3.1 Data Sources

In spite of the fact that PTAs have been object of extensive research, there is at present no publicly available, up-to-date, and comprehensive database including the full text corpus of all PTAs. Part of the issue arises from the lack of consensus on what a comprehensive list of PTAs would include. The Design of Trade Agreements (DESTA) Database (Dür et al., Reference Dür, Baccini and Elsig2014), in its version updated to December 2023, features 956 base treaties in total, including hundreds not notified to the WTO. Relying on a broad definition, the authors strive to include ‘all agreements that have the potential to liberalize trade’, and have searched through lists held by different institutes, regional organizations, and national trade and economic ministries. The DESTA database is distinctive because of its careful coding of each agreement according to a wide range of criteria but does not feature a full-text version of the treaties themselves.

Unlike DESTA, the Texts of Trade Agreements database (ToTA) by Alschner et al. (Reference Alschner, Seiermann and Skougarevskiy2018) does provide a machine-readable full-text version of 450 treaties based on WTO Regional Trade Agreements Information System data, but it has not been updated since its initial release, making it unsuitable for analyses that aim to capture recent trends. As a point of reference in the field, ToTA serves also as one of the main sources for Legal TINA, an on-line service that allows for full-text search through hundreds of PTAs.Footnote ⁴ TINA’s interface allows for partial export of search results but it does not allow for its dataset to be downloaded in full; nor does it offer a full list of the PTAs included in its archive. This state of affairs creates a challenge for scholars interested in conducting a text-based analysis of PTAs, as none of the available options is fully satisfying.

In order to investigate trends in the long-term prevalence of references to food security in both absolute and relative terms, a clear delimitation of the universe of cases is needed. In line with ToTA, we decided to rely on the WTO RTA database as an established and routinely updated point of reference in the field with well-documented metadata: each agreement has its own information card with standardized metadata and an identifier that can be used for matching agreements across datasets.

In order to retrieve the full text of all PTAs included in the WTO RTA database, we proceeded with a multi-step procedure. For earlier agreements, we mostly rely on ToTA. For more recent PTAs (or agreements not included in ToTA), we first attempted a semi-automatic procedure for downloading and extracting the text of the agreements through the links to the original document included in the WTO RTA database. Due to numerous cases in which the original web page has been deleted or moved, and the extensive variety of formats in which agreements are published, a third step proved to be necessary in which manual searches were undertaken to identify machine-readable versions of agreements. As an additional measure for identifying potential data issues, we searched keywords associated with food security on TINA, and manually re-imported text when a match in TINA was not previously found in our dataset due to parsing issues. While it is still possible, in spite of our best efforts, that a few isolated references may have been missed due to the imperfect nature of the textual corpus at our disposal, we believe that in context the impact would have been analytically negligible.

In brief, our analysis is based on all trade agreements that entered into force between 1948 and 2024 and that are part of the WTO RTA database for which the original text of the agreement is available on-line. Out of the 611 agreements featured in the WTO RTA database, 448 are available in the ToTA full-text database; this leaves 163 agreements to be retrieved.Footnote ⁵ Our analysis relies on 599 agreements included in the WTO RTA database from which we could retrieve the full text from either ToTa or the web, in either English (556 agreements), Spanish (40), or French (3). The necessity to include Spanish-language texts along with English stems from the fact that a sizable cluster of agreements among countries in Latin America are seemingly available only in Spanish – excluding them would have implied a risk of biased results. For the same reason, and so as not to lose potentially relevant information, we also included the few French-language agreements.

3.2 Coding Procedure

In order to determine when a PTA includes provisions specifically dedicated to food security, we rely on a list of selected keywords related to trade and food security. Table 1 displays the full list of keywords in English.

Table 1. List of keywords in English

To ensure that our list of keywords is comprehensive and accurate, the selection process is carried out in several phases. The list is compiled by the authors, building on the specific terminology used in the AoA (e.g. ‘special treatment clause’) as well as terms that appear in the existing literature and the general discourse on food security (e.g., ‘right to food’). Rather than taking a narrow definition of food security, we consider different dimensions of the concept (e.g., ‘nutritional objectives’). We then test whether the keywords capture the relevant food security-related provisions by manually checking the output of our keyword-based search. In case we find erroneous results, these instances feed back into the keyword selection process. Lastly, we translate the keywords into Spanish and French using online translation tools (see Table A.1 in the Appendix).

4.1 Evolution over Time

As it is well known in the literature (see for instance Ruta, Reference Ruta2017) the number of preferential trade agreements has ballooned over the last three decades. Figure 1 shows the proliferation of PTAs – particularly since the 1990s – as well as the number and share of PTAs with food security-related provisions that are steadily increasing over time. The first reference to food security-related issues was made in 1966 in a free trade agreement between Australia and New Zealand, which states that nothing in the PTA should prevent the adoption or enforcement of measures ‘necessary to prevent or relieve critical shortages of foodstuffs or other essential goods’.Footnote ⁶ This formulation closely mirrors language that was already present in Article XX(j) of the GATT – itself derived from Article 20.2(a) of the Havana Charter – and therefore does not introduce a substantively new approach to food security beyond the existing multilateral framework. Out of the 230 PTAs that entered into force during the twentieth century, only 21 (9.1%) included at least one provision related to food security. During that time period, the Third Convention of Lomé – an agreement signed in 1984 between the European Economic Community (EEC) and 71 African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries – stands out as having the highest number of food security-related provisions (20).

From the 2000s onwards, food security-related provisions feature more prominently in PTAs. In total, 369 PTAs entered into force between 2000 and 2024, out of which 80 PTAs (21.7%) include a reference to food security issues. This phenomenon is especially evident in the latest years: 36.9% of the 84 PTAs that entered into force between 2019 and 2024 contain at least one such reference. Some prominent examples include the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (2020), the EU–Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (2020), and the Indonesia–Korea Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (2023). Overall, there appears to have been a rise in PTAs with food security-related provisions, with a notable acceleration in the most recent period. This is in line with the process of deepening of PTAs highlighted in the literature (see Matoo et al., Reference Mattoo, Rocha and Ruta2020).

In total, we identify almost 250 provisions that cover food security issues within 101 PTAs (see Figure 1). The dataset reveals that among the PTAs that cover food security issues, there are, on average, 2.4 provisions related to this subject. This number, which has remained relatively stable over time, can be considered as the ‘intensive margin’ of the phenomenon. A handful of PTAs include more than 10 food security-related provisions, while the majority of them (54.4% of 101 PTAs) mention this issue only once, resulting in a rather skewed distribution. Besides the Third Convention of Lomé, other PTAs that contain many references to food security are the UK–Kenya Economic Partnership Agreement (20) and the EU–Kenya Economic Partnership Agreement (21), which entered into force in 2021 and 2024, respectively.Footnote ⁷

Figure 1. The total number of PTAs and the inclusion of food security-related (FS) provisions.

4.2 Geographic Distribution

Figure 2 provides an overview of the number of PTAs with food security-related provisions by country, and uncovers a number of interesting patterns. First, the map shows that the EU and the UK have negotiated most PTAs with at least one reference to food security. In fact, the EU and UK are involved in 40.6% of the 101 PTAs with food security-related provisions. Many of these PTAs are negotiated with countries of the African continent, but the agreements with food security-related provisions are certainly not limited to that region. For instance, food security issues have also been incorporated in PTAs between the EU and countries such as Singapore, Armenia, Canada, and New Zealand.

Note: There are five color categories ordered from light to dark (0, 1–4, 5–9, 10–14, and ≥15).

Figure 2. The number of PTAs with food security-related provisions by country (created with Datawrapper).

Second, there are a few countries (Eswatini, Croatia, Mauritius, Mexico, and Peru) that have signed between 10 and 14 PTAs with food security-related provisions, while a larger group of countries has implemented between five and nine PTAs that contain references to food security. Most of these PTAs are signed by countries in North America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania, and a few countries in South America and East Asia. In many cases, participation in trading blocs with nearby countries – such as the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) and the Central American Common Market (CACM) – seems to explain the relatively high number of PTAs with food security provisions. In this (sub)regional context, countries may be more likely to make arrangements on food supplies in times of crisis.

Third, the largest set of countries has signed between one and four PTAs in which food security issues are addressed. Major trading countries, such as China (3), India (1), Japan (4), and the Russian Federation (2), belong to this category, but also many countries in North and West Africa and Southeast Asia. Some of them – such as Indonesia and Egypt – are signatories to a range of PTAs, and it is a little surprising to find only a few references to food security in their trade agreements, especially since levels of food insecurity tend to be relatively high in those regions.

Fourth, the countries that have not included any food security-related provisions in PTAs are clustered in (non-Andean) South America and West and Central Asia. In particular, we observe that some important players in the global economy, most notably Brazil and Türkiye, do not seem to give priority to food security issues in their trade deals. Countries that are involved in very few (or zero) trade deals, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Mongolia, and South Sudan, can also be found in this category.

Figure 3 shows the distribution of PTAs with food security-related provisions by countries’ income group (and decade).Footnote ⁸ In the 1990s, food security concerns are mainly addressed in PTAs between low and upper-middle income countries, and between low- and high-income countries. In the 2000s, low-income countries and lower-middle income countries are also involved in the majority of PTAs in which food security-related provisions are included. Since the 2010s, however, food security-related provisions are increasingly incorporated in PTAs negotiated among high-income countries, which is surprising since this type of agreement (H-H) has in fact declined as a share of the total number of PTAs. Therefore, we highlight this as an empirical pattern – a potential structural break – that deserves further academic scrutiny.

Note: The income groups are low (L), lower-middle (LM), upper-middle (UM), and high (H).

Figure 3. The distribution of PTAs with food security provisions by decade and income group.

4.3 Food and Nutrition Security Provisions within PTAs

Figure 4 displays the type of chapters in which food and nutrition security provisions are included.Footnote ⁹ We identify eleven different (broad) chapters of the PTAs in which food security-related provisions are included. For instance, the chapters titled ‘Co-Operation In Trade Liberalization and Development’ and ‘Development Matrix’ and ‘Economic Cooperation’ are all classified under ‘Economic and Development Cooperation’. Under ‘Environment and Sustainability’, we group chapters with titles such as ‘Sustainable Food Systems’ and ‘Drought and Desertification Control’. We provide a more comprehensive overview of this classification in Table A.2 of the Appendix.

Figure 4. An overview of the chapters in which food security issues are mentioned.

Unsurprisingly, around 30% of the food security-related provisions are included in a chapter on agriculture, consistent with the fact that, under the WTO framework, food security is mostly addressed under the AoA. Within this category, 15 PTAs feature chapter titles such as ‘Agriculture and Food Security’ or ‘Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Security’, which make this link more explicit, and this may, in turn, lead to more specific provisions concerning the interrelationship between (domestic) agricultural production and food security.

‘Economic and Development Cooperation’ is another chapter in which food security issues are addressed. Food security is often mentioned together with other goals such as ‘poverty reduction’, ‘integrated rural development’ and strengthening of ‘institutional capabilities’. We further note that food security is also mentioned in conjunction with various topics, including regional integration, public–private partnerships, innovation, and technical cooperation.

Many provisions on food security are incorporated in chapters on ‘Trade in Goods and (Non-)Tariff Measures’, where we often find clauses that allow countries to (temporarily) suspend certain obligations in cases of famine and critical shortages of foodstuffs, or other (emergency) measures that can be taken to address food insecurity. The role of food aid is frequently addressed in chapters on ‘National Treatment and Market Access’. For instance, countries include provisions in PTAs about whether food aid should be counted toward the fulfilment of specific amount under a tariff-rate quota.

Lastly, we find that some food security-related provisions are falling under specific chapters, such as ‘Sanitary and Phytosanitary Matters’, ‘Food Supply’, ‘Environment and Sustainability’, ‘Government Procurement and Infrastructure’, ‘Intellectual Property’, and ‘Animal Welfare’. Again, this indicates that countries approach the concept of food security from different perspectives, and not solely as an issue exclusively dependent on agricultural production. To give an example, the United Kingdom–Colombia, Ecuador and Peru Trade Agreement (2021) includes a provision in which the ‘Parties recognise the need to maintain a balance between the rights of intellectual property holders and the interests of the public, particularly regarding education, culture, research, public health, food security, environment, access to information and technology transfer.’Footnote ¹⁰ Such clauses confirm the increasingly multifaceted nature of food security issues in PTAs.

5.1 The Concept of Food Security

The AoA does not provide a formal definition of food security. Nonetheless, the concept is a recurring concern across various parts of the Agreement, from the Preamble to the provisions governing the three pillars – market access, domestic support, and export competition – and, ultimately, to the provision on the continuation of the reform process (Article 20). Within this context, the AoA frames food security as a legitimate objective that may justify exceptions to general trade disciplines. In this respect, food security is treated primarily as a ground for preserving national regulatory space within the broader trade liberalization process. The notion of food security underpinning the AoA is therefore centred on the national and global levels, with a particular emphasis on agricultural self-sufficiency and food self-reliance. The focus mainly remains on availability and access at the macro level, consistent with the state-centred logic of the WTO legal system.

Against this multilateral background, the four agreements analysed as case studies reveal differing levels of attention to the concept of food security. The Mexico–Central America PTA (2012) and the Eurasian Economic Union framework (2015) do not contain definitions or particularly insightful provisions in this respect.

However, the Korea–Australia PTA (2014) addresses the concept of food security in Article 16.9 (Security of Food Supply), which in its first paragraph underscores ‘the importance of … the maintenance of a stable and reliable food supply’. This wording evokes a supply-based understanding of food security, closely aligned with the definition from the 1974 World Food Conference, which described food security as: ‘the availability at all times of adequate world food supplies of basic foodstuffs to sustain a steady expansion of food consumption and to offset fluctuations in production and prices’.Footnote ¹¹ However, the PTA introduces, in the same paragraph, a degree of nuance by also referring to the ‘fulfilment of food security objectives’, suggesting a broader interpretation that may encompass aspects such as economic and physical access to food, utilization, nutrition, and stability over time.

Paragraph 2 of the same article 16.9 highlights opportunities for cooperation in ‘global food security, including through relevant regional and international fora’. Given that both Korea and Australia are high-GDP nations with significant economic influence, their commitment to engaging in global food security initiatives reflects an ambition to shape food governance and contribute to strengthening food security on an international scale. Paragraph 3 acknowledges the essential role that ‘trade and investment play in achieving long term food security’, highlighting the stability dimension. This principle emphasizes that food security extends beyond mere availability and access at a given moment; it necessitates the sustained capacity to secure these conditions over time, even in the face of economic or environmental disruptions, seasonal variations, or the long-term depletion of resources by past generations. Finally, paragraph 4 emphasizes the commitment to ‘high levels of safety in agricultural exports’ and recognizes ‘consumer demand for high-quality food’. By incorporating considerations of food safety and quality into the Security of Food Supply Article, the PTA acknowledges that food security extends beyond mere availability to encompass consumer preferences, dietary needs, and the importance of upholding stringent safety and quality standards throughout food production and distribution.

Taken together, these provisions suggest that while the Korea–Australia PTA remains rooted in a traditional supply-oriented understanding of food security, it also incorporates elements of a more contemporary approach. This broader perspective recognizes the existence of other food security objectives, the importance of food safety and quality, and the role of trade and investment in ensuring long-term food stability.

The EU–Kenya PTA (2024) adopts an even broader perspective than the Korea–Australia PTA. In Part IV, Agriculture, Article 57 (Scope and Definitions), the EU–Kenya PTA explicitly defines food and nutrition security as a condition in which ‘all people at all times have both physical and economic access to safe, sufficient, and nutritious food to meet their needs for a productive and healthy life’. The choice to define food and nutrition security – rather than simply food security – is significant as it signals a shift toward an individual-centred perspective. Unlike traditional food security understandings, nutrition security emphasizes food consumption at the household and individual levels, recognizing the importance of how food is utilized to support health and well-being.Footnote ¹² Indeed, the use of the integrated term food and nutrition security highlights the increasing need to embed nutrition considerations more explicitly within food security policies and programs, fostering a more holistic and inclusive approach to addressing food-related challenges.Footnote ¹³

This broader conceptualization is further reinforced throughout the PTA. Article 58 (Objectives) situates food security within the framework of sustainable agricultural development, explicitly linking it to food and livelihood security, rural development, and poverty reduction in the EAC Partner State(s). The PTA also promotes, in paragraph 2 of the same Article, ‘the sustainable use and management of natural and cultural resources’ through the development of ‘environmentally friendly and sustainable technologies that improve agricultural productivity’. Article 59 (General Principles) underscores the ‘multi-functional role of agriculture’ and commits the Parties to a ‘comprehensive approach to agriculture as a basis for sustainable development’. Finally, Article 64 (Food and Nutrition Security) states that the provisions of the Agreement should enable states to ‘implement effective measures to achieve food and nutrition security and sustainable agricultural development’.

A comparison between the Korea–Australia PTA (2014) and the EU–Kenya PTA (2024) reflects the evolution of the concept of food security over the past decade. While the Korea–Australia PTA primarily embraces a supply-driven approach with elements of trade, investment, and food security, the EU–Kenya PTA adopts a more systemic and multidimensional perspective. The latter integrates food security with nutrition security, sustainable development, sustainable agriculture, and sustainable use of natural resources. This shift reflects a broader trend in global food governance, where food security is increasingly understood as an interlinked challenge requiring holistic solutions that go beyond mere agricultural production to encompass public health, environmental sustainability, and economic stability.

5.2 Import and Export Restrictions

The general provision governing import and export restrictions or prohibitions in the WTO regime is contained in Article XI of the GATT (General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions). Article 12 of the AoA (Disciplines on Export Prohibitions and Restrictions) elaborates on the matter and is expressly intended to constitute a specification of Article XI:2(a) of the GATT with regard to agricultural products.

Article XI of the GATT generally prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports and exports but permits temporary export limitations intended to address critical shortages of foodstuffs or other essential products, as set out in Article XI:2(a). However, the provision offers limited guidance on how to define ‘critical shortages of foodstuffs’, the criteria for determining whether a product qualifies as ‘essential’, or even on the duration of a temporary measure. The WTO Appellate Body has offered some – albeit not particularly illuminating – clarifications in this regard, suggesting that a critical shortage refers to a severe ‘quantitative deficiency occurring in a situation of decisive gravity or reaching a level of vital importance’,Footnote ¹⁴ while ‘essential products’ may include a range of goods considered important or indispensable depending on a country’s particular circumstances (Mavroidis, Reference Mavroidis2016).Footnote ¹⁵ Despite its ambiguous language, Article XI:2(a) is aimed at enabling States to retain food production within their domestic borders in the event of food shortages. It thus reflects the paradox whereby a multilateral trade rule prioritizes national food availability, even at the potential expense of global food security. This tension became particularly visible during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, when several countries imposed export restrictions on food products, prompting concerns about the destabilization of world markets. Scholars warned that export restrictions might generate the very upward spiral in world prices that they were intended to prevent (Laborde et al., Reference Laborde, Martin, Swinnen and Vos2020). Although most of these measures were lifted relatively quickly and did not play a decisive role in international price increases, unlike during the 2008 food crisis (Kowalska et al., Reference Kowalska, Budzyńska and Białowąs2022), the episode illustrated the systemic risks associated with the use of Article XI:2(a) in times of global shocks.

Some of the negative externalities that may arise from the application of this provision are partially addressed – though not entirely satisfactorily – by Article 12 of the AoA, which establishes rules based on the principles of transparency and cooperation with respect to agricultural export restrictions. In particular, it requires Members: (a) to give ‘due consideration’ to the food security needs of importing Members before imposing bans or restrictions on agricultural exports; (b) to notify the Committee on Agriculture before introducing new export restrictions on food products, except for developing country Members that are not net exporters of the product in question; and (c) to consult affected Members upon request.

The combination of Article XI:2(a) of the GATT and Article 12 of the AoA has proven largely ineffective in safeguarding food security (Karapinar, Reference Karapinar2011). The obligation to give ‘due consideration’ to the food security needs of importing Members is not enforceable as it does not include a duty to refrain from adopting such measures. Therefore, the only instrument available for importing countries to respond to and prepare for potential supply disruptions lies in the notification requirements, which are frequently disregarded by Members.Footnote ¹⁶ Against this multilateral background, the selected PTAs generally align with WTO rules but introduce certain variations that merit closer examination.

The Mexico–Central America PTA addresses import and export restrictions in Article 3.9. While this provision does not explicitly mention an exception for food shortages, this should be considered to be implicitly included through the direct reference to GATT Article XI, which forms an integral part of the Agreement. Moreover, since export taxes and export quantitative restrictions are generally regarded as substitutable policy instruments (Hidalgo, Reference Hidalgo2013), Article 3.14 warrants particular attention, as it explicitly refers to critical food shortages in the context of export taxes. This provision allows Parties to impose export taxes to alleviate critical shortages of foodstuffs or to ensure the supply of essential raw materials to national processing industries. These charges may only be applied temporarily, and the agreement attempts to clarify the duration by defining ‘temporariality’ as a period of up to one year – although the Parties retain the discretion to exceed this limit. Therefore, the PTA complements the multilateral framework by specifying conditions for the use of export taxes in response to food shortages, while also introducing a time-related benchmark that is not present in WTO rules.

The Korea–Australia PTA (2014) includes export restriction provisions in Article 2.6, allowing for temporary export prohibitions or restrictions on foodstuffs to prevent or alleviate critical shortages. The PTA explicitly integrates procedural and substantive obligations that mirror those introduced by the AoA. Specifically, the PTA requires the exporting party to limit any export restriction to what is strictly necessary and to consider the ‘possible effects on the other Party’s foodstuff or energy and mineral resources’. This mirrors the AoA’s emphasis on the need to balance the right to regulate exports with the need to minimize adverse impacts on trading partners’ access to essential foodstuffs. Moreover, the PTA mandates advance written notification (‘as far in advance as practicable’), an explanation of the reason for the measure and details of its nature and duration. It also provides for consultations upon request, thereby reinforcing the principles of transparency and cooperation that are prescribed under Article 12 of the AoA.

In contrast, Article 16.9 of the Korea–Australia PTA establishes a specific framework for addressing export restrictions on agricultural goods produced by foreign-owned enterprises, introducing obligations that clearly exceed WTO rules. Indeed, the PTA requires prior bilateral consultations between the parties before ‘the actual implementation of any export prohibition or restrictions’, particularly when the restrictions target products from farms established by investors from the other Party. This provision is intended to address situations in which a company from one country (for example, a Korean-owned farm in Australia) exports goods to its home market, which could exacerbate domestic shortages in the host country. Moreover, the PTA prioritizes preemptive dialogue to mitigate disruptions to bilateral supply chains and protect investor interests, requiring parties to collaborate on remedies before enacting restrictions and to pursue ‘early recovery of open markets’ post-implementation. This creates a reciprocal commitment to balance food security concerns with the rights of foreign agricultural investors.

The Protocol on Measures for Non-Tariff Regulation of the Eurasian Economic Union – an agreement between Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia – establishes a regulatory framework that broadly aligns with WTO disciplines. Similar to the WTO provisions, the Protocol establishes a general prohibition on export and import restrictions, with specific exceptions provided under paragraph 12. One key exception permits the temporary imposition of export prohibitions or quantitative restrictions ‘to prevent or relieve critical shortages of foodstuffs or other products essential to the internal market of the EAEU’, closely mirroring the language of GATT Article XI:2(a). The Protocol introduces additional procedural safeguards that bring it in closer conformity with the enhanced transparency and cooperation obligations of Article 12 of the AoA. However, paragraph 15 goes beyond the WTO framework by introducing a quantitative threshold. In fact, paragraph 15 restricts the obligation for prior notification to cases where an importing country’s agricultural trade with the EAEU reaches at least 5%. The notification must still include the nature and duration of the measure, as well as a commitment to provide information upon request. Consequently, before imposing restrictions, the EAEU Commission must evaluate the effect of the measure on food security in third countries importing at least 5% of the affected goods from the EAEU. The EAEU also requires advance notification to be given to the WTO Committee on Agriculture and for consultations to be held upon request from affected states. This also exceeds WTO obligations, which require notifications but leave consultations optional and non-binding.

Finally, significant differences in terms of procedural obligations and transparency requirements emerge in relation to the EU–Kenya EPA. Article 19 shares a structural similarity with the multilateral discipline on export restrictions: both legal texts recognize the legitimacy of such measures in safeguarding the domestic food supply of the exporting party, embedding flexibility within broader commitments to trade liberalization. Moreover, Article 12 of the AoA explicitly requires the exporting member to notify the WTO Committee on Agriculture in advance and provide relevant information. They must also consult with interested importing members, taking into account their food security concerns. However, this does not apply to developing countries unless they are net exporters of the foodstuff in question. Article 19 of the EU–Kenya EPA lacks comparable procedural safeguards. It permits the temporary application of export restrictions, without requiring prior notification or consultation with the importing party. Furthermore, there is no formal obligation to assess or mitigate the impact of such measures on the food security of the other party, nor is there a requirement to disclose the nature or duration of the restriction.

5.3 Domestic Support

The Uruguay Round agricultural package introduced two main categories of domestic support, regulated by Articles 6, 7, and 13 of the AoA: (1) support with no, or minimal, trade-distortive effect on the one hand (‘Green Box’ measures); (2) trade-distorting support on the other hand (‘Amber Box’ measures). Article 6.5 also contemplates a third category (‘Blue Box’) which provides that direct payments under programmes to limit production are exempt from commitments if such payments are made for fixed areas and yields or for a fixed number of livestock. Finally, there are specific exceptions for developing countries (‘Development Box’) under Article 6.2. Among the categories of domestic support under the AoA, the Green Box is particularly relevant in relation to food security objectives. While the AoA disciplines domestic subsidies to limit their trade-distorting effects, it nonetheless provides flexibility for certain types of support that serve public policy goals, including those related to public stockholding and domestic food aid, as explicitly set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Annex 2.

According to paragraph 3, member countries may exempt payments for establishing essential food stocks that are integral to national food security programmes, provided that the volume and accumulation of stocks do not exceed predetermined targets solely related to food security, the accumulation and purchase process is fully transparent, and purchases and sales of accumulated products are made at current market prices (Smith, Reference Smith and McMahon2012). In the case of developing countries, the exemption also covers programmes in which food is purchased or sold at administered prices. However, where administered prices are used, the difference between the acquisition price and the external reference price is included in the Aggregate Measurement of Support, as it constitutes price support (i.e. a market-distorting measure) and is therefore subject to reduction commitments.Footnote ¹⁷ Paragraph 4, however, exempts domestic food aid programmes intended to improve nutrition. Countries must ensure that food aid is provided in accordance with clearly defined nutritional objectives, either in kind or through the provision of means enabling eligible recipients to purchase food at market or subsidized prices. This exemption is available to all WTO members, irrespective of their status, in accordance with Annex 2, paragraph 1. With regard to developing countries, the measure also covers the provision of subsidized food with the aim of meeting the food needs of the poorest segments of the population, both in urban and rural areas, on a regular basis and at reasonable prices.

Against this backdrop, Article 3.20 of the Mexico–Central America PTA draws directly on paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the AoA. However, it reflects a less articulated conception of domestic food aid. In particular, the PTA does not explicitly tie food aid eligibility to nutritional objectives. Instead, it merely requires that food aid programmes benefit consumers within the providing party’s territory, without specifying any criteria related to nutritional outcomes or target groups. Furthermore, the PTA primarily enforces compliance through a bilateral consultation mechanism, enabling parties to address concerns regarding the internal focus of aid measures. The text does not include specific references to transparency in financing or procurement practices, nor does it stipulate that purchases must be made at market prices – elements that are considered essential in the AoA framework to prevent trade distortion. Thus, the Mexico–Central America PTA reflects the special needs and flexibilities afforded to developing countries under the AoA. This design allows parties greater policy space to address food security consistent with the principle of special and differential treatment. The PTA’s provisions are thus better understood as a pragmatic adaptation to the context and capacities of developing countries, in line with WTO practice and ongoing debates about the appropriateness of Green Box criteria for the Global South.

The provision on public stockholding for food security purposes under paragraph 16 of the Protocol on Measures of State Support to Agriculture of the EAEU reflects a clear structural alignment with paragraph 3 of Annex 2 of the AoA. Both frameworks establish that expenditures related to the accumulation and holding of public stocks are permissible, provided they are part of a food security program identified in national legislation and meet specific conditions aimed at minimizing trade distortions. Key elements are identical in both texts: the volume and accumulation of stocks must correspond to predetermined targets solely related to food security, the process must be financially transparent, and purchases must occur at current market prices, while sales from the stocks must not undercut the domestic market price. This regulatory symmetry signals a deliberate effort by the EAEU to ensure coherence with the established multilateral criteria, particularly in upholding principles of market orientation and transparency. However, while the formal conditions are virtually identical, a closer reading reveals a potential difference in emphasis. Indeed, the AoA provision allows for government aid to private storage as part of public stockholding programs. The EAEU text, however, focuses solely on public stockholding managed directly by state actors, without explicitly mentioning the private sector’s role. This restriction may reduce the efficiency and responsiveness of food security programs, as public authorities alone may face higher costs and logistical challenges compared to arrangements that leverage private storage networks.

The EAEU Protocol on Measures of State Support to Agriculture incorporates also a domestic food aid provision in paragraph 17, which closely mirrors the structure and conditions set out under paragraph 4 of Annex 2 of the AoA. The EAEU text adopts the same key elements: provision of food aid to populations in need, delivery through direct food distribution or financial means (at market or subsidized prices), procurement at current market prices, and transparency in financing and administration. In formal terms, this alignment indicates the EAEU’s intention to adhere to internationally accepted standards of non-trade-distorting support. However, one crucial difference lies in the framing of eligibility criteria. While the AoA requires that eligibility be tied to clearly defined nutritional objectives, situating domestic food aid within a broader strategy aimed at nutritional adequacy and food security, the EAEU Protocol delegates the determination of eligibility entirely to national legislation of each member State. This effectively shifts the emphasis from a normative, nutrition-centered standard to a more flexible, state-driven approach, where the definition of need and targeting mechanisms may vary, potentially reflecting national policy priorities rather than a harmonized concept of food security.Footnote ¹⁸ As a result, the EAEU framework appears primarily concerned with ensuring that domestic food aid remains non-distortive in trade terms, while leaving substantive aspects, such as nutritional goals or social targeting, largely to the discretion of individual member States.

By contrast, the EU–Kenya EPA does not contain specific provisions on domestic support measures as defined under the AoA. Article 71 of the PTA refers explicitly to food aid, albeit not in the context of non-trade-distorting domestic support. Rather, it underscores the Parties’ commitment to ensuring that food aid operations are consistent with relevant requirements, including those aimed at avoiding negative impacts on local agricultural production and markets. This reflects a broader concern for the responsible management of food aid flows, but does not amount to a recognition of food aid as a legitimate exception under the domestic support disciplines. The Korea–Australia Free Trade Agreement, for its part, does not contain any express reference to domestic support in connection with food security-related provisions, nor does it replicate the structure or language of Annex 2 of the AoA.