RESTRICTED  
  
G/AG/W/117  
 
4 March 2014  
(14-1318)  Page: 1/2  
Committee on Agriculture  Original: English  
 
 TRANSPARENCY OPPORTUNITIES - EXPORT RESTRICTIONS 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES 
1.1.  The United States is highly encouraged by the strong interest Members have shown to 
explore practical implementation of export restri ction transparency. One of the identified next 
steps is to understand actual notification by Members under Article 12 compared with known actions beyond the limited data available in the official WTO notified record. Reviewing the 
implementation as well as the non-implementation should give better common understanding in 
order to improve transparency and transparen cy predictability of export restrictions. 
1.2.  As discussed in the January 2014 meeting and the follow-up addendum 
(G/AG/W/113/Add.1), the United States noted the qualification of "net food exporter" in the 
context of Article 12 requires clarification. Clarification could result in more notifications and, 
consequently, greater transparency. This paper focuses on two very practical aspects towards qualifying as a "net food exporter" of a specified HS code (as per the implemented measure) — the 
time period for data and the data source. 
Time Period 
1.3.  In report G/AG/W/107, Japan notes that Members expressed the desire to have a common 
rule on which period of trade data should be used, in order to judge if a developing Member is a 
net-food exporter of the specific foodstuff concer ned. Furthermore, the lack of clarity was also 
evident in the U.S. question to a Member regarding notification of the Member's export ban on rice 
in 2013. While recognizing the lack of any clear de finition and criteria for determining a "net-food 
exporter of specific food stuff", the Member noted that "according to the latest trade data for the 
years 2010-2012, the Member's imports exceed exports for rice". 
1.4.  The United States also reports data showing the Member as a net importer in 2011 and 2012, 
but noted that in years prior to 2011, the Memb er was a net exporter of rice. Assuming an 
agreement on which data source to use (discussed below), the Member could be considered a net-importer of rice based on the selected time period. What would be an appropriate general rule to 
guide all Members? A three-year average for 2010-2012 results in the Member being a net-
exporter. A five-year Olympic average (average after dropping the highest and lowest trade 
balance) also shows the Member as a net-exporter of rice, as does any average accounting for years prior to 2011. 
Table 1: Member's Rice Trade Da ta  (from Global Trade Atlas)* 
 2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012 
Exports 
(tons) 216,002 275,441 403,522 561,130 519,382 532,054 227,476 236,467 228,556 55,895  62,618
Imports 
(tons) 24,643  16,772 3,402  4,226 6,956 120,583 4,320 4,866 7,833 63,135  251,051
Balance 
(Exports‐
Imports) 191,359 258,669 400,120 556,904 512,426 411,471 223,156 231,601 220,723 ‐ 7,240 ‐ 188,433
* Note: Rice imports are derived from GTA export data while rice exports are derived from GTA import data. G/AG/W/117 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.5.  The absence of consistent criteria for a data time period likely reduced Members' confidence 
to "correctly" notify export restrictions to the COA. In reviewing the small number of export restrictions that have been notified to the Committee on Agriculture, there are Members which are unequivocally net-exporters and have notified export restrictions. 
For example, Ukraine notified an export ban on wh eat, spelt, corn, barley, rye, and buckwheat in 
2010 and was a net exporter in each of these HS codes in almost all years prior. However, there are examples of Members notifying export restrictions for products in which it has not consistently 
been a net exporter. For example, Kyrgyz Republic was a net importer of sunflower seeds 
and sunflower seed, safflower and cottonseed oil in years prior to its export restrictions notified in 2008. The OECD database referenced previously by the United States (http://qdd.oecd.org/subject.aspx?subjec t=8F4CFFA0-3A25-43F2-A778-E8FEE81D89E2 ), can also 
provide numerous examples of export restrictions by Members which are historically net exporters 
of a product with an export restriction, but one can also find examples of countries that are historically net importers or oscillate between being a net exporter and net importer. 
Data Source 
1.6.  In determining if a country is a "net food exporter of a specific food stuff", there can also be 
different views about which data source to reference. For example, in the United States' discussion 
with a Member about notification of its export ba ns on rice, the discrepancy between the Member's 
official import and export data and USDA estima tes arise from use of different trade sources. 
Official data from the Member or from international trade sources may be immediately intuitive, however may not reflect the most accurate trade picture. 
1.7.  Official data from other Members (importers), and data from private commercial sources, 
may show a substantially different trade flow. So what data source is more accurate and reflective of the actual trade flow? For example, in a situat ion where a Member requires export permits, has 
export taxes in place, or any other export restricting measure, official data may likely 
(significantly?) underreport exports. However, data from importing Members, particularly neighbouring Members, may more accurately refl ect trade flows not captured by the official 
exporting Member (in spite of restrictions). 
Next Steps 
1.8.  Moving forward, the United States looks forward to a more comprehensive and in-depth 
discussion during the informal sessions of the March 2014 Committee on Agriculture meeting. 
__________