Exporting Food in the Age of Protectionism

An Investigative Report by Riad Beladi

In an era where global supply chains are increasingly stressed and geopolitical tensions intensify, the world’s food markets face a paradox: even as demand for food exports grows, governments are stepping in to restrict the movement of agricultural goods. The result is a reinvention of food trade that reflects protectionist instincts, local economic ambitions, and the stark realities of food security. Countries even in regions once reliant on imports, such as Africa, are increasingly asserting the imperative to produce locally rather than relying on finished food imports. Exporting raw materials is acceptable — but finished products, in many cases, are disallowed or penalised.

This report explores the history, causes, consequences, and future of food protectionism, examining policies that influence global and regional food flows, with a focus on Africa, Latin America, Europe and Asia.

---

From Free Trade to Protectionism: A Historical Perspective

While today’s protectionist trend may seem like a reaction to recent crises, its roots extend centuries into the past. The 19th‑century Corn Laws in Britain exemplify early food protectionism. Designed to shield domestic farmers by imposing prohibitive tariffs on imported grain, the legislation kept bread prices artificially high, disadvantaging urban workers and consumers. The laws were eventually repealed in 1846 amid widespread popular protest, marking a triumph for free trade advocates and signalling the dangers of overly rigid food protection.

Over the 20th century, protectionist policies were reframed through import substitution industrialisation (ISI) — a development strategy aimed at reducing foreign dependency by promoting domestic production of manufactured goods. While most commonly associated with industrial policy, the logic of ISI has influenced agricultural strategies, particularly in developing countries seeking food self‑sufficiency. Governments imposed tariffs, quotas, or outright bans on imports of processed goods to encourage local processing industries.

The globalisation era of the late 20th and early 21st century undermined many protectionist practices as supply chains globalised and trade liberalisation advanced. However, periodic shocks — including the 2007‑08 food price crisis, the COVID‑19 pandemic and the disruptions following the war in Ukraine — have repeatedly prompted governments to revert to export restrictions and food controls. These measures, intended to protect domestic food availability and tame inflation, have had wide repercussions for global markets and food‑dependent economies.

---

Why Protectionism Is Rising Again

Food Security and Sovereignty

Food security — the ability to ensure reliable access to affordable and nutritious food — has resurfaced as a central government concern. Export bans and restrictions are viewed by some authorities as tools to keep essential commodities within national borders during periods of volatility. This instinct is particularly strong in major grain producers, where spikes in global prices or supply chain disruptions quickly translate into domestic political pressure.

For example, in several countries, export bans have been used on staple crops such as rice, wheat, maize and edible oils to prevent domestic shortages and social unrest. Export restrictions are intended to temper local prices by keeping food supplies at home, even at the expense of farmers who may benefit from higher export earnings.

Avoiding Price Inflation and Import Dependency

High food prices erode household purchasing power, particularly among low‑income populations. For governments, rising food inflation is often a politically combustible issue. As a result, many countries react to global price spikes by restricting exports — even if only temporarily — to ensure more supply remains accessible locally.

This strategy has a downside: by reducing supply in global markets, export restrictions can exacerbate price inflation internationally, making food more expensive for net importers and triggering a vicious cycle of protectionism.

Building Local Agro‑Industrial Capacity

Across Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia, policymakers increasingly link food policies to broader development ambitions. Countries with agricultural potential want to move beyond exporting raw materials and towards value‑added food production and processing. The objective is economic transformation: creating jobs, building industrial capacity, and keeping more of the value chain within domestic borders.

In West Africa, for instance, governments are promoting local processing of staples like rice, maize, soy and tomatoes to foster resilient food systems. While production capacity remains limited, the goal is to reduce import dependency and expand local agro‑enterprise.

---

Africa’s Trade Paradox: Raw Exports vs Finished Imports

Africa presents a striking case of the tension between local ambition and global dependency. The continent is rich in agricultural potential and boasts significant production of raw materials — yet many countries continue to import processed food products, even those based on their own crops. For example, Nigeria is the world’s largest cassava producer, with output more than six‑fold higher than in the early 1970s, yet it imports hundreds of millions of dollars worth of cassava‑based products due to weak local processing infrastructure.

Similarly, Uganda’s dairy industry produces billions of litres of milk annually, but the country still imports processed milk products because local refining and packaging facilities are insufficient. Sub‑Saharan Africa exported over $130 billion in raw materials in 2021 but stayed heavily dependent on imports of refined and manufactured goods.

These patterns reflect deep structural issues. Excessive export of raw commodities often occurs because processing value chains — from milling and packaging to branding and distribution — are underdeveloped. Investments in these areas are costly, require stable infrastructure, and take time to mature. Protectionist policies that restrict export of finished products are intended to stimulate local processing but often fall short without complementary investment in technology, skills and finance.

---

Non‑Tariff Barriers: Trade Policy as Protectionism

Protectionism today is rarely expressed through high tariffs alone. Instead, non‑tariff barriers — including sanitary and phytosanitary standards, bureaucratic controls, certification requirements and inconsistent regulatory frameworks — have emerged as powerful tools to shape food trade.

In many African countries, these measures are framed as essential for public health or quality assurance. Yet, when implemented inconsistently or excessively, they become de facto protectionist barriers that disproportionately affect foreign producers, especially small exporters with limited capacity to meet stringent requirements. Delays at borders, complex documentation, and variable quality inspection protocols inflate costs and reduce competitiveness, ultimately restricting the availability of certain food imports.

The paradox is that while such measures are often justified for legitimate public safety reasons, they can undermine food availability and regional trade integration — particularly within economic blocs such as the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).

---

Export Bans, Local Markets, and Regional Trade Disruption

Export bans are among the most visible forms of protectionist food policy. Across Africa and beyond, governments have implemented temporary or ongoing bans on exports of key staples to support domestic supply and stabilise prices.

However, export restrictions can destabilise regional markets. For example, export bans on rice, soy and other staples have undercut neighbouring countries’ access to food supplies and discouraged investment in production, since farmers and processors can no longer rely on open regional markets. In West Africa, such policies have sometimes violated regional free‑trade agreements, weakening intra‑regional trade and limiting the capital flows needed to build sustainable value chains.

Export restrictions also have broader macro‑economic effects. Predictable trade policies are essential for farmers, processors, banks and agricultural investors. Unpredictable bans reduce incentives to expand production, invest in processing infrastructure, or adopt modern farming technologies — all of which are critical for long‑term food security.

---

Latin America: Protectionism Meets Political Economy

Export restrictions are not confined to Africa. In 2006, Argentina imposed a temporary ban on beef exports to curb rising domestic prices and secure local supply. Argentina was — and remains — one of the world’s largest beef exporters, and the decision sparked intense debate within the farming sector, pitting export‑oriented interests against domestic consumer protections. The ban was eventually eased, but the episode exposed the political trade‑offs inherent in food protectionism: balancing producer incomes with social stability and affordable food prices.

Latin America has seen other protectionist experiments, often tied to currency policies, price controls, or social welfare objectives. These interventions commonly reflect domestic political imperatives rather than coherent long‑term trade strategy.

---

Europe’s Balancing Act: Trade Agreements and Farm Defenders

Europe faces its own version of food protectionism. While the European Union champions free trade in many contexts, agricultural stakeholders have vocally opposed trade deals perceived to threaten local producers. France’s agricultural unions, for instance, have protested free‑trade agreements that ease access to imported fruits, grains and beef, arguing that such deals undermine domestic farming viability and food sovereignty.

At the same time, new agreements such as the recently approved EU‑Mercosur trade deal have provoked deep national divisions, with some European countries welcoming export opportunities and others warning against competition from lower‑cost agricultural exporters.

These tensions illustrate a broader truth: even in the most integrated trading blocs, food protectionism is intertwined with political economy — farmers’ livelihoods, rural identity, environmental standards and global market access are all in play.

---

Food Export Restrictions and Global Poverty

Protectionist export measures have disproportionate effects on vulnerable populations. When major exporters restrict flows of staple foods, the scarcity is felt first in low‑income importing countries, where food accounts for a larger share of household expenditure. For nations with limited foreign exchange reserves, the spike in import costs exacerbates poverty, malnutrition and economic instability.

This is particularly acute in parts of Africa where countries spend a significant portion of their export revenues on food imports. In nations like Ethiopia and Mauritius, food imports represent a substantial share of export earnings, straining fiscal balances and compounding food insecurity amid climate shocks and conflict.

---

The Way Forward: From Protectionism to Strategic Integration

Protectionist impulses are understandable — governments are tasked with feeding their people first. Yet, long‑term stability requires a shift from ad hoc export bans and inward‑looking policies toward strategic food systems integration.

Key policy priorities should include:

1. Strengthening Local Value Chains

Investing in agro‑processing, storage, logistics and market infrastructure is critical. Transforming raw material export economies into food‑industry hubs can retain value domestically and reduce the incentives for protectionist trade barriers.

2. Harmonising Regional Trade Rules

Efforts such as the AfCFTA provide a framework for expanding intra‑regional food trade. Harmonised standards, simplified border procedures and coordinated food safety regimes can improve food availability and build regional resilience.

3. Balancing Protection with Competitiveness

Rather than outright bans, governments should explore targeted support — such as quality standards assistance, export financing, technological adoption and farmer training — that enables local producers to compete without isolating markets.

4. Policy Predictability and Transparency

Export restriction policies should be transparent, time‑bound and accompanied by clear criteria, to minimise disruption and maintain investor confidence.

---

Conclusion: Protectionism, Productivity and the Politics of Food

Food exporting in the age of protectionism is a tale of competing imperatives: population growth, climate unpredictability, political stability, economic ambition and global interdependence. While the instinct to protect domestic markets is deeply rooted in the history of trade policy, the modern context demands sophistication beyond simple export bans or import quotas.

Countries need policies that empower local production without undermining openness, support value addition rather than mere raw exports, and integrate domestic food systems into resilient regional and global networks.

The future of food security lies not in retreating from global markets, but in shaping them — through cooperation, smart policy design, and investments that elevate local agricultural competitiveness. In this age of protectionism, the challenge for policymakers is not merely to shield their own tables but to ensure that trade remains a lifeline for all.

DATA TABLES & CHARTS FOR REPORT

---

📊 Exhibit A — EU Agri‑Food Trade (2023–2025)

Annual Export / Import Overview (Euro)

Highlights:

• The EU agri‑food trade balance reached a record surplus in 2023, driven by strong export performance across processed and primary food categories.

• Even with global market pressure and rising input costs, exports remained resilient in 2024 and early 2025.

• The United States and United Kingdom remain top external destinations for EU food exports.

---

📊 Exhibit B — EU Processed Agricultural Products (PAPs)

Insights:

• Processed agricultural products are a major driver of EU export success, with both growth in absolute export value and widening trade surplus.

• The data show European markets have become more competitive in value‑added food exports — a key strategic focus of food export policy.

This table supports the report’s argument that exporting processed food — not just raw commodities — yields economic advantage but also triggers protectionist pushback in some markets.

---

📊 Exhibit C — U.S. Agricultural Export Figures (2024)

Top U.S. Export Markets (2024)

Points:

• The U.S. agricultural export sector reached near‑record levels in 2024, even as global prices fluctuated and domestic currency strength weighed on competitiveness.

• Mexico’s agricultural imports from the U.S. have surged, reflecting strong regional food trade dynamics.

This helps contextualise why protectionist barriers (like tariffs or export controls in other markets) can significantly influence U.S. food producers’ export strategies.

---

📊 Exhibit D — AfCFTA: Regional Food Trade Value Added (Projected)

Key Insight:
Under AfCFTA (African Continental Free Trade Area) scenarios, intra‑African food exports could increase significantly — especially for vegetable oils, fats and basic staples — but the value‑added component (processing, packaging) remains a smaller share. This highlights a major structural challenge: regional trade can grow, yet most export value remains in raw or semi‑processed form.

---

CONTEXTUAL SIDEBOX — AFRICA’S FOOD TRADE BALANCE

Africa’s net food import bill remains large — over US$83 billion in 2023 — but food exports also remain significant. Exports reached nearly US$62 billion in the same year, narrowing the net deficit considerably.

Implication: Even as protectionist policies push for local production and processed exports, Africa remains deeply integrated in global food exchanges both as importer and exporter — a dual identity that complicates protectionist strategies.

---

CHART — EXPORT VS IMPORT TRADE FLOWS

Europe vs. USA in Global Food Trade

Europe:

• Agri‑food exports reached ~€228.6 billion (2023).

• Surplus widened despite external headwinds.

USA:

• Export values remained among the highest globally, with major markets in North America and Asia.

Contrast:
Europe’s emphasis on value‑added exports (processed products) sits in tension with protectionist bans elsewhere that aim to prioritise local processing.

---

VISUAL IDEA — PROTECTIONISM HEATMAP (Suggested)

This chart illustrates how different regions implement various trade tools that effectively act as protectionist measures.

---

INTEGRATING DATA INTO THE REPORT

How to Use These Tables Effectively

• Embed Exhibit A & B immediately after the section on EU agri‑food trade history to illustrate trade performance and paradoxes between raw and processed export emphasis.

• Place Exhibit C in the U.S. export chapter to show market dependence and how other countries’ protectionist actions affect U.S. farmers.

• Include Exhibit D in the Africa section to reinforce the argument that intra‑regional trade has promise — but value addition remains limited.

• Add the Africa Sidebox wherever the narrative discusses import dependency and food security.

• Use the Protectionism Heatmap as a full‑page chart or infographic to summarise policy variation globally.