JOB/AG/244  
 
14 June 2023  
(23-4064) Page: 1/6 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session  Original: English  
 
WHY MC13 NEEDS TO ADDRESS EXPORT RESTRICTIONS  
ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM  
The following communication, dated 13 June  2023, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of the United Kingdom . 
 
_______________  
 
 
Introduction  
1. The joint WTO -FAO-World Bank Group report (2023), "Rising Global Food Insecurity: Assessing 
Policy Responses "1, produced at the request of the Group of 20 (G20), states that experience 
shows "the imposition of food export restrictions by major exporters can have strong 
destabilizing effects on international markets ". Further, the report notes that export restrictio ns 
have proved "extremely damaging to third countries, especially the poorest food import 
dependent countries ". It recommends clarifying WTO provisions concerning export restrictions 
to improve global food security.   
 
2. At the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference (MC12), Members agreed a package outcome on food 
security. In addition to the Ministerial Decision on World Food Programme Food Purchases 
Exemption from Export Prohibitions or Restrictions2, Members adopted the Ministerial 
Declaration on the Emergency Response to Food Insecurity.3 With that, Members committed 
"to take concrete steps to facilitate trade and improve the functioning and long -term resilience 
of global markets for food and agriculture " and "reaffirm(ed) the importan ce of not imposing 
export prohibitions or restrictions in a manner inconsistent with relevant WTO provisions ".  
 
3. In light of the ongoing challenges facing global food security and building on the ministerial 
outcomes from MC12, Members should commit to fur thering work to enhance transparency and 
improve disciplines on export restrictions and prohibitions, including at the next WTO Ministerial 
Conference (MC13) in February 2024.   
 
4. This paper sets out why Members should address export restrictions as a prior ity issue in 
ongoing discussions in the WTO Committee on Agriculture in Special Session, alongside areas 
to explore to inform possible concrete reform outcomes at MC13.     
 
Impacts of export restrictions on agricultural products  
5. Export restrictions in agr icultural trade is an umbrella term for a range of restrictive measures 
that limit the exports of agricultural products. Their impacts on global food security depend on 
a multitude of factors including the products they cover, particularly whether the meas ure is 
imposed on a key staple crop, and the degree of restrictiveness imposed.  
6. Export restrictions are imposed for a variety of policy objectives. During the commodity price 
spikes in 2007 -08 and 2010 -11, the dominant rationale was to reduce domestic pric e volatility 
 
1 FAO, WTO and World Bank Group (2023) "Rising Global Food Insecurity: Assessing Policy Responses ". 
2 WT/MIN(22)/29 . 
3 WT/MIN(22)/28 . JOB/AG/244  
 
- 2 - 
 
  or avoid increases in domestic prices.4 More recently, Members have reported implementing 
export restrictions for a broader range of reasons driven by domestic and international factors, 
including to reduce food inflation, address critical sh ortages and ensure predictability, 
confidence and stability in domestic markets.5    
 
7. Evidence is mixed whether export restrictions are an effective policy tool in delivering domestic 
policy objectives. Different studies have shown that measures were eith er effective6, counter -
productive7, or had limited or no effect8 in addressing domestic price volatility. Export 
restrictions typically have a negative effect on producers as they can exert downward pressure 
on domestic prices, depriving access to poten tially higher prices on international markets.9 The 
effectiveness of insulating markets in order to reduce costs for consumers is also not guaranteed 
where such measures reduce domestic market efficiency and increase domestic price 
volatility.10 Where res trictions do have a stabilising effect on domestic prices, this is often short -
term and does not usually compensate for, or outweigh, longer -term negative impacts on 
producers resulting in a domestic net -welfare loss.11 Measures may also have a lasting imp act 
on production decisions and investment in agriculture, resulting in progressive decline in 
domestic agricultural outputs and productivity key to ensuring long -term food security.12 
 
8. The impacts of export restrictive policies are not only limited to Members imposing them but 
also impact trading partners and can have a broader destabilising effect on global markets.13 
When an export restriction is introduced, trading partners face an immediate challenge in 
responding to a shortage in their usual supply  routes, often at short or no notice, and with 
minimal transparency regarding the extent and nature of the measure. This has direct 
implications for food availability and affordability in their domestic markets, particularly in the 
case of staple foods. Fo r traders, export restrictions also impose significant cost burdens as 
planned trade is interrupted and contracts can be effectively nullified.  
 
9. Diverting supply away from world markets can also create upward pressure on international 
prices.14 Between 20 07- 08, export restrictions contributed to significant price spikes, including 
an estimated 45% increase in the international rice price and almost 30% increase in the 
international price for wheat.15 More recently, an export restrictive measure introduced  by one 
WTO Member in 2022 led global wheat prices to increase from US D 1184/bushel to 
USD 1247.7/bushel despite not being a major wheat exporter.16 
 
10. Impacts on international prices vary depending on a range of factors including the type of export 
restrict ive measure and the size of a Member 's export share relative to the global market. 
Impacts are also exacerbated where export restrictions are found to have a "multiplier " or 
"domino " effect as Members introduce reactionary measures to insulate themselves from 
 
4 Deuss, A. (2017) "Impact of agricultural export restrictions on prices in importing countries ", OECD 
Food and Agriculture Papers, no.105 . 
5 Based on Members ' responses submitted to Ag -IMS concerning questions raised under the Committee 
on Agriculture Review Process.  
6 Abbott, P. (2011), "Export Restrictions as Stabilization Responses To Food Crisis ", American Journal of 
Agricultural Economics; Baffes et al (20 15), "Domestic and External Drivers of Maize Prices in Tanzania ", paper 
presented at National Bureau of Economic Research meeting on "The Economics of Food Price Volatility ". 
7 Baylis et al (2014), "Effects of Export Restrictions on Domestic Market Efficie ncy: The Case of India 's 
Rice and Wheat Export Ban ", available at http://works.bepress.com/kathy_baylis/54/ . 
8 Götz, L. et al. (2014), "Price damping and price insulating effects of wheat export res trictions in 
Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine ", paper presented at the International Congress of the European Association of 
Agricultural Economists . 
9 Anania, G. (2013) "Agricultural Export Restrictions and the WTO: What Options do Policy -Makers Have 
for Pr omoting Food Security? ", ICTSD . 
10 Baylis et al. (2014).  
11 OECD (2023) "Economic and Trade Impacts of Food Export Restrictions ", Presentation made at WTO 
seminar on 2 May 2023 . 
12 Ibid. 
13 Deuss, A. (2017) . 
14 Anderson, K. (2012), "Government Trade Restrictions and International Price Volatility ", Global Food 
Security, vol.1, issue 2 . 
15 Martin, W. and Anderson, K. (2012) "Export Restrictions and Price Insulation During Commodity Price 
Booms ", Policy Research Working Paper, 5645 . 
16 Trading Economics cited in Akter S, (2022) "The effects of food export restrictions on the domestic 
economy of exporting countries: A review ", Global Food Security 35 . JOB/AG/244  
 
- 3 - 
 
  significant disruptions.17 These impacts are often made worse by little or no transparency 
around the measures introduced. Instead, Members have reported relying on media reporti ng 
to understand what measures have been introduced. This leaves Members reliant on information 
that can often miss key details necessary for policymakers to understand the impacts of the 
measures and inform effective decision making.   
 
11. The impacts of exp ort restrictions are particularly acute for NFIDCs and LDCs.18 As measured 
in June 2022, 26.3% of LDC agricultural imports (measured in calories) were impacted by export 
restrictions compared to 13.2% for developed countries.19 When faced with disruptions to their 
usual supply chains, LDC and NFIDC Members often do not have the fiscal resources to compete 
for access to alternative markets at higher prices. They also usually experience higher levels of 
food inflation which can be driven up further as a resul t of the shortage in supply.   
Recent WTO discussions  
12. WTO Members are debating how trade policies and WTO rules can be made more effective and 
operational to respond to food security challenges and build longer -term resilience. Discussions 
on export restr ictions and ways to enhance the WTO response are not new but became more 
prominent around the 2007 -8 and 2010 -11 food crises, and more recently following the 
COVID -19 pandemic, conflict in Ukraine and the ongoing deterioration of the global food security 
situation. Discussions about export restrictions are likely to remain on the WTO agenda where 
markets remain volatile and Members may, as a result, be tempted to resort to export restrictive 
measures.    
 
13. WTO Trade Monitoring provides biannual reports and m aintains a database on trade measures 
imposed by Members and observers since 2008, including on export restrictions. The last WTO 
Trade Monitoring Report (covering the period from mid -October 2021 to mid -October 2022) 
noted the pace of implementation of ex port restrictions had increased since 2020, initially in 
the context of the pandemic and subsequently in the context of the war in Ukraine and the food 
crisis.20 
 
14. Between March 2022 and March 2023, 59 questions on export restrictive measures have been 
raised under the Committee on Agriculture 's regular review process. The majority of questions 
raised were seeking further information on export restrictive measures that have not been 
formally notified through an ER:1 notification.21   
Table 1: Questions raised regarding Members ' export restrictive measures between the 
100-104th WTO Committee on Agriculture  
 
17 Deuss, A. (2017) . 
18 Espitia et al (2020) "COVID -19 and Food Protectionism: the Impact of the Pandemic and Export 
Restrictions on World Food Markets ", Policy Research Working Paper, No. 9253 . 
19 Glauber, J. et al (2022) “MC12: How to make the WTO relevant in the middle of a food price crisis ", 
IFPRI, available at https://www.ifpri.org/blog/mc12 -how-make -wto-relevant -middle -food-price-crisis. 
20 WT/TPR/OV/25 . 
21 47 out of 59 questions were raised seeking clarity on Members ' export restrictive measures that had 
not been notified.  Member  Questions 
received  Agri-food product coverage  ER:1 notification 
submitted  
India 14 Wheat and broken rice  No 
Argentina  8 Beef and wheat  No 
Malaysia  6 Chicken  Yes 
Türkiye  6 Lentils, beans, all cooking oils, beef, sheep and goat 
meat, butter, oranges, lemons, onions and potatoes  No 
Indonesia  5 Palm oil  No 
Mexico  5 White corn, beans, sardines  No JOB/AG/244  
 
- 4 - 
 
   
15. In parallel, Members have highlighted the importance of addressing export restrictions in the 
Committee on Agriculture work programme pursuant to paragraph 8 of the Ministerial 
Declaration on the Emergency Response to Food Insecurity. Members have agreed a  work plan 
which includes addressing a specific thematic work area on "Access to international food 
markets ". Ensuring open and predictable trade and explicitly avoiding export restrictions was a 
key theme in Members ' response to the Questionnaire on LDC and NFIDC Members ' utilization 
of WTO flexibilities22, including from NFIDC Members and the LDC Group.  
 
16. Members are also discussing export restrictions in the Committee on Agriculture in Special 
Session. WTO Members pa rticipated in a dedicated seminar on export restrictions on 
2 May 2023. Among the panellists, one Member spoke from experience about the negative 
impacts of export restrictions, particularly for net  food-importing developing Members, as well 
as presenting concrete ideas for improving WTO disciplines.23 Several Members expressed 
interest in these ideas and continuing further discussions on export restrictions in the following 
Committee on Agriculture in Special Session.  
 
Existing WTO rules on export restrictions  
17. Current WTO disciplines on export restrictions relating to foodstuffs are outlined in Article XI of 
the GATT 1994 and Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture.24 
 
18. Article XI of the GATT  1994, entitled "General Elimination of Quantitative Res trictions ", prohibits 
Members from introducing or maintaining any form of "prohibitions or restrictions other than 
duties, taxes or other charges " on the importation or exportation of any product. However, 
Article XI:2(a) states that this general prohibiti on "shall not extend" to "export prohibitions or 
restrictions temporarily applied to prevent or relieve critical shortages of foodstuffs or other 
products essential to the exporting [Member]".  
 
19. Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture, entitled "Discipl ines on Export Prohibitions and 
Restrictions " provides that, "where a Member institutes any new export prohibition or restriction 
on "foodstuffs " in accordance with Article XI:2(a) of the GATT 1994 ", it shall undertake two 
actions:  
i. the Member shall give d ue consideration to the effects of such prohibition or restriction 
on importing Members' food security;  
ii. before instituting the measure, the Member shall give notice in writing, "as far in 
advance as practicable " to the Committee on Agriculture, including i nformation such as 
 
22 G/AG/GEN/214 . 
23 The Member proposed several options for developing further disciplines on export restrictions, 
including (i) clarification of relev ant terms in the GATT 1994 Article XI such as "critical shortage ", "temporary " 
and "foodstuffs ", (ii) exemption for NFIDC and LDCs from export prohibitions or restrictions applied by net 
food-exporting countries on staple foods, and (iii) limiting the exte nt of export restrictive measures only to 
ensure the usual domestic needs of the exporting country based on an average of previous years.  
24 This is without prejudice to other WTO provisions that may allow Members to impose export 
restrictive measures, incl uding that GATT 1994 Article XX.  Member  Questions 
received  Agri-food product coverage  ER:1 notification 
submitted  
European Union 
(Hungary)  4 Wheat, rye, barley, oat, corn, soybeans and 
sunflower seeds  Yes 
China  2 Corn-starch  No 
Egypt  2 Wheat, flour, oils, other agricultural products and rice  No 
Kazakhstan  2 Sunflower seeds and sunflower oil, potatoes and 
carrots, live cattle and small cattle, grain forage, 
meslin, wheat and wheat flour  Yes 
Morocco  2 Chickpeas, onions and potatoes  No 
Russia n Federation  1 Grains  No 
Tajikistan  1 Onions and other vegetables  No 
Thailand  1 Live swine  Yes JOB/AG/244  
 
- 5 - 
 
  the nature and duration of the measure. Additionally, the Member shall consult upon 
request with any Member having a substantial interest as an importer with respect to 
any matter related to the measure in question. The Member institutin g the export 
prohibition or restriction shall provide "necessary information " upon request.  
 
20. The provisions in Article 12 do not apply to any developing country Member unless they are a 
net-food exporter of the specific foodstuff concerned.  
 
21. WTO "Notific ation Requirements and Formats " for the Committee on Agriculture (G/AG/2, 
p. 32), includes the notification template for Members to provide an export restriction 
notification. The template requests Members to provide; (i) description of product, (ii) tarif f 
item number(s), (iii) nature of, and justification for, measure to be introduced and (iv) duration 
and application of measure.   
 
22. Members are also required to make complete notifications of all quantitative restrictions in force 
at two yearly intervals u nder the Decision on Notification Procedures for Quantitative 
Restrictions.25 
 
Areas to explore  
23. Members could consider the following non -exhaustive list of areas to explore to enhance WTO 
disciplines on export restrictive measures.  
 
a. Understanding what is happening  
The WTO transparency record on export restrictions is poor. The WTO report, "A Year of 
Turbulence on Food and Fertiliser Markets " noted only 13 export restrictive measures, around 
14% of the total number of measures (71), were notified in the year preceding 
February  2023.26 Ensuring Members have a clear and timely understanding of export 
restrictions being imposed can help limit the ir impact. Trade partners will be more likely to 
respond proportionately and markets avoid overreaction. Given the importance of speed and 
accuracy of information, Members could consider what more can be done to make swift 
notification easier whilst ensuri ng they provide trade partners with the clearest understanding 
of the measures being introduced and their impacts.  
 
b. Clarification of WTO rules  
Members could consider to what extent a clarification of current WTO rules would help to 
mitigate some of the ne gative impacts of export restrictions. Article XI:2(a) of the GATT 1994 
provides an exemption from the general prohibition provided that export prohibitions or 
restrictions are "temporarily applied " however there is no agreed definition of "temporary " 
application which leaves this open to varying interpretation. Likewise, there is no collective 
understanding of the term "critical shortage ", which again causes confusion and inconsistency 
in the application of WTO rules.  
 
Additionally, Members could consider ways to clarify the exemption provided in Article 12.2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture, to provide clarity on Members ' net import/export status on 
individual foodstuffs, to increase transparency and facilitate monitoring of Article 12 
implementation throug h the Committee on Agriculture 's regular review process.   
 
c. Enhancing disciplines  
In addition to improving transparency and clarifying WTO rules, Members could also consider 
efforts to further enhance WTO disciplines on the application of export restrictiv e measures.  
Some export restrictions in recent years have not comprised outright bans but instead allowed 
a degree of trade to continue using alternative export restrictive measures. While the impacts 
of these alternative measures depend on their precise d etails, less restrictive interventions 
 
25 G/L/59/Rev.1 . 
26 WTO (2023) "A Year of Turbulence on Food and Fertilizer Markers ", Trade Monitoring Updates - 
trdev_02mar23_e.pdf (wto.org).  Since February 2023 no new export restrictive measures have been notified 
howeve r one Member has notified an updated addendum to their original ER:1.  JOB/AG/244  
 
- 6 - 
 
  may have a less disruptive effect on international markets and global food security. Members 
could consider further disciplines to limit the most severe impacts of export restrictions, 
including considering appropriat e scope and application of measures, and to what extent some 
trade could continue to flow.  
 
d. Continuing discussions  
Export restrictions are often implemented as a first resort, reactionary measure in lieu of 
alternative, less trade restrictive measures. Members have been discussing ways to enhance 
food security, including under the Committee on Agriculture work programme, that could 
provide future avenues to explore around promoting alternative tools that support open and 
better functioning agri -food markets.  
Relatedly, Members could explore options to establish a dedicated agenda item under the 
Committee on Agriculture to discuss Members ' approach to food security challenges, including 
addressing the impacts of export restrictive measures and to  directly share information and 
best practice around shortage management.    
 
Way forward  
24. Members should pursue more focused discussions on ways MC13 can address the food security 
impact of export restrictions on agricultural products based on data and inf ormed by Members ' 
experiences.   
 
25. Members committed to take "concrete steps " to facilitate trade and improve the functioning of 
global markets for food and agriculture at MC12. Taking specific steps to tackle export 
restrictions at the next Ministerial Con ference will not solve global food insecurity but will avoid 
exacerbating current and future challenges alongside wider reform efforts to build long -term 
resilience into the global agricultural trading system.   
 
26. The United Kingdom intends to make future s ubmissions and proposals on this topic and 
welcomes collaboration with other WTO Members.  
 
 
__________