RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/W/113  
 
16 September 2013  
(13-4882)  Page: 1/2  
Committee on Agriculture  Original: English  
 
 TRANSPARENCY OPPORTUNITIES - EXPORT RESTRICTIONS 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES 
1.1.  Since 2011, the Committee has engaged informally on agricultural export restrictions. 
Members appreciated Japan's intense engagement to explore and elucidate possible clarifications 
with a view to improving implementation, sp ecifically with regard to transparency. 
On 7 March 2013, Japan presented a summary communication (G/AG/W/107) highlighting some 
initial and informal thoughts regarding specific areas for possible further Committee focus to 
improve transparency on agricultural export restrictions.  
1.2.  Japan's paper refers in footnote 1 to the Report on G-20 Trade Measures, which underlines 
that 14 of these 20 leading economies implemente d quantitative restrictions on exports of 
agricultural products during a relatively short time frame (October 2008 to May 2012). This 
notably high percentage (70%) from a relati vely small number of WTO Members contrasts 
significantly with the official WTO transparency record. As summarized in a 20 March 2013 
Secretariat background paper (TN/AG/S/28), only eight WTO Members notified 14 separate 
agricultural export restrictions in the much longer time period (January 1995 to early 2013). 
1.3.  The Committee's informal engagement has clar ified that the overarching purpose of officially 
notifying agricultural export restrictions ( using format ER:1 ) is solely to provide transparency. 
Members have no bound commitments in their schedules relative to agricultural export restrictions. Transparency is important in the case of possible or actual export restriction measures, because it enables importing members with food security concerns to engage 
appropriately and solicit due consideration for their interests, as well as allowing these members to 
take remedial measures to address any potentia l adverse consequences. Simply stated, provision 
of a ER:1 notification merely triggers the opportunity for a dialogue among concerned Members.  
1.4.  Noting the official WTO record since 1995 ( 8 Members notifying 14 export restrictions ), 
the United States wishes to underscore the relevant intervention made by Switzerland (o n behalf 
of the G-10 ) during the 25 July 2013 open-ended, inform al Special Session of the Committee on 
Agriculture. Switzerland briefly referenced recent  analytical work undertaken by the Organization 
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to identify and categorize agricultural export restrictions. The United States encourages other Members: 
a. to review the OECD website at:  
(http://qdd.oecd.org/subject.aspx?subjec t=8F4CFFA0-3A25-43F2-A778-E8FEE81D89E2 ); 
b. to consider the detailed information. For example: 
i. over 3,800 specific instances of export restrictive measures are listed in this 
non-exhaustive reference (note: the 14 official WTO measures notified in the WTO 
would grow to a slightly greater number if each product in the respective ER:1 notifications was counted separately as per OECD's methodology) ; 
ii. at least 16 countries are identified compared to the eight in official WTO 
notifications; 
iii. reflect on the type and character of the OECD captured information to better 
understand why a country promulgates any specific listed export restriction. G/AG/W/113 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.5.  Various academic efforts continue to clarify the negative impact export restrictions can have 
on food security, particularly when specific, time -limited, extreme demand-driven situations occur. 
The concrete role that notification of export restriction measures could play during periods of actual or perceived  shortages in a foodstuff appears less well understood. Presumably timely 
announcement of such measures (in particular, notification in the WTO) will foster understanding 
and, as appropriate, lead to possible adjustments in the proposed measure. 
1.6.  The United States remains strongly interest ed in improving transparency on the subject of 
export restrictions, particularly as evidence mounts regarding the detrimental impact these types 
of measures have on the food security and live lihood for other members. Understanding that the 
ER:1 notifications' only role is to increase transparency, little downside can be envisioned from advancing practical and meaningful transparency for agricultural export restrictions. Pursuit of 
such discussions during upcoming Committee meetings is all the more compelling given the large 
discrepancy between the notified WTO export restrictions and the OECD data set. 
__________