Putting People in the Policy: Why Trade Measures Must Champion Climate Justice

Arabica coffee in a homestead in Sironko, Mount Elgon region (photo: Kimbow Richard)

When I first met Gabriel Wadada, a small-scale arabica coffee exporter in Mbale, he was staring at a stack of papers that had arrived from his European buyer requiring his attention. “New climate requirements,” he sighed. “If I can’t prove my coffee is deforestation-free, the border closes for me.”

For Gabriel, unilateral climate-related trade measures—like the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) or deforestation-free regulations (EUDR)—aren’t abstract policies. They shape whether his children go to school, whether his community keeps jobs, and whether his farm survives shifting markets and climate pressures. His story captures the core question: Can unilateral trade measures truly support climate action?

This is the question that must be put before negotiators at the ongoing 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Belem, Brazil. At the end of the first week of COP30, negotiators reportedly left the venue with no clarity on some of the most politically charged issues placed under Presidential Consultations, including the question of climate-related unilateral trade restrictions.

Large markets can indeed influence global behaviour by sending strong signals that carbon-intensive production will face penalties (OECD, 2023). This can drive cleaner technologies, discourage emissions leakage, and raise ambition across supply chains (IPCC, 2022). This is true as long as the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR-RC) that has guided the global climate change negotiations since 1995 in Berlin is upheld.

Similarly,  Gabriel’s story reiterates the above position. Unilateral measures can only drive climate action if they do not deepen inequality. Compliance costs—data, certification, traceability—often fall hardest on small producers (UNCTAD, 2023). Without support, such measures risk excluding those least responsible for the climate crisis and most dependent on trade.

Whether these measures become catalysts—or barriers—depends on three conditions:

Equity and Capacity Support

Trade policies must be paired with real investments in producer capacity: traceability systems, climate-smart agriculture, and finance (WTO, 2023). When Gabriel joined a cooperative supported with digital mapping and training, compliance became possible—and resilience increased.

Dialogue and Co-Creation

Affected countries and producers need a seat at the table. Climate standards gain legitimacy when shaped through partnership, transition periods, and mutual recognition rather than unilateral imposition (UNFCCC, 2021). That turns trade measures into shared progress rather than new barriers.

Policy Coherence

Trade tools alone cannot decarbonise global value chains. They must align with climate finance, adaptation support, and national development priorities (IPCC, 2022). Otherwise, emissions simply shift—or vulnerable producers are pushed out of markets.

For Gabriel, the turning point came when his cooperative accessed climate-smart training and digital traceability, enabling them to meet new requirements and increase yields. “If they help us meet the standards,” he told me, “we can be part of the solution. But if it’s just rules without support, we lose.”

So, to what extent can unilateral trade measures support climate action?

They can play a meaningful role, but only when designed with fairness, capacity support, and partnership at their core. Otherwise, they risk becoming walls instead of bridges.

And Gabriel’s reminder stays with me: “Climate action should bring people in, not push them out.”