Global scrutiny of agricultural trade

International trade in agricultural products has remained static over the last few years, as reflected in global export trends. The combined share of these products is still less than one-tenth of the international merchandise trade. Nevertheless, the rule on trade in agricultural products has been a contentious issue in the World Trade Organization (WTO) for a long time, as reflected in the organisation's Committee on Agriculture meeting last month. In the meeting, members of the multilateral trade rule-making body exchanged views on a wide range of issues, including agricultural trade, food security and technology transfer. They also reviewed the agrarian policies of the member countries to track compliance with WTO commitments.

For the meeting, the WTO secretariat had prepared an information note on members' participation in the normal growth of world trade in agricultural products within the framework of the commitments on export subsidies under the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). It is estimated that global exports of agricultural products by WTO members reached US$1,465 billion in the last year, which was US$1,468 billion in 2023. The value was $1,156 billion in 2020, $1,355 billion in 2021 and $1,494 billion in 2022. At present, the number of WTO members is 166, and they cover around 98 per cent of the global trade. 

The WTO calculated that the export figures of the agricultural products are slightly lower than the figures estimated by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). FAOSTAT Analytical Brief 98 on trade of agricultural commodities 2010-2023 mentioned that the monetary value of global agricultural exports in 2023 was US$1905 billion, or 1.7 times higher in nominal terms compared to 2010, and food accounted for 86 per cent of the total exports. 

The WTO defines agricultural products in accordance with the AoA's product coverage, which includes 33 products or product groups. And, 32 of these products and product groups are labelled as 'selected' or 'specific' products, and the remaining one is 'other' products. The selected products and product groups include:  wheat & wheat flour), maize, other coarse grains, rice, soya beans, other oilseeds, vegetable oils, oilcakes, sugar, butter and butter oil, skim milk powder, cheese, whole milk powder, bovine meat, pigmeat, poultry meat, sheepmeat, eggs, live animals, wine, other alcoholic beverages, fruits, vegetables, pulses, nuts, processed fruits and vegetables, tobacco, cotton, cut flowers, coffee, and cocoa. Other agricultural products include: animal products; tea, maté and spices; prepared foodstuffs; food residues, animal feed; hides and skins; silk, wool, other textile fibres, etc. WTO statistics showed that around 30 per cent of the trade in agricultural products is a set of other products.  In the last year, exports of other agricultural products stood at $446 billion, while the exports of 'selected' products recorded at $1,020 billion. 

As comparative advantages drive the exports and imports of agricultural products, the benefits depend on various factors, including differences in climate and the availability of productive farmland. Tariffs and non-tariff measures (NTMs) are hampering the trade of some agricultural products across the regions. So, these measures come under the scrutiny of the WTO.

In the November meeting, WTO members raised 115 questions concerning individual notifications and specific implementation matters on farm trade. Reviewing the questions revealed that new things like programmes relating to climate resilience, technological innovation, sustainable food systems and green production have become a matter of concern for some countries. The European Union's special agricultural safeguards, Japan's rice policy, New Zealand's rural assistance payments, Switzerland's supply security payments and the United States' disaster relief payments also came int6o question.  A total of 18 new things were placed, of which 12 were alone by India.

Interestingly, Bangladesh also faced questions from the US about its meat import restriction.  According to the WTO meeting document, the US said: "Although Bangladesh's current Import Policy Order clearly allows for imports of beef with a valid permit from the Department of Livestock Services, it is noted that the Department has not been issuing permits for some time. Further, it was reported that the Fisheries and Livestock Affairs Adviser (Minister) stated on 22 October 2025, that Bangladesh has no intention of allowing imports of meat."

In this connection, the US placed two questions as follows: (a) Please clarify why the Department of Livestock Services has not issued import permits for beef, even though the Import Policy Order allows such imports; and (b) When does Bangladesh intend to restart issuance of such permits? Bangladesh is yet to reply to the questions.  

Nevertheless, similar questions were raised by Japan in last year's meeting. WTO document showed that Japan noted some media reports (e.g. The Financial Express September 04, 2024) that the Bangladeshi `government is set to impose stricter limitations on meat imports to protect local dairy and cattle farmers', and 'the Department of Livestock will not issue any import permit for now'. Japan, along with the US, asked two questions: (a) If the information in the article is accurate, could Bangladesh explain how the relevant measures are consistent with the WTO agreements, especially with Article XI of the GATT 1994, Article 4.2 of Agreement on Agriculture, and Article 5.1 of Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures? (b) If this is not the case, could Bangladesh explain the facts with the most recent imports data of meat?

In reply, Bangladesh said: "The newspaper report referenced in the questions does not accurately represent the current situation in Bangladesh. At present, there are no import bans or restrictions in place regarding meat imports into Bangladesh. Furthermore, the Government of Bangladesh has no plans to impose any such bans or restrictions." The answer to the second question, however, was skipped.

Statistics available with Bangladesh Bank showed that in FY23, the country imported meat and edible meat offal worth around $5.19 million, of which 70 per cent were sourced from India. The import dropped to $1.04 million in FY24 when around 80 per cent was sourced from China, whereas imports from India were tiny. 

Bangladesh has time to answer the latest questions raised by the US, and the response will likely be similar to last year's. The development, however, reflects that any restrictive measures on imports are critically taken by the trade partners with various interests. In the case mentioned above, Japan's interest is likely to be in exploring Bangladesh as a potential market for exporting meat and edible meat offal in the near future. For the US, it is to scrutinise a trade-restrictive step, making it a bargaining tool in the near future. 

Finally, for Bangladesh, it is a signal to be cautious and calculative while imposing any trade restrictions in the near future, and to deal with any such step with care. The issue of restricting meat imports will remain there and may trigger a trade dispute if not appropriately addressed.

asjadulk@gmail.com