By Rebecka Pieder/Medill News Service

WASHINGTON – In a deal that could provide a major trade boost for American farmers, the White House said that during the recent summit, China committed to buying at least $17 billion in additional U.S. agricultural products annually for three years. 

But Beijing has not confirmed the figure and farm groups expressed skepticism that the deal would materialize.

“I think we are cautiously optimistic when it comes to these things because we’ve been on both sides of this equation. You know, the first time we went through the tariff crisis, we lost 20% market share,” said Todd Main, director of market development at the Illinois Soybean Association.

President Donald Trump visited Beijing in May for talks. Two days after the U.S. delegation returned, the White House shared a list of achievements reached between the two countries. 

This included a commitment that China would increase U.S. beef imports and buy at least $17 billion per year in additional U.S. agricultural products over the next three years. In a statement to Medill News Service on May 20, the Chinese Embassy in Washington did not confirm the $17 billion or the time frame. However, it discussed progress on the trade of beef and other agricultural products. 

Tariffs hit hard

American farmers have been caught in a cost pinch for years. Grain prices are down, and the costs of machinery and fertilizer are up, making it harder for farmers to break even. 

Last year, these pressures were exacerbated as the Trump administration placed high tariffs on Chinese imports, sparking Beijing to retaliate by halting imports of U.S. agricultural products. 

China is the world’s largest importer of agricultural products. This hit Midwestern farmers particularly hard. Iowa and Illinois produce the most soybeans in the United States, and China is their largest market by far.

If Beijing were to follow through on the commitments announced by the White House, it would increase total U.S. farm exports to China to $28 billion to $30 billion a year, according to Reuters. While this would be below the $38 billion exported in 2022, it would be higher than the $24 billion in 2024 and much higher than last year’s $8 billion. 

A return to predictable trade relations between the U.S. and China would benefit farmers, said Chris Chinn, Director of the Missouri Department of Agriculture.

“This announcement is a great first step in what we hope is a full commitment to purchasing American products,” he said.

Jerry Costello II, director of the Illinois Department of Agriculture, echoed this sentiment while expressing doubts at the likelihood of the deal panning out.

“If China truly committed to purchasing an additional $17 billion in U.S. agricultural products for three years and followed through on the purchases, it would provide meaningful support for Illinois farmers,” he said. “Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.”

When asked to confirm the $17 billion number, a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy notably omitted any mention of the figure or the time frame. 

“It is hoped that both sides will create favorable conditions for two-way agricultural trade by jointly reducing tariffs, removing non-tariff barriers, and expanding market access, so as to promote the recovery and continuous expansion of cooperation in agricultural trade,” the spokesperson said. 

China also resumed registration of U.S. beef suppliers after the summit, according to the spokesperson.

Soybean imports cut off

After the Trump administration imposed sprawling tariffs on China last year, China halted imports of U.S. soybeans for several months. In November, the U.S and China reached a trade agreement in which China committed to purchasing 12 million metric tons of soybeans by the end of February. The order represented a sharp decrease from 2024 levels.

“The ag industry has heard big promises before, but the actual trade commitments have often failed to materialize,” Costello said. “During previous trade agreements, China fell well short of its pledged purchases, leaving farmers to suffer the economic impact.”

Lance Muirhead, a seventh generation farmer in Macon County, Illinois, has felt the costs of the trade war first hand. As a direct result of ongoing trade disputes, he has had to tighten the budget on the farm he operates together with his family, he said.

“It has put a halt on us buying any new equipment we might have been in the market for,” Muirhead said. “I run a 16-year-old combine that I’d like to upgrade to a slightly newer model, but that’s just not in the budget the way commodity prices have been.”

He is “skeptically optimistic” about the new proposed trade agreement. While a tweet or a promise can have positive effects on the market, that hype is short-lived unless commitments are followed through with concrete purchases the way they were last fall, he said.

“I think the proof will be in the pudding and only time will tell, but I sure hope the agreement is executed,” he said. “When China has that big of a basket, it’s hard not to want to put all of your eggs, or soybeans, into it.”

‘Just fluff’?

Senator Adam Schiff, D-Calif., also expressed skepticism.

“There’s a long history of the president coming back and misrepresenting what he’s achieved. My first question is, are any of these commitments real or are they just fluff?” Schiff, a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, told Medill News Service.

When China halted imports last year, it was a massive blow to U.S. soybean exports, said Main, of the Illinois Soybean Association. It’s a market that has been built up over the last 30 years, and establishing new markets takes time. 

Even if the deal were to pan out, soybean farmers still should diversify their buyers so they are no longer so reliant on China, he said.

“If you look out a decade or so, we know that long-term China is not going to be the dominant buyer that it once was,” Main said. “And so we have to pivot.” 

Medill News Service articles are reported and written by graduate student journalists in the Washington program of the Medill School at Northwestern University.

The White House says China will be purchasing at least $17 billion in U.S. agricultural products each of the next three years.

The post Wisconsin farmers hopeful for relief from Trump’s new trade deal with China appeared first on WPR.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s trade agenda faced another major setback Thursday when the U.S. Court of International Trade handed a win to two small businesses and the state of Washington after they challenged the president’s 10% global tariffs, imposed after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down his previous emergency tariff regime.

In a 2-1 decision, the court granted a permanent injunction to a Florida-based toy manufacturer and a New York-based spice importer that sued the Trump administration in March, alleging the new tariffs would harm their businesses.

The court also granted relief to Washington state, which was among nearly two dozen states that sued over the tariffs. 

Tariff ‘bazooka’

Jay Foreman, CEO of toy company Basic Fun!, said he was “extremely excited” upon learning the decision.

“It takes a lot of guts and chutzpah for small companies like us and Burlap and Barrel to put ourselves out on the line to fight what we feel is injustice and unfair,” he said during a virtual press conference, referring to the other company named in the lawsuit, an online spice retailer.

“Certainly, there’s a place for tariffs on strategic products that make sense to protect in this country …  but in cases across the board, to approach this situation with a bazooka instead of a fine-tooth comb makes no sense, and it hurts companies like ours, hurts companies like Burlap and Barrel, hurts the consumer,” Foreman said Thursday evening. 

Basic Fun! is behind popular toys, including Tonka Trucks and Care Bears.

Foreman said he expects imports that were subject to the tariffs to arrive as soon as tomorrow.

“I’m already emailing my customs broker to make sure they’re on it,” he said.

The ruling only applies to the plaintiffs Basic Fun! and the online spice retailer Burlap and Barrel, and does not give universal relief to all businesses that must pay the blanket 10% tax on imports. 

Jeffrey Schwab, who argued the case on behalf of the clients for the Liberty Justice Center, said the nonprofit advocacy law firm has been “wrestling” with what the decision means for other businesses that are paying the import tax.

“It’s not entirely clear, and probably will depend on what happens now if the government appeals. If the government seeks a stay that could have an effect. Certainly, I think companies will probably want to file (legal challenges), being concerned about making sure that the tariffs stop for them, and possibly ensuring that they get a refund too,” Schwab said.

Win for Washington state

The ruling also applies to Washington state as an importer subject to the tariffs, according to the ruling. 

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown called the ruling “a win for both affordability and the rule of law.”

“It’s American consumers and businesses that have ultimately paid for the president’s illegal tariff campaign,” he said in a statement. “The court’s order will encourage more parties to challenge this illegal executive overreach.”

The judges ruled other states that sued did not have standing because they were “non-importers.” Among them were Arizona, Colorado, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Trump ordered the fresh round of tariffs on Feb. 20, the same day the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a 6-3 opinion, that his initial global tariffs under the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA, exceeded his presidential authority.

Following the Supreme Court loss, Trump’s alternative tariffs, imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, went into effect on Feb. 24.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is now in the legally mandated process of refunding businesses and importers who paid a collective $166 billion in IEEPA tariffs. 

The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

From carbon credits to biofuels and biomanufacturing, foreign companies are considering setting up closer to customers while capitalizing on Wisconsin's resources and environmental markets.

The post Beyond tariffs: European businesses finding niches in northern Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.

Importers that paid tariffs later struck down by the Supreme Court can now apply for refunds.

The post Wisconsin businesses could recoup millions paid in illegal tariffs  appeared first on WPR.

---

Authors & Organizational Affiliation

Section 1 — Common Ground

• Emmanuelle Mikosz — Director General, Forum for the Future of Agriculture (EU)
• Tyler McCann — Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Policy Institute (Canada)
• Katie McRobert — Executive Director, Australian Farm Institute (Australia)
• Shari Rogge-Fidler — President & CEO, Farm Foundation (United States)

---

Section 2 — Deep Dives

• Michael Robertson, Andy Hall, Rohan Nelson — Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO – Australia)
• Gail Tavill — Chief Sustainability Officer, OSI Group (United States)
• Dr. Tassos Haniotis — Special Advisor for Sustainable Productivity, Forum for the Future of Agriculture (EU); Senior Guest Research Scholar, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
• Vivian Hoffmann — Senior Research Fellow, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); Associate Professor, Carleton University, Department of Economics and School of Public Policy and Administration

---

Section 3 — What We Learned

• GFFPI Leadership Team, and
• Dr. Sunghun Lim — Agricultural Economics Fellow, Farm Foundation

---

About GFFPI 

The Global Forum on Farm Policy and Innovation (GFFPI) is a collaborative platform formed by four leading independent agricultural institutes from Australia, Canada, the European Union, and the United States. The partnership uses evidence-based insights and emerging research to fuel dialogue, unlock new thinking, and identify opportunities to advance sustainable agriculture globally. 

Founding organizations: 

• Australian Farm Institute 

• Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute 

• Farm Foundation 

• Forum for the Future of Agriculture 

The post Finding Common Ground in a Divided World appeared first on Farm Foundation.

On May 20, 2025, Farm Foundation brought together leaders from across the agriculture sector at our Innovation and Education Campus (IEC) in Libertyville, Illinois, for a critical conversation about the future of our food and agriculture system.

Kicking off the day were two U.S. Secretaries of Agriculture, one Democrat, one Republican, who set the tone for a nonpartisan dialogue grounded in collaboration. Together, farmers, agribusiness leaders, researchers, and policymakers explored how to strengthen the U.S. food and ag system beyond today’s challenges and into the future.

The Summit defined what resilience in food and agriculture truly means:

A resilient food and agriculture system has the ability to produce food, even in the midst of changes and shocks, that sustains the planet and all people through access to safe, affordable, nutritious, and culturally relevant food.

From this shared vision came three key areas for continued collaboration:

1. Creating a policy innovation sandbox to explore new approaches to food and agriculture policy at the local, state, national, and global levels.

2. Advancing rural communities that are vibrant, thriving, and connected to opportunity.

3. Evolving the agricultural extension network to better serve today’s diverse, technology-driven, and rapidly changing sector.

The Summit was not just a conversation; it was a starting point for action. The resulting paper, Toward a Resilient Food and Agriculture Future, authored by Farm Foundation’s Agricultural Economic Fellow Dr. Sunghun Lim, captures the Summit’s insights and lays out a framework for the work ahead.

“The challenges facing agriculture today are deeply interconnected. The Summit was not just about identifying problems, it was about building momentum for actionable solutions,” said Dr. Sunghun Lim.

Now, we invite you to join us in taking the next steps. As we’ve done for the past 90 years, Farm Foundation will continue to organize thought partners and use our think tank/do tank model to drive progress in these three focus areas, sparking ideas and putting them into practice to create real impact.

The Innovation and Education Campus is a gathering place for these vital conversations. A space where anyone in the sector can host meetings, events, and trainings that help shape the future of food and agriculture.

Download the Executive Summary
Read the Full Report
Learn more about hosting an event at the IEC
Watch the video highlighting scenes from the Summit

Join us as we continue this work. Together we can create a more resilient future for food and agriculture.

The post Shaping a Resilient Future for Food and Agriculture appeared first on Farm Foundation.

Farm Foundation has named Dr. Sunghun Lim as its 2025 Agricultural Economics Trade and Sustainability Fellow.

Farm Foundation’s Agricultural Economics Fellow program is a yearlong program for a faculty agricultural economist. The 2025 fellowship is focused on integrated systems approaches to understanding and overcoming the challenges in developing a greater understanding of how trade and sustainability are interconnected and are impacting the food and agricultural sectors in the United States and beyond in rapidly changing circumstances.
In addition to being mentored by staff in USDA’s Office of the Chief Economist, Lim in turn will mentor participants in the Farm Foundation and USDA Economic Research Service Agricultural Scholars program, among other engagements. 

His research has been published in leading academic journals, including the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Nature Communications, NBER Book Series, Food Policy, Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Handbook of Agricultural Economics, and The World Economy.

He earned his BS in Economics in 2013 and his MS in Agricultural and Resource Economics in 2015 from the University of California, Davis. He received his Ph.D. in Applied Economics from the University of Minnesota in 2020.

Dr. Lim is Farm Foundation’s fifth Agricultural Economics Fellow and succeeds Dr. Sandro Steinbach (North Dakota State University), Drs. Trey Malone (University of Arkansas), Amanda Countryman (University of Colorado), and Alejandro Plastina (University of Iowa).

The post Farm Foundation® Announces 2025 Agricultural Fellow. appeared first on Farm Foundation.

The January Round Table Meeting brought together thought leaders, farmers, innovators, and decision-makers from across the food and agriculture value chain to tackle some of the industry’s most pressing challenges. As we closed the meeting, we turned our focus to a topic that continues to shape the future of agriculture: biotech acceptance among key stakeholder groups. 

Through an engaging and interactive event storming session, participants explored the perspectives of producers, regulators, consumers, and investors. Each group shared unique insights, identified challenges, and brainstormed actionable solutions to build trust and drive innovation in biotechnology. 

In this blog post, we’ll break down the key takeaways from the discussion, highlighting both the obstacles and opportunities ahead. 

Producers: Championing Innovation and Access 

The producer discussion highlighted the challenges and opportunities faced by producers when it comes to biotech acceptance:

• Information and Education: Producers need access to clear, consistent information across the value chain to make informed decisions.
• Adoption of Innovation: Ensuring traits and technologies are accessible at reasonable costs is critical for adoption.
• Consumer-Centric Traits: Producers want to see more biotech traits developed that directly benefit consumers, creating stronger alignment across the food system.
• Cost Reductions: Biotech solutions must also address the bottom line for producers.

Proposed Solutions for Producers: 

Efforts should focus on developing accessible innovations, providing educational support, and aligning product development with consumer demand. 

Regulators: Bridging Science and Policy

The regulator discussion revealed the critical role regulators play in shaping biotech acceptance and how current challenges can be reframed into opportunities:

• New Administration, New Opportunities: A shift in the political administration opens doors for resetting regulatory approaches and fostering new collaborations.
• Better Storytelling for New Products: Biotech innovations with tangible benefits—especially those connected to producers—offer compelling stories that can resonate with policymakers and the public.
• Breaking the Litigation Cycle: Regulation often stems from fear rather than science, perpetuating a cycle of litigation and mistrust.

Proposed Solutions for Regulators:

1. Voting and Education: Engaging policymakers and educating them on science-based regulation are critical first steps.
2. Collaboration: Building stronger connections among businesses, government, consumers, and advisory groups can help align priorities. Farm Foundation can play an active role in fostering these partnerships.
3. Regulatory Reform: Streamlining FDA processes and addressing outdated regulatory hurdles can pave the way for innovation.

Consumers: Shifting Perceptions Through Education and Benefits 

The group discussing consumer perspectives highlighted a gap between biotech advancements and consumer understanding:

• Misinformation and Lack of Education: Many consumers receive conflicting or inaccurate information about biotech products, leading to confusion and mistrust.
• Perceived Lack of Benefits: Consumers feel biotech advancements have largely been producer-focused, with limited visible advantages for them.
• Health Concerns: Human health remains a key focus, with some consumers wary of biotech’s potential impact.
• The Power of Partnerships: Collaboration with organizations and the amplification of collective voices can build trust and credibility.
• Innovation for Consumers: Biotech has the potential to create exciting new products that directly benefit consumers, such as healthier or more sustainable food options.

Proposed Solutions for Consumers:

1. Education Campaigns: Leverage influencers, social media, and in-store experiences like product tastings to dispel myths and share success stories.
2. Engaging Youth: Develop interactive games or resources through programs like FFA and 4-H to educate younger generations about GMOs and biotech innovations.
3. Consumer-Centric Traits: Focus on developing biotech traits that resonate with consumer priorities, such as nutrition, sustainability, or affordability.

Investors: Fueling Innovation Ecosystems 

The investor discussion zeroed in on the financial and structural needs to support biotech innovation:

• Capital Access: Long-term funding models, such as 15-year funds or farmer angel networks, are essential to sustain biotech development.
• Regulatory Streamlining: Investors need clarity and predictability in the regulatory process to confidently back biotech ventures.
• Strengthening Partnerships: Enhanced collaboration between universities, startups, and industry players can accelerate the innovation pipeline.
• Consumer-Focused Tools: Developing tools for growers that directly benefit consumers can increase market demand for biotech products.

Proposed Solutions for Investors:

1. Encourage Collaboration: Foster partnerships between public and private sectors, as well as between universities and startups, to create a thriving innovation ecosystem.
2. Regulatory Education: Streamline regulatory processes and keep investors informed about ongoing progress in both their specific areas of work and the broader biotechnology regulations to minimize uncertainty and improve decision-making.
3. Long-Term Investments: Create funding mechanisms that align with the extended timelines often required for biotech innovation and adoption. 

Advancing Biotech Acceptance Together 

The January Round Table Meeting’s closing session highlighted a critical truth: advancing biotech acceptance requires a collective effort. From producers navigating innovation access, to regulators striving for science-based policy, to consumers seeking clarity and benefits, and investors fueling the innovation ecosystem—each stakeholder group brings unique perspectives and challenges to the table. 

What became abundantly clear during the discussion is that collaboration is not just beneficial; it’s essential.

By bridging gaps between groups and fostering mutual understanding, we can create a future where biotech innovations are not only accepted but embraced for their ability to transform agriculture, enhance sustainability, and improve lives. 

At Farm Foundation, we are committed to serving as a convener and catalyst for progress. Whether it’s educating policymakers, engaging consumers, or fostering partnerships between universities, startups, and industry leaders, we aim to ensure that every voice is heard and every challenge met with actionable solutions. 

Together, we grow stronger—and with that strength, we can unlock the full potential of biotechnology for the betterment of society. 

The post A Collaborative Look at Biotech Acceptance  appeared first on Farm Foundation.

In the Perspectives guest blog series, Farm Foundation invites participants from among the varied Farm Foundation programs to share their unique viewpoint on a topic relevant to a Farm Foundation focus area. Dr. Sandro Steinbach, the 2024 Farm Foundation Agricultural Economics Fellow, and Claire Citeau, a distinguished fellow at the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, contributed this guest blog. In July 2024, they attended the Global Forum on Farm Policy & Innovation‘s second workshop, held in Washington D.C. on the topic of measuring sustainability outcomes to facilitate agricultural trade. An in-depth paper summarizing the event’s key takeaways and next steps is also now available.

---

As climate pressures increase and sustainable practices become a priority, the agricultural sector faces a unique challenge: balancing trade policies with the need for sustainable farming. In July 2024, global experts gathered at the Global Forum for Farm Policy & Innovation (GFFPI) workshop in Washington, D.C., to tackle these pressing questions. Here, we highlight key takeaways from the workshop on aligning global trade with sustainable agriculture.

Why Integrating Sustainability into Trade Matters

Global agriculture is at a crossroads as countries strive to boost productivity and meet sustainability goals without causing unintended trade disruptions. Trade plays a vital role in food security, yet poorly coordinated policies can lead to barriers, especially as more nations adopt individual sustainability measures. To keep the agricultural sector competitive and resilient, there’s a growing need for a unified framework to guide trade and sustainability.

The Challenges of Harmonizing Trade with Sustainable Agriculture

Sustainable agriculture protects natural resources, maintains profitability, and supports community well-being. While the concept is widely understood, applying it consistently across countries and trade agreements takes time and effort. The workshop underscored that each country faces unique hurdles in integrating sustainable practices. For example, while some regions prioritize carbon reduction, others focus on reducing food insecurity or supporting local farmers. As a result, a “one-size-fits-all” approach to sustainable trade isn’t feasible.

What Role Can Trade Agreements Play?

Trade agreements hold the potential to foster sustainability, but they must be crafted carefully. Adding sustainability chapters focused on environmental and labor standards can help, as can voluntary incentive-based programs that encourage best practices without restricting farmers’ flexibility. Workshop participants agreed that trade policy can be a powerful tool, but only if it promotes shared goals while respecting local contexts.

Adopting an Outcome-Based Approach to Measure Sustainability

One key takeaway from the workshop was shifting from traditional, input-based sustainability measures (such as mandating specific farming practices) to outcome-based approaches. This shift allows farmers to adapt and innovate while focusing on measurable results like soil health, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity. Though more complex, outcome-based metrics can yield more meaningful insights and foster an environment where sustainable practices are both encouraged and achievable.

The Importance of Global Standards and Local Flexibility

Global standards are essential for assessing sustainability fairly across different countries. However, rigid frameworks may overlook local realities, particularly for smallholder farmers who face unique challenges. Workshop discussions emphasized the importance of balancing global standards and local flexibility to ensure sustainability goals are relevant and achievable worldwide. This balance is critical for creating trade policies that don’t stifle innovation or penalize farmers in resource-limited regions.

Supporting Sustainable Innovation in Agriculture

International trade enables innovation by allowing the transfer of knowledge, technology, and best practices. Golden Rice, an innovation born of global collaboration to address vitamin A deficiency, was one example discussed at the workshop. Cross-border cooperation accelerates such breakthroughs, underscoring the need for open markets that allow agricultural innovations to reach areas most needed.

Recommendations for Sustainable Trade

The workshop concluded with actionable steps for aligning trade and sustainability:

1. Adopt Flexible, Science-Based Policies: Avoid rigid policies and instead focus on outcome-oriented, science-based standards that allow flexibility for farmers to adopt practices locally.
2. Invest in Consistent Metrics and Data Management: Developing universally accepted metrics will make sustainability more transparent and achievable, especially with emerging technologies like remote sensing and real-time data tracking.
3. Strengthen Global Cooperation: Collaborating with institutions like the WTO and FAO can help establish frameworks integrating trade with sustainability. Global collaboration is essential to create cohesive, effective standards.
4. Position Sustainability as a Trade Opportunity: Rather than viewing sustainability as a trade barrier, policymakers should consider it a pathway to new markets and greater competitiveness.
5. Involve Farmers in Policy Development: Policies should reflect the realities on the ground, including the needs and challenges of farmers. Ensuring farmers’ participation in policy discussions helps craft practical and impactful solutions.

The Path to a Sustainable Agricultural Future

As agriculture faces mounting challenges, aligning trade with sustainable practices is essential. With thoughtful policies and collaborative efforts, global trade can support a more sustainable and food-secure world. The insights from the GFFPI workshop provide a strong foundation for future discussions, reminding us that trade policies should empower, not hinder, the transition to sustainable agriculture. With aligned policies and a shared commitment, the agricultural sector can advance toward a more resilient, sustainable future.

---

Claire Citeau is a distinguished fellow at the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute. She is also a senior fellow at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. Sandro Steinbach is an associate professor in the Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics and the director of the Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies at North Dakota State University. They can be reached at cciteau@uottawa.ca and sandro.steinbach@ndsu.edu, respectively.

The post Rethinking Trade for Sustainable Agriculture in a Changing World appeared first on Farm Foundation.

A new report from the Global Forum on Farm Policy & Innovation (GFFPI) highlights the complexities of balancing trade and sustainability objectives, emphasizing the pressing need to align trade rules with sustainability goals while avoiding unintended consequences.

The report, Policy and Practice for Sustainable Agriculture and Trade, is based on observations from the second workshop held by GFFPI, held in Washington D.C. in July 2024. The first workshop was hosted at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Paris in 2023 and focused on the ideal state of agriculture sustainability and trade.

The second workshop explored ways to integrate sustainability into global trade frameworks and develop standardized measurements to avoid unintended consequences. The workshop brought together over 70 participants representing 17 countries, including government officials, industry representatives, and trade policy experts. The discussions grappled with fundamental questions, including whose sustainability should be prioritized in trade agreements—the exporting country, the importing country, or global outcomes—and trade-offs between the environmental, social, and economic pillars of sustainability.

Key points identified in the report include:

• Adopting an outcome-based approach to sustainability, starting with soil health, water, biodiversity and carbon measures as benchmarks.
• Developing a Sustainable Agriculture Trade Framework with clear definitions, science-based standards and guiding principles.
• Strengthening international cooperation to promote policy coherence GFFPI representatives were pleased to be able to further develop insights from the Paris workshop and push this important conversation forward.

“We are proud of and grateful for the global collaboration we have built over the last few years via GFFPI for respectful and evidence-based dialogue to elevate and advance possible pathways forward for agricultural trade and sustainability,” said Shari Rogge-Fidler, president and CEO of Farm Foundation.

Mark Titterington, co-founder and director of the Forum for the Future of Agriculture, agreed saying, “This is another strong contribution to the ongoing discussion on the role of trade policies in supporting the development of a more resilient and sustainable agri-food system. There is certainly a worthy case to consider for developing a global sustainable agriculture trade framework, underpinned by robust science, measurement and data, and which is outcome based. We were delighted to work with our partners in GFFPI in facilitating the discussion that led to this report and look forward to building on the key insights that emerged, also by bringing the European point of view and sensibilities to the discussion.”

The benefit of being able to share their specific point of view was shared by other GFFPI representatives. “As a trade-focused nation, Australian farmers know that our food-secure future depends on collaborative global action to meet shared goals,” said Katie McRobert, executive director of the Australian Farm Institute. “Trade can be a powerful lever to incentivize action on building natural, social, and economic capital in agricultural systems, provided that policies recognize unique local environmental and cultural contexts.”

When considering what comes next, the workshop highlighted the complex interplay between trade policy and agricultural sustainability and acknowledged there are many steps to make towards meaningful progress.

“The dialogue at the Washington workshop built on GFFPI’s past work, but underscored how much more work needs to be done to find solutions to the challenge of agriculture sustainability and trade,” said Tyler McCann, managing director of the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute. “This work needs to be done between countries and must include leaders in trade and sustainability to lead to meaningful outcomes.”

---

The Global Forum for Farm Policy and Innovation (GFFPI) leverages evidence and dialogue leading to increased understanding, substantive action, and enhanced outcomes for more sustainable agriculture around the world. GFFPI members include the Australian Farm Institute, the Canadian Agri-food Policy Institute, the Farm Foundation (United States) and the Forum for the Future of Agriculture (Europe).

The post Cohesive Approach Needed to Reconcile Imperatives in Agriculture and Trade, Report Says appeared first on Farm Foundation.

On Thursday, July 18, 2024, Farm Foundation participated in the second Global Forum for Farm and Policy Innovation (GFFPI) workshop, held in Washington D.C. The focus of the workshop was “measuring sustainability outcomes to facilitate agricultural trade.” This was a priority identified in the previous workshop.

The nearly 70 participants representing 18 countries discussed the topics of an outcomes-based approach to trade and sustainability, and measuring challenges and opportunities in trade and sustainability. Farm Foundation President and CEO Shari Rogge-Fidler provided opening remarks and also facilitated small group discussions, along with Farm Foundation Vice President of Programs and Projects Martha King. U.S. Department of Agriculture Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs Alexis Taylor spoke on the importance of trade and sustainability for global food and agriculture.

The first workshop, held in late 2023, brought together representatives from OECD countries and OECD Secretariat as well as industry experts from across Europe, North America, Japan, and Australia to discuss the role of trade and agriculture sustainability in an interactive and thought-provoking format. That workshop, held at the OECD in Paris, enabled stakeholders from around the world to identify common goals and priorities. 

The findings from the first workshop were published in a report entitled Advancing the Role of Trade and Agricultural Sustainability. A second paper reflecting the findings of the second workshop is anticipated this fall.  

The Washington D.C. workshop was held in partnership with the Australian Farm Institute, Farm Foundation, the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, and the Forum for the Future of Agriculture.

GFFPI events, including this one, support Farm Foundation’s mission of building trust and understanding about U.S. agriculture with global food and agricultural stakeholders. In addition, Farm Foundation offers a uniquely independent platform for these dialogues to advance and elevate trade and sustainability issues. 

The post GFFPI Holds Second Workshop on Agricultural Trade and Sustainability appeared first on Farm Foundation.

In the Perspectives guest blog series, Farm Foundation invites participants from among the varied Farm Foundation programs to share their unique viewpoint on a topic relevant to a Farm Foundation focus area. Michelle Klieger is a 2024 Farm Foundation Young Agri-Food Leader and president of Stratagerm Consulting. In this blog she discusses the European Union’s new deforestation regulations.

---

The European Union aims to raise the global bar with new Deforestation Regulations. Effective since June of 2023, the regulations ban imported goods that stand to profit off of deforestation practices. By devaluing and even penalizing these practices, the EU hopes to create a  commodity trade standard that will reverse the effects of deforestation. They predict 177,920 acres of forests, or one quarter of Rhode Island, will be saved in 2025, and are optimistic that these steps will reduce air pollution.

Soy, palm oil, beef, coffee, and cocoa trades are expected to experience a significant impact due to these new requirements. Brazil, Argentina, Malaysia, Indonesia, Canada and parts of Africa are on edge as they consider trading options. Some argue this is the beginning of a new era, while others see it as a reorganization of supply chains.

Complexities of EU Regulations

For companies working to meet regulations, the process is complex. While individual companies must produce data to receive deforestation- free certification, entire supply chains must be vetted. Each industry faces unique obstacles.  Soy, for example, goes from farm production, and is then transported to processing facilities, then moved onto crushers, then to product manufacturers, and finally to retailers. If at any point in the process operations have made use of deforested land, the trading company could be banned from exporting goods to EU countries. Palm oil batches typically mix fruit from many sources at once. Many of these companies can only trace a product after it has been processed and would need to develop brand new traceability methods to meet requirements.

Meeting the new regulations requires an investment in technology and manpower. In order to make products fully traceable many companies are purchasing GPS technology that allows them to accurately map and consistently monitor their farms. Similarly, if products must be tracked and segregated from planting all the way to a grocery store shelf, digital tracking technology will also be needed. Guaranteeing deforestation-free methods must include in person inspections done by real people traveling from farm to farm to see operations up close. 

It’s a time consuming process to build out this framework, but one that many companies deem both valuable to the global environment and financially lucrative in the long run. Decisions involve farmers, transportation companies, processing plants and manufacturers, but they also must include government policy, technology and in some cases legal crossroads. There is no overnight shift, but rather a development of practices.

A Supply Chain Split

Already many companies are rerouting supplies to other buyers and avoiding EU regulations altogether. The trend prompts speculation that the new requirements will not raise the bar, but simply split or change the flow of supply chains. Brazil could turn to China as a new soy buyer and Indonesia could potentially trade palm oil to Africa. We’ve seen substitute shifts like these in the past with the U.S.-China trade war and sanctions on Russian energy. It may prove simpler and more cost effective to change buyers rather than invest in meeting new EU regulations. Many of these companies have little ability to enforce downline or upline adherence to regulation and they fear penalties.

Interestingly, in 2020 Brazil produced ⅓ of the world’s soy, but only 13% of crops account for 95% of the deforestation that occurred that year. The other 87% appear to have been produced on grassland and savannah areas.  The scenario is true elsewhere and begs the question; will this create a new environmental imbalance that puts stress on other ecosystems? Companies looking to meet regulations could potentially exploit approved farming areas by over farming them. 

Demand For a Different Type of Supply

Will it be harder to secure buyers or much used commodities? For the EU, value is placed not just on the product, but how it is sourced. The decision will impact both consumers and European agriculture. 

European countries are braced to experience a decreased supply of things like chocolate and coffee. But, exactly how increased operating costs will be absorbed remains uncertain. Typically consumer prices reflect production cost increases, but in this situation one or more points along a supply chain may need to take ownership of costs to ensure tradability. The result, at least in the initial stages, would be lower profit margins for most of these companies and possibly higher purchase prices for consumers.

Several European countries are seeking reduced regulations and maintain that the current requirements are virtually impossible for small and medium sized farms to accommodate. They also argue that these regulations negatively impact many of the current sustainability processes farmers are working to implement for the sake of biodiversity, crop and grazing rotations. Farmers worry that they will not be able to produce the soy meal needed to feed their own livestock and that the EU will become too reliant on exports which would negatively affect the European ag sector.

Good News For U.S. Producers

The EU is not alone. Other countries have similar environmentally focused goals and policy in the works to support these goals. The United States has seen a growing consumer demand for traceability, prompting many businesses to begin the process of leveraging technology and better communication up and down supply chains to help customers make informed decisions.

The Forest Act of 2023 was birthed out of the same desire to stabilize regions of the world that have suffered from illegal deforestation and offer opportunities for many industries and individual businesses to clean up their processes. If it goes into effect, the Forest Act would be very similar to the EU’s Deforestation Regulation; banning products that have been produced on illegally deforested land and penalizing unmet requirements.

Many American operations are positioned to receive deforestation-free certification. Several top soy producers are predicted to meet regulations and be granted access to the EU markets. A welcome relief to farmers who have faced narrowing markets in recent years. 

Exactly how competitive this “new” market will be, only time will tell.  Traceability efforts take time. Unless trade lines were already working toward deforestation-free goals, it will take years for many of these supply chains to implement methods that meet EU regulations.  In the meantime, it’s highly likely that global trade negotiations will be impacted and supply chains will shift in response to the environmental standard.

---

A version of this blog originally appeared on the Stratagerm Consulting website. It is reposted with permission.

The post Perspective: European Union’s Deforestation-Free Product Regulation appeared first on Farm Foundation.