Supporting agri-food environmental sustainability: a case study of the EU-Vietnam FTA

Supporting agri-food environmental sustainability: a case study of the EU-Vietnam FTA Emily Lydgate , Camille Vallier, Viet Hoang, Le Nguyen, Hong Nguyen, Chau Nguyen, Tiziana Pirelli and Annalisa Zezza* A B S T R A C T The European Commission has called for its Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapters to support higher environmental standards. Environmental commitments in TSD chapters are implemented through dialogue between stakeholders, often (but not always) tied to implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements. In this article, using a qualitative case study approach, we examine whether, and how, these commitments to dialogue interrelate with other drivers for high environmental standards in the agri-food area. Identifying the coffee value chain as a sector of economic and environmental importance in the EU-Vietnam FTA, we undertook literature review and expert interviews with key stakeholders in the EU and Vietnam. These stakeholders have increasingly embraced, and invested in, achieving environmental sustainability, but expressed concerns about ability to meet both private certification and regulatory environmental requirements, and were largely unaware of TSD chapter mechanisms promoting dialogue. Environmental requirements increasingly constitute market access barriers for exporters to the EU, revealing the need to re-envision TSD cooperative fora as mechanisms to support compliance and promote two-way communication on the impact of EU environmental requirements, including their relationship with private standards. Doing so would provide a more tangible link between TSD chapters and higher environmental standards. INTRODUCTION In its reform process for its Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapters, the European Commission has called for these chapters to achieve ‘real and © The Author(s) 2025. Published by Oxford University Press. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. * Emily Lydgate, Professor of Law, University of Sussex, [email protected]; Dr Camille Vallier, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Geneva, [email protected]; Dr Viet Hoang, Lecturer, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City (UEH), [email protected]; Dr Le Nguyen, Lecturer, UEH, [email protected]; Hong Nguyen, UEH, [email protected]; Chau Nguyen, Lecturer, UEH, [email protected]; Dr Tiziana Perelli, Coordinator, Global Bioenergy Partnership, FAO, Rome, [email protected]; Dr Annalisa Zezza, Council for Agricultural Research and Economics (CREA), [email protected]. This article was made possible by funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme under grant agreement No 101,000,551—TRADE4SD. We are grateful to the JIEL editors and two anonymous peer reviewers for useful feedback, Atilla Jambor and Federica de Maria for support provided to our project, and Professor James Harrison and Dr Rosane Nunes de Faria for very helpful comments. We are also grateful to the participants in our interviews who devoted their time so generously to speaking with us. Any errors are the responsibility of the authors. Original Article Journal of International Economic Law, 2025, 28(2), 260–274 https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgaf011 Advance Access Publication Date: 28 April 2025 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jiel/article/28/2/260/8121246 by Corvinus University of Budapest user on 26 October 2025 lasting change on the ground, through the effective application of enhanced social and environmental standards, to the direct benefit of the citizens of our FTA partners’. Reflecting on how higher standards could be achieved, the Commission stated that EU trade policy ‘can make a significant contribution based on constructive cooperation focused on specific trade-related challenges’.1 Taking these stated aims as a starting point, this article sets out to better understand the impacts of the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA) TSD chapter, focusing on the case study of the coffee value chain. The EVFTA entered into force on 1 August 2020 and constitutes one of the EU’s ‘new generation’ FTAs. Environmental provisions in the TSD chapters of the EVFTA include nonbinding commitments to engage in thematic dialogue on environmental issues. This raises the question of how to evidence linkages between higher standards and cooperative dialogue. Understanding this relationship is important in assessing the effectiveness of EU TSD reforms, both in Vietnam and more generally. Its commercial importance and the variety of sustainability standards and regulations it faces make the coffee sector an important case study. Coffee accounts for the largest market share of any single EU-bound agricultural product and almost half of the export value of the sector.2 An expanding variety of voluntary sustainability standards (VSS) and EU regulation condition Vietnamese coffee’s access to the EU market, encompassing Sanitary and Phytosanitary product requirements for pesticide and fertilizer use as well as nonproduct-related requirements addressing land degradation and embodied deforestation. We undertook a literature review and qualitative interviews with stakeholders with expertise in the EVFTA and coffee value chains in Vietnam, to better understand how they viewed, and interacted with, TSD chapter provisions, EU regulation, and voluntary standards. This revealed several cross-cutting themes, leading to recommendations for strengthening linkages between the TSD chapter and promotion of environmental sustainability in Vietnam’s coffee sector. There is a lack of alignment between the TSD chapter focus on thematic cooperation on environmental issues, and the way that actors in the coffee sector understand environmental sustainability challenges they face as limited capacity to implement higher standards. While the Commission’s action-plan for TSD chapters identifies useful reforms, including commitments to more resourcing, a greater focus on supporting Vietnamese producers to adopt environmental requirements could help the EU to implement regulation more effectively. In the case of the coffee sector, this would also expand the proportion of producers able to benefit from highervalue coffee in Vietnam. Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA), as well as strategic use of TSD chapters’ cooperative fora, could help the EU to coordinate its bilateral and unilateral environmental objectives. It could also provide a means to help increase understanding in the EU of the various requirements and processes that farmers face, and how best to streamline requirements in order to avoid duplication. EU TSD CHAPTERS Since the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon,3 the EU includes sustainability provisions within its bilateral trade agreements. In 2018, the European Economic and Social Committee stated that ‘TSD chapters play a crucial role in achieving (…) values similar to those that we recognise as “EU values”, including social, consumer and environmental standards and cultural diversity, 1 EU Commission’s Services, Non-paper, Feedback and way forward on improving the implementation and enforcement of Trade and Sustainable Development chapters in EU FTAs, 2018, p 1. 2 Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT), ‘Xuất khẩu nông sản sang EU nắm bắt cơ ho .i từ EVFTA’ (2022) <https://moit. gov.vn/tin-tuc/thi-truong-nuoc-ngoai/xuat-khau-nong-san-sang-eu-nam-bat-co-hoi-tu-evfta.html> accessed 11 April 2025. 3 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2008] OJ C115/13, art 11, art 205. Agri-Food Sustainability and the EU-Vietnam FTA • 261 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jiel/article/28/2/260/8121246 by Corvinus University of Budapest user on 26 October 2025 and to make the public face of the EU visible in those countries, as well as providing an important platform to monitor commitments to human, labour and environmental rights in trade agreements’.4 These ‘new generation’ FTAs all include a specific TSD chapter based on three pillars: commitments to international agreements on labour and the environment, structures to involve civil society organizations, and a dedicated dispute settlement mechanism.5 The EU-Vietnam FTA (EVFTA) is broadly illustrative of the type and structure of commitments included in such chapters. It affirms both Parties’ commitment to pursue sustainable development and cooperate on environment and labour issues (Article 13.1). It requires that Parties do not fail to enforce their environment and labour laws in a way that affects trade and investment, a requirement often described as a nonregression or nonderogation clause.6 It also sets out commitments to implement multilateral labour and environmental agreements, and identifies a series of environmental issues on which Parties will cooperate. These topics include climate change, deforestation, and biological diversity; the Parties commit to respecting Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) in these areas and to cooperating with one another. Implementation takes place through the establishment of Committees of stakeholders and Government officials: a Domestic Advisory Group (DAG), Committee on TSD, and Civil Society Forum. The effects of EU TSD chapters Analyses of the effectiveness of EU TSD chapters and provisions have come to conflicting conclusions. Employing case studies and semi-structured interviews, Smith and others examined how labour provisions in FTAs affect the lived experience of workers through case studies of particular value chains.7 The authors argued that there is ‘no evidence that the existence of TSD chapters has led to improvements in labour standards governance in any of the case studies’.8 In contrast, using data-based approaches to analyse interactions between TSD provisions and environmental protection, Brandi, Schwab, Berger, and Morin showed that environmental provisions can help increase trade in green exports and decrease dirty exports from developing countries.9 Another study of Brandi and others also finds a positive relationship between domestic environmental legislation and preferential trade agreements with environmental provisions, but that the relationship is stronger in developing countries, more pronounced before the entry into force of the Agreement, and varies between different issues.10 Using similar methods, Bastiaens and Postnikov demonstrated that, as a result of the emphasis of TSD chapters on policy dialogue, EU trading partners tend to modify internal environmental legislation ‘after’ the entry into force of a particular FTA.11 EU TSD chapters are characterized by a cooperative approach of convening stakeholders to engage in dialogue on issues identified in the chapter. As a result, EU TSD provisions are 4 European Economic and Social Committee, Opinion on Trade and sustainable development chapters (TSD) in EU Free Trade Agreements (FTA), 2018, s 1.5. 5 European Commission, Feedback and way forward on improving the implementation and enforcement of Trade and Sustainable Development chapters in EU FTAs, February 2018. 6A Party shall not waive or derogate from, or offer to waive or derogate from, its environmental or labour laws, in a manner affecting trade and investment between the Parties. EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (signed 20 June 2019), art 13.7. 7Smith and others, Free Trade Agreements and Global Labour Governance: The European Union’s Trade-Labour Linkage in a Value Chain World (Routledge 2020) 373. 8Harrison and others, ‘Governing Labour Standards, Through Free Trade Agreements: Limits of the European Union’s Trade and Sustainable Development Chapters’ (2019) 57 J Common Mark Stud 132. 9Brandi and others, ‘Do Environmental Provisions in Trade Agreements Make Exports from Developing Countries Greener?’ (2020) 129 World Dev 1. 10 Clara Brandi, Dominique Blümer and Jean-Frédéric Morin, ‘When Do International Treaties Matter for Domestic Environmental Legislation?’ (2019) 19 Global Environ Politics 14. 11 Ida Bastiaens and Evgeny Postnikov, ‘Greening Up: The Effects of Environmental Standards in EU and US Trade Agreements’ (2017) 26 Environ Politics 847, 869. 262 • Agri-Food Sustainability and the EU-Vietnam FTA Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jiel/article/28/2/260/8121246 by Corvinus University of Budapest user on 26 October 2025 characterized as ‘soft’ or ‘promotional’.12 The TSD dispute settlement mechanism has only been used once in the context of an FTA, in relation to the respect of labour standards in the automotive industry in Korea.13 Regarding cooperative mechanisms created by TSD chapters, DAGs, and Civil Society Fora, Kettunen and others argue that they have not been fully exploited.14 Smith and others, Mai and Schweishelm, and Martens and others argue that the DAG and civil society forum amount to the EU exporting a participatory system that cannot function in other socio-political contexts, thus creating an illusion of participation.15 Ashraf and van Seters observe that a reform of civil society engagement in EU FTAs is necessary, and they provide recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of participation mechanisms.16 Reform proposals for TSD chapters In a 2018 nonpaper, the European Commission’s services recognized that the implementation of the TSD chapters should be improved.17 It set out the objective that TSD chapters achieve ‘real and lasting change on the ground, through the effective application of enhanced social and environmental standards’.18 This nonpaper presented 15 ‘concrete and practicable’ actions to reinforce collaboration with partner countries, and enable civil society to play their role in the implementation process. A project to support civil society participation was launched. The European Commission further developed its position in its 2022 Communication ‘The power of trade partnership: together for green and just economic growth’.19 A 2022 public consultation showed that most stakeholders were unsatisfied with the implementation and enforcement of TSD chapters.20 Most NGOs and trade unions, and half of public authorities who responded to the survey supported stronger enforcement mechanisms linked to trade sanctions.21 Among other measures, the Commission suggested extending the general state to state dispute settlement mechanism to the TSD chapter and committed to including an option of applying trade sanctions if Parties fail to comply with core provisions of the ILO or implement the Paris Agreement. The EU’s approach will remain based on cooperation and dialogue, and sanctions will only be complementary, applied in limited circumstances. 12 Campling and others oppose the European ‘promotional’ approach to the American approach, that they qualify as ‘conditional’ because ‘labour provisions make the conclusion of a particular FTA conditional on respect for particular labour standards or allow sanctions in the FTA if standards are violated’ (Campling and others, Can Labour Provisions Work Beyond The Border? Evaluating the Effects of EU Free Trade Agreements, International Labour Organisation, 2016, p 361). See Velut and others for an extensive overview of institutional mechanisms and civil society participation in implementing and monitoring TSD provisions in EU FTAs (Velut and others, Comparative Analysis of Trade and Sustainable Development Provisions in Free Trade Agreements (London School of Economics 2022)). 13 Panel of Experts Proceeding, ‘Constituted under Article 13.5 of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement, Report of the Panel of Experts’ (20 January 2021). <https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/enforcement-and-protection/dispute-settlement/bilateraldisputes/korea-labour-commitments_en> accessed 11 April 2025. 14 Kettunen and others, An EU Green Deal for Trade Policy and the Environment: Aligning Trade With Climate and Sustainable Development Objectives, Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2020; Smith (n 7) 44, with further references. 15 See Smith and others (n 14) 134–36; Mai Ha Thu and Erwin Schweisshelm, Labour Rights and Civil Society Empowerment in the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Working Paper no 115, 2020; Deborah Martens, Diana Potjomkina and Jan Orbie, Domestic Advisory Groups in EU Trade Agreements: Stuck at the Bottom or Moving up the Ladder? Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 2020. 16 Nadia Ashraf and Jeske van Seter, Making it Count: Civil Society Engagement in EU Trade Agreements, ECDPM, Discussion Paper No 276, 2020, p 15. 17 EU Commission’s Services (n 1) 3. 18 ibid 1. 19 EU Commission, Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2022) 409 final, 2022. 20 The London School of Economics and Political Science, ‘Open Public Consultation on the Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) Review’ (2021). <https://circabc.europa.eu/rest/download/95aafa87-8d69-4f1e-9ce6-a4e5416ba444?ticket> accessed 11 April 2025. 21 ibid. Agri-Food Sustainability and the EU-Vietnam FTA • 263 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jiel/article/28/2/260/8121246 by Corvinus University of Budapest user on 26 October 2025 The new action-plan is based on six priority areas, including enhancing a country specific approach, increasing the monitoring of the implementation of TSD commitments, and reinforcing the role of civil society. It will also increase resourcing for DAGs. RESEARCH DESIGN In the context of discrepant conclusions regarding the effectiveness of TSD chapters, this article seeks to address two main research questions: first, what are the causal links between provisions included in TSD chapters and the environmental sustainability issues identified by key stakeholders? Second, how can the TSD chapter better support the EU objective of ‘… effective application of enhanced … environmental standards’ (see ‘Reform proposals for TSD chapters’ section)? To address these questions, it extends the approach of Harrison and others,22 and Smith and others23 who have undertaken in-depth interviews on particular economic sectors to provide insight into how obligations in treaty texts translate (or do not translate) into changes in outcomes. As argued by Harrison and others, ‘scrutiny of the effect of the EU’s approach [to TSD chapters] and related policy implications has not been at the centre of academic debates in this field’.24 To understand existing drivers of environmental sustainability in the sector, we focus on effects on domestic environmental protection, environmental regulation imposed by the EU, and VSS. VSS are included because, although they are voluntary in nature, they are important in shaping outcomes in the sector. Cashore and others argue that nonstate actors, including VSS, are increasingly influential, and interact with traditional state-led regulation in three main ways: collaborative, competitive or co-existing (institutional layering), comprising an overall governance sphere.25 Therefore, we sought to understand the relationship between VSS and other drivers of sustainability in the sector. The coffee sector was selected because of its commercial importance to trade between the EU and Vietnam, and the fact that it is subject to multiple EU and VSS requirements. These include product-based requirements; for example, coffee bound for the EU market must comply with EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary requirements which uphold food safety, such as restrictions on the use and type of pesticide, fertilizer, and the presence of environmental contaminants and pathogens.26 They also include process-based environmental sustainability requirements, which at the time of writing are largely imposed through VSS and focus on preventing land degradation and deforestation. The EVFTA is an EU new generation FTA. While we hope to contribute to a body of evidence regarding these FTAs, one limitation of this selection is that the EVFTA’s relatively recent adoption at the time of the interviews likely limited stakeholder awareness. Desk-based research of the EVFTA and the coffee sector in Vietnam aimed to examine what sustainability issues were raised as core concerns in the process of negotiating the FTA, whether environmental regulations changed as a result of the TSD chapter, and set out context regarding the commercial importance and characteristics of the coffee value chain. Next, 27 semi-structured qualitative interviews were carried out in Vietnam and in the EU with expert stakeholders on the EVFTA and the coffee value chain. Results have been 22 Harrison and others, ‘Labour Standards in EU Free Trade Agreements: Reflections on the European Commission’s Reform Agenda’ (2019) 18 World Trade Rev 637. 23 See Smith and others (n 14) 373. 24 ibid. 25 Cashore and others, ‘Private Authority and Public Policy Interactions in Global Context: Governance Spheres for Problem Solving’ (2021) 15 Regul Gov 1166, 1182. 26 A helpful summary of SPS standards is available here: ‘What Requirements Must Coffee Comply With To Be Allowed on the European Market?’ CBI.eu (14 December 2022) <https://www.cbi.eu/market-information/coffee/what-requirements-shouldyour-product-comply> accessed 30 November 2023. 264 • Agri-Food Sustainability and the EU-Vietnam FTA Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jiel/article/28/2/260/8121246 by Corvinus University of Budapest user on 26 October 2025 (1) Developing research questions and design (2) Reviewing literature and collecting data (3) Analyzing qualitative data (4) Theory development and consolidation Concepts Theories Categories Findings: Influance; Challenges; Involvement; Regulations & Standard. Harrison’s Approach TRADE4SD PANEL Exploratory interview Raw qualitative data (Vietnamese) Transcribing & processing data Translating clean data into English Structured review Figure 1. Research Design anonymized, but the actors reflected, as much as possible, its diverse composition.27 About half (13) of the interviewees were commercially involved in coffee production. This included farmers unions, who represent farmers as a whole (4); coffee firms, who source, produce, and distribute coffee (retailers) (6); and certification agencies, who ensure that coffee meets VSS in order to fulfil obligations to retailers (3). In addition, we selected NGOs who were involved with sustainability concerns regarding agriculture (6 Vietnamese; 2 EU-based). We interviewed policymakers in Vietnam who had been involved with the EVFTA (3) and from the European Commission (1). Finally, we interviewed academic scholars who were expert in trade agreements and Vietnamese agricultural production (5). Questions were developed in collaboration between the participating Universities, and stakeholders were identified through prior knowledge and networks of the research team. We used purposive and snowball sampling methods and semi-structured questionnaires with closed, open, and scaling questions. While EU-based experts were identified by the research teams at CREA and the University of Sussex, Vietnamese expert stakeholders were identified by the members of the research team from the University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City (UEH). The researchers carrying out the interviews were familiar with the subject matter, enabling them to deepen lines of inquiry where useful to facilitate further insights. Interviews were carried out between August and November 2022, in English or in Vietnamese, in person or on zoom, reflecting interviewee’s circumstances. Generally, interviews in Europe were conducted by researchers from the University of Sussex and CREA, and interviews in Vietnam were conducted by the UEH team. Interviewees gave their consent for the interviews to be recorded, and they were informed that the content of their responses would remain confidential, as quotations would not contain identifying features. Figure 1 describes the research design, interview and analysis process. 27 Viet Hoang, ‘Modern Short Food Supply Chain, Good Agricultural Practices, and Sustainability: A Conceptual Framework and Case Study in Vietnam’ (2021) 11 Agronomy 2408; Viet Hoang and An Nguyen, ‘PGI Buon Ma Thuot Coffee in Vietnam’ in Filipo Arfini and Valentin Bellassen (eds), Sustainability of European Food Quality Schemes (Springer Cham 2019) 265–85. Agri-Food Sustainability and the EU-Vietnam FTA • 265 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jiel/article/28/2/260/8121246 by Corvinus University of Budapest user on 26 October 2025 EVFTA-IDENTIFIED SUSTAINABILITY CONCERNS RELEVANT TO THE COFFEE SECTOR Prior to the EVFTA, the EU conducted negotiations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to conclude a FTA. In this context, a SIA was conducted for the whole region.28 When negotiations came to a halt in March 2009, the EU started negotiating with individual countries in the region, including Vietnam. In 2013, in order to comply with its obligation to assess sustainability impacts of FTAs under negotiation, the EU published a 12-page Annex on Vietnam to the 2010 position paper.29 There is no specific mention of the coffee sector in the SIA. Concerns about deforestation are addressed in the ASEAN SIA, which recommended linking FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade) and/or VPA (Voluntary Partnership Agreement) process to the FTA. Reflecting this recommendation, EVFTA article 13.8 on Sustainable Forest Management & Trade in Forest Products recognizes the importance of ensuring the conservation and sustainable management of forest (Section 1) and includes a commitment of the Parties to encourage, exchange information, adopt measures and cooperate (Section 2). In this context, the Parties ‘shall encourage the promotion of trade in forest products from sustainably managed forests and harvested in accordance with the domestic legislation of the country of harvest’; this may include the conclusion of the FLEGT VPA (article 13.8 Section 2a). The VPA between Vietnam and the EU was concluded in October 2018 and entered into force in June 2019, such that it preceded the entry into force of the EVFTA. This situation rendered this provision null and void even before it came into force, but also shows that the FTA negotiation played a role in supporting the successful negotiation of the VPA. Deforestation is also an area in which the Parties agreed to cooperate under article 13.14 Section 1k (‘Working Together on Trade and Sustainable Development’). In 2021, the Commission separately conducted an impact assessment on ‘embodied deforestation’, identifying coffee as one of the primary contributors; in other words, EU coffee consumption is contributing to deforestation in other countries.30 As a result, coffee is now covered by the EU’s Deforestation-Free Products Regulation, and will be subject to new due diligence requirements.31 A review of amendments that were made to Vietnamese laws to implement the EVFTA reveals that no domestic environmental laws were changed before or after the ratification of the EVFTA.32 On the face of it, this contradicts the finding that TSD chapters lead to higher standards in third countries. However, supporting the analysis of Brandi and others, the negotiation 28 Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment for the FTA between the EU and ASEAN, Phase 1—Global Analysis Report, 2008; Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment for the FTA between the EU and ASEAN, Phase 2—Interim Report, 2009; Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment for the FTA between the EU and ASEAN, Final Report—Main Findings and Recommendations, 2009; EU Commission’s Services, Position Paper on the Trade and Sustainability Impact Assessment of the Free Trade Agreement between the EU and ASEAN, 2010. 29 EU Commission’s Services, Annex on Vietnam to the position paper on the Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment of the Free Trade Agreement between the EU and ASEAN, 2013. 30 Executive summary of the Impact Assessment Report minimizing the risk of deforestation and forest degradation associated with products placed on the EU market accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the making available on the Union market as well as export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010. <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52021SC0327> accessed 11 April 2025. 31 Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 [2023] OJ L 150/206. 32 Nghị quyết 102/2020/QH14, Resolution No 102/2020/QH14, 8 June 2020 on ratification of EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA), Annex 2. <https://vanbanphapluat.co/resolution-102-2020-qh14-ratification-of-eu-vietnam-free-tradeagreement> accessed 11 April 2025. 266 • Agri-Food Sustainability and the EU-Vietnam FTA Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jiel/article/28/2/260/8121246 by Corvinus University of Budapest user on 26 October 2025 helped facilitate the conclusion of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the EU and Vietnam on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT).33 It also established new channels for future bilateral cooperation on environmental issues. THE EVFTA AND COMMERCIAL IMPORTANCE FOR THE COFFEE SECTOR Coffee accounts for 42.2% of Vietnam’s total major agri-product export to the EU, the largest market share of any single agricultural product.34 Prior to EVFTA, Vietnamese coffee already entered the EU tariff-free. In this sense, there is not a clearly identifiable financial benefit for Vietnamese exports pursuant to the FTA. The total export value of Vietnam’s main agri-products (including coffee, cashew nuts, rubber, vegetables, pepper, rice, and tea) to the EU market has significantly increased over time. In 2021, the EU accounted for 13.7% of Vietnam’s agri-product export, becoming one of the largest export markets. The EU27 is the biggest market for Vietnam’s coffee with key importers being Germany, Italy, Spain, and Belgium. In 2020, the EU27 market accounted for 48% of Vietnam’s coffee export value, and the share has increased over time. Vietnam is also the second-largest coffee supplier to the EU27 market in 2021, after Brazil and excluding European countries such as Switzerland, Germany, Italy, and France (internal trade).35 Robusta coffee accounts for more than 95 per cent of total output, and Arabica makes up most of the remaining 5 per cent.36 It is widely agreed that Buon Ma Thuot city of Dak Lak province is the ‘Coffee Capital’ of Vietnam for the coffee quality, coffee growing area, and coffee productivity and production.37 Dak Lak province has implemented a new large-scale production master plan with farmers’ participation in specializing in industrial coffee growing. With a history of over 70 years, coffee has become the essential sector in Dak Lak province with significant contribution to its social and economic conditions.38 Overall, the core value chain of Dak Lak coffee includes four main actors: farmers, processors, roasters, and retailers. Most of the large coffee processors purchase coffee directly from farmers while small coffee processors often buy coffee through collectors. Roasters purchase the green coffee directly from green coffee processors and sell the roasted and ground coffee to retailers or café shops.39 In addition, there are supporting and other supplying actors in Dak Lak coffee value chain. For example, Buon Ma Thuot Coffee Association (BCA) consists of organizations and individuals producing and trading coffee, indirect service and input suppliers such as finance, logistics, transport, marketing, and others; and Daklak People’s Committee (and its departments) with promotion and supporting policies and programs. Our interviews included actors from most of these elements of the coffee value chain: farmers unions representing producers, retailers, and certification agencies for VSS who worked closely with farmers, processors, and retailers. 33 Clara Brandi, Dominique Blümer and Jean-Frédéric Morin, ‘When Do International Treaties Matter For Domestic Environmental Legislation?’ (2019) 19 Global Environ Politics 1. 34 Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) (n 2). 35 International Trade Centre <https://www.intracen.org/coffee-guide-resource-hub/understanding-the-coffee-market> accessed 11 April 2025. 36 Timoty Standen and Ayman Falak, ‘Vietnam’s Coffee Market Faces Challenges Despite Strong Exports, Domestic Growth, Vietnam Briefing’ (2022) <https://www.vietnam-briefing.com/news/vietnams-coffee-market-faces-challenges-despite-strongexports-domestic-growth.html/> accessed 11 April 2025. 37 Viet Hoang, ‘The Dynamics of Agricultural Intra-Industry Trade: a Comprehensive Case Study in Vietnam’ (2019) 49 Struct Chang Econ Dyn 74, 82; Giant Nguyen and Tapan Sarker, ‘Sustainable Coffee Supply Chain Management: a Case Study in Buon Me Thuot City, Daklak, Vietnam’ (2018) 3 Int J Corp Soc Responsib 1, 17. 38 Hoang and Nguyen (n 27) 265, 285. 39 ibid. Agri-Food Sustainability and the EU-Vietnam FTA • 267 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jiel/article/28/2/260/8121246 by Corvinus University of Budapest user on 26 October 2025 INTERVIEW RESULTS We first asked participants if they were familiar with the EVFTA. All participants affirmed that they were. However, interviewees had differing levels of expertise. Academics who studied EVFTA, and policymakers involved in its negotiation and implementation, had a deeper understanding of its structure, functions, and economic implications than those involved in coffee production (retailers, certifiers, farmers unions) and NGOs. Further cross-cutting questions to all participants examined the: (i) degree of their involvement in the EVFTA TSD chapter activities; (II) advantages and disadvantages of the FTA more broadly, and effects on coffee sustainability; (III) the most significant sustainability challenges in the coffee value chain; (IV) which types of regulations most shape sustainability in the coffee value chain; and (V) sustainability standards as a good business strategy. Most of the questions were open-ended. We also asked all participants to rate, on a scale of 1–5, propositions about the importance of addressing sustainability in the coffee sector, whether it was a good business strategy, and whether they felt their behaviour could make a difference. Questions that required objective ratings provided benchmarks for assessing convergence and divergence, and we draw from the results below, but the majority of the data analysis was qualitative. For this reason, in the analysis below, we draw from quotations from individual survey respondents to highlight perceptions and concerns of different actors. Familiarity with EVFTA All participants affirmed their knowledge of the EVFTA, but responses to the subsequent questions revealed differing levels of expertise. Thus, questions about the influence of EVFTA were often answered with reference to factors that did not relate to the FTA itself. This revealed in some cases a lack of understanding giving rise to an inability to isolate its influence. For example, while there was a strong overall sense that the EVFTA was important in supporting sustainability, the substantive examples given often focused on different issues. While it was instructive, this complicated the attempt to identify the specific influence of EVFTA on environmental sustainability. Degree of involvement in the EVFTA TSD chapter activities and influence on implementation of MEAs Only four stakeholders were involved in the preratification SIA, the EVFTA negotiation process or the Vietnamese DAG or Civil Society Forum. The others were not ‘aware of, or involved in, any projects, activities or trainings to promote the sustainable forests and the sustainable coffee value chains as a result of the EVFTA’. When asked about the existence of EU trainings, some of the private sector actors brought up trainings that had been held to help them comply with VSS. For example, one farmers union stated that ‘… we have received certifications such as 4C, Rain Forest, Fair Trade or UTZ and our coffee products can be sold in the European market. Our members receive specific training and guidance on topics such as no child labor, input use, farming and harvesting techniques, farming and work safety’. While the EVFTA reaffirms both Parties’ commitments to implementing a number of MEAs, many participants felt unsure about how the FTA impacted upon the Paris Agreement or the Convention on Biological Diversity, and declined to answer the question. Scholars and policymakers had the strongest positive response about the role of the FTA in reinforcing MEAs both explicitly in the text and through supporting sustainable practices more generally. 268 • Agri-Food Sustainability and the EU-Vietnam FTA Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jiel/article/28/2/260/8121246 by Corvinus University of Budapest user on 26 October 2025