JOB/AG/175  
 
16 December 2019  
(19-8677) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session  Original: English  
 
OVERV IEW OF EXPORT RESTRI CTIVE MEASURES  –  
ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL C ASES IN RECENT YEARS  
COMMUNICATION FROM JAPAN;  ISRAEL;  KOREA, REPUBLIC OF; SWITZERLAND AND 
THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TER RITORY OF TAIWAN, PE NGHU, KINMEN AND MAT SU  
The following communication, dated 13 December 2019, is being circulated at the request of the 
aforementioned Members.  
 
_______________  
 
 
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  In June  2019, Japan and like-minded Members submitted a communication paper to the World 
Trade Organizati on (JOB/AG/156) to provide further analysis on export restrictive measures. The 
paper  – which was presented and discussed at the C oA Special Session  held on 20 June 2019  – 
focuses on actual cases of export restrictive measures based on the Agricultural Market Information 
System (AMIS) Initiative .1 One of the key questions the paper poses is : "How about the current 
situation? " Since the analysis focused only on the data for the five -year period from 2007 -2012, 
during which there was a tighten ing of the world food market and increased price volatility, some 
delegations raised the following questions: "Is the trend during the 2007 -2012 period continuing to 
appear in recent years? And if so, does it do so similarly or differently? " 
1.2.  To address the se questions, this paper analyses AMIS data in the same way as the previous 
paper, but for the period 2013 to 2018. This provides the best possible picture of the present 
situation , as 2018 is the most recent year for which data stored in the AMIS policy d atabase is 
available. Further analysis is then made by comparing export restrictive measures between the 
2007-2012 and 2013 -2018 periods.  
1.3.  As stated in the previous paper (JOB/AG/156), the AMIS policy database gathers information 
on trade measures and domes tic measures for 28 countries, consisting of the G20 Members and 
eight other countries.2 In the database, export restrictive measures are categorized into six types: 
export ban, export quota, minimum reference price, licensing requirement, export tax, and 
restriction on customs clearance point for exports. The four AMIS commodities of wheat, rice, maize, 
and soybeans, in raw or semi -processed form, are covered in the AMIS policy database. The nature 
of each measure is detailed in paragraphs 2.5 to 2.7 in th e previous paper.  
 
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. The AMIS policy database is available at:  
http://statistics.amis -outlook.org/policy/queryAndDownload.html . 
2 The 28 AMIS cou ntries 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 State s; 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.  JOB/AG/175  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2  ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL C ASES OF EXPORT RESTR ICTIONS  
Number of measures taken  
 
2.1.  Table 1 shows the number of export restrictive measures taken during the 2013 -2018 and 
2007-201234 periods , respectively. With the world experiencing a tight world food market and 
increased price volatility during the 2007 -2012 period, as one would expect, a large number of 
measures, i.e. 251, were recorded between 2007 and 2012, and eight ER:1 notifications were made. 
During the 2013 -2018 period, even though the wor ld food market was no longer facing a critical 
situation, as many as 88 measures were identified and no ER:1 notifications were made.  
Table 1 – Number of measures and ER:1 notifications  
 2007-2012  2013 -2018  
# of measures in AMIS  251 88 
# of ER:1 notification s 85 0 
 
Measures  
 
2.2.  Figure 1 demonstrates a preference for export restrictive measures during the periods 2007 -
2012 and 2013 -2018. It is observed that during both periods all types of measures were taken, but 
although export quotas decreased by 13% points, the minimum reference price  doubled and the 
licence requirement increased by 7% points in the 2013 -2018 period compared with the 2007 -2012 
period.  
Figure 1 – Types of export restrictive measures implemented during the periods 2007 -
2012 (left) and 2013 -2018 (right)  
 
 
 
2.3.  Table 2 shows how many measures were implemented in the 28 AMIS countries during the 
periods 2007 -2012 and 2013 -2018. During the 2007 -2012 period, 11 out of 28 countries 
implemented export restrictive measures. During the 2013 -2018 period, on the other han d, only 
nine countries did so. In terms of frequency (or numbers of measures), the top six countries remain 
unchanged for both periods, although a slight change of rank is observed. In terms of the preference 
of the measure taken, a similar trend is identi fied in both periods. Export quota in China and export 
tax in Argentina and the Russia n Federation  were frequently used in both the 2007 -2012 and 
2013-2018 periods.  
 
3 Duplication of data, whereby  the same measure is registered in both the 2007 -2012 and 2013 -2018 
periods, may occur because some measures started in the previous period and ended/continue in the latter 
period. Such measures are counted in both periods.  
4 This number includes th e cases of export tax, as well as measures taken by countries prior to the WTO 
accession.  
5 The total number of ER:1 notifications, as shown in JOB/AG/149, is 16. The other eight notifications 
were made before 2007.   
JOB/AG/175  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Table 2 – Types of export restrictive measures implemented by country during the 2007 -
2012 and 2013 -2018 periods  
 No. of export restrictive measures taken (2007 -2012)   
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%)  - - 
Kazakhstan  3 2 (67%)  - - - - 1 (33%)  
Canada  1 - - - 1 (100%)  - - 
Total  251 33 81 22 37 13 65 
 
  No. of export restrictive measures taken (2013 -2018)  
Total  Export 
ban Export 
quota  Minimum 
reference 
price  Licensing 
requirement  Restriction on 
customs clearance 
point for exports  Export 
tax 
India 23 10 (43%)  3 (13%)  4 (17%)  2 (9%)  4 (17%)  - 
China  12 - 9 (75%)  - 3 (25%)  - - 
Egypt  12 6 (50%)  1 (8%)  - - - 5 (42%)  
Viet Nam  11 - - 11 (100%) - - - 
Argentina  10 - - - 5 (50%)  - 5 (50%)  
Ukraine  8 - 4 (50%)  - 4 (50%)  - - 
Russian 
Federation  7 - - - - - 7 (100%)  
Indonesia  4 - - - 4 (100%)  - - 
Australia  1 - - - 1 (100%)  - - 
Kazakhstan  0 - - - - - - 
Canada  0 - - - - - - 
Total  88 16 17 15 19 4 17 
 
Commodities  
 
2.4.  The relative shares of the AMIS c ommodit y classes covered by export  restrictive measures are 
shown in Figure 2. The trend remains unchanged in both the 2007 -2012 and 2013 -2018 periods, i.e. 
rice is the most targeted product.  
Figure 2 – Relative shares of AMIS commodities covered by export restrictive measures 
during the p eriods 2007 -2012 (left) and 2013 -2018 (right)  
 
JOB/AG/175  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Duration  
 
2.5.  The average duration of measures in the 2013 -2018 period is 995 days, around double that of 
the 2007 -2012 period, i.e. 539 days. Measures in place for longer than 1,000 days account for 27% 
in the 2013 -2018 period, which is 8% points greater than the same measures during the 2007 -2012 
period. A sharp decline in measures of one to 30 days is observed from the 2007 -2012 to the 
2013-2018 period. A change of trend was observed in that measures with a longer period of 
implementation have been introduced.  
Figure 3 – Duration of export restrictive measures that were implemented during the 
periods 2007 -2012 (left) and 2013 -2018 (right)  
 
Table 3 – Comparison of duration of export restrictive measures in the periods 2007 -
2012 and 2013 -2018  
 2007-2012  2013 -2018  
Average  539 days  995 days  
1,000 days of longer  19% 27% 
3  KEY ISSUE S TO ADDRESS IN RELAT ION TO THE CURRENT D ISCIPLINES  
3.1.  Four key issues are identified in the previous communication paper (JOB/AG/156). These are 
namely: a lack of ER:1 notifications, the GATT requirement on temporary application of export 
prohibitions or restrictions, the idea of an alert system, and export t ax. The analysis in this paper 
has helped to shed more light on the first two issues.  
3.2.   As described above, as many as 88 export restrictive measures remained in place even after 
the 2007 -2012 period. However, not a single notification was made during the 2 013-2018 period; 
i.e. all ER:1 notifications ever recorded were implemented up to 2012. Transparency on ER :1 
notification s is getting worse.  
3.3.  GATT Article XI:2(a) requires export prohibitions or restrictions to be applied only "temporarily " 
to prevent or re lieve critical shortages of foodstuffs. The average duration of measures, however, 
was longer in the 2013 -2018 period than in the 2007 -2012 period. This increase in the length of 
measures further brings into question whether the rationale behind such long implementation 
periods is in line with the GATT requirement.  
3.4.  Japan an d like -minded Members remain interested in this area and will engage in further 
analysis going forward in order to address the issues identified.  
 
__________