RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/W/42
10 February 1999
(99-0500)
Committee on Agriculture
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION ON MEASURES CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE
NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE REFORM PROGRAMME ON LEAST-DEVELOPED
AND NET FOOD-IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Note by the Secretariat
1. This note has been prepared in response to the request made at the November 1998 meeting
of the Committee on Agriculture that the Secretariat provide an overview on the state of play inimplementing the Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform
Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries (the "Decision")
(G/AG/R/17, page 6).  Following a brief introducti on on the follow-up process to the Decision as a
whole (Part I), the note sets out the substantive pr ovisions of the Decision and provides information
regarding their implementation (Part II).  A list of related Committee on Agriculture documents is
contained in Annex 1.  Further details are presented in Annexes 2 to 4.
I. MONITORING OF THE FOLLOW-UP TO THE DECISION
2. The follow-up to the Decision has represented an important element in the Committee's work.
This issue has been on the agenda at each regular Committee meeting.
3. In 1995, the Committee established notification requirements under which donor Members
are required to submit data on food aid donations (quantity and concessionality) as well as
information on technical and financial assistance and other relevant information on actions takenwithin the framework of the Decision (G/AG/2, page s 33-34).  The annual monitoring of the follow-
up to the Decision in accordance with Article 16 of the Agreement on Agriculture and under
paragraph 18 of the Working Procedures of the Committee on Agriculture is undertaken, inter alia , on
the basis of these Table NF:1 notifications.
4. Annex 2 summarizes the compliance with the NF:1  notification obligation to date.  For the
purposes of Annex 2, "compliance" refers to any NF:1 notification received by the eight Members
(counting the EC as one) that are donors under the Food Aid Convention and three other Members
that have identified themselves as donors in their notifications (Cuba, New Zealand and South
Africa).  It should be noted that a number of other Members have submitted NF:1 notifications stating
that no food aid or technical/financial assistance was provided or that Table NF:1 was not applicable.
5. In 1996, the Committee established a WTO list of net food-importing developing countries.
This list currently contains the 48 least-developed countries as defined by the United Nations and
18 other developing country Members (G/AG/5/Rev.2).
1
6. In the same year, the Singapore Ministerial Conference ("SMC") adopted the Committee's
specific recommendations regarding the Decision (G/L/125).
                                                     
1 The decision to establish this list was taken on the understanding that "being listed would not as such
confer automatic benefits since, under the mechanisms covered by the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision, donorsand the institutions concerned would have a role to play" (G/AG/R/14, paragraph 17).G/AG/W/42
Page 2
7. At various stages of the Committee's annual monitoring exercise of the Decision, some of the
international observer organizations, including the IMF, have commented on the development of
world food prices.2  International wheat prices increased sharply in 1995/96 (Chart 1).  By 1998,
however, world market prices for wheat had fallen, in nominal terms, to their lowest level since 1990
– the year of the highest world wheat crop ever except for 1997/98.  A variety of supply and demandfactors caused the observed price development, however as a practical matter, it is hardly feasible to
identify and accurately quantify each of them.
8. Annex 3 shows the development of various IMF commodity price indices since 1983.
3  It will
be noted that in nominal dollar terms the food price index has declined since the second quarter of
1996.  Chart 2 shows the trend of the non-fuel primary commodity price index which covers more
commodities than the food price index (column 2 of Annex 3). The broken line in Chart 2 which
tracks the price development in real terms shows that non-fuel primary commodity prices in thesecond half of 1998 were not significantly higher than in 1992.
4
                                                     
2 See FAO in G/AG/GEN/31, page 2; IMF in G/AG/GEN/15, page 2 and G/AG/GEN/31, page 6;
International Grains Council in G/AG/R/4, page 6; UNCTAD in G/AG/GEN/31, page 12; World Bank in
G/AG/GEN/15, page 3 and G/AG/W/12, page 4-6; see also the points raised by Members in G/AG/R/3, page 6.
3 For further details, see the IMF's web site www.imf.org/external/np/res/commod/index.htm.   For the
movement of UNCTAD's commodity price indices, see G/AG/GEN/31, page 20.
4 It should be noted that in this index metals and fertilizers carry a weight of 26.7 per cent and 1.3 per
cent, respectively.G/AG/W/42
Page 3Chart 1 – The International Grains Council wheat price index, January 1987 – November 1998
IGC WHEAT PRICE INDEX * 
January 1987 to November 1998
050010001500200025003000
* Average wheat prices of seven widely traded varieties of bread wheat: July/Dec 1986=1000 
IGC 11/9887 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98G/AG/W/42
Page 4
Chart 2 - IMF indices of non-fuel primary commodity prices, 1982-1998  (1990=100) 1/
708090100110120130140150160
708090100110120130140150160
In U.S. DollarsIn SDRsReal 2/
1/  Indices comprise 39 price series for 33 non-fuel primary commodities.  Weights are based on the 1987-89 average of world ex port earnings.
2/  Deflated by the export unit value index for manufactures of industrial countries.
Source:  International Monetary Fund.G/AG/W/42
Page 5
II. PROVISIONS OF THE DECISION AND IMPLEMENTATION
9. The Decision states
"Ministers recognize  that the progressive implementation of the results of the
Uruguay Round as a whole will generate increasing opportunities for trade expansion
and economic growth to the benefit of all participants" (paragraph 1).
"Ministers recognize  that during the reform programme leading to greater
liberalization of trade in agriculture least-developed and net food-importing
developing countries may experience negative effects in terms of the availability of
adequate supplies of basic foodstuffs from external sources on reasonable terms and
conditions, including short-term difficulties in financing normal levels of commercial
imports of basic foodstuffs" (paragraph 2).
10. The remaining paragraphs of the Decision contain a number of specific agreements in the
areas of food aid, technical and financial assistance, differential treatment within the framework of an
agreement on agricultural export credits, and a recognition regarding access to the resources of the
international financial institutions.  In the following, these paragraphs are taken up one by one and
supplemented by information available to the Secretariat regarding implementation.
Food aid and technical and financial assistance
11. In light of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Decision quoted above,
"Ministers accordingly agree to establish appropriate mechanisms to ensure that the
implementation of the results of the Uruguay Round on trade in agriculture does not
adversely affect the availability of food aid at a level which is sufficient to continue toprovide assistance in meeting the food needs of developing countries, especially
least-developed and net food-importing developing countries" (chapeau to
paragraph 3).
(i) Review of Food Aid Levels and Initiation of Food Aid Negotiations
12. To the end enunciated in the chapeau of paragraph 3 of the Decision, Ministers agreed
"…to review the level of food aid established periodically by the Committee on Food
Aid under the Food Aid Convention 1986 and to initiate negotiations in the
appropriate forum to establish a level of food aid commitments sufficient to meet the
legitimate needs of developing countries during the reform programme..."
(paragraph 3(i) of the Decision).
Review of food aid levels
13. In reviewing developments with regard to food aid levels, the Committee considered
background notes by the Secretariat which indicated that both the international food aid commitments
and the actual deliveries had declined sharply in recent years (G/AG/ W/20 and G/AG/W/36 refer).
Table 1 shows the volume of food aid provided to least-developed countries and net food-importing
developing countries in 1997 compared to 1994.5  While the decline in food aid reflected reduced
availabilities, and coincided with rising world market prices for cereals, it appears that reduced
demand  for food aid was also an important factor.  As Table 2 indicates, in 1994 a large share of
                                                     
5 It may be noted that food aid in value terms is small compared to total Official Development
Assistance (3 per cent in 1996).  See OECD Development Assistance Committee Report 1997.G/AG/W/42
Page 6
global food aid deliveries (excluding Europe and the CIS) was in the form of emergency relief
provided in the event of man-made or natural disasters.  Nearly 40 per cent of the 3.4 million tonne
decline in global food aid between 1994 and 1997 was due to lower levels of such emergency relief
food aid.
14. For the marketing year 1998/99, FAO forecasts that cereal food aid provided to least-
developed and net food-importing developing countries  may increase by around 50 per cent, to about
4.6 million tonnes compared to 3.157 million tonnes in 1997/98 (G/AG/GEN/31, page 3).  This level
would still fall substantially short, however, of the corresponding level for 1994/95.
Table 1: Food aid deliveries to least-de veloped countries and net food-importing
developing countries
Cereals
(million tonnes grain equivalent)Non-cereals
(million tonnes product weight)
1994 1997 % change 1994 1997 % change
LDCs (48) 4.871 3.089 - 37 0.526 0.301 - 43
NFIDCs (18) 1.628 0.575 - 65 0.170 0.109 - 36
Note: NFIDCs:  18 Members as per G/AG/5/Rev.2.
Source: UNCTAD (G/AG/GEN/31, page 13-14) based on WTO document G/AG/W/36.
Table 2: Composition of global food ai d deliveries, excl. Europe and the CIS
(million tonnes)
1994 1997 Reduction % change
Relief food aid 3.508 2.196 1.312 - 37
Project food aid 2.801 2.210 0.591 - 21
Programme food aid 2.859 1.320 1.539 - 54
Total 9.168 5.726 3.442 - 38
Notes: All figures include cereal (in grain equivalent) and non-cereal food aid (in product weight).
Relief food aid: targeted and freely distributed to victims of natural or man-made disasters.
Project food aid: provided to targeted beneficiary groups to support specific development
objectives.  Always supplied on a grant basis.
Programme food aid: Usually supplied as a resource transfer for balance-of-payments and/or
budgetary support objectives.  Provided as a grant or loan on a bilateral basis.
Not targeted at specific beneficiary groups but sold on the market of therecipient country.
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor, special issue, May 1998.
Initiation of food aid negotiations
15. In anticipation of the expiry of the current Food Aid Convention ("FAC") the SMC agreed
that work should start in 1997 within the fr amework of the FAC to develop recommendations on
establishing a level of food aid commitments which is sufficient to meet the legitimate needs of
developing countries during the reform programme.  It was also agreed that arrangements should bemade to ensure participation by all interested countries and the relevant international organizationsG/AG/W/42
Page 7
and that the recommendations should cover as wide a range of donors and donable foodstuffs as
possible (G/L/125, paragraph 18(i) refers).
16. Since January 1997 several meetings have taken place within the framework of the FAC,
including meetings with least-developed and net food-importing developing countries as well as
potential new food aid donors.  In December 1997 the FAC Food Aid Committee decided to extendthe current FAC for one year (until June 1999) and to open the Convention for renegotiation taking
into account, among other things, "the food security and trade liberalization objectives under the
WTO and the World Food Summit Action Plan" (IGC statement in G/AG/GEN/20).
17. In early 1998 the Food Aid Committee confirmed its intention to bring a new Food Aid
Convention into effect on 1 July 1999 and  requested the Working Group which has been undertaking
the re-negotiation of the current Food Aid Convention to aim to conclude the substantive negotiations
by the end of 1998.   The negotiations are dealing with (i) quantities and quality of food aid;  (ii)eligible products;  (iii) recipients and targeting to those most in need;  (iv) effectiveness and impact of
food aid;  and (v) other relevant matters.
18. In November 1998, the Food Aid Committee held another dialogue meeting with
representatives of food aid recipient countries regarding the main elements of the new Convention
(G/AG/GEN/31, page 4 refers).  Further negotiatin g sessions of the new Convention were held on
8-10 December 1998 in Washington, D.C. and 2-3 February 1999 in London.
(ii) Concessionality of Food Aid
19. To the end stated in the chapeau of paragraph 3 of the Decision Ministers also agreed:
"…to adopt guidelines to ensure that an increasing proportion of basic foodstuffs is
provided to least-developed and net food-importing developing countries in fully
grant form and/or on appropriate concessional terms in line with Article IV of the
Food Aid Convention 1986…" (paragraph 3(ii) of the Decision).
20. The SMC agreed that the recommendations to be developed by the FAC referred to in
paragraph 12 above should include guidelines in accordance with paragraph 3(ii) of the Decision, aswell as means to improve the effectiveness and positive impact of food aid.
21. Table 3 shows the proportion of food aid provid ed to least-developed and net food-importing
developing countries in the form of donations as notified by Members. All notifying Members, except
the United States, provided the food aid to the countries concerned in fully grant form.  In the case of
the United States, in the first three years of implementation between 83 and 93 per cent of  food aid
was donated, with the remainder being provided in  accordance with the relevant FAC guidelines.G/AG/W/42
Page 8
Table 3: Proportion of food aid in fully grant form
Member Concessionality of food aid
FAC donors
Argentina no notification received
Australia 100 % grant terms
Canada 100 % grant terms
EC 100 % grant terms
Japan 100 % grants of cash
Norway 100 % grant terms
Switzerland no notification received
(100 % grant terms*)
USA proportion of food aid to LDCs and NFIDCs on 100 % grant terms:
1995/96 -   84 %
1996/97 -   93 %
1997/98 -   83 %
the remainder is provided in accordance with FAC guidelines
Other donors
Cuba 100 % grant terms
New Zealand 100 % grants of cash
South Africa not applicable (no food aid provided)
Note: * Statement by the Swiss delegate, November 1998 COA meeting
(iii) Technical and Financial Assistance
22. To the end stated in the chapeau of paragraph 3 of the Decision Ministers agreed
  "…to give full consideration in the context of their aid programmes to requests for
the provision of technical and financial assistance to least-developed and net food-
importing developing countries to improve their agricultural productivity andinfrastructure" (paragraph 3(iii) of the Decision).
23. The SMC called on developed country Members to continue to give full consideration in the
context of their aid programmes to requests for the provision of technical and financial assistance.
This recommendation reflects the fact that technical and financial assistance is essentially a bilateral
matter between donors and recipients based on requests made by recipient countries.
24. The Secretariat has no information whether least-developed and net food-importing
developing countries made requests pursuant to this paragraph.  However, Annex 4 provides an
overview of spending on bilateral technical and financial assistance programmes as notified by
Members, including in a number of cases funding given to multilateral organizations and other aid.
Some Members noted in their notifications that it had not always been possible to identify
expenditures that were exclusively targeted to agriculture and to least-developed and net food-
importing developing countries.G/AG/W/42
Page 9
25. In addition, in their contributions to the Committee's annual monitoring exercise of the
Decision several of the international observer organizations have provided information on their
respective activities in the area of technical assistance.6
Differential treatment within the framework of an agreement on agricultural export credits
26. In light of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Decision quoted above, Ministers agreed:
"…to ensure that any agreement relating to agricultural export credits makes
appropriate provision for differential treatment in favour of least-developed and net
food-importing developing countries"   (Paragraph  4 of the Decision).
27. Ministers reaffirmed this commitment at the SMC.  In the ongoing negotiations on an
understanding regarding agricultural export credit s undertaken within the framework of the OECD,
consideration is being given to this matter (OECD statement in G/AG/GEN/15, page 8 refers).
Access to the resources of the international financial institutions
28. In the Decision Ministers furthermore recognized that:
"…as a result of the Uruguay Round certain developing countries may experience
short-term difficulties in financing normal levels of commercial imports and thatthese countries may be eligible to draw on the resources of international financial
institutions under existing facilities, or such facilities as may be established, in the
context of adjustment programmes, in order to address such financing difficulties. In
this regard, Ministers take note of paragraph 37 of the report of the Director-General
to the CONTRACTING PARTIES to GATT 1947 on his consultations with theManaging Director of the International Monetary Fund and the President of the
World Bank (MTN.GNG/NG14/W/35)" (Paragraph 5 of the Decision).
29. At the SMC it was agreed that WTO Members, in their individual capacity as members of
relevant international financial institutions, take appropriate steps to encourage the institutions
concerned, through their respective governing bodies, to further consider the scope for establishingnew facilities or enhancing existing facilities for developing countries experiencing Uruguay Round-
related difficulties in financing normal levels of commercial imports of basic foodstuffs.
(i) Ability to finance commercial imports
30. As noted above, the Decision recognizes that as a result of the Uruguay Round certain
developing countries may experience short-term difficulties in financing normal levels of commercial
imports of basic foodstuffs.  Whether or not such difficulties have occurred and to what extent theyare likely to materialize in the future is essentially  an empirical question.  In this context, the FAO
presented to the Committee in November 1997 the main findings of a study on the food situation in
the least-developed and net food-importing countr ies (G/AG/GEN/15, page 5-6 refers).  The study
provides quantitative results on a number of variables affecting the ability to finance commercial
imports, including export earnings, the balance-of-payments situation and the debt service ratio.  FAOemphasized the fact that as the result of declining levels of food aid and export subsidies "a much
greater volume of cereals is now imported under commercial terms."  In conclusion FAO noted that
"all the relevant statistics differentiate clearly the LDCs and the NFIDCs from the rest of thedeveloping countries as regards food availability and capacity to import.  The food security situation
                                                     
6 See World Bank, "A partial listing of projects in LDCs" in G/AG/GEN/31, page 23-27;  World Bank
in G/AG/GEN/15, page 3-4; FAO, "Special Programme on Food Production in Support of Food Security inLIFDCs" in G/AG/R/9, paragraph 33.G/AG/W/42
Page 10
in both the LDCs and the NFIDCs remains precarious and FAO will continue to monitor this situation
as it evolves."7  An update on the food situation in the countries covered by the Decision was
presented in November 1998 (G/AG/GEN/31, page 2-3 refers).
(ii) Access to the facilities of the IMF and the World Bank
31. At the November 1995 meeting the IMF informed the Committee of the IMF's two principal
facilities to assist net food-importing countries, i.e. the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility
(ESAF) and the Compensatory and Contingenc y Financing Facility ( CCFF).   Under ESAF
arrangements, funds may be provided on concessional terms in the event of persistently  higher import
prices for food, regardless of whether or not these are caused by the Uruguay Round.  The CCFF,
particularly its cereal element, was established to deal with financing needs in the event of
temporarily  higher food prices (for further details of  the CCFF see page 6 of document G/AG/W/12).
At the September 1996 Committee meeting, the IMF gave a detailed account on how these facilities
had been used by the least-developed and net food-importing countries in the wake of rising world
food prices.  The general conclusion of the IMF was that, under existing facilities and with anticipated
resources, the IMF was in a position to meet any additional balance-of-payments related needs thatmay arise from higher world food prices.
32. At the November 1998 meeting the IMF advised the Committee that 27 least-developed and
net food-importing developing countries, nine more than 1997, presently received financial support
from the IMF to support their adjustment programmes or to deal with emergency situations. Among
the additional countries receiving IMF loans in 1998 are seven WTO Members (Bangladesh, CentralAfrican Republic, Côte d'Ivoire, the Gambia, Rwanda, Senegal and Uganda).   In conclusion the IMF
reiterated that "the Fund has the resources under existing facilities and has shown its willingness to
use these resources in the last year, to meet the balance of payments needs of net food-importers."
33. The position of the World Bank on the issue of access to its resources was outlined in
November 1997 as follows:
"The World Bank continues to monitor the progress of liberalization resulting from
the implementation of commitments made under the Uruguay Round Agreement.  A
number of recent studies using different methodologies and assumptions confirm that
the long run impacts of the Uruguay Round agreement on agricultural prices will be
relatively small - certainly far smaller than the price increases that have beenexperienced in recent years.  Given the small size of the shocks resulting from the
Round and the Bank’s substantial headroom above current IBRD loans outstanding, it
seems clear that the Bank will be in a position to meet any additional demands
generated by the Round for loans on IBRD terms."
"In response to the Ministerial Decision, a Working Group involving the World Bank,
the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Food Programme and the IMF met
in 1995 to address the special needs of least-developed and net food-importing
countries.  The Working Group reviewed the range of facilities available for
additional financing needs for developing countries in the event of world price shocks
and production shortfalls and provided a report to the WTO in late 1995.  Given the
wide range of facilities and the small price impacts expected to arise as a consequence
of  the Round, and the difficulty involved in distinguishing Uruguay Round impactsfrom other shocks, it did not seem appropriate to establish a special Uruguay Round
adjustment facility" (G/AG/GEN/15, page 3).
                                                     
7 In December 1998, the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture published
its annual report "Food Security Assessment" which is also available via the ERS web site at www.econ.ag.gov.G/AG/W/42
Page 11
34. Furthermore, at the November 1998 review of  the Decision, the World Bank provided an
overview of the World Bank's lending programmes in terms of agricultural development projects (see
above), structural adjustment lending and em ergency lending (G/AG/GE N/31, page 25-27 refers).G/AG/W/42
Page 12
Annex 1
List of documents related to the implementation of the Decision
G/L/125 Report by the Committee on Agriculture on the Marrakesh Ministerial
Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the
Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing
Developing Countries (COA report for the SMC)
G/AG/5/Rev.2 WTO list of net food-importing developing countries for the purposes of
the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision on Measures Concerning the
Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed
and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries
G/AG/GEN/31 Annual monitoring exercise in re spect of the follow-up to the Ministerial
Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the
Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing
Developing Countries (statements by the international observerorganizations)
G/AG/GEN/20 Communicati on from the Executive Director of the International Grains
Council presented to the 19-20 March 1998 meeting of the Committee on
Agriculture
G/AG/GEN/15 Annual monitoring exercise in re spect of the follow-up to the Ministerial
Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of theReform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing
Developing Countries (statements by the international observer
organizations)
G/AG/W/36 Review of food aid levels (note by the Secretariat)G/AG/W/20 Preparatory work programme in respect of paragraph 3(i) and 3(ii) of the
Marrakesh Ministerial Decision on Measures Concerning the PossibleNegative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net
Food-Importing Developing Countries (note by the Secretariat)
G/AG/W/12 and Add.1 Decision on Measures Concerni ng the Possible Negative Effects of the
Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-ImportingDeveloping Countries:  the Director-General's consultations with the
IMF and the World Bank
G/AG/R-series Reports of COA meetingsG/AG/W/42
Page 13
Annex 2
Compliance with notification obligatio n in respect of actions taken within
the framework of the Decision (Table NF:1)
Member 1995 1996 1997 Noti fication received
Food Aid Convention donor
Argentina
Australia X X X AUS/5, 13, 21
Canada X X X CAN/11, 18, 25
EC X EEC/9
Japan X X X JPN/15, 27, 33
Norway X X X NOR/6, 19 and Corr.1, 20 and Corr.1
Switzerland
USA X X X USA/7, 20, 21
Other donors
Cuba X X CUB/4, 5
New Zealand X X X NZL/6, 13, 17
South Africa X X X ZAF/7, 9, 17
"Nil" notifications
Brazil X X BRA/2, 7
Burkina Faso X BFA/2
Fiji X X FJI/3, 5
Indonesia X X IDN/6, 7
Korea X X KOR/9, 17
Malta X MLT/3
Morocco X MAR/9
Philippines X PHL/7
United Arab Emirates X ARE/1
Uruguay X URY/6
Compliance calculated as:
… number of notifications  
received by FAC donors (%) 75 63 63
… number of notifications
received by FAC & other
donors (%)82 73 64
Notes: Annual reporting periods differ among Members.
"X" means that a notification was received.  A blank means that no notification was received.
"Nil" notification means that the notification indicated that no food aid or technical/financial assistancewas provided or that Table NF:1 was not applicable.G/AG/W/42
Page 14
Annex 3
IMF indices of primary commodity prices, 1983-98
(1990=100) 1/
All
Primary
Commodities 2/Non-Fuel Primary Commodities 3/Petroleum 5/
Non-fuel
Primary
CommoditiesFood BeveragesAgricultural
Raw
Materials 4/Metals Fertilizers
(weights) (100.0) (32.9) (6.8) (32.3) (26.7) (1.3)
----------------------------------------------------------------In Terms of SDRs----------------------------------------------- -----------------
1983 137.7 118.6 140.3 200.8 93.2 101.3 121.8 163.7
1984 141.0 123.8 145.3 242.2 99.0 96.6 128.1 164.41985 129.9 108.5 122.4 218.8 86.3 89.5 116.8 159.11986 83.6 92.5 93.1 222.6 78.8 74.8 101.5 71.31987 88.1 91.8 88.5 141.2 91.6 83.3 93.2 83.11988 90.7 109.6 109.6 139.6 95.1 119.9 103.5 64.91989 100.1 113.1 117.0 121.3 103.0 118.5 110.8 82.51990 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.01991 89.3 93.5 98.2 92.7 95.6 85.0 102.3 83.61992 86.2 91.0 97.6 77.6 95.4 80.7 94.4 79.81993 83.9 93.4 97.2 83.2 111.7 69.8 80.6 71.0
1994 87.4 103.3 99.6 141.9 119.3 79.4 84.9 65.7
1995 89.3 105.6 101.6 135.2 117.4 89.6 88.6 66.91996 98.0 109.1 119.2 116.7 119.4 82.4 105.3 82.81997 99.2 111.3 112.1 163.2 117.4 89.6 112.3 82.7
96 Q1 94.2 109.3 119.3 115.5 116.9 86.3 102.6 73.7
96 Q2 99.5 114.1 130.1 122.3 119.6 85.9 104.8 79.596 Q3 97.6 107.7 117.8 114.7 120.6 78.1 105.8 83.896 Q4 100.5 105.0 109.2 113.9 120.1 79.1 107.8 94.3
97 Q1 103.3 113.5 117.1 143.2 123.4 89.5 113.2 89.3
97 Q2 99.7 115.0 114.3 186.0 120.6 91.0 112.1 78.997 Q3 98.0 110.6 106.9 166.6 117.2 92.9 111.2 80.7
97 Q4 95.4 105.7 109.6 156.7 107.9 84.8 112.4 81.4
98 Q1 84.7 101.8 105.9 164.3 102.3 79.3 116.6 61.3
98 Q2 82.0 99.3 102.4 143.5 103.2 78.5 119.3 58.598 Q3 6/ 77.8 92.9 94.3 130.6 96.6 75.7 119.2 57.2
97 Jan. 104.3 109.6 113.8 121.7 121.6 86.8 109.9 97.1
97 Feb. 102.8 113.9 116.7 144.4 124.6 89.8 114.7 87.597 Mar. 102.7 117.1 120.9 163.9 124.1 92.1 115.1 83.197 Apr. 99.6 115.9 121.2 172.4 120.2 89.8 114.7 77.397 May 102.9 117.6 114.9 206.9 122.9 92.0 111.0 82.997 Jun. 96.7 111.5 107.0 178.6 118.7 91.1 110.5 76.597 Jul. 97.2 110.6 105.4 165.8 119.5 92.0 111.4 79.0
97 Aug. 99.0 111.6 107.6 167.0 117.3 95.4 111.4 81.9
97 Sep. 97.6 109.6 107.7 167.1 114.6 91.3 110.9 81.397 Oct. 98.0 106.3 108.6 154.0 109.4 87.4 110.3 86.697 Nov. 96.0 106.1 110.4 150.5 109.6 84.8 112.7 82.397 Dec. 92.1 104.6 109.8 165.7 104.5 82.1 114.3 75.1
98 Jan. 87.7 103.5 108.7 171.3 101.8 81.0 118.1 66.1
98 Feb. 85.9 103.5 107.3 171.4 104.6 79.4 117.5 62.098 Mar. 83.4 102.0 105.5 156.2 104.2 80.2 118.3 58.198 Apr. 83.3 101.2 104.2 151.6 103.7 80.9 118.6 58.898 May 83.4 99.6 102.7 142.7 104.0 78.4 118.8 61.398 June 79.4 97.1 100.3 136.2 101.8 76.2 120.6 55.298 July 78.7 95.1 98.9 131.1 97.8 76.5 120.8 56.4
98 Aug. 6/ 77.6 93.7 93.5 135.7 98.6 76.1 120.7 55.5
98 Sep. 6/ 77.1 89.9 90.6 125.1 93.5 74.6 116.2 59.698 Oct. 6/ 74.1 87.7 92.0 118.9 90.0 70.3 112.4 55.6
1/  Weights are based on 1987-89 average world export earnings.
2/  Petroleum and non-fuel primary commodities index.  The weights are 57 per cent for the index of non-fuel primary commoditie s prices
and 43 per cent for the index of petroleum prices.
3/  Indices comprise 39 price series for 33 non-fuel primary commodities.
4/  Includes forestry prices.5/  Spot crude.  Average of U.K Brent, Dubai, and West Texas Intermediate, equally weighted.
6/  Provisional.G/AG/W/42
Page 15
Annex 4
Technical and financial assistance under paragraph 3(iii) of the Decision
Notifying
MemberProgramme Currency 1995 1996 1997
Australia Total A$ mill. 351.8 400.4 263.0
AusAID multilateral core funding 227.0 230.5 161.9
AusAID regional funding 11.4 9.7 8.1
AusAID bilateral 24.2 48.1 44.5
AusAID scholarships 42.0 18.1 30.4
AusAID humanitarian relief 13.4 81.5 7.2
ACIAR multilateral programmes 24.0 9.4 8.9
ACIAR bilateral programmes 9.8 3.2 2.1
Canada Total C$ mill. 299.3 271.3 290.9
CIDA multilateral core funding 253.4 215.8 243.3
CIDA bilateral programmes 25.2 25.3 16.9
CIDA Canadian Partnership Branch 8.3 5.8 5.4
IDRC bilateral programming 4.5 3.6 3.2
DFAIT multilateral core funding 7.9 20.8 22.1
EC Total ECU mill.      1,117.0 NNR NNR
EDF- ACP countries 465.9
Development projects with other countries 651.1
Japan Total US$ mill. 434.3 688.2 395.8
grant aid 268.1 202.1 158.0
technical cooperation 107.1 129.7 114.4
ODA loans 59.1 356.5 123.4
New Zealand Total NZ$ mill. 3.3 4.2 5.9
multilateral core funding/other multilateral 1.5 2.4 3.8
regional 0.7 0.5 0.3
bilateral 1.1 1.4 1.8
Norway Total NOK mill. 648.6 718.9 818.5
WFP contribution 213.0 219.0 208.2
bilateral programmes 285.8 297.7 338.1
emergency relief aid 149.8 202.2 272.2
South Africa Total bilateral aid '000 Rand 705.6 355.0 865.0
USA Total US$ mill. 1,080.1 889.1 1,256.6
USAID global assistance to agriculture 88.0 37.1 33.6
USAID bilateral assistance to agriculture 157.7 -- --
contributions to multilateral organizations 829.5 846.4 1217.5
Cochran Fellowship Program 0.3 0.3 0.3
Peace Corps 4.7 5.2 5.2
Abbreviations:
NNR no notification received
AusAID Australian Agency for International Development Agency
ACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
CIDA Canadian International Development AgencyIDRC International Development Research CentreDFAIT Department of Foreign Affairs & International Trade
EDF European Development Fund
ODA Official Development Assistance
Notes: Annual reporting periods differ among Members.
EC aid excludes aid provided by member States.
For further details, see NF:1 notifications.
__________