JOB/AG/156  
 
6 June 2019  
(19-3911) Page: 1/6 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session  Original: English  
 
OVERVIEW OF EXPORT R ESTRICTI VE MEASURES  – ANALYSIS OF ACTUA L CASES  
COMMUNICATION FROM JAPAN; ISRAEL; KOREA , REPUBLIC OF; SWITZ ERLAND AND  
 THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS  TERRITORY OF  TAIWAN, PENGHU,  KINMEN AND MATSU  
The following communication, dated 5 June 2019, is being circulated at the request of the 
aforementioned Members . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  This paper provides a further analysis on export restrictive measures, following the previous 
study presented in JOB/AG/149 . In particular, this analysis attempts to shed light on actual cases of 
export restrictions based on the policy database developed by the Agricultural Market Information 
System ( AMIS) Initiative 1, which aims to help Member s understand what type s of measures have 
actually been taken, by which countries and for how long.  
1.2.  The analysis presented in this paper  is based on the information  available in the AMIS policy 
database .2 
2  ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL CASES OF EXPORT RESTRICTIONS  
2.1.   The AMIS policy database gathers information on trade measures and domestic measures for 
28 countries, consisting of the G20 members and eight other countries.3 In the database, export 
restrictive measures are categorized into six types, i.e. export ban, expor t quota, minimum reference 
price, licensing requirement, export tax and restriction on customs clearance point for exports. The 
four AMIS commodities, i.e. wheat, rice, maize and soybeans, in raw or semi -processed form are 
covered in the AMIS policy databa se.  
2.2.  The AMIS policy  database records for each policy measure the specific HS code to which it is 
applied. As such, different levels of HS codes, ranging from HS 4-digit (aggregated) to HS 10 -digit 
(more specific) levels , are contained in the database . In order to avoid possible bias that could be 
created by aggregating the measures , this analysis is based on the five commodity classes (wheat, 
maize, rice, soybeans and mixed)  without strictly following the HS code.4 The term  "mixed  
  
                                                
1 AMIS was launched in 2011 by the G20 Ministers of Agriculture following  the global  food price hikes 
that occurred between 2007/08 and 2010  and aims at providing an inter -agency platform to  enhance food 
market transparency and policy response for food security.  
2 AMIS policy database is available at : http://statistics.amis -outlook.org/policy/index.html . 
3 The 28 AMIS countries are the G20 countries ( Argentina;  Australia;  Brazil;  Canada;  China;  France;  
Germany;  India;  Indonesia;  Italy;  Japan;  Korea, Republic of ; Mexico;  Russian Federation;  Saudi Arabia, 
Kingdom of; South Africa;  Turkey;  the United Kingdom;  the United States and the European Union), plus Spain 
and seven major producing, consuming and exporting countries of commodities covered by AMIS. These seven 
countries are: Egypt, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Philippines, Thailand, Ukraine and Viet Nam.  
4 More s pecifically, for each country the measures in the AMIS policy database which have the same 
"commodity class name", "policy measure name", "start date" and "end date" are counted as one.  JOB/AG/156  
 
- 2 - 
 
  commodity class "5 used in the database refers to a combination of these commodities. It is important 
to note that by examining the measures at the commodity class only, the analysis does not 
distinguish between measures that are aimed at a specific variety of a commodity ( e.g. HS 10) and 
measures that are aimed at a broad category (e.g. HS 4 level).  
2.3.  As regards "restrictiveness" of measures, listed information in the database includes: 
(i) measures to introduce, extend and increase restrictions and (ii) measures to decrease or 
eliminate restrictions. Also some "export restrictions" are (iii) health -related issues (i.e. human, 
animal and plant health). Health -related measures are the releva nt border control agencies' 
responses to the requirements posed by the importing countries (and not for the exporting countries' 
protection). For the purpose of comparison, the second and third groups were set aside from this 
analysis since all 16 measures  identified by the ER:1 notification in the previous study fall in the first 
group only.  
2.4.  With the adjustments explained above, the analysis focused on measures, commodity and 
duration and was based on the AMIS database  information for the five -year period from 2007 to 
2012.  
Measures  
2.5.  Export ban and export quota  are generally recognized as the most restrictive measures as 
these control exports in a specific and quantitative manner.  Export ban s as well as export quota s 
(i.e. maximum volume of permitted export ) are implemented in order to retain food in a country  
and mitigate the volatility of domestic price .6 As shown in Figure 1, export ban and export quota 
accounts for 45%. T he most restrictive measure of export ban, which is  also called expo rt prohibition 
or export embargo,  accounts for 13% of the six measures. Export quota is the most frequently 
implemented measure out of the six.  
2.6.  Minimum reference price  is a measure that sets a minimum price for exports. It often comes 
with an export tax8 where exporters pay the gap between the minimum price and the intended price. 
Licensing requirement , i.e. the document submission and approval process required for imports,  
is widely  utilized and is often implemented along with export quota. It should be n oted that the 
licensing requirements recorded in the database are rather  diverse in nature: some licensing 
requirements specify packing instructions while others are more cumbersome , requir ing registration 
and bureaucratic procedures .7 Restriction on customs clearance point for exports  refers to 
designation of points for exports (e.g. ports and/or airports).8 
2.7.  Export tax9, one of t he frequently implemented measure s, account s for 26% of the six 
measures . Export tax brings revenue and incen tivizes  domestic producers to provide more to the 
domestic market.  
                                                
5 Mixed commodity classes can occur in two cases: when a policy measur e applies to a group of 
commodities (e.g. an export quota that applies to certain varieties of rice and wheat) or when commodity itself 
is a combination of different commodity classes (e.g. a semi -processed product that contains both wheat and 
maize). The mixed commodity classes in the database are: Maize + Rice, Maize + Rice + Wheat, Maize +  
Soybeans, Maize + Wheat, Rice + Wheat . 
6 Sharma, R. (2011), "Food Export Restrictions: Review of the 2007 – 2010 Experience and 
Considerations for Disciplining Restric tive Measures ", FAO Commodity and Trade Policy Research Working 
Paper , No. 32.  
7 Definitions and explanations are available on the Resources page of the AMIS policy database  
(http://statistics.amis -outlook.org/policy/resources.html ). 
8 Same as above.  
9 Variable tax and differential  export tax  can be grouped into ordinary export tax. Variable export tax is 
a tax to change the rate according to the price in an international marke t. Differential export tax is a tax to 
apply different rates to commodities and processed food.  JOB/AG/156  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Figure 1 – Type s of export restrictive measures  implemented  between 2007 and 2012  
 
2.8.  Table 1 demonstrates how many measures were implemented in the 28 AMIS countries during 
the period 2007-2012. Out of 28 countries, 11 countries ha ve implemented export restrictive 
measures while no records were found for the other 17 countries. In terms of frequency (or numbers 
of measures), India and Argentina have adopted over nine average  export rest rictive measures 
annually , followed by China with 35 measures over five years (or an average of more than five  per 
year). However, the preference of the measure selected differs for each country. For example, India 
has never implemented export tax, but exp ort quota represents almost half of the measures taken 
while Argentina has relied heavily on export tax between 2007 and 2012, which account for over 
65% of measures taken. While minimum reference price and restriction on customs clearance point 
for export s have rarely been implemented, ten countries  have relied on licensing requirements.  
Table 1  – Types of export restrictive measures implemented by country during the 
period 2007 -2012  
  No. of export restrictive  measures taken  
Total Export ban  Export 
quota  Minimum 
reference 
price Licensing 
requirement  Restriction 
on customs 
clearance 
point for 
exports  Export tax  
India 74 13 (18%)  39 (53%) 8 (11%)  1 (1%) 13 (18%) - 
Argentina  58 6 (10%) 8 (14%) - 5 (9%) - 39 (67%) 
China  35 - 20 (57%)  - 7 (20%) - 8 (23%) 
Viet Nam  21 2 (10%)  1 (5%)  14 (67%)  2 (10%)  - 2 (10%)  
Ukraine  20 - 8 (40%)  - 10 (50%)  - 2 (10%)  
Egypt  17 5 (29%) 5 (29%) - 2 (12%) - 5 (29%) 
Russian 
Federation  16 5 (31%) - - 4 (25%) - 7 (44%) 
Australia  3 - - - 2 (67%)  - 1 (33%)  
Indonesia  3 - - - 3 (100%)  - 0 
Kazakhstan  3 2 (67%)  - - - - 1 (33%)  
Canada  1 - - - 1 (100%)  - 0 
Total  251 33 81 22 37 13 65 
 13%
32%
9%15%5%26%Export ban
Export quota
Minimum reference price
Licensing requirement
Restriction on customs
clearance point for exports
Export taxJOB/AG/156  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Commodities  
 
2.9.  The relative shares of the AMIS commodit y classes covered by export  restrictive measures are 
shown in Figure 2 . Rice is the most targeted product, accounting for around 40% of the AMIS 
commodities, followed by wheat.  These two commodities account for  more than two thirds (68%) 
of all the export restrictive measures on AMIS  commodities. Table 2 , which gives a  breakdown by 
country, shows  that some countries have implemented such measures only for a specific AMIS 
commodity, while others have taken those measures for several AMIS  commodities.  More specifically, 
the group of cou ntries that have implemented measures for a specific AMIS commodity only include 
Australia and Canada for wheat and Viet Nam, Egypt and Indonesia for rice. Countries such as India, 
Argentina, China, Ukraine , the Russian Federation  and Kazakhstan, have take n measures for several 
AMIS commodities.   
Figure 2 – Relative shares of AMIS commodities covered by export restrictive measures 
during the period 2007 -2012  
 
 
Table  2 – AMIS commodities covered by export restrictive measures during the period 
2007 -2012, by  country  
 
No. of export restrictive measures taken  
 Rice Wheat  Maize  Soybeans  Mixed 
commodity  
India 74 43 (58%)  19 (26%)  5 (7%)  2 (3%)  5 (7%)  
Argentina  58 4 (7%) 24 (41%) 11 (19%) 14 (24%) 5 (9%) 
China  35 13 (37%) 4 (11%) 3 (9%)  2 (6%)  13 (37%)  
Viet Nam  21 21 (100%)  - - - - 
Ukraine  20 1 (5%)  8 (40%)  10 (50%)  1 (5%)  - 
Egypt  17 17 (100%)  - - - - 
Russian Federation  16 1 (6%)  7 (44%) 3 (19%)  5 (31%)  - 
Australia  3 - 3 (100%)  - - - 
Indonesia  3 3 (100%)  - - - - 
Kazakhstan  3 - 1 (33%)  - 2 (67%)  - 
Canada  1 - 1 (100%)  - - - 
Total  251 103 67 32 26 23 
 41%
27%13%10%9%
Rice
Wheat
Maize
Soybeans
Mixed commodityJOB/AG/156  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Duration  
 
2.10.   The duration of export restrictive measures is shown in Figure 3. Among the 251 measures 
implemented between 2007 and 2012 and considered in this analysis, 240 measures  are no longer 
in place while the remaining 11 measures had no clear end dates or are still in effect.10 
Approximately o ne third  of the measures remained in effect  between one month ( 31 days) and six 
months ( 180 days ) and those that remain effective for up to one year (360 days) constitute around 
60%. The average  duration is 539 days, and the measures in place for  longer than 1,000 days 
account for around 20% of the total . The longest duration is 3,630 days. Table 3 shows the duration 
of measures by  country. India and Argentina have implemented measures with a wide variety of 
durations.  
Figure 3  – Duration of export restrictive measures that were implemented b etween 
January 2007 and December 2012  
 
 
Table 3  – Duration, by country, of export restrictive measures that were implemented 
between January 2007 and December 2012  
  No. of export restrictive  measures taken  
Total 1–30 
days 31–180 
days 181–360 
days 361–1000 
days More than 
1000 days No end date  
India 74 6 (8%) 20 (27%) 9 (12%)  22 (30%) 15 (20%) 2 (3%) 
Argentina  58 8 (14%)  23 (40%) 4 (7%) 6 (10%) 16 (28%) 1 (2%) 
China  35 - 6 (17%)  22 (63%)  - 7 (20%) - 
Viet Nam  21 3 (14%)  10 (48%)  4 (19%)  3 (14%)  - 1 (5%)  
Ukraine  20 2 (10%)  10 (50%)  4 (20%)  - 4 (20%)  - 
Egypt  17 1 (6%)  5 (29%) 4 (24%) 4 (24%) 2 (12%) 1 (6%) 
Russian Federation  16 - 10 (63%) - 1 (6%) 1 (6%)  4 (25%) 
Australia  3 - - - 1 (33%)  2 (67%)  - 
Indonesia  3 - 1 (33%)  1 (33%)  - 1 (33%)  - 
Kazakhstan  3 - 1 (33%)  1 (33%)  - - 1 (33%)  
Canada  1 - - - - - 1 (100%)  
Total  251 20 86 49 37 48 11 
 
                                                
10 It should be noted that the measures with no end date might fall in any other category , varying over 
time. 8%
34%
20%15%19%4%
1-30 days
31-180 days
181-360 days
361-1000 days
more than 1000 days
no end dateJOB/AG/156  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3  KEY ISSUE TO ADDRESS  IN RELATION TO THE CURRENT DISCIPLINES  
3.1.  As described above, t here have been many case s of export restrictive measures reported in 
the AMIS database. If the analysis looked at all the measures recorded in the database (the period 
from 2001 to present), the number of such measures  would  amount to 307.11 There have been, 
however, only 16 cases of ER:1 notification s in more than 20 years from 1995 to 2018 (although 
there have been no notifications since 2012), as presented in the previous study. While the lack of 
transparency is often discussed in relations to DS:1 or MA:2 notifications, equally important issues 
can be recognized with regard to ER:1 notifications.  
3.2.  The poor implementation of ER:1 notifications may be partially attributed to the ad hoc nature 
of the notifications, and in comparison with other notifications of a periodical nature (i. e. DS:1 or 
MA:2) it may not be as easy to capture information on when each country implements an export 
restrictive measure. One solution could be some type of alert system whereby the WTO Secretariat 
would prompt  Members to make notifications and inform o ther Members once the relevant 
information  becomes  available on  the AMIS database12 or through other reliable sources.  
3.3.  Around o ne-fifth of measures in the AMIS database have been implemented for over 
1,000  days. Considering that GATT Article XI :2(a) require s export prohibitions or restrictions to be 
applied only " temporarily " to prevent or relieve critical shortages of foodstuffs , the rational e behind 
such a long implementation period can be questioned  in line with the GATT requirement. It is 
therefore worth considering setting clear rules and conditions on the duration of measures . 
3.4.  The AMIS policy database shows that export tax is the second most frequently implemented 
measure.  As there is no WTO notification system for export tax, we might need to have more 
information on the backgroun d and the concrete reason or need for introducing such measure and 
on the impact of the measure on domestic and international markets .   
 
__________  
                                                
11 This number includes the cases of export tax.  
12 Procedure on data collection is showed i n the "Methodological note on the AMIS policy database", 
which states " The information in the biofuels and export restrictions datasets is gathered from official legal 
documents, government websites and other reliable sources, and involved in certain cases also data validation 
and verification by country experts. Updating this information requires similar data gathering procedures.  New 
policy information is incorporated in the AMIS Policy Database when the poli cy measure has been implemented 
or has been officiall y announced in a legal document" ( http://statistics.amis -
outlook.org/policy/doc/st atistical_notes/MethdologyAMISPolicyDatabase_May2016.pdf ).