exercise on the possible linkages between international agrifood trade and the SDGs according to the different dimensions of sustainability. Dangles and Struelens (2023) assessed literature published between 2017 and 2021, whereby the research results are supporting only the achievement of SDG 2 without examining the rest of the SDGs. Meanwhile, El Bilali etal.(2021) explored the academic literature to assess the nexus between agrifood systems and the SDGs, but not focusing on agrifood trade. The FAO(2019) has provided practical and interconnected actions with the aim of transforming food and agriculture to propel achievement across the SDGs, primarily targeting decisionmakers responsible for integrating the goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development into national policies and programmes. The main motivation of this paper is to examine the interlinkages between agrifood trade and the SDGS in an effort to identify any missed opportunities that agrifood trade could foster a positive impact on the SDGs as well as to provide some policy guidance for the missed opportunities at the global, regional and national levels. Accordingly, the analysis is structured at the global, regional and local levels to provide a wideranging overview of the relationship between agrifood trade and the SDGs. Specifically, this paper identifies the most analysed countries or regions and the types of issues that have emerged. While papers at the global level emphasised the implication of agricultural trade and sustainability for all countries in the world, the regional papers focused mainly on regional blocs including Asia, Africa and Europe; meanwhile, locallevel papers are countryspecific studies examining the interlinkages between the trade of certain agrifood commodities and the SDGs. Overall, we observe that the relationship between agrifood trade and the SDGs has been tackled in various ways. At the global level, specifically, we find a great deal of diversity in the papers. At the regional level, the studies are similar to those at the global level, but there is additional analysis on promoting regional markets and value chains that could contribute to the SDGs in the economic and social dimensions. Studies at the local level are productspecific to emphasise how the trade of specific agricultural commodities would affect the achievement of particular SDGs in question. One important conclusion that we make is that profound systemic transformation is required to ensure that agrifood trade can effectively contribute to the attainment of the SDGs. And to ensure this occurs, there are open questions about the type of innovations, policies and behavioural changes that need to be addressed. 2 | Materials and Methods Two online scientific databases (i.e., Scopus and Web of Science) were used in the search for the relevant literature to support this study. The terms used in the search were ‘Sustainable Development Goal’ and ‘trade’. These specific words were included in the articles' title, abstract or keywords. The search was restricted to studies in English or with some information available in English. From the databases, the initial search yielded 3774 articles (Figure1). The online software package (Covidence) was used to exclude duplicates while retaining relevant studies. After excluding 989 duplicates, 2785 articles remained as studies to be investigated in the systematic literature review. The initial screening is based on the title and abstract, but studies with conflicting outcomes were discussed among different reviewers. This screening resulted in 2618 articles being excluded. The remaining 167 articles, covering all the relevant journal articles published until the end of August 2021, were screened more indepth by the reviewers to analyse the relationship between international trade and the SDGs. Two different searches were executed (see Figure1)—the broad ‘systematic search’, which resulted in 167 journal articles and the narrow ‘expert search’, which resulted in 57 journal articles—by the interdisciplinary researchers involved in this study. The ‘expert search’ was based on the different disciplines and expertise of the researchers and executed through the Google search engine for policy papers and grey literature along with Google Scholar for additional journal articles searched after August 2021. Therefore, the ‘expert search’ was a more focused search to complement the ‘systematic search’ to include specific and current topics together with journal articles that were not captured by the broad ‘systematic search’ as well as to find policy papers and grey literature to support the policy guidance for the missed opportunities in agrifood trade that could positively impact the SDGs. A total of 13 references from grey literature were used for the indepth analysis. In this study, the ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ linkages between the 17 SDGs and international trade are analysed and classified into the environmental, social and economic dimensions (see Figure2). If a specific SDG is mentioned explicitly in an article, it is considered a direct linkage. If a specific SDG is not mentioned explicitly in an article, but the keywords relating to the SDGs are mentioned in an article (e.g., growth and poverty), it is considered an indirect linkage. The linkages are considered as positive outcomes if agrifood trade facilitates the achievements of the SDGs, and the linkages are considered as negative outcomes if agrifood trade hinders the achievements of the SDGs. In exploring the link between global value chains and the SDGs, it is considered a direct linkage if a specific activity (e.g., palm oil production) is directly affecting the SDG either with positive outcomes (e.g., income generation and employment) or negative outcomes (e.g., land grabbing and poor housing conditions). If a specific activity (e.g., deforestation due to land clearing for palm oil production) is indirectly affecting the SDG with a negative outcome, it is considered an indirect linkage. This approach was used to identify the missed opportunities in agrifood trade that could positively impact sustainability, defined in terms of the SDGs.
953 3 | Results 3.1 | Spatial Distribution and Interlinkages of Traded AgriFood Products With the SDGs This section presents the results of the 224 journal articles reviewed in this study (see Appendix A for the full list of papers reviewed). The analysis is structured at the global, regional and local levels and classified into different agricultural products that are explicitly stated in the journal articles, which include seafood and fisheries, fresh fruit and vegetables and other tropical commodities. Table1 is listing studies at the global, regional and national levels that are examining the interlinkages between the trade of certain agrifood commodities and the related SDGs. The listed studies are especially chosen from the 224 journal articles to emphasise how the trade of specific agricultural commodities would affect the achievement of particular SDGs in question. The majority of the studies with 121 papers are at the global level, overall emphasising the implication of agricultural trade on sustainability with different linkages to the SDGs (both positive and negative outcomes). Meanwhile, the rest of the studies are either regional papers or locallevel papers pertaining at the country level divided into regions such as Europe (20 papers), FIGURE 1 | Systematic literature review—PRISMA flow diagram.
954 Journal of International Development, 2025 Africa (30 papers), Asia (42 papers), North America (5 papers) and Latin America (4 papers). There is only one paper each for the Mediterranean and Oceania region. Therefore, many papers are mainly dealing with regions and developing countries located in Africa and Asia. At the global level, the papers reviewed have discussed various aspects of international agricultural trade and the SDGs. Most of the papers focused on the areas of economic development and growth (Downing etal.2021; Montanía etal.2021), economic policies and governance (Skerritt and Sumaila 2021; Sumaila et al. 2019), livelihood and wellbeing (Downing et al. 2021; Skerrit and Sumaila 2021) and biodiversity (Wu et al. 2021; Skerritt and Sumaila2021; CisnerosMontemayor and Sumaila2019; Costello etal.2021; Asche etal.2015; Sumaila etal.2019). The papers reviewed can be linked both directly and indirectly to SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 13 (climate action), SDG 14 (life below water) and SDG 15 (life on land). The issues reviewed at the regional level are similar to those of the global level, although the studies found were mostly about the European Union (EU), Africa and Asia. The issues studied relate to markets and value chain (Ezirigwe et al. 2021), economic development and growth (Lerner etal.2021), traderelated economic policies and governance (Lerner etal.2021; Corrado et al. 2020), food and nutrition security (Ezirigwe etal.2021), livelihood and wellbeing (Corrado etal.2020; Penca etal.2021), biodiversity (Penca etal.2021) and emissions and pollution (Corrado etal.2020). The reviewed papers have linkages to SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 3 (good health and wellbeing), SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production) and SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions). Studies at the local level typically focus on particular agricultural products (such as croplivestock systems, sugar, palm oil, coffee, coconut, cotton, milk, pineapple, pomelo and rapeseed) and relate to economic development and growth, economic policies and governance (Nhlengethwa et al. 2021; Valdivia etal.2017; Bacon etal.2008), livelihood and standard of living and impacts on ecosystem services (Ayompe etal.2021). These studies have linkages to SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 4 (quality education), SDG 8 (decent job and economic growth), SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and SDG 15 (life on land). 3.2 | The Interlinkages Between Trade and the SDGs 3.2.1 | Findings From the Literature Review Although trade can influence sustainability in many different ways, our discussion focuses on the SDGs and specifically on three dimensions: environmental, social and economic (see Figure2). The SDGs are classified according to the ‘planetary boundaries’ concept that involves Earth system processes and contain environmental boundaries (Stockholm Resilience Centre2017). This concept is defining a ‘safe operating space for humanity’ as a precondition towards sustainable development for the international community, including governments at all levels, international organisations, civil society, the scientific community and the private sector. This framework is based on scientific evidence that human actions since the Industrial Revolution have become the main driver of global environmental change. Figure 2 is showing that social and economic dimensions are seen as embedded in the environmental dimension, thus implying that the environmental aspects are the most important followed by the social aspects and finally the economic aspects, embedded in the social and environmental dimensions. Each of the dimensions consists of separate topics related to the economic, social and environmental issues reviewed in the literature and associated to the different regions (see Figure3). i. Economic dimension (markets and value chains, economic development and growth and policies and governance); ii. Social dimension (food and nutrition security, labour and employment and livelihood and wellbeing); iii. Environmental dimension (biodiversity, GHG emissions, pollution, deforestation and renewable energy). Concerning the economic dimension, the interest is mainly on the extent that trade can directly contribute to the SDGs focusing on economic development and growth (152 papers), policies and governance (38 papers) along with markets and value chains (14 papers). A good starting point for this discussion is the conventional classical trade theories, which emphasise the importance of capital accumulation, specialisation and division of labour in facilitating trade between countries (WTO2018). Trade liberalisation is treated as a critical engine for economic growth. A direct link to the SDGs can be the effect of agrifood trade that enhances economic growth (SDG 8) as well as the transfer of technology, knowledge and innovation (SDG 9), the reduction of inequalities (SDG 10) and the facilitation of responsible consumption and production via sustainable value chains (SDG 12). The WTO(2018) study provides an explanation on how trade enhances economic growth by emphasising the advantages of improved purchasing power of consumers and the FIGURE 2 | The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are classified into the three dimensions of sustainability according to the ‘planetary boundaries’ concept.
955 TABLE 1 | The interlinkages of traded agrifood products with the SDGs. Agrifood products Global level Regional level Local level Direct linkage Indirect linkage Direct linkage Indirect linkage Direct linkage Indirect linkage Seafood and fisheries Seafood 2, 8, 14 1, 8, 10, 12, 14 Fisheries 1, 2, 8, 14 1, 8, 9, 10, 12 Smallscale fisheries 9, 11, 14 3, 8 Fresh fruit and vegetables Pomelo 8, 10 1, 9 Pineapple 1, 8, 9 Tropical commodities Coffee 1, 9, 16 8, 10 1, 2, 4, 8, 9 Sugar 8, 9, 11, 16 3, 4 Coconut 8 9, 10 Palm oil 15 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16 1, 8, 11, 15 13, 16 Cereals Rice 13 15 1, 2 Oilseeds Soybean 8, 12, 15 2, 6, 13 Rapeseed 7, 13 9 Others Cotton 2, 8 Milk 8, 10 1, 2 Agricultural goods 1, 2, 3, 6, 12 8, 9, 13 Croplivestock systems 1, 82, 6, 10, 12, 15 (Continues)
956 Journal of International Development, 2025 competitiveness of domestic firms. The study discusses the advantages of firms exploiting economies of scale to enhance their productivity, which ultimately increases production and consumption. Ali etal.(2021) showed how trade liberalisation policies stimulated technological innovation in many Asian countries. Artuc etal. (2019) discussed gains from trade and found evidence of a tradeoff between the income gains and the inequality costs, which arises because trade tends to exacerbate income inequality. Concerning agrifood trade, Alharthi and Hanif(2020) found that the blue economy (fisheries production and fishing) played a direct and positive role in the economic growth of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) countries. Borsellino etal.(2020) conducted an extensive literature review and also found positive, although indirect, spillover effects of agrifood trade on economic growth. This finding was consistent for specific agricultural products. Chiputwa and Qaim(2016) found similar indirect positive effects of certified coffee trade on economic growth in Uganda. Lee etal.(2012) also show that global value chains of agrifood products promote economic growth and poverty reduction. Under the social dimension, the studies reviewed focus largely on livelihood and wellbeing (122 papers), food and nutrition security (24 papers), followed by labour and employment (1 paper), accordingly. The studies relate to how trade directly or indirectly affects social challenges such as hunger, food security, healthy lives, wellbeing or labour issues and employment. Through its effects on economic growth and development, trade could lead to a reduction in poverty (SDG 1), mainly through increased incomes and welfare (Bhagwati and Srinivasan 2002). However, there could be some adverse effects if, for instance, trade is accompanied by protectionist policies leading to a decline in the efficiency of labour and the competitiveness of local firms (Bhagwati and Srinivasan2002). Ge etal.(2021) also showed how an open, rulesbased trading system and the creation of a transparent, undistorted production and investment environment are critical to improving food and nutrition security (SDG 2), especially in developing countries. Bacon et al. (2008) and Chiputwa and Qaim(2016) indicated how trade impacts food security through participation in certification or standard schemes, thus increasing household caloric and micronutrient consumption (SDG 3). Feyaerts etal.(2020) argued that trade, through participation in global value chains, could create jobs; however, noted that the development and expansion of global value chains can compete with local value chains for labour (e.g., during harvest) thereby leading to adverse outcomes. For global value chains in the social dimension, Ayompe etal.(2021) found palm oil production to be an important tool for job creation. The contribution of palm oil production and trade to employment has also been confirmed by Downing etal.(2021). Yameogo and Omojolaibi(2021) also explored the link between trade openness and employment and found a positive impact in SubSaharan Africa. In response to campaigns by trade unions and NGOs to enforce labour standards, leading companies in the floricultural value chain in Kenya and Uganda have improved employment conditions, as pointed out by Kaplinsky and Morris(2018). Agrifood products Global level Regional level Local level Direct linkage Indirect linkage Direct linkage Indirect linkage Direct linkage Indirect linkage Supporting literature Asche etal.(2015), CisnerosMontemayor etal.(2020), CisnerosMontemayor and Sumaila(2019), Corrado etal.(2020), Costello etal.(2021), Downing etal.(2021), Kumar etal.(2019), Montanía etal.(2021), Skerritt and Sumaila(2021), Sumaila etal.(2019), Wu etal.(2021) Corrado etal.(2020), Ezirigwe etal.(2021), Lerner etal.(2021), Penca etal.(2021), Weersink etal.(2021) Ayompe etal.(2021), Bacon etal.(2008), Chiputwa and Qaim(2016), Chiputwa etal.(2015), Doliente and Samsatli(2021), Hoang etal.(2021), Hoang and Tran(2019), Meemken etal.(2017), Nhlengethwa etal.(2021), Shumeta etal.(2018), Valdivia etal.(2017), Whitfield(2017) Note: The numbers represent the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the SDG numbers are colourcoded according to the environmental, social and economic dimensions. TABLE 1 | (Continued)
957 Most of the studies under the environmental dimension focus on biodiversity (94 papers), GHG emissions, pollution and deforestation (23 papers), followed by renewable energy (10 papers), respectively. The main emphasis is on the extent to which trade directly or indirectly affects SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG 13 (climate actions), SDG 14 (life below water) and SDG 15 (life on land). There is no denying that trade has an impact on the environment through a variety of routes, including input use, production, processing, packaging and transportation. The focus of the literature is mainly on the extent to which continued and sustained trade can be harmful to the environment. According to the ‘gain from trade hypothesis’, trade openness through the technique effect (indicates the changes in individual industries' pollution intensity) facilitates technology transfer across countries promoting energy efficiency, while the scale effect has a direct linkage with the wellknown ‘pollution haven hypothesis’ (Ali etal.2021). Singh etal. (2018) demonstrated how the global trade of fish products contributed to ocean acidification and illegal and overfishing, thereby decreasing biodiversity. Sumaila etal.(2019) and Kumar etal.(2019) focused on harmful fishing and fuel subsidies and the extent to which they affected biodiversity. Another important issue related to the agrifood trade and biodiversity nexus is the negative impacts of the hydrocarbon industry on life in oceans. Agricultural production is heavily reliant on fossil energy, thus large amount of fossil fuels is required to power heavy farming machinery, process foods, refrigerate foods during transportation, produce packaging materials and manufacture chemical fertilisers and pesticides as well as raw materials for petrochemical industries that produce plastics, chemicals and other essential products needed in agrifood trade. Heat gain from anthropogenic climate change, coming largely from fossil fuels and the resulting sealevel rise and ecosystem collapse, is an existential threat to biodiversity (Andrews etal.2021). Ali etal.(2021) examined how trade openness affects greenhouse gas emissions in the Asian region over the 1990–2015 period. They found that the goals of environmental sustainability could be attained if the pace of national output growth was accompanied by environmental regulations and clean technology improvements when framing comprehensive trade policy. 3.2.2 | Global Level At the global level, the literature exploring the relationship between international agricultural trade and SDGs has explored various issues, which cut across all three main dimensions: economic, social and environmental. The papers exploring the economic development and growth issues include the papers by Downing etal.(2021) and Montanía etal.(2021). Downing et al. (2021) focused on the trade in rubber and palm oil in Southeast Asian countries, soy production in Brazil and logging in South Pacific Island states to explore the crosssector effects of production for trade with China. They showed the extent to which trade in these products affected economic growth and development in most countries, using a telecoupling framework that tracks spillover effects to other sectors as well as other scale effects. The study (linked to SDG 15—life on land) further emphasised that existing social and environmental regulations are insufficient to sustain the production of these products. Thus, more efficient regulations, policies or laws are required (link to SDG 16—strong institutions) to manage their production, distribution and transnational equality issues. Montanía et al. (2021) focused on soybean production and showed how its exports boosted the economies of major exporting countries like Brazil and minor FIGURE 3 | Analysis of agrifood trade in the different dimensions of sustainability and region.
958 Journal of International Development, 2025 exporting countries like Ukraine and Paraguay. Relating to the production of soybean to the pressure on natural resources (mostly land use), Montanía etal.(2021) argued that government involvement is required in the development of collaborative strategies between countries that have higher levels of landuse changes involved in its production and export policies. They predicted that the high geographical concentration of exports could affect landuse changes. They also argued that the mismanagement of soybean trade will significantly affect producers and exporters within the soybean production and trade system and could compromise the fulfilment of the SDGs. The discussions showed that soybean export could be enhanced to promote decent work and economic growth (SDG 8) as well as the promotion of responsible consumption and production (SDG 12). The studies also emphasised the importance of collective action (SDG 17—partnerships for the goals). With regards to the papers discussing economic policies and governance issues at the global level, Skerritt and Sumaila(2021) and Sumaila etal.(2019) are the most comprehensive articles on the link between fisheries and harmful subsidies provided by governments; therefore, it is important to eliminate harmful subsidies for fisheries through a multilateral trade agreement under the mandate of the World Trade Organization (WTO). They showed that the lack of a clear metric for measuring the potential scale effects was a huge stumbling block. Skerritt and Sumaila(2021) also discussed the extent to which harmful fisheries subsidies, through their effects on overfishing, which undermines the breeding of fish population that can lead to the nonattainment of SDG targets related to reducing poverty (SDG 1), providing nutritious foods (SDG 2) and securing livelihoods (SDG 8). It is important to note that most of these effects are not direct outcomes of the paper reviewed, respectively, and are based on association without proving the causality in these interactions. Sumaila etal.(2019) explored a similar issue by providing estimates of the scope, amount and level of subsidisation in the fisheries sector. They showed that while the increase in fisheries subsidies has halted compared to previous decades, the bulk of harmful ‘capacityenhancing’ subsidies, particularly those for fossil fuels, has increased as a proportion of total subsidies. They make the case that failure to remove such subsidies will give the impression that fisheries subsidies would undermine sustainability, poverty alleviation and food and nutritional security. They further argued that the subsidies, no matter how small, would be more effective in being redirected towards beneficial forms of support that do not potentially undermine the sustainability of fish stocks. They conclude that for the benefit of marine ecosystems (i.e., both current and future generations of people), the WTO must be supported to reach a meaningful agreement to discipline subsidies that lead to overcapacity and overfishing. They also argue that harmful subsidies could be reoriented towards fisheries management and technological improvements in fishing approaches, a shift from subsidies based on the cost of fishing (fishers' own capital) or the conditional provision of subsidies based on fisheries' environmental performance. On the issue of biodiversity, Skerritt and Sumaila (2021), Sumaila etal.(2019), CisnerosMontemayor and Sumaila(2019) and Costello etal.(2021) have sought to understand the implication of international trade on the sustainability of fish products. Costello etal.(2021) showed how the WTO was in a better position to deliver on SDG 14 (life below water) by reforming global fisheries subsidies to enhance fisheries biodiversity. Downing etal.(2021) and Skerritt and Sumaila(2021) also explored some livelihood and wellbeing issues in global trade. Downing etal.(2021), in their discussion on how trade deals are done and who must be included in their development, emphasised that previous strategies were limited to a few beneficiaries and that there was a need to emphasise largescale effects. Relying on the case of the effect of reforestation programmes in China on countries supplying forest and agricultural commodities to China (mainly rubber and oil palm), they showed that the sustainability progress in China from reforestation is cancelled out by the deforestation and crosssectoral impacts from abroad. They also provided narratives of supporting economic development from commodity production abroad through the benefit distribution of socioecological forest systems. We find many mixed effects—where processes that support the achievement of SDGs exist but are overshadowed by counterproductive processes. Livelihoods are affected because the bulk of the products they focus on are produced by smallholder farmers. The missed opportunities in agrifood trade that could positively impact the SDGs would be the inclusion of smallholder farmers in global value chains. The issue is how smallholder farmers can get access to global markets by participating in global value chains. There are limited studies on assisting smallholder farmers to be included in value chains and access international markets with higher revenues. Participation in certification or standard schemes have increased household caloric and micronutrient consumption because participation in global value chains have increased household income, thus allowing more expenditure on food and better nourishment (Bacon etal.2008; Chiputwa and Qaim2016), therefore promoting food and nutrition security (SDG 2—zero hunger). Contract farming between smallholder farmers and agroindustrial companies can influence production decisions through agreements by specifying market obligations such as value, volume, quality and price as well as provide specific inputs to farmers, thus reducing farmers' production constraints from market imperfections (Swinnen and Maertens 2007). Contract farming could increase farmers' income, stabilise prices, enhance market access, enrich food quality and safety and improve traceability for food retailers (Gómez etal.2020; Guo etal.2007; Hoang etal.2021). Governments can support the related high costs in encouraging smallholder farmers to participate in contract farming through capacity building and training programmes (Arias etal.2013). 3.2.3 | Regional Level The trade and SDGsrelated issues discussed here mimic those of the global level. Concerning the economic dimension of markets and value chains, Ezirigwe etal.(2021) discussed trade in general agricultural goods and navigating the realities of food security in African markets within the context of the COVID19 pandemic. The study showed how trade in agricultural products can be critical in addressing SDG 1 (no
959 poverty), SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 3 (good health and wellbeing) and SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production). They showed that while the pandemic provides an opportunity for governments to strengthen their commitments, it raised questions about the ambitious efforts to deliver the SDGs by 2030. They recommended that African governments need to maximise intraAfrican trade with investments in agricultural biotechnological infrastructure to close the gap between the targets and the realities. More specifically, they discussed advances in modern biotechnology where the current focus is on genetic engineering or modification. They argue that in the area of plant biotechnology, crops have been modified to survive climatic issues such as drought or frost; to remain fresh for a longer period thereby obviating postharvest wastages; to resist insects and diseases; to tolerate herbicides, allowing farmers to spray weed killers on fields without damaging crops, and enhance their nutritional qualities. For the economic dimension of growth and development as well as policies, the study by Lerner etal.(2021) explored the issue of unfair trade practices by investigating the drivers of the differences between farmgate and freeonboard (FOB) prices in the most important Arabica coffeeproducing countries worldwide: Brazil, Guatemala, Colombia, Honduras, Peru and Ethiopia. The study examined the literature on governance in agrifood chains, with a focus on each country's domestic market. The findings showed that heterogeneity in infrastructure and institutions are key explanatory factors; i.e., (i) the better protection of property rights, (ii) the better access to electricity and (iii) the better quality of roads, the lower the difference between farmgate and FOB prices, i.e., the lower the inefficiencies, the fairer the prices paid to coffee farmers. They further indicated that these differences lead to the introduction of intermediaries in the coffee supply chain, and the generation of transaction costs, which reduces the margin that coffee farmers receive generally. Thus, actions aimed at reducing these inefficiencies (reducing transaction costs), which include enhancing the quality of infrastructure and those aimed at lowering the need for intermediation, are needed to bring more transparency and lower transaction costs, thereby contributing to SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure) and SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions). Penca etal.(2021) analysed the fish market in the Mediterranean region to map the drivers and feedback loops that keep fisheries in an unsustainable trajectory as well as review the key innovations in support of the sustainable smallscale fishing sector. They sought to understand how the biodiversity of fisheries can be sustained and how the negative effects of the current market structure on the livelihood of smallscale fishers can be mitigated. On the issue of addressing the negative effects of the existing market structures on smallscale fishers, they discussed various governance interventions including the shortening of the value chain, innovation in the distribution channel, diversification in the type of product offered, promotion and education regarding smallscale fisheries products, label and brand development and the empowerment of smallscale fisheries communities through improved leadership, ownership, cooperation and coordination. Since better access to markets creates more opportunities for innovation, enhancing infrastructure, enabling the functioning of communities and product development, these discussions are the focus of SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) and SDG 14 (life below water). The papers of Penca etal.(2021) and Corrado etal.(2020) both had environmental dimensions related to biodiversity as well as emissions and pollution. Penca etal.(2021) indicated that the drivers and feedback loop to keep fisheries in an unsustainable trajectory are directly affecting the attainment of SDG 14 (life below water). Corrado etal.(2020) compared the environmental performance between imports and domestic activities— imports are a key contributor to resource depletion, human toxicity, ocean acidification and freshwater ecotoxicity. The missed opportunities in agrifood trade that could positively impact the SDGs would be environmental provisions in regional trade agreements (RTAs) that are effective in deterring damage to the ecosystem because of trade liberalisation, for example, limiting deforestation. Abman etal.(2024) found that the inclusion of specific provisions aimed at protecting forests and/or biodiversity almost entirely offsets the net increases in forest loss observed in similar RTAs without such provisions, especially for tropical, developing countries with greater biodiversity. Due to trade liberalisation that can spur environmental degradation, the inclusion of these environmental provisions limits agricultural expansion, hence reducing deforestation that can help to achieve SDG 15 (life on land). However, enforcement of environmental provisions often depends on the political will of the signatory countries and may lack robust monitoring mechanisms. Furthermore, current environmental provisions are often broad and may rely on the commitment of partner countries to implement specific measures. The EU's new regulation (EU Deforestation Regulation— EUDR) to curb EU markets' impact on global deforestation and forest degradation can help in enforcing the environmental provisions in RTAs. The EUDR requires companies trading in cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber, soya and wood to conduct extensive due diligence on the value chain to ensure the goods do not result from recent deforestation, forest degradation or breaches of local environmental and social laws. The EUDR includes strict penalties for noncompliance, thus enhancing the accountability of companies operating within EU markets (European Commission2024). This would assist the enforcement of environmental provisions as well as monitoring mechanisms in RTAs such as the Economic Partnership Agreements between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. However, the obligations of the EUDR are postponed for 1 year due to major implementation and technical issues: EU member states, nonEU countries, traders and operators raised concerns that they would not be able to fully comply with the rules if applied at the end of 2024 (European Council2024). For example, companies will have to purchase from large producers that can afford the means to prove the ‘due diligence’ on the supply of deforestationfree commodities, therefore bypassing small producers and hindering an objective of the EUDR, which is protecting local communities. Furthermore, the European Commission needed more time to conduct benchmarking and classification of countries into ‘low risk’, ‘standard risk’ and ‘high risk’ on deforestation along with a wellfunctioning electronic system to register the ‘due diligence’ information (Jones
966 Journal of International Development, 2025 Appendix A Journal Articles Included From the ‘Systematic Search’. Author Paper 1 Adedoyin etal.(2021). The alternative energy utilization and common regional trade outlook in EU27: Evidence from common correlated effects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 145, 111092. 2 Agarwal, M., Agarwal, A., Agarwal, Y., & Agarwal, S. (2018). Enterprising entrepreneurship & startups: Models for growth and financing of micro, small & medium enterprises (MSMEs) in times of recession. Financ. India, 32, 11251208. 3 Ahmad, M. (2010). Agriculture and international trade. In J.- P. Lehmann & F. Lehmann (Eds.), Peace and Prosperity through World Trade: Achieving the 2019 Vision (pp. 207–210). chapter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 4 Akbar, U., Kumar, A., Khan, H., Khan, M. A., Parvaiz, K., & Oláh, J. (2020). Tradeoffs in competitive transport operations. Economies, 8(3), 56. 5 Akshalova etal.(2020). World trade organization and the renewable energy sources cases: How to achieve the SDG7? Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, 11(4), 10871094. 6 Alawin, M., & Oqaily, M. (2017). Current account balance, inflation, industry and sustainable development in Jordan. Revista galega de economía: Publicación Interdisciplinar da Facultade de Ciencias Económicas e Empresariais, 26(3), 4556. 7 Artuc etal.(2019). Trading off the income gains and the inequality costs of trade policy. Journal of International Economics, 120, 1–45. 8 Alexeew, J., Bergset, L., Meyer, K., Petersen, J., Schneider, L., & Unger, C. (2010). An analysis of the relationship between the additionality of CDM projects and their contribution to sustainable development. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(3), 233248. 9 Alharthi and Hanif(2020). Impact of blue economy factors on economic growth in the SAARC countries. Maritime Business Review, 5(3), 253269. 10 Ali etal.(2021). Dynamics of international trade, technology innovation and environmental sustainability: evidence from Asia by accounting for crosssectional dependence. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 64(10), 18641885. 11 Aluko, A. O., & Odularu, G. O. A. (2019). Understanding the Impact of Strategic Change Management on the Maritime Crude Oil Transportation Industry in Nigeria. The Review of Black Political Economy, 46(2), 130151. 12 Alvarado etal.(2021). Ecological footprint, air quality and research and development: The role of agriculture and international trade. Journal of Cleaner Production, 288, 125 589. 13 Andersen, P. H., & Esbjerg, L.(2020). Weaving a strategy for a baseofthepyramid market: The case of Grundfos LIFELINK. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8), 36873701. 14 Andrews etal.(2021). Oil, fisheries and coastal communities: A review of impacts on the environment, livelihoods, space and governance. Energy Research & Social Science, 75, 102009. 15 Andronova, I., & Sakharov, A. (2019). G20 Contribution to the traderelated sdgs implementation1. International Organisations Research Journal. 16 Arampantzi, C., & Minis, I. (2017). A new model for designing sustainable supply chain networks and its application to a global manufacturer. Journal of Cleaner Production, 156, 276292.
967 Author Paper 17 Asmah etal.(2020). Trade misinvoicing effects on tax revenue in subSaharan Africa: The role of tax holidays and regulatory quality. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 91(4), 649672. 18 Aswani, R. S., Sajith, S., & Bhat, M. Y. (2021). Realigning India's Vietnam Policy Through Cooperative Sustainable Development: a Geostrategic Counterbalancing to China in IndoPacific. East Asia, 119. 19 Ayompe etal.(2021). Towards sustainable palm oil production: The positive and negative impacts on ecosystem services and human wellbeing. Journal of cleaner production, 278, 123914. 20 Bacon etal.(2008). Are sustainable coffee certifications enough to secure farmer livelihoods? The millenium development goals and Nicaragua's Fair Trade Cooperatives. Globalizations, 5(2), 259274. 21 Bhagwati and Srinivasan(2002). Trade and poverty in the poor countries. American Economic Review, 92(2), 180–183. 22 Barrera, A. G. (2020). Geographical indications for UN sustainable development goals: Intellectual property, sustainable development and M&E systems. International Journal of Intellectual Property Management, 10(2), 113173. 23 Bhavsar etal.(2021). Towards sustainable development: Optimal pricing and sales strategies for retailing fair trade products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 286, 124990. 24 Booth etal.(2021). “Saving Lives, Protecting Livelihoods, and Safeguarding Nature”: RiskBased Wildlife Trade Policy for Sustainable Development Outcomes PostCOVID19. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 639216. 25 Broermann, S. (2020). Tradeled growth: A path to sustainable development in SubSaharan Africa. Moving from the Millennium to the Sustainable Development Goals: Lessons and Recommendations, 119153. 26 Campi, M., Dueñas, M., & Fagiolo, G. (2021). Specialization in food production affects global food security and food systems sustainability. World Development, 141, 105411. 27 Carr, J. A., Petrokofsky, G., Spracklen, D. V., Lewis, S. L., Roe, D., Trull, N., Sallu, S. M. (2021). Anticipated impacts of achieving SDG targets on forests - a review. Forest Policy and Economics, 126, 102423. 28 Chaabane, A., Ramudhin, A., & Paquet, M. (2011). Designing supply chains with sustainability considerations. Production Planning & Control, 22(8), 727741. 29 Charoenrat, T., & Pholphirul, P. (2020). The Industrial Sector Participation in Global Value Chains for Sustainable Development of the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS). Global Business Review, 23(3), 608640. 30 Chaudhary and Brooks(2019). National Consumption and Global Trade Impacts on Biodiversity. World Development, 121, 178187. 31 Chin, M. Y., Ong, S. L., Wai, C. K., & Kon, Y. Q. (2021). The role of infrastructure on economic growth in belt and road participating countries. Journal of Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies, 14(2), 169186. 32 CisnerosMontemayor and Sumaila(2019). Busting myths that hinder an agreement to end harmful fisheries subsidies. Marine Policy, 109, 103699. 33 CisnerosMontemayor etal.(2020). Changing the narrative on fisheries subsidies reform: Enabling transitions to achieve SDG 14.6 and beyond. Marine Policy, 117, 103970. 34 Claudy, M. C., Peterson, M., & Pagell, M. (2016). The Roles of Sustainability Orientation and Market Knowledge Competence in New Product Development Success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33, 7285. 35 Coles, N., & Hall, P. (2012). Water, energy and food security. In 2012 IEEE Conference on Technology and Society in Asia (T&SA) (pp. 16). IEEE. 36 Corrado etal.(2020). Out of sight out of mind? A life cyclebased environmental assessment of goods traded by the European Union. Journal of Cleaner Production, 246, 118954.
968 Journal of International Development, 2025 Author Paper 37 Costello etal.(2021). Ambitious subsidy reform by the WTO presents opportunities for ocean health restoration. Sustainability Science, 16, 13911396. 38 D'Souza etal.(2020). Fairtrade nexus between justworld beliefs and normative antecedents. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 38(7), 9911005. 39 Destek, M. A., Sarkodie, S. A., & Asamoah, E. F. (2021). Does biomass energy drive environmental sustainability? An SDG perspective for top five biomass consuming countries. Biomass and Bioenergy, 149, 106076. 40 Dilekli, N., & Cazcarro, I. (2019). Testing the SDG targets on water and sanitation using the world trade model with a waste, wastewater, and recycling framework. Ecological Economics, 165, 106376. 41 Doliente and Samsatli(2021). Integrated production of food, energy, fuels and chemicals from rice crops: Multiobjective optimisation for efficient and sustainable value chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, 124900. 42 Downing etal.(2021). When the whole is less than the sum of all parts – Tracking globallevel impacts of national sustainability initiatives. Global Environmental Change, 69, 102306. 43 Dzawanda, B., Nicolau, M. D., & Matsa, M. (2021). Impact of Virtual Cash Economy on Livelihood Outcomes of Informal Cross Border Traders in Gweru, Zimbabwe. In Urban Forum (Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 521539). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. 44 Endl, A., Tost, M., Hitch, M., Moser, P., & Feiel, S. (2019). Europe's mining innovation trends and their contribution to the sustainable development goals: Blind spots and strong points. Resources Policy, 74, 101440. 45 Erokhin, V. (2016). Global perspectives on trade integration and economies in transition. IGI Global. 46 Ezici, B., Eğilmez, G., & Gedik, R. (2020). Assessing the ecoefficiency of U.S. manufacturing industries with a focus on renewable vs. nonrenewable energy use: An integrated time series MRIO and DEA approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 253, 119630. 47 Ezirigwe etal.(2021). COVID19/Food Insecurity Syndemic': Navigating the Realities of Food Security Imperatives of Sustainable Development Goals in Africa. Law and Development Review, 14(1), 129162. 48 Fang, K., Wang, S., He, J., Song, J., Fang, C., & Jia, X. (2021). Mapping the environmental footprints of nations partnering the Belt and Road Initiative. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 164, 105068. 49 Fenner, R., & Cernev, T. (2021). The implications of the Covid19 pandemic for delivering the Sustainable Development Goals. Futures, 128, 102726. 50 Ferraro, V., & Nguyen, H. (2021). Customs Fostering Sustainability: Leading by Example in the International Arena. Global Trade and Customs Journal, 16(7/8). 51 Fiorini, M., & Hoekman, B. (2018). Services trade policy and sustainable development. World Development, 112, 112. 52 GarcíaAlaminos, Á., Ortiz, M., Arce, G., & Zafrilla, J. (2020). Reassembling social defragmented responsibilities: the indecent labour footprint of US multinationals overseas. Economic Systems Research, 33(4), 536554. 53 Ghislain(2021). Mandatory MethodofProduction Labelling for Animal Products in the EU: A Case Study. Global Trade and Customs Journal, 16(4). 54 Gatti etal.(2021). Amazonia as a carbon source linked to deforestation and climate change. Nature, 595(7867), 388–393 55 Guisan, M. C., & Exposito, P. (2012). Investment, poverty and development in Asiapacific countries: Econometric models and evolution, 20002010. Applied econometrics and international development, 12(1), 155168. 56 Gupta and Lebel(2020). Access and allocation in earth system governance: lessons learnt in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 20(2), 393410.
969 Author Paper 57 Gyamfi, B. A., Bein, M. A., Bekun, F. V., Yaw, S. S., & Vinh Vo, X. (2021). Assessment of environmental implications of energy consumption towards sustainable development in G7 countries. OPEC Energy Review, 45(3), 320340. 58 Hall(2021). The living wage gap—a quantitative measure of poverty in global supply chains. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 26, 18671877. 59 Hao, Y., Gao, S., Guo, Y., Gai, Z., & Wu, H. (2021). Measuring the nexus between economic development and environmental quality based on environmental Kuznets curve: a comparative study between China and Germany for the period of 2000–2017. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 126. 60 Hashim, M., Mohamad, A., & Sifat, I. M. (2019). The sustainable development consequences of IMF debt vs. capital control: Comparing progress in GPI and GDP terms for Korea and Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 234, 725742. 61 Holden(2019). Finding Common Ground? European Union and European Civil Society Framing of the Role of Trade in the Sustainable Development Goals. JCMS: Journal of common market studies, 57(5), 956976. 62 Hsieh, P. L. (2017). Reassessing the trade–development nexus in international economic law: The paradigm shift in AsiaPacific regionalism. Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus., 37, 321. 63 IbnMohammed, T., Mustapha, K. B., Godsell, J., Adamu, Z., Babatunde, K. A., Akintade, D. D., Koh, S. C. L. (2021). A critical review of the impacts of COVID19 on the global economy and ecosystems and opportunities for circular economy strategies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 164, 105169. 64 Ibrahim, R. L., & Ajide, K. B. (2021). Disaggregated environmental impacts of nonrenewable energy and trade openness in selected G20 countries: the conditioning role of technological innovation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 6749667510. 65 Ismail and Fakir(2004). Trademarks or trade barriers?: Indigenous knowledge and the flaws in the global IPR system. International Journal of Social Economics, 31(1/2), 173194. 66 Ji, J., Zhang, Z., & Yang, L. (2017). Carbon emission reduction decisions in the retail- /dualchannel supply chain with consumers' preference. Journal of cleaner production, 141, 852867. 67 Kanade, M. (2017). The multilateral trading system and human rights: A governance space theory on linkages. Routledge India. 68 Kaplinsky and Morris(2018). Standards, regulation and sustainable development in a global value chain driven world. International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 10(34), 322346. 69 Karttunen, M., & Moore, M. O. (2018). IndiaSolar Cells: Trade Rules, Climate Policy, and Sustainable Development Goals. World Trade Review, 17(2), 215237. 70 Khmelevskaya, N. (2018). BRICS' Sustainable development dialog: Framing contours to a common agenda through the intragroup trade. Int. Organ. Res. J., 13(4), 7495. 71 Kramar, R. (2021). Workplace performance: a sustainable approach. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 59(4), 567581. 72 Kroll, C., Warchold, A., & Pradhan, P. (2019). Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Are we successful in turning tradeoffs into synergies?. Palgrave Communications, 5(1). 73 Kuchiki, A., & Mizobe, T. (2017). Basic concept and summary. A MultiIndustrial Linkages Approach to Cluster Building in East Asia: Targeting the Agriculture, Food, and Tourism Industry, 329. 74 Kumar, P., Singh, R. K., & Kumar, V. (2021). Managing supply chains for sustainable operations in the era of industry 4.0 and circular economy: Analysis of barriers. Resources, conservation and recycling, 164, 105215. 75 Kumar etal.(2019). The effectiveness of fisheries subsidies as a trade policy tool to achieving sustainable development goals at the WTO. Marine Policy, 100, 132140.
970 Journal of International Development, 2025 Author Paper 76 Kumi, E., Arhin, A. A., & Yeboah, T. (2014). Can post2015 sustainable development goals survive neoliberalism? A critical examination of the sustainable developmentneoliberalism nexus in developing countries. Environment, development and sustainability, 16, 539554. 77 Larionova, M., & Safonkina, E. (2018). The first five decades of cooperation for development. Actors, achievements and challenges. International Organisations Research Journal, 13(4), 96136. 78 Laryea and Fabusuyi(2021). Africanisation of international investment law for sustainable development: challenges. Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, 20(1), 4264. 79 Le(2019). Environmental degradation and economic growth in ASEAN10: The perspective of EKC hypothesis. Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies, 56(1), 4362. 80 Lerner etal.(2021). When unfair trade is also at home: The economic sustainability of coffee farms. Sustainability, 13(3), 1072. 81 Lesniewska, F., & McDermott, C. L. (2014). FLEGT VPAs: Laying a pathway to sustainability via legality lessons from Ghana and Indonesia. Forest policy and economics, 48, 1623. 82 Lewis etal.(2021). Dynamic synergies between China's Belt and Road Initiative and the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of International Business Policy, 4(1), 58. 83 LikićBrborić, B. (2018). Global migration governance, civil society and the paradoxes of sustainability. In Migration, Civil Society and Global Governance. Taylor & Francis. 84 Lydgate(2012a). Biofuels, sustainability, and traderelated regulatory chill. Journal of International Economic Law, 15(1), 157180. 85 Lydgate(2012b). Sustainable development in the WTO: From mutual supportiveness to balancing. World Trade Review, 11(4), 621639. 86 Mary(2019). Hungry for free trade? Food trade and extreme hunger in developing countries. Food Security, 11(2), 461477. 87 MartinicoPerez etal.(2018). The SocioEconomic Metabolism of an Emerging Economy: Monitoring Progress of Decoupling of Economic Growth and Environmental Pressures in the Philippines. Ecological Economics, 147, 155166. 88 Mausch etal.(2020). Colliding paradigms and tradeoffs: Agrifood systems and value chain interventions. Global Food Security, 26, 100439. 89 Mayorova, A. N., Panasenko, S. V., Nikishin, A. F., Ivanov, G. G., & Mayorova, E. A. (2018). Analyzing regional differences in the condition and development of trade in Russia. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(2), 927. 90 Mihai, C., Borza, M., & Talmaciu, M. (2016). Reaching the objectives of sustainable development on the basis of the creative industries - A south and eastern European analysis. Scientific Annals of Economics and Business, 63(1), 109116. 91 Mikhnevich, S. (2020). Pursuing Balance: Analysis of the PRC's Implementation of Trade and Investment SDGs in Cooperation With Leading Partners From the Least Developed Countries. International Organisations Research Journal, 15(1), 730. 92 Monkelbaan(2017). Using trade for achieving the SDGs: The example of the environmental goods agreement. Journal of World Trade, 51(4). 93 Montanía etal.(2021). The role of the leading exporters in the global soybean trade. Agricultural Economics/Zemedelska Ekonomika, 67(7). 94 Moon, G. (2018). A ‘fundamental moral imperative’: Social inclusion, the sustainable development goals and international trade law after Braziltaxation. Journal of World Trade, 52(6). 95 Morozkina, A., & Skryabina, V. (2021). BRICS and Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Prospects for Trade with Least Developed Countries. Int. Organ. Res. J., 16(1).
971 Author Paper 96 Murshed etal.(2020). Modelling renewable energy adoption across south Asian economies: Empirical evidence from Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 26(4), 54255450. 97 Najm, S., & Matsumoto, K. (2020). Does renewable energy substitute LNG international trade in the energy transition? Energy Economics, 92, 104964. 98 Nansai, K., Kondo, Y., Giurco, D., Sussman, D., Nakajima, K., Kagawa, S., Tohno, S. (2019). Nexus between economywide metal inputs and the deterioration of sustainable development goals. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 149, 1219. 99 Nasir, M. A., Canh, N. P., & Lan Le, T. N. (2021). Environmental degradation & role of financialisation, economic development, industrialisation and trade liberalisation. Journal of environmental management, 277, 111471. 100 Nhlengethwa etal.(2021). Analysis of the determinants of public capital investments on agricultural water infrastructure in Eswatini. Business Strategy & Development, 4(1), 4958. 101 Onifade etal.(2021). Renewables as a pathway to environmental sustainability targets in the era of trade liberalization: empirical evidence from Turkey and the Caspian countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 4166341674. 102 Ortiz, A. M. D., Outhwaite, C. L., Dalin, C., & Newbold, T. (2021). A review of the interactions between biodiversity, agriculture, climate change, and international trade: research and policy priorities. One Earth, 4(1), 88101. 103 Panennungi, M., Pulungsari, R., Fitriani, E., Tjahjandari, L., Surjadi, & Wicaksono, P. (2014). Analysis of issues development in AsiaPacific economic cooperation. AsiaPacific Social Science Review, 14(1), 2. 104 Panico, T., Menna, C., & Lombardi, P. (2015). Fair trade consumer behavior in Italy: Main differences between northern and southern regions. Calitatea, 16(S1), 349. 105 Pedercini, M., Arquitt, S., & Chan, D. (2020). Integrated simulation for the 2030 agenda. System Dynamics Review, 36(3), 333357. 106 Penca etal.(2021). Sustainable smallscale fisheries markets in the Mediterranean: weaknesses and opportunities. Maritime Studies, 20(2), 141155. 107 Petersmann, E. U. (2020). Economic disintegration? Political, economic, and legal drivers and the need for 'greening embedded trade liberalism'. Journal of International Economic Law, 23(2), 347370. 108 Philippidis, G., Shutes, L., M'Barek, R., Ronzon, T., Tabeau, A., & van Meijl, H. (2020). Snakes and ladders: World development pathways’ synergies and tradeoffs through the lens of the Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of cleaner production, 267, 122147. 109 Picciotto, R. (2003). International trends and development evaluation: The needs for ideas. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(2), 227234. 110 Pietro Castagno LL. M, N. (2014). Sustainable development and the international trade law paradigm: A relationship to be denounced?. Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, 13(2), 136166. 111 Prilepskiy, I. (2018). G20 framework for strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth: German presidency outcomes and recommendations for the argentinian presidency. International Organisations Research Journal, 13(2), 4259. 112 Riekhof, M. C., Regnier, E., & Quaas, M. F. (2019). Economic growth, international trade, and the depletion or conservation of renewable natural resources. Journal of environmental economics and management, 97, 116133. 113 RiveraQuiñones, M. A. (2021). Late industrialization in the Sustainable Development Goals: a critical perspective from the Argentine experience. Globalizations, 19(2), 352367. 114 Roy, C. K., Xiaoling, H., & Banik, B. (2021). Achieving SDG target 8.1 (sustain economic growth) in developing countries: how aid for trade policy and regulations can assist? Journal of Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies, 14(3), 257276.
972 Journal of International Development, 2025 Author Paper 115 Roy(2019). Elevating services: Services trade policy, WTO commitments, and their role in economic development and trade integration. Journal of World Trade, 53(6). 116 Sachs, J. D. (2012). From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals The lancet, 379(9832), 22062211. 117 Safaeimanesh, S., & Jenkins, G. P. (2021). Trade facilitation and its impacts on the economic welfare and sustainable development of the ecowas region. Sustainability, 13(1), 164. 118 Sampath, P. G. (2019). Intellectual property and technology transfer: Why we need a new agenda. Intellectual property and development: Understanding the interfaces: Liber amicorum Pedro Roffe, 3763. 119 Santos, A. S., de Abreu, V. H. S., de Assis, T. F., Ribeiro, S. K., & Ribeiro, G. M. (2021). An Overview on Costs of Shifting to Sustainable Road Transport: A Challenge for Cities Worldwide. Carbon Footprint Case Studies: Municipal Solid Waste Management, Sustainable Road Transport and Carbon Sequestration, 93121. 120 Sauvant, K. P., & Mann, H. (2020). Making FDI More Sustainable: Towards an Indicative List of FDI Sustainability Characteristics. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 20(6), 916952. 121 Shahbaz etal.(2019). Foreign direct Investment–CO2 emissions nexus in Middle East and North African countries: Importance of biomass energy consumption. Journal of cleaner production, 217, 603614. 122 Shahbaz, M., Sharma, R., Sinha, A., & Jiao, Z. (2021). Analyzing nonlinear impact of economic growth drivers on CO2 emissions: Designing an SDG framework for India. Energy Policy, 148, 111965. 123 Shahzad, U., Ferraz, D., Doğan, B., & Aparecida do Nascimento Rebelatto, D. (2020). Export product diversification and CO2 emissions: Contextual evidences from developing and developed economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 276, 124146. 124 Shahzad, U., Lv, Y., Doğan, B., & Xia, W. (2021). Unveiling the heterogeneous impacts of export product diversification on renewable energy consumption: New evidence from G7 and E7 countries. Renewable Energy, 164, 14571470. 125 Shao etal.(2021). Environmental impact of the shadow economy, globalisation, trade and market size: Evidence using linear and nonlinear methods Sustainability, 13(12), 6539. 126 Shao, W., Li, F., Cao, X., Tang, Z., Bai, Y., & Yang, S. (2020). Reducing exportdriven CO2 and PM emissions in China's provinces: A structural decomposition and coordinated effects analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 274, 123101. 127 Sharma, P., & Kumar, S. N. (2020). The global governance of water, energy, and food nexus: allocation and access for competing demands. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 20(2), 377391. 128 Sharma, R., Sinha, A., & Kautish, P. (2021a). Do economic endeavors complement sustainability goals in the emerging economies of South and Southeast Asia?. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 32(3), 524542. 129 Sharma, R., Sinha, A., & Kautish, P. (2021b). Examining the nexus between export diversification and environmental pollution: evidence from BRICS nations. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(43), 6173261747. 130 Shinkareva, O. V., Kaurova, O. V., Maloletko, A. N., Vinichenko, M. V., & Karácsony, P. (2021). Involvement of the world's largest cooperatives in sustainable development processes. In Frontier information technology and systems research in cooperative economics (pp. 5362). Cham: Springer International Publishing. 131 Sicurelli, D. (2018). Normative trade power europe?: The case of EU trade agreements with Asian countries. In Global Economic Governance and Human Development (pp. 103119). Routledge. 132 Singh etal.(2018). A rapid assessment of cobenefits and tradeoffs among Sustainable Development Goals. Marine Policy, 93, 223231.
973 Author Paper 133 Skerritt and Sumaila(2021). Broadening the global debate on harmful fisheries subsidies through the use of subsidy intensity metrics. Marine Policy, 128, 104507. 134 Steininger, K. (1994). Reconciling trade and environment: towards a comparative advantage for longterm policy goals. Ecological Economics, 9(1), 2342. 135 Stoianoff, N. P., Kreiser, L., Butcher, B., Milne, J. E., & Ashiabor, H. (2016). Green fiscal reform for a sustainable future: Reform, innovation and renewable energy. Edward Elgar Publishing. 136 Suehrer, J. (2019). The Future of FDI: Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 through Impact Investment. Global policy, 10(3), 413415. 137 Sumaila etal.(2019). Updated estimates and analysis of global fisheries subsidies. Marine Policy, 109, 103695. 138 Smith and Glauber(2020). Trade, policy, and food security. Agricultural Economics, 51(1), 159171. 139 Swain, R. B., & Ranganathan, S. (2021). Modeling interlinkages between sustainable development goals using network analysis. World Development, 138, 105136. 140 Sysoeva, E. A., Kuznetsova, E. G., Hairov, R. R., & Manin, P. V. (2021). Technical regulations to protect consumer markets from dangerous and substandard products. In Frontier Information Technology and Systems Research in Cooperative Economics (pp. 983989). Cham: Springer International Publishing. 141 Tawiah, V., Zakari, A., & Adedoyin, F. F. (2021). Determinants of green growth in developed and developing countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(29), 3922739242. 142 Tayar, V. (2020). EULatin America: Towards a constructive model of partnership. Retrived from https:// covid 19. neicon. ru/ publi cation/ 5130 143 Thystrup, A. G. (2020). GenderInclusive Governance for ECommerce. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 21(4), 595629. 144 Tian, Z., Ji, Y., Xu, H., Qiu, H., Sun, L., Zhong, H., & Liu, J. (2021). The potential contribution of growing rapeseed in winter fallow fields across Yangtze River Basin to energy and food security in China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 164, 105159. 145 TumanengDiete, T., Ferguson, I. S., & MacLaren, D. (2005). Log export restrictions and trade policies in the Philippines: Bane or blessing to sustainable forest management?. Forest Policy and Economics, 7(2), 187198. 146 Udemba, E. N., Güngör, H., Bekun, F. V., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2021). Economic performance of India amidst high CO2 emissions. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 5260. 147 Usman, M., Khalid, K., & Mehdi, M. A. (2021). What determines environmental deficit in Asia? Embossing the role of renewable and nonrenewable energy utilization. Renewable Energy, 168, 11651176. 148 Valdivia etal.(2017). Designing and evaluating sustainable development pathways for semisubsistence crop–livestock systems: lessons from Kenya. Agricultural Economics, 48(S1), 1126. 149 van der Waal, J. W. H., Thijssens, T., & Maas, K. (2021). The innovative contribution of multinational enterprises to the Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, 125319. 150 van Zanten, J. A., & van Tulder, R. (2021). Towards nexusbased governance: defining interactions between economic activities and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(3), 210226. 151 Vinodkumar, N., & Alarifi, G. (2020). Environmental social governance: a core value to responsible stakeholders and stock market sustainability in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 12(4), 10851101. 152 Visbeck, M., KronfeldGoharani, U., Neumann, B., Rickels, W., Schmidt, J., Van Doorn, E., Proelss, A. (2014). A sustainable development goal for the ocean and coasts: Global ocean challenges benefit from regional initiatives supporting globally coordinated solutions. Marine Policy, 49, 8789.
974 Journal of International Development, 2025 Author Paper 153 Visbeck, M., KronfeldGoharani, U., Neumann, B., Rickels, W., Schmidt, J., van Doorn, E., Quaas, M. F. (2014). Securing blue wealth: The need for a special sustainable development goal for the ocean and coasts. Marine Policy, 48, 184191. 154 Wang, H., Schandl, H., Wang, X., Ma, F., Yue, Q., Wang, G., Zheng, R. (2020). Measuring progress of China's circular economy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 163, 105070. 155 Wannags, L. L., & Gold, S. (2020). Assessing tensions in corporate sustainability transition: From a review of the literature towards an actororiented management approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 264, 121662. 156 Weber, H. (2017). Politics of ‘Leaving No One Behind’: Contesting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals Agenda. In The Politics of Destination in the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (pp. 6479). Routledge. 157 Wu etal.(2021). Simulated responses of global rice trade to variations in yield under climate change: Evidence from main riceproducing countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 281, 124690. 158 Xiao, Y., Norris, C. B., Lenzen, M., Norris, G., & Murray, J. (2017). How Social Footprints of Nations Can Assist in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Ecological Economics, 135, 5565. 159 Xiaoman etal.(2021). Natural resources abundance, economic globalization, and carbon emissions: Advancing sustainable development agenda. Sustainable development, 29(5), 10371048. 160 Xu etal.(2021). Trade openness, FDI, and income inequality: Evidence from subSaharan Africa. African Development Review, 33(1), 193203. 161 Yameogo, C. E. W., & Omojolaibi, J. A. (2020). Trade liberalisation, economic growth and poverty level in subSaharan Africa (SSA). Economic ResearchEkonomska Istraživanja, 34(1), 754774. 162 Yameogo, C. E. W., & Omojolaibi, J. A. (2020). Trade liberalisation, economic growth and poverty level in subSaharan Africa (SSA). Economic ResearchEkonomska Istraživanja, 34(1), 754774. 163 Zagashvili, V. S. (2020). European Union: Second generation trade agreements. Mirovaia ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, 64(7), 2633. 164 Zeng, Y., Runting, R. K., Watson, J. E. M., & Carrasco, L. R. (2021). Telecoupled environmental impacts are an obstacle to meeting the sustainable development goals. Sustainable Development, 30(1), 7682. 165 Zhang etal.(2019). A study of the petroleum trade network of countries along “The Belt and Road Initiative”. Journal of Cleaner Production, 222, 593605. 166 Zhao, Z., Cai, M., Wang, F., Winkler, J. A., Connor, T., Chung, M. G., Liu, J. (2021). Synergies and tradeoffs among Sustainable Development Goals across boundaries in a metacoupled world. Science of the Total Environment, 751, 141749. 167 Zhong, H., Feng, K., Sun, L., Tian, Z., Fischer, G., Cheng, L., & Munoz Castillo, R. (2021). Waterland tradeoffs to meet future demands for sugar crops in Latin America and the Caribbean: A biophysical and socioeconomic nexus perspective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 169, 105510. Journal Articles Included From the ‘Expert Search’. Author Paper 168 Abman etal.(2024). The effectiveness of environmental provisions in regional trade agreements. Journal of the European Economic Association, jvae023. 169 Asche etal.(2015). Fair Enough? Food Security and the International Trade of Seafood. World Development, 67, 151160. 170 Bellassen, V., Drut, M., Antonioli, F., Brečić, R., Donati, M., FerrerPérez, H., Diallo, A. (2021a). The Carbon and Land Footprint of Certified Food Products. Journal of agricultural & food industrial organization, 19(2), 113126.
975 Author Paper 171 Bellassen, V., Drut, M., Hilal, M., Bodini, A., Donati, M., de Labarre, M. D., Arfini, F. (2021b). The economic, environmental and social performance of European certified food. Ecological economics, 191, 107244. 172 Borsellino etal.(2020). AgriFood Markets towards Sustainable Patterns. Sustainability, 12(6), 2193. 173 Chiputwa and Qaim(2016). Sustainability Standards, Gender, and Nutrition among Smallholder Farmers in Uganda. The Journal of Development Studies, 52(9), 12411257. 174 Chiputwa etal.(2015). Food Standards, Certification, and Poverty among Coffee Farmers in Uganda. World Development, 66, 400412. 175 Donati, M., Wilkinson, A., Veneziani, M., Antonioli, F., Arfini, F., Bodini, A., Bellassen, V. (2020). Economic SpillOver of Food Quality Schemes on Their Territory. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 19(2), 95111. 176 Drut, M., Antonioli, F., Böhm, M., Brečić, R., Dries, L., FerrerPérez, H., Bellassen, V. (2020). Foodmiles: The Logistics of Food Chains Applied to Food Quality Schemes. Journal of agricultural & food industrial organization, 19(2), 127143. 177 Duarte, R., Pinilla, V., & Serrano, A. (2015). The Spanish Food Industry on Global Supply Chains and Its Impact on Water Resources. Water, 7(1), 132152. 178 Dangles and Struelens(2023). Is food system research guided by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Volume 64, 101331. 10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101331 179 El Bilali etal.(2021). Sustainable AgriFood Systems: Environment, Economy, Society, and Policy. Sustainability, 13, 6260. 10.3390/su13116260 180 Feyaerts etal.(2020). Global and local food value chains in Africa: A review. Agricultural Economics, 51(1), 143157. 181 Galli, F., Prosperi, P., Favilli, E., D'Amico, S., Bartolini, F., & Brunori, G. (2020). How can policy processes remove barriers to sustainable food systems in Europe? Contributing to a policy framework for agrifood transitions. Food Policy, 96, 101871. 182 Ge etal.(2021). Food and nutrition security under global trade: a relationdriven agentbased global trade model. Royal Society open science, 8(1), 201587. 183 Gema, J., Keige, J., Ngetich, T., Moreno Echeverri, I., Saavedra Gonzalez, Y., & Koomen, I. (2018). Catalysing food safety in the domestic horticulture sector in Kenya. Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation. 184 Gkatsikos, A., & Mattas, K. (2021). The Paradox of the Virtual Water Trade Balance in the Mediterranean Region. Sustainability, 13(5), 2978. 185 GonzálezRamírez, M. G., SantoyoCortés, V. H., AranaCoronado, J. J., & MuñozRodríguez, M. (2020). The insertion of Mexico into the global value chain of berries. World Development Perspectives, 20, 100240. 186 Govereh and Jayne(2003). Cash cropping and food crop productivity: synergies or tradeoffs? Agricultural economics, 28(1), 3950. 187 Hilal, M., Leedon, G., Duboys de Labarre, M., Antonioli, F., Boehm, M., Péter, C., Bellassen, V. (2020). Organic and Geographical Indication Certifications’ Contributions to Employment and Education. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 19(2), 161176. 188 Hoang, V. (2015). Value Chain Analysis and Competitiveness Assessment of Da Xanh Pomelo Sector in Ben Tre, Vietnam. Asian Social Science, 11(2), 8. 189 Hoang, V.(2018). Assessing the agricultural trade complementarity of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations countries. Agricultural Economics/Zemedelska Ekonomika, 64(10). 190 Hoang, V. (2020). Investigating the agricultural competitiveness of ASEAN countries. Journal of Economic Studies, 47(2), 307332. 191 Hoang, V. (2021). Impact of Contract Farming on Farmers’ Income in the Food Value Chain: A Theoretical Analysis and Empirical Study in Vietnam. Agriculture, 11(8), 797. 192 Hoang and Tran(2019). Comparative Advantages of Alternative Crops: A Comparison Study in Ben Tre, Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Agris OnLine Papers in Economics & Informatics, 11(1).