Provenance needed for sustainable global trade

Honor Eldridge, food systems specialist

Today’s reality is that we live in a globalised world where products are traded internationally. Globalised free trade  has helped to alleviate global poverty and reduce mortality rates. However, it has also deepened  global income inequalities and has reinforced the power disparities between countries in the Global North and the Global South, which has contributed to vast land purchases in Africa and Asia (called ‘land grabs’) and significant environmental damage. Try as we might, we cannot reverse the clock on globalisation and free trade. Consequently, it is a question of how globalised trade can be transitioned to become more positive. Can we create an alternative version of global trade that is sustainable and equitable? A vision of trade that doesn’t leave people behind and marginalise them, but, instead, recognises the successful progress that international trade has brought to many, while actively addressing its failures. As a global society, can we foster a trade system that is environmentally sustainable and healthy, that is equitable and fair? Can we create a global trade agenda that both safeguards and proactively promotes environmental, social and human rights, in line with our United Nations commitments?

Of late, there has been lots of talk about the importance of food standards within trade deals. Talk of chlorinated chicken, beef hormones and GM has been unavoidable. Maintaining food standards is essential, of course. It is critical for public and environmental health, which public advocates have rightly focused on. But it is also important to maintain standards for Britain’s trading future. If the UK wants to promote British food internationally, we need to compete based on high quality and elevated standards. In comparison to other countries around the globe, the UK has a relatively high cost of production (land, materials, labour, etc.) and so the way the UK can compete in the global market is to focus on exporting food with high animal welfare standards and high environmental standards.

Two things could help us achieve this vision. Firstly, the UK could expand agroecological production through its new agricultural policy, including the Environmental Land Management (ELM) scheme or through incentives to invest in new techniques and animal welfare. ELM is the new agricultural payment support system that has been proposed by the UK Government to replace the EU’s Common Agriculture Policy once the UK leaves the EU. This new payment system could be designed to better support UK farmers and growers to transition to the highest standards and adopt more sustainable techniques. Most food retail is controlled by a small number of powerful supermarkets, and farmers have had few options but to adopt more intensive and environmentally damaging methods. By financially supporting businesses to transition towards a more sustainable management, it would allow a high-standards, high-value food sector to flourish.

Secondly, the adoption of a more future-focused and innovative approach to trade promotion internationally. Secretary of International Trade, Liz Truss has been traveling the world, touting UK trade to foreign governments, but the vision that she is promoting is outdated. Instead, she could focus on the quality of UK food with an emphasis on its provenance and heritage.

There are lessons the UK can learn from to do this effectively. While France has branded its food system as the pinnacle of haute cuisine, it took centuries to achieve this reputation. The UK could consider the example of South Korea, as they have redefined the reputation of their food and cuisine in a few short years due to concerted effort to market South Korea’s produce as high-quality and safe.

If the UK were to follow the example of South Korea, it would require a clear focus on how and where the food was produced. Producers could be supported to better communicate with the consumer so that they are able to emphasise their high-quality farming methods and their commitment to sustainability. Anyone who has tasted proper pasture-raised steak knows the impact that the health of the soil and the wider ecosystem has on the quality of the product and would understand why it costs more. Communicating transparently would require clear and trust-worthy on-package labelling.

Something more detailed than Country of Origin labelling is required to achieve this. Country of Origin labelling falls into the same nationalist model of the past, and, it has routinely been challenged at the WTO as a barrier to trade. Instead, labelling could focus on the specifics of the production and on the ecosystem in which it has been produced.

Instead of starting from scratch with a new labelling system, we could adapt one that already has a standing in law to serve a new, more innovative purpose. The Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) system has the potential to achieve this. It could provide a clear model for labelling since PDO places specific ecosystems (or ‘terroirs’) at its core, while emphasising the communities and traditions that have held rural lives together for generations. PDO requires “every part of the production, processing and preparation process to take place in the specific region” and “emphasises the relationship between the specific geographic region and the name of the product, where a particular quality, reputation or other characteristic is essentially attributable to its geographical origin.”

PDO have thus far been used for very few products – particularly in comparison to the less-stringent and consequently more-popular Protected Geographic Indicators. Champagne, Port, Fontina have PDO status. Most PDO products have thus far been in the Global North and more specifically, Europe. This has caused resentment in other regions to rise. And justifiably so. Producers in other areas see it as unfair that they can’t capitalise on the branding associated with PDO products, many of which are considered luxury goods and are sold at higher prices. Dovedale cheese from the Dovedale Valley in the Peak District, provides a good example of this tension. Dovedale cheeses were awarded a PDO in 2007 and are required to be produced within 80km of the Dovedale Valley. The producers of the cheese can use the PDO status to promote their products and sell internationally based on the uniqueness of the flavour and the heritage associated with its production. Consequently, it would be unfair for a Wisconsin cheesemaker to brand her cheese as a Dovedale when it is not.

However, while the Wisconsin cheesemaker (or a Mongolian sheep farmer for that matter) cannot produce a Dovedale cheese, she can produce a cheese that is unique to her region. By opening up the PDO system, producers across the world would be able to define themselves through the specifics of their ecosystem, communities and traditions. This would allow them to market themselves globally while emphasising the local nature of their farm and their products. For a thriving, equitable and sustainable future for global trade, the PDO system could be expanded so that products and more producers can benefit more directly and have a better platform to convey their provenance. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel, we can adapt the tools that we already have to create a more sustainable future for global trade.