Given its importance in the history of human civilization and for global food security, agriculture is much more than just one of the three sectors of economic activity (the other two being industry and services). It is not by chance, then, that its performance is strictly connected to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 7 (Sustainable Development) SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).
In spite of such relevance, however, the critical role of agriculture in sustainable development, especially within evolving frameworks of international economic cooperation, often remains underexplored. This Special Issue (SI) directly addresses these issues by also considering the increasingly relevant role that China plays in international economic cooperation as a force that is capable of orienting the trajectory of sustainable agricultural development globally. This SI, then, takes a global perspective in unraveling the complex interplay between trade pacts, investment flows and regional integration efforts made by China and their multidimensional impacts on agricultural sustainability.
Several key developments associated with China’s rise as a global economic power fundamentally reshape global trade, investment patterns and development finance, while impacting local and global agricultural systems. These include the launch of international plans like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), spanning about 150 countries across the whole of Asia, Africa and the rest of the world; creation of and participation in mega-regional agreements like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which sees the presence of 15 countries from Asia and Oceania; and the deepening of ties with regional blocs like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), to whose 10 founding Southeast Asian states are often associated three additional Asian countries (China, South Korea and Japan). Understanding their overall effects and implications is a daunting effort that requires rigorous assessments and refined analyses. Agriculture, as a vital sector for livelihoods, resource use and environmental impact, is profoundly embedded within these flows. Contributing to understanding how these cooperation frameworks influence agricultural practices, value chains, environmental management, social equity, and ultimately, the attainment of the SDGs is the ambitious objective of this SI.
China is a major importer and exporter of agricultural goods, a significant source of outward agricultural investment, and a key provider of development assistance often linked to infrastructure supporting agriculture. Such activities have to be undertaken while keeping in mind UN’s SDGs, especially considering the approaching of their deadline while progress on hunger eradication (SDG 2) remains uneven and the need to fight climate change seriously impacts the way agricultural systems are and should be run. China’s cooperation models have the potential to either accelerate or hinder progress towards these critical goals, demanding scholarly scrutiny.
Effects extend beyond simple trade volumes or investment sums, encompassing technology transfer, knowledge diffusion, changes in land use and resource management (water, soil), shifts in labor markets, influences on local governance and the promotion (or hindrance) of environmentally sound and socially inclusive practices—demanding accurate analyses given the need to evaluate the overall sustainability impacts of such large bilateral/regional cooperation agreements.
Against the backdrop of these complex issues, it is possible to argue that many questions would need to be addressed and receive a satisfactory answer. Among those, one can consider five interconnected dimensions that are of particularly significant relevance today:
The first refers to trade agreements and market access, namely how preferential trade deals (e.g. RCEP, China-ASEAN free trade agreement) influence sustainable production patterns and smallholder market access. Do they incentivize sustainable intensification or encourage environmentally damaging expansion (e.g. deforestation for commodity crops)? How do they affect smallholder farmers’ access to markets and fair prices? Do sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures within these agreements raise standards or create barriers? Special attention should be devoted, for example, to the analysis of tariff lines, rules of origin, SPS chapters, impacts on specific commodity chains (e.g. palm oil, soy and tropical fruits) and effects on domestic food security in partner countries.
The second deals with investment flows and development finance, analyzing the sustainability implications of agricultural investments abroad—from large-scale land acquisitions and agro-industrial parks to investments in processing and logistics—including safeguards and technology transfer. How do they incorporate environmental and social safeguards into agricultural projects? Do investments promote technology transfer for sustainable practices (e.g. water-saving irrigation, climate-resilient seeds) or lock in resource-intensive models?
The third pertains to regional cooperation frameworks, that is, how BRI, ASEAN+3 and RCEP shape enabling environments for sustainable agriculture through policy dialogue and value chains. Do such platforms facilitate knowledge sharing on sustainable agriculture? How do competing priorities within these frameworks (e.g. economic growth vs environmental protection) play out in the agricultural sector? Do they foster regional value chains that embed sustainability standards? Analyses should focus, then, on regional policy dialogues, harmonization of standards, development of cross-border agricultural value chains, the role of regional infrastructure in shaping agricultural trade and its sustainability footprint.
The fourth dimension has to do with macroeconomic stimulus and structural transformation, thereby investigating the links between cooperation-driven growth and agricultural productivity/R&D investment. How does economic cooperation stimulate broader economic growth in partner countries, and how does this translate into the agricultural sector? Does growth lead to increased investment in agricultural R&D, infrastructure and extension services for sustainable agricultural development? Or does it pull resources away from agriculture towards other sectors? How does it influence national agricultural policies and spending priorities?
Finally, the fifth dimension deals with microeconomic drivers, like firm behavior, environmental, social and governance (ESG) aspects and value chains. This implies studying how such networks shape ESG practices of agricultural firms (both Chinese and local) operating in partner countries. What is the impact of such cooperation frameworks on ESG standards? Are they adapting to (or even driving) higher standards in global value chains? How do power dynamics within these value chains influence the distribution of sustainability costs and benefits? This would imply studying, for example, firm-level ESG adoption, analysis of contract farming models, and the role of certifications and standards.
The many questions and open issues listed above could hardly find an exhaustive answer in the limited space of an SI. Moreover, understanding those complex and often interconnected dynamics would require perspectives beyond the disciplinary boundaries of economics, including at least political science, environmental science, sociology and law. Economics, however, certainly plays a primary role in the understanding of the tensions existing between competitive market forces (e.g. price wars) and cooperative imperatives (e.g. joint climate adaptation research). This SI takes such a perspective, then, to seek solutions allowing China to interact with and within broader cooperative institutions (like BRI, RCEP and ASEAN+3, to name some of the most well-known) to pursue the objective of sustainable governance.
By examining trade, investment and regional initiatives through macro-micro lenses, this SI will deepen our understanding of China’s cooperation impacts, identifying tensions/synergies, evaluating SDG alignment and informing governance innovation.
This SI is composed of 7 articles, whose content is briefly summarized below.
In “Analyzing border effects on China’s agricultural trade”, Li and Kim (2025) employ a gravity model to study border effects on agricultural trade between China and 36 of its trading partners from 2001 to 2018. They find that, over the time span of their analysis, border effects declined, although asymmetrically: while exports to China face high barriers from Singapore, Malaysia or Japan, for example, they face low barriers from Brazil and the United States. Similar asymmetry appears when considering China’s exports, confronting high barriers when directed to Malaysia, Kazakhstan or Russia and low ones when directed to the European Union, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Brunei Darussalam and South Korea. The clear conclusion that the authors draw is that targeted bilateral reforms are needed for equitable integration.
In “Unlocking the efficiency and potential of China’s agricultural exports to RCEP member countries: perspectives on the entire agricultural industry chain”, Cheng et al. (2025) conclude that significant export efficiency gains across agricultural value chains (upstream/midstream/downstream) emerged under RCEP, with Malaysia and Brunei showing the strongest performance and Japan, Indonesia and Singapore offering the highest still unexploited potential. An implication is that chain-segment-specific strategies are crucial for sustainable trade.
The main finding in “Digital inclusive finance and agriculture-related global value chain participation in BRI countries”, by Wei et al. (2025), is that digital inclusive finance (DIF) exhibits a U-shaped relationship with agricultural GVC participation in BRI nations (2007–2021), mediated by human capital and institutional quality thresholds. A further point the authors make is that complementary investments are required to integrate smallholders.
The fourth article of this SI is “Factor-biased agricultural productivity improvement and industrialization: evidence from the Belt and Road Countries” by Zhang and Chen (2025). They argue that agricultural productivity gains boost manufacturing in developed BRI economies but shift labor to services in developing ones (2000–2021), risking what can be defined as a “premature deindustrialization.” They also observe that land-saving innovations outperform labor-saving ones, thereby concluding that well-designed industrialization policies are needed to link agriculture to manufacturing.
In their article “Evolutionary dynamics of agricultural trade in Central Asia under the Belt and Road Initiative”, Liu et al. (2025) analyze the reconfiguration of Central Asia’s agricultural trade implied by the BRI that since its launch has established China as a dual import-export hub for cereals/cotton while reducing Russia’s influence (although still relying, in fact relying even more heavily, on Sino-Russian corridors). They conclude that geopolitics and infrastructure critically reshape regional hierarchies.
In their article “Transnational financial assistance and enhancement of agricultural production value: a perspective based on China–Africa agricultural cooperation practices” Yuan et al. (2025) find that Chinese financial loans significantly increased agricultural production value in 29 African nations over the years 2000–2020, showing synergies with technology centers but being challenged by sustainability issues and persistent market infrastructure deficits. This implies that project durability and institutional support are key factors in determining the long-term success of a plan.
Finally, the article “Impact of the Belt and Road Initiative on rural energy poverty: evidence and mechanisms” by Shi et al. (2025) sheds light on the fact that the BRI reduced rural energy poverty via transportation infrastructure, off-farm employment and energy self-sufficiency, with effects amplified by strong government effectiveness. An important implication of their work, then, is that energy access interventions indirectly advance agricultural sustainability (SDG 7).
It is possible to argue, then, that these articles provide empirical grounding for policies leveraging synergies (e.g. finance and technology), managing transformation risks and strengthening governance in China cooperation-shaped agricultural system.
This Special Issue illustrates the transformative—although certainly complex—role of China’s international economic cooperation in advancing sustainable agricultural development globally. Through rigorous analyses of trade frameworks, financial and investment flows, and regional integration, the contributing articles identify critical synergies, tensions and governance needs within evolving agricultural systems. Their findings provide actionable pathways to align cooperative initiatives with social equity, environmental resilience and the SDGs. Let us hope this collection inspires further research and policy innovation to harness these partnerships for a food-secure, sustainable future.
