Ines Carter, LLM Alumni, Member of ELSRG
This research places itself in the urgency of the climate crisis and what it means for food security. This question hangs like a Damocles sword on governments. Indeed, the climate crisis destabilizes agricultural activities,[1] therefore, calling for urgent measures on all levels. Such calls include taking mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions arising from the food systems.[2] One of the ways to do so is through food standards.
Starting from there, what cannot be missed is the consequent use of food standards and especially labels and certifications destined for the consumer. These demand-side measures appear as the favoured mode of action to mitigate GHG emissions. This is because labelling and certification processes can be voluntary or compulsory and contain provisions for compliance. The IPCC supports this idea by stating that the potential for mitigation in food standards is high.[3] However, there is a multiplicity of food standards designed by law-making bodies at the international, regional, and national levels and there are food standards recommended by the companies.
Indeed, the EU acts as the forerunner[4] of food standards that aim to mitigate climate change. Inside the EU, there are however difficulties encountered by the standards, such as the lack of scientific consensus on which some of these standards are based. This is the case for pesticides for instance, as glyphosate has recently been reauthorized[5] despite contradictory scientific opinion.[6] Secondly, most measures apply the cornerstone principle of the free movement of goods and are primarily acknowledged as commercial measures rather than climate mitigation efforts. This point also emphasises the predominant role of corporate actors in food standards. Third, many branches of EU law influence the food standards ranging from food law, environmental policies, the Common Agricultural Policy, competition law and food information law. This creates an additional layer of complexity in setting up food standards in the EU.
This context helps us to focus on consumer behaviour and diet changes. Indeed, such behaviour change can contribute to mitigating the effects of climate change on food systems. However, this approach is open to criticism as the aim is not so much on educating consumers but prioritising sustainable and responsible consumption. This can be viewed as unfair and unrealistic if inflation is taken into account.
It is crucial to mention that the New Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy of the EU aims to reform consumer demand, food production, industry behaviour and trade policy.[7] The issue of trade policy is extremely important as the EU food standards influence climate change mitigation measures in third countries such as South Africa.
Our research focuses on South Africa as it has a high level of development (IDH of 109)[8] and has a well-developed agricultural sector. The EU concluded an Economic Partnership Agreement in 2016 with South Africa: the SADC and Mozambique EU EPA.[9] EPAs allow for preferential treatment mainly using tariff reductions. The goal is to secure continued and improved market access in the EU as it represents the second-most important market for food for South Africa. However, it is also the most unequal country in the world[10] and still bears the stigmata of the apartheid. Therefore, the country presents a precarious socio-economic landscape that is also found in agriculture, as South Africa’s chief economist, Wandile Sihlobo, describes it best in the title of his most recent book: A Country of Two Agricultures. [11]
It is important to note that there is currently no general provision in EU law when it comes to sustainable requirements applicable to domestic or imported products.[12] Nevertheless, the EU has extended such compliance via multilateral, bilateral or autonomous instruments.[13] The existing food standards and the New Green Deal measures, mentioned earlier, have various impacts, both positive and negative, in South Africa. Wandile Sihlobo has assessed that the New Green Deal would involve higher compliance costs for smaller farmers in South Africa. It may also lead to the off-shoring of “bad production” to South Africa and the high-risk exclusion of smallholder farmers. However, there is also the opportunity to use those standards to direct the country’s agriculture towards more modernity, inclusivity, and sustainability.[14]
Our research acknowledges that hidden protectionism can arise from the EU food standards and explores several indirect impacts of these standards. First, the focus on EU-South Africa trade may lead to less regional trade and thus less regional integration in Africa. In the long run, this may hurt the continent, especially regarding development and environmental collaborations.[15] Second, it is important to assess the land rights situation in South Africa which remains unequal, and recent legislation[16] has sparked debate about the certainty of land rights which could act as a deterrent for foreign investment.[17] On the positive side, there are also hopes of the EU standards acting as an ‘encouragement’ to push climate change mitigation measures in South Africa itself.
Our research on climate change mitigation and the food standards in the EU highlights two findings. First, mitigation measures, whether they are directed at governments or corporations, actually target the responsibility of the consumer. However, the importance of sustainability for consumers is strongly overestimated. Indeed, cost is the first and most important for EU consumers when buying food.[18] The primary focus should be on the food business actors whose actions can forcefully impact climate change mitigation.[19] Second, there are criticisms that the new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is not ambitious enough in terms of climate change mitigation efforts.[20] Lastly, the entry into force of some texts from the New Green Deal has been delayed once more, this concerns the dispositions of sustainable food systems.[21]
Regarding the impacts of EU food standards in South Africa, two solutions are explored. First, we argue that a human-rights-based approach in EU-South Africa Trade relations may offer an efficient tool to prevent abuses such as the right to food, women’s rights, indigenous people’s rights, the right to health including the right to a healthy environment and more largely economic rights such as land access.
Second, we also argue that there is a need for better-coordinated policies as the mitigation policies linked with food standard policies are subject to legal fragmentation. There is a need for the establishment of a legal corpus on the subject which to be efficient must be the result of the cooperation between the scientific communities with environmental data, economic data like cost-benefit analysis, and policy-makers.
Our research demonstrated the adverse impacts that a policy taken at one level (e.g., EU) could have on another (national level within the EU and in a third country). In addition, the costs (human or economic) of climate change mitigation policies are immense and there is an urgent need to minimize those costs and maximize the efficiency of climate mitigation policies.
[This blog is based on the LLM Dissertation written by Ines Carter]
[1] IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 35-115.
[2] UNEP, Climate Action – Mitigation <Mitigation | UNEP – UN Environment Programme> accessed 2nd May 2023.
[3] IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 35-115.
[4] Bernd van der Meulen, “Impact of the Codex Alimentarius: The influence of the Joint FAO/WHP Food Standards Programme on EU Food Law” (2019) 1 EFFL 29-50, p 30.
[5] Geo, ‘L’autorisation du glyphosate sera renouvelée pour 10 ans, a décidé la Commission européenne’ (16 November 2023) < Sarantis Michalopoulos, ‘Les jeunes agriculteurs, une espèce en voie de disparition’ ( Euractiv 1 December 2015) < https://www.euractiv.fr/section/agriculture-alimentation/news/les-jeunes-agriculteurs-une-espece-en-voie-de-disparition/> accessed 27 July 2023>.
[6] The harmfulness of the substance has been largely decried including by the International Agency for Research on Cancer that classifies it as potential carcinogenic (WHO website, ‘IARC Monograph on Glyphosate’ (2018) < https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/> last accessed 5th December 2023 ; Chung-Sen Ma & others, ‘Climate warming promotes pesticides resistance through expanding overwintering range of a global pest’ (2021) 12 5352 Nature Communications; News European Parliament, ‘Pesticides : MEPs want a drastic cut in use of chemical pesticides’ 2023 < https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20231023IPR08130/pesticides-meps-want-a-drastic-cut-in-use-of-chemical-pesticides> accessed 16th September 2023) while the European Food Safety Authority EFSA has said that the level of risk of the substance would not justify its prohibition (M Jacque, ‘Glyphosate : divisée, l’Union européenne repousse sa décision sur l’herbicide’, Les Echos (Oct 2023)< https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/energie-environnement/glyphosate-lunion-europeenne-ne-sentend-pas-sur-une-prolongation-dautorisation-1986978 > accessed 2nd November 2023).
[7] European Commission, ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – Application of EU health and environmental standards to imported agricultural and agri-food products’ COM (2022).
[8] N. Cowling, ‘Human development index score of South Africa from 2000 to 2021’ (Statista April 2023) https://www.statista.com/statistics/1236017/human-development-index-of-south-africa/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20South%20Africa%20scored,previous%20year%2C%20which%20was%200.73> accessed 25th August 2023.
[9] European Commission website, Southern African Development Community (SADC) < EU trade relations with Southern African Development Community (SADC) (europa.eu)> accessed 19 May 2023.
[10] The World Bank website, ‘The World Bank in South Africa’ < https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/southafrica/overview#:~:text=South%20Africa%20remains%20a%20dual,coefficient%20of%200.67%20in%20201> accessed 7th May 2023.
[11] W. Sihlobo, A Country of Two Agricultures (2023, Tracey McDonald Publishers).
[12] Commission, ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – Application of EU health and environmental standards to imported agricultural and agri-food products’ COM (2022), page 5.
[13] Ibid [7], page 5.
[14] Wandile Sihlobo and Tinashe Kapuya, ‘The EU Green Deal: how it will impact South African agricultural exports’ Polity South Africa (2021) https://www.polity.org.za/article/the-eu-green-deal-how-will-it-impact-south-african-agricultural-exports-2021-10-27 > accessed 15 May 2023; Wandile Sihlobo, Tinashe Kapuya & Econ 3X3, ‘The EU Green Deal: how will it impact South Africa agricultural exports?’ Polity South Africa.
[15] S Powell, ‘Economic Partnership Agreements: Building or Shattering African Regional Integration’, (2007) Eco News SEATINI Traidecraft.
[16] The Expropriation Bill [B23-2020].
[17] T. Fourie (S&P Global Market Intelligence), ‘South Africa expropriation risk’ (2018) <https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/mi/research-analysis/south-africa-expropriation-risk.html> accessed 9th November 2023; OECD Website – Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2022: Reforming Agricultural Policies for Climate Change Mitigation.
[18] European Food Safety authority, ‘Cost a concern for EU consumers, with food safety close behind’ (28 September 2022)< https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/cost-concern-eu-consumers-food-safety-close-behind > accessed 21 July 2023.
[19]IPCC, AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023, page 67.
[20] M. Bompart, ‘Europe: La nouvelle politique agricole est un désastre’ (Reporterre 19 Novembre 2021) <https://reporterre.net/Europe-la-nouvelle-politique-agricole-commune-est-un-desastre> accessed 27 July 2023; European Court of Auditors, Special report 16/2021: Common Agricultural Policy and climate: Half of EU climate spending but farm emissions are not decreasing (21 June 2021).
[21] F. Schmitt, ‘Produits chimiques, bien-être animal: l’UE confirme le report de plusieurs lois du Pacte vert’ (Les Echos 4 October 2023) < https://www.lesechos.fr/monde/europe/pesticides-bien-etre-animal-lue-confirme-le-report-de-plusieurs-lois-du-pacte-vert-1984505> accessed 3rd January 2024.
