Strategies to Overcome Green Barriers in International Agricultural Trade
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71222/xs550s80Keywords:
green barriers, international agricultural trade, SPS standards, eco-certifications, technological innovationAbstract
Green barriers, including Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) standards, eco-certifications, green tariffs, and eco-label requirements, have become critical factors influencing international agricultural trade, posing challenges such as increased compliance costs, restricted market access, and altered trade patterns. This review examines strategies to overcome these barriers by integrating technological innovation, compliance with international standards, policy coordination, trade diversification, and market adaptation. Technological approaches, such as precision agriculture, IoT-enabled monitoring, and blockchain-based traceability, enhance efficiency and regulatory compliance, while certifications like GLOBALG.A.P., ISO 14001, and organic labels provide market credibility and access to high-value segments. Case studies from countries including the Netherlands, Chile, and New Zealand, as well as corporate examples from Olam International and Dole Food Company, demonstrate the effectiveness of combining technology, standards, and strategic market engagement. The review highlights that a multi-dimensional strategy can transform green barriers from obstacles into opportunities for innovation, sustainability, and competitiveness, and emphasizes the need for continued research on cost-benefit analyses, policy effectiveness, and emerging technologies to support sustainable agricultural trade.
References
1. Z. Liu, M. Zhang, Q. Li, and X. Zhao, "The impact of green trade barriers on agricultural green total factor productivity: Evi-dence from China and OECD countries," Econ. Anal. Policy, vol. 78, pp. 319-331, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.eap.2023.03.011.
2. P. Zhao and S. Gao, "Green trade barriers, financial support and agricultural exports," Int. Rev. Econ. Finance, vol. 97, p. 103758, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2024.103758.
3. Y. Su, "Influence and countermeasures of green trade barriers on agricultural products export based on data analysis tech-nology," in Proc. Int. Conf. Cyber Secur. Intell. Analytics, Cham: Springer, pp. 335-341, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-69999-4_45.
4. L. Yun, “Analyzing Credit Risk Management in the Digital Age: Challenges and Solutions”, Econ. Manag. Innov., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 81–92, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.71222/ps8sw070.
5. Y. Guo, "Green Trade Barriers under the Developing Country Perspective," Future Hum. Image, no. 21, pp. 4-15, 2024.
6. M. H. Do, Y. F. Huang, and V. D. V. Phan, "Analyzing the barriers to green supply chain management implementation: a case study of the Vietnamese agriculture sector," J. Enterp. Inf. Manag., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 125-147, 2024, doi: 10.1108/JEIM-10-2021-0459.
7. C. Ren, X. Zhang, S. Reis, and B. Gu, "Socioeconomic barriers of nitrogen management for agricultural and environmental sustainability," Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., vol. 333, p. 107950, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2022.107950.
8. K. Baylis, T. Heckelei, and T. W. Hertel, "Agricultural trade and environmental sustainability," Annu. Rev. Resource Econ., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 379-401, 2021, doi: 10.1146/annurev-resource-101420-090453.
9. R. Paarlberg, "The trans-Atlantic conflict over “green” farming," Food Policy, vol. 108, p. 102229, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102229.
10. X. Dai, Y. Chen, C. Zhang, Y. He, and J. Li, "Technological revolution in the field: Green development of Chinese agriculture driven by digital information technology (DIT)," Agriculture, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 199, 2023, doi: 10.3390/agriculture13010199.
11. Y. Long, "Export competitiveness of agricultural products and agricultural sustainability in China," Regional Sustainability, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 203-210, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.regsus.2021.09.001.
12. B. Xu, Y. Niu, Y. Zhang, Z. Chen, and L. Zhang, "China’s agricultural non-point source pollution and green growth: Interaction and spatial spillover," Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., vol. 29, no. 40, pp. 60278-60288, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-20128-x.
