G/AG/W/107  
 
7 March 2013  
(13-1244)  Page: 1/4  
Committee on Agriculture  Original: English  
 
 WORK ON IMPROVING THE IMPLEM ENTATION OF NOTIFICATIONS 
(ARTICLE 12 OF THE AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE) 
COMMUNICATION FROM JAPAN 
1  INTRODUCTION 
1.1.  The price volatility of agricultural products in the international market is affected by various 
factors, but the experiences in recent years drew attention, among others, to export 
prohibition/restriction measures. A number of countries have been reported to impose export 
prohibitions and restrictions on agricultural products during the world food crisis since 20081, but 
few of these measures were notified to the WTO. The lack of such shared information may have exacerbated the adverse effect of the measure to th e international market, as an export restriction 
in one country tended to lead to one in another country. If notifications on export restrictions, 
which the Agreement on Agriculture requires, had been made appropriately, things could have been different: importing countries affected would have been able to prepare for the tightening of 
food supply to a certain extent; possibly the exporting country would have had further information 
to determine whether or not such a restriction was necessary, particularly in light of its potential impacts. Enhanced transparency in agricultural trade through better implementation of the current 
provisions of Article 12 of the Agreement on Agricu lture will contribute to enhanced global food 
security for all Members, especially that of net food importing countries. 
1.2.  Against this background, in September 2011 Japan proposed work on the improvement of the 
implementation of export restriction notificati ons. Since then, Members have exchanged their 
views on how to improve the implementation of the notification requirement on export 
prohibitions/restrictions as stipulated in Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture, although there was no official direction from the formal session of the Committee on Agriculture. Members had 
discussions in the Committee on Agriculture informal sessions in November 2011, March, June and 
November 2012. Japan also received comments from a broad range of Members and groups in bilateral consultations held between informal sessions. This document is a communication from 
Japan to the Committee on Agriculture formal session, which reports the discussions we have had 
up to the present, as well as possible future steps of the work. 
2  SCOPE OF WORK 2.1.  This work aims at improving the im plementation of notifications on export 
prohibitions/restrictions, based on the Terms of Reference
2 of the Committee on Agriculture. More 
specifically, the objectives of the exercise are: 
a. not to change or modify the Agreement on Agriculture or its legal interpretation, but 
b. to identify aspects where no objection emerges regarding Article 12 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture based on the experiences so far, and 
                                               
1 According to the "Report on G-20 Trade Measures" (WT/TPR/OV/12-15), during the period 
October 2008 to May 2012, 14 countries among the G-20 have implemented quantitative restrictions on exports of agricultural products. 
2 "The Committee shall oversee the implementation of the Agreement on Agriculture. The Committee 
shall afford Members the opportunity of consulting on any matter relating to the implementation of the 
provisions of the Agreement" (WT/L/43). G/AG/W/107 
 
- 2 - 
 
  c. to enhance transparency in notifying the institution of export prohibitions/restrictions. 
2.2.  Some concerns were expressed that pursuing definitions and interpretations might have legal 
implications. However, Members showed their w illingness to conduct the work within the scope 
described above, i.e. strictly under the purview of the Committee on Agriculture. 
2.3.  Some Members raised questions about proceeding with the exercise on the notification 
improvement only on the export prohibitions/res trictions. Indeed, notifications to the Committee 
on Agriculture should be undertaken properly, not only on export restrictions but also on the other 
measures, and if there are areas where notification requirements are not fully met, we should 
improve the notification practices through our discussion at the Committee on Agriculture, whether formal or informal. At the same time, other Members pointed out the importance of the prompt notification of export restrictions as a gateway for a possible consultation process stipulated in 
Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. This  work on export restrictions is without any 
prejudice to the work on other areas of notifications. 
2.4.  Some of the comments made during the co urse of discussion may require revisions of the 
provisions of the Agreement. However, any changes to the Agreement are outside the scope of 
this exercise. If the membership so wishes, they may be considered under the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture as a part of agriculture negotiations under the DDA. 
3  DISCUSSIONS UP TO THE PRESENT 
3.1.  The discussion has focused, among others, on three points which are provided in Article 12 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture but still contain ambiguities, i.e., (i) coverage of "foodstuffs", (ii) timing of notification and (iii) "net-food ex porter of the specific foodstuff concerned". The 
following is the summary of views expressed in  the informal sessions of the Committee on 
Agriculture as well as in bilateral consultations with various Members, which can be categorised into two parts: aspects where "No objections" emerged from the discussion, and "Members' 
comments for further discussion". 
i. Coverage of foodstuffs 
 No objections to: 
 Export prohibitions/restrictions can be applied on foodstuffs and other products essential 
to the exporting countries (Article XI.2(a) of GATT 1994). 
 "Foodstuffs" in Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture are agricultural products listed 
on Annex 1 (Product Coverage) of the Agreement on Agriculture, less non-edible 
products such as wool. 
 Basic foodstuffs (cereals, rice, basic dairy products, pulses, vegetable oils and sugar as 
referred to in G/AG/13) are no doubt included in "foodstuffs". 
 Members' comments for further discussion 
 Some Members expressed the views that notifi cations made so far should be examined 
to see what kinds of products have been notified /not notified: this would assist our 
future work. 
 Given the lack of agreement on the precise de finition of "foodstuffs", some Members are 
of the view that the products subject to the no tification should be limited to those clearly 
agreed among Members and that the coverage of "foodstuffs" should not be expanded: 
other Members consider that, ideally, the cove rage of foodstuffs should be as broad as 
possible within Annex 1. Another view expressed is that, while feed and seeds are not for direct human consumption, their notification is desirable in light of their importance 
for the food security of importing Members. Also  expressed is the view that it is desirable 
that all products in Annex 1 be notified with a view to enhancing transparency. G/AG/W/107 
 
- 3 - 
 
  ii. Timing of Notification 
 No objections to: 
 Notification "before" (Article 12 of the Agr eement on Agriculture) the institution of an 
export restriction measure is required. 
 How "far in advance" (Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture) to notify is of a best 
endeavour nature, while early notification is important as a gateway to possible consultation process in accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
 Members' comments for further discussion 
 Views are expressed that the reasons for delay in the notifications so far should be 
examined. 
 Some Members consider it desirable, when the notification is delayed, to require the 
reasons for delay to be included in the notification: other Members oppose this idea 
saying that it could impose a new obligation beyond what is currently described in G/AG/2 and that it is a systemic issue affecting the whole notification system. Many 
Members consider it useful to review the reasons and circumstances for delayed 
notifications in the review process of the Committee on Agriculture. 
 There is a comment that the Secretariat should circulate notifications immediately after 
reception, even if the notification is incomplete or contains some discrepancies. 
Regarding this, views are expressed that it is necessary to look more precisely into what kinds of incompletions have caused the delay in circulation of the notifications so far. 
iii. Net-Food Exporter of the Specific Foodstuff Concerned 
 No objections to: 
 Developing country Members, to which the notification requirement is applicable, are 
"net food exporter of the specific foodstuff concerned" (Article 12 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture) on which export restriction is applied according to Article XI.2(a) of GATT 1994. Under the current Agreement on Agriculture, this notification issue is not linked to, or similar to the approach taken with regard to the notion of Net Food Importing 
Developing Countries (NFIDCs), which is based on the overall trade status of basic 
foodstuffs (G/AG/3). 
 A certain Member is regarded as a "net food exporter of a specific foodstuff concerned" 
when the exports exceed the imports of that specific foodstuff. 
 The number of digits in the HS code that a Member uses in its notification depends on 
the number of digits used in its export restriction measure. 
 Members' comments for further discussion 
 Views are expressed that it is desirable 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 concerned. 
 Some Members consider that the period of trade data to be used should be long enough, 
e.g. 10 years, in order not to impose a burden on developing Members whose exports of the specific foodstuff concerned exceed it s imports only from time to time. Other 
Members stress that the requirement in Arti cle 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture is 
only on notification and that the right to impose an export restriction will not be 
jeopardized. G/AG/W/107 
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.2.  During the course of discussion, views are also expressed that the membership should look 
into what have been the real bottlenecks that  have prevented Members from making proper 
notifications in a timely manner. In this context,  a Member delivered a Room Document and raised 
questions concerning "Members' Actions", "Produ cts Covered", "Term Definitions" and "Assessing 
the Balance" (RD/AG/5). Especially, the Member pointed out the importance of seeing how "due 
consideration" in Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture works, which has not been focused in 
the discussion so far. Regarding this, some Members warned against pursuing a strict definition of 
the terms, saying that it could affect other provisions in the Agreement on Agriculture: A comment 
is also made that "Assessing the Balance" relates not only to the notification of export restrictions but to all kinds of notifications. 
4  POSSIBLE FUTURE STEPS OF THE WORK 
4.1.  For the improvement of the implementation  of the notification requirements on export 
prohibitions/restrictions, it is useful to continue our discussion regarding "comments for further discussion" on the three points above, buildin g on aspects where "No objections" emerged. 
4.2.   The work should be conducted from th e viewpoint of how notifications and possible 
consultations to follow can be implemented appropriately when a Member institutes an export prohibition/restriction. Japan would like to welcome proposals by Members in this regard. 
4.3.  The work is to continue in the informal session of the Committee on Agriculture, with the 
scope of the work described in Section 2 above. Japan will report the status of the work to the formal session in due course. 
4.4.  At the same time, it is also important, as many Members have pointed out, to make  full use 
of the review process in the Committee on Agriculture, including under Articles 18.6 and 18.7 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture, to exchange  questions and answers concerning export 
prohibitions/restrictions as well as any other policy measures by Members. 
4.5.  It goes without saying that improving the im plementation of the notification requirements on 
all areas of measures is important as the activi ty of the Committee on Agriculture. The Committee 
may wish to consider how the work concerning the other notifications should proceed, the 
discussion on which Japan is willing to participate in. 
 
__________