WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/W/42/Rev.6
31 October 2003
(03-5809)
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 Secretariat1
Revision
1. The present note further updates the information in the Secretariat note G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
dated 8 November 2002 on implementation of the Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible
Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on L east-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing
Countries (NFIDC Decision).  Fo llowing a brief introduction on the follow-up process to the NFIDC
Decision as a whole (Part I), this paper sets out the substantive provisions of the Decision andprovides information regarding their implementa tion (Part II).  A list of related Committee on
Agriculture documents is contained in Attachment 1.  Further details are presented in Attachments 2
to 4.
I. MONITORING OF THE FOLLOW-UP TO THE NFIDC DECISION
2. The follow-up to the NFIDC Decision has represented an important element in the
Committee's work.  This subject 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 taken
within the framework of the NFIDC Decision (G/AG/ 2, pages 33-34 refer).  The annual monitoring of
the follow-up to the NFIDC 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 onthe basis, inter alia , of these Table NF:1 notifications.
4. Attachment 2 summarizes compliance with NF :1 notification requirements in the 1995 to
2002 implementation years.  For the purposes of this Attachment, "compliance" refers to any NF:1
notification received by the seven Members (counting the EC as one) that are donors under the Food
Aid Convention and four other Members that have in the past identified themselves as donors in theirnotifications (Argentina, Cuba, New Zealand and South Africa).  A number of other Members have
also submitted NF:1 notifications stating that no food aid or technical/financial assistance was
provided or that Table NF:1 was not applicable.  Attachment 2 reflects the state of play on
notifications as of 24 October 2003.
                                                     
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO.G/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 2
5. In 1996, the Committee established a WTO list of net food-importing developing countries.2
This list currently contains 24 developing country Members (NFIDCs) plus the 49 least-developed
countries (LDCs) as defined by the United Nations.3
6. In December 2000, the Committee on Agriculture was instructed by the General Council to
examine possible means of improving the effectiveness of the implementation of the NFIDC Decision(WT/L/384).
4  The Committee's report on this question, which was approved by the Doha Ministerial
Conference, includes, inter alia , a recommendation for the establishment of an Inter-agency panel of
financial and commodity experts to examine the issue of short-term difficulties by NFIDCs and LDCs in
financing normal levels of commercial imports of basic foodstuffs (G/AG/11 refers).  The panel report,
which was submitted in June 2002, includes an examination of specific proposals submitted by a group
of seventeen WTO net food-importing developi ng countries (G/AG/W/ 49 and Add.1 and Corr.1;
WT/GC/62 - G/AG/13 refer).  The Committee's latest follow-up report regarding its Doharecommendations is contained in document G/AG/16.
II. PROVISIONS OF THE NFIDC DECISION AND IMPLEMENTATION
7. The NFIDC Decision states:
"Ministers recognize  that the progressive implementation of the results of the
Uruguay Round as a whole will generate increasing opportunities for tradeexpansion 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 andconditions, including short-term difficulties in financing normal levels of
commercial imports of basic foodstuffs" (paragraph 2).
8. The remaining paragraphs of the NFIDC Decision contain a number of specific agreements in
the areas of food aid, technical and financial assistance, differential treatment within the framework of
any agreement on agricultural export credits, and a provision regarding access to the resources of theinternational financial institutions.  In the follow ing, these paragraphs are taken up one by one and
supplemented by information available to the Secretariat regarding their implementation.
A. F
OOD AID
9. In light of paragraphs 1 and 2 of  the NFIDC 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 continueto provide assistance in meeting the food needs of developing countries, especially
least-developed and net food-importing developing countries".  (chapeau to
paragraph 3).
                                                     
2 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/4, paragraph 17).
3 The WTO net food-importing developing countries:  Barbados, Botswana, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba,
Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Honduras, Jama ica, Jordan, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco, Namibia,
Pakistan, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sri Lanka,
Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia and Venezuela (G/AG/5/Rev.6, dated 10 April 2003, refers).
4 Progress reports by the Committee on Agriculture regarding its consultations on improving the
effectiveness of the implementation of the NFIDC Decision are contained in documents G/AG/7 and G/AG/10.G/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 3
1. Review of Food Aid Levels and In itiation of Food Aid Negotiations
10. To the end enunciated in the chapeau of paragraph 3 of the NFIDC 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 theappropriate 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 NFIDC Decision).
(a) Review of food aid levels
11. The Food Aid Convention (FAC) provides a safety net in terms of food aid availability.  The
international food aid commitments under the FAC are specified in terms of minimum annual
contributions by its members (Table 1).  The aggregate annual commitments decreased from a total of7.517 million tonnes under the Food Aid Convention, 1986 to 5.35 million tonnes (wheat equivalent)
under the Food Aid Convention, 1995.  Under the new Food Aid Convention 1999, the minimum
annual volume and value commitments of FAC members amount to a total of 4.895 million tonnes
(wheat equivalent) and €130 million, respectively.  The Inter-agency panel, referred to above, noted
that "the fact that these commitments are expressed mainly in volume terms is significant in times of
high world market prices for cereals, as it provides assurances of minimum supplies of food aid
irrespective of world food price and supply fluctuations."
5
12. Table 1 summarizes the annual food aid shipments by FAC members in respect of their
commitments under the 1986, 1995 and 1999 Food Aid Conventions since 1992/93.  In the period
since 1992/93, annual shipments exceeded, often si gnificantly, FAC members' combined minimum
annual commitments. The exception was 1994/95 when shipments fell short of the aggregate
commitment.  Food aid shipments in 2002/03 are estimated at 8.5 million tonnes (wheat equivalent)
compared with 10.2 million tonnes in 2001/02.  The food aid was supplied mainly to least-developed
and other low-income developing countries, with a  significant proportion being purchased in the
recipient countries or bought from other developing countries.
13. There are a number of other sources of food aid data, particularly the FAO and the World
Food Programme.  Data from these sources are not directly comparable with the data of the Food Aid
Committee of the International Grains Council (Table 1) for reasons such as differences in country
and product coverage, reporting period, and the use of delivery rather than shipment data.
14. According to World Food Programme data, global food aid deliveries show a cyclical pattern,
with a record of 17.3 million tonnes reached in 1993.6  Another peak was reached in 1999 when food
aid totalled 15.0 million tonnes (Table 2).7  In this context, the Committee made the following
recommendation to the Doha Ministerial Conference which was approved by this body:
"WTO Members which are donors of food aid shall, within the framework of their
food aid policies, statutes, programmes and commitments, take appropriate measures
aimed at ensuring:  (i) that to the maximum extent possible their levels of food aid to
developing countries are maintained during periods in which trends in world marketprices of basic foodstuffs have been increasing; … ". (G/AG/11, Part B paragraph 3
I(b) refers.)
                                                     
5 Inter-agency panel report WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13, paragraph 44 refers.
6 See also WFP statement in G/AG/GEN/49, pp. 10-11.
7 Food aid deliveries as monitored by the World Food Programme include deliveries by the FAC
members, other countries, and non-governmental organizations.G/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 4Table 1 - Food Aid Convention - Annual Shi pments - 1992/93-2001/02*  (July/June years)
metric tonnes: wheat equivalent
DONOR MINIMUM
ANNUAL
CONTRIBUTION
(1986 Conv.)1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 MINIMUM
ANNUAL
CONTRIBUTION
(1995 Conv.)1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99
a) a)
ARGENTINA 35,000 f) - - 35,000 13,400 - - 10,135 m)
AUSTRALIA 300,000 309,561 307,874 334,090 300,000 l) 298,146 305,127 293,221 273,064
AUSTRIA 20,000 18,000 7,100 39,400 d) d) d) d) d)
CANADA 600,000 762,766 c) 659,103 632,881 400,000 448,764 468,431 417,917 487,095
EC 1,670,000 2,618,636 2,485,522 2,058,244 1,755,000 2,413,991 2,049,591 2,201,162 j) 1,969,892 R
FINLAND 25,000 25,000 19,610 208 h) d) d) d) d) d)
JAPAN b) 300,000 390,912 341,293 388,438 300,000 474,870 326,835 302,626 561,643
NORWAY b) i) 30,000 33,646 47,941 33,584 20,000 6,233 32,816 19,306 61,293
SWEDEN 40,000 62,560 b) 48,736 54,761 b) d) d) d) d) d)
SWITZERLAND 27,000 47,265 108,220 44,828 40,000 75,479 38,636 57,915 k) 38,939 k)
USA 4,470,000 6,119,687 4,688,779 3,526,994 2,500,000 2,849,384 2,553,283 2,818,500 4,734,121
TOTAL   e) 7,517,000 10,388,033 8,714,178 7,113,428 5,350,000 n) 6,580,267 5,774,719 6,110,647 8,136,182 R
ContinuedG/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 5Table 1 - Food Aid Convention - Annual Shi pments - 1992/93-2001/02*  (July/June years)
metric tonnes: wheat equivalent
DONOR MINIMUM
ANNUAL
CONTRIBUTION
(1999 Conv.)1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 (est)
ARGENTINA 35,000 2,740 - 26
AUSTRALIA 250,000 296,713 251,865 245,828
AUSTRIA d) d) d) d)
CANADA 420,000 470,657 288,402 q) 393,367
EC 1,320,000
and  €130 million1,976,280 o) 2,357,778 p), r) 1,836,717 s)
FINLAND d) d) d) d)
JAPAN b) 300,000 337,357 637,749 453,735
NORWAY b) i) 30,000 75,960 85,876 74,318
SWEDEN d) d) d) d)
SWITZERLAND 40,000 61,295 54,169 58,042
USA 2,500,000 5,692,116 6,798,280 7,124,407
TOTAL   e) 4,895,000
and  €130 million8,913,118 10,474,119 e), q) 10,186,440G/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 6Table 1 - continued
Notes:
* Unless otherwise specified, all shipments were in respect of the Food Aid Convention, 1986, the Food Aid Convention, 1995 and the Food Aid Convention 1999.
These figures refer to the wheat equivalent of actual shipments completed during the years shown.  They are not adjusted for pr oduct limits under Article IV of the Food Aid
Convention 1999 and do not necessarily represent the performance of members in relation to their annual commitments.
a) 1986 - As listed in Article III, paragraph (3), of the Food Aid Convention, 1986.
1995 - As listed in Article III, paragraph (4), of the Food Aid Convention, 1995.
b) Wheat equivalent of cash contributions as calculated on the basis of the "prevailing international market price".
These figures therefore do not correspond to quantities actually shipped.
c) Includes quantities shipped by Canada in respect of its obligations for the following year.
d) From 1995/96 Austria, Finland and Sweden included under E.C.
e) Includes contributions under IEFR - Immediate Response Account (IRA), as reported by WFP.f) Obligations under the Convention suspended between 1st July 1991 and 30th June 1993.g) In respect of outstanding 1992/93 contributions.
h) Obligations under the Convention suspended between 1st July 1993 and 30th June.
i) Norway made its entire FAC cash contribution available to WFP during each of the years shown, but actual shipments, as report ed by WFP, may not have been completed.
j) Includes EC contributions of cash to recipients totalling Ecu 84.7 m. reported as equivalent to 583,693 tonnes of wheat, to b e used for the purchase of grains by recipients.  The cash
was disbursed as follows (in '000 Ecus):
Albania 5,000 Honduras 3,100 Senegal 500
Armenia 13,000 Kirghizstan 8,000 Sierra Leone 200Bolivia 15,000 Mali 2,000 Tadjikistan 4,000Cape Verde Islands 7,000 Mozambique 5,400 Yemen 5,000
Georgia 7,000 Nicaragua 600
Haiti 700 Peru 8,200Individual details of the food aid quantities involved are not available, and are therefore not shown in Table 2.
k) Includes quantities shipped by Switzerland in resp ect of its obligations for the previous year.
l) Australia's minimum contribution was reduced to 250,000 tonnes with effect from 1 July 1998 under the FAC 1995 (as extended).
m) Shipped by Argentina in respect of outstanding 1995/96 obligations.n) With effect from 1 July 1998, the total was reduced to 5,300,000 tonnes (taking into account the revised minimum contribution for Australia).
o) Includes FAC "value" contributions totalling 156,504,384 Euro, reported as notional wheat equivalent of 531,749 tonnes.
p) Includes FAC "value" contributions totalling 181,049,943 Euro, reported as notional wheat equivalent of 628,659 tonnes.
q) Provisional datar) Includes total wheat equivalents of incomplete records of 14,385 tonnes (Tonnage Commitment) and 5,885 tonnes (Value Commitme nt) as reported by the EC.
s) Includes FAC "value" contributions totalling 137,338,267 Euro, reported as 599,462 tonnes notional wheat equivalent.
R Revised
Source:  Food Aid Committee / International Grains Council.G/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 7
Table 2: Food aid deliveries to least-developed and net food-importing developing
countries, 1993-2002 (million tonnes)
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Least-developed
countries4.6 5.5 4.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 4.6 4.5 4.6 3.6
Net food-importing
developing countries2.6 2.0 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.3
Other countries 10.1 5.5 4.9 3.0 3.0 3.9 9.1 5.4 4.7 4.7
Global total 17.3 12.9 10.2 7.2 7.3 8.4 15.0 11.3 10.8 9.6
Notes: Includes cereals in grain equivalent and non-cereals in product weight.
Net food-importing developing countries refers to Members listed in G/AG/5/Rev.6, dated 10 April 2003.
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 2002 Food Aid Flows, May 2003 at http://www.wfp.org/interfais/.
15. Except for Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago, all net food-importing developing countries on
the WTO list were, occasionally or regularly, recipients of food aid during 1993-2002.  In 2002,aggregate deliveries to the NFIDCs were 6 per cent lower than average deliveries in the period 1993-
2002 (Table 3).  In some countries, in particular Egypt and Tunisia, food aid deliveries declined
sharply during that period.  Deliveries to the least-developed countries in 2002 were 13 per cent lower
than their ten-year average (1993-2002).  In Attachme nt 4, data are provided of food aid deliveries to
all recipient countries during 1993-2002.
Table 3: Food aid deliveries to least-developed and net food-importing developing
countries in 2002 compared to long-term average (million tonnes)
1993-2002
average20022002 in per cent of
1993-2002 average
Least-developed countries4.2 3.6 87
Net food-importing developing countries1.4 1.3 94
Other countries5.4 4.7 86
Global total11.0 9.6 87
Notes: Includes cereals in grain equivalent and non-cereals in product weight.
Net food-importing developing countries refers to Members listed in G/AG/5/Rev.6, dated 10 April 2003.
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 2002 Food Aid Flows, May 2003 at http://www.wfp.org/interfais/.G/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 8
Table 4: Composition of global food aid deliveries, excluding Eastern Europe and the CIS
(per cent)
1993 1996 1999 2002
Emergency relief food aid 37 36 42 51
Project food aid 25 29 24 29
Programme food aid 38 35 34 20
Total 100 100 100 100
Notes: The figures include cereal food aid (in grain equivalent) and non-cereal food aid (in product weight).
Emergency  food aid is destined to victims of natural or man-made disasters.  It is freely distributed to targeted
beneficiary groups, and usually provided on a grant basis.  It is provided multilaterally, through NGOs or
sometimes bilaterally.
Project  food aid aims at supporting specific poverty-alleviation and disaster-prevention activities.  It is usually
freely distributed to targeted beneficiary groups, but may also be sold on the open market and is then referred to as
"monetized" food aid.  Project food aid is provided on a grant basis, either multilaterally, through NGOs or
bilaterally.
Programme  food aid is usually supplied as a resource transfer for balance of payments or budgetary support
activities.  Unlike most of the food aid provided for project or emergency purposes, it is not targeted to specific
beneficiary groups.  It is sold on the open market, and provided either as a grant or as a loan.
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor:  2002 Food Aid Flows, May 2003 at:  http://www.wfp.org/interfais/.
16. As Table 4 indicates, a rising share of globa l food aid deliveries (excluding Eastern Europe
and the CIS) was provided in the form of emergency relief in response to man-made or naturaldisasters while the share of programme food aid declined.
(b) Initiation of food aid negotiations
17. In 1996 the Singapore Ministerial Conference adopted the recommendation by the Committee
on Agriculture that in anticipation of the expiry of the Food Aid Convention, 1995 and in preparation
for the re-negotiation of the Food Aid Convention, action be initiated in 1997 within the framework of
the Convention, under arrangements for participation by all interested countries and by relevant
organizations, to develop recommendations with a view towards establishing a level of food aid
commitments, covering as wide a range of donors and donable products as possible, which is
sufficient to meet the legitimate needs of developing countries during the reform programme
(G/L/125, paragraph 18(i) refers).
18. Between January 1997 and March 1999 several meetings took 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
extend the FAC for one year (until June 1999) and to open the Convention for renegotiation taking
into account, amongst 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).  In early 1998 the
Food Aid Committee confirmed its intention to bring a new Food Aid Convention into effect on1 July 1999 and requested the Working Group which was undertaking the re-negotiation of the FAC
to aim to conclude the substantive negotiations by the end of 1998.  In November 1998, the Food Aid
Committee held a further dialogue meeting with representatives of food aid recipient countries
regarding the main elements of the new Convention (G/AG/GEN/31, page 4 refers).
19. The negotiations on the Food Aid Convention 1999 were completed on 24 March 1999 and
the new Convention provisionally entered into forc e on 1 July 1999 for an initial duration of threeG/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 9
years.  Its members, including provisional members, were the same as the members of the Food Aid
Convention, 1995 (Argentina, Australia, Canada, EC and its member States, Japan, Norway,
Switzerland and the United States).  On 30 July 2003, Argentina advised the WTO Secretariat that it
no longer was a food aid donor under the Food Aid Convention.
20. The Food Aid Convention 1999 contains a number of new features.  They include that the list
of eligible products which may be supplied has been broadened significantly beyond cereals.  There
are also new provisions designed to improve the effectiveness and the impact of food aid.  When
allocating their food aid, FAC members undertake to give priority to the least-developed countries and
Low-Income Countries, many of which are on the pr esent WTO list of net food-importing developing
countries.  Other eligible food aid recipients include Lower Middle-Income Countries and all other
countries included in the WTO list of net food-importing developing countries at the time of
negotiation of the new Convention. Attachment 3 reproduces a summary by the IGC ExecutiveDirector of the outcome of the negotiations on the Food Aid Convention.
21. At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Ministers approved the recommendation of the
Committee:
"that early action be taken within the framework of the Food Aid Convention 1999
(which unless extended, with or without a decision regarding its renegotiation,would expire on 30 June 2002) and of the UN World Food Programme by donors of
food aid to review their food aid contributi ons with a view to better identifying and
meeting the food aid needs of least-developed and WTO net food-importing
developing countries".  (G/AG/11, Part B paragraph 3 I(a) refers)
22. The Food Aid Convention 1999, which was to expire on 30 June 2002, was not renegotiated
at that stage but, as agreed by the Food Aid Committee, initially extended by one year and
subsequently further extended to 30 June 2005.
2. Concessionality of Food Aid
23. To the end stated in the chapeau of paragraph 3 of the NFIDC 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 NFIDC Decision).
24. Under the Food Aid Convention 1999, all food aid provided to least-developed countries will
be in the form of grants.  Overall, food aid in the form of grants is to represent, at a minimum, 80 per
cent of FAC members' contributions and donors are to seek to progressively exceed this share.
25. At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Ministers approved the recommendation that:
"WTO Members which are donors of food aid shall, within the framework of their
food aid policies, statutes, programmes and commitments, take appropriate measures
aimed at ensuring: … (ii) that all food aid to least developed countries is provided in
fully grant form and, to the maximum extent possible, to WTO net food-importingdeveloping countries as well".  (G/ AG/11, Part B paragraph 3 I(b) refers)
26. Table 6 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 theG/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 10
case of the United States, in the first five 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.
Table 6: Proportion of food aid provided in fully grant form
Member Concessionality of food aid
FAC donors
Australia 100% grant terms
Canada 100% grant terms
EC 100% grant terms
Japan 100% grants of cash
Norway 100% grant terms
Switzerland 100% grant terms
United States Proportion of food aid to least-developed and net
food-importing developing countries on 100% grant terms:
1995/96 -   84%
1996/97 -   93%
1997/98 -   83%
1998/99 -   93%1999/00 -   93%
The remainder is provided in accordance with Food Aid
Convention guidelines.
Other donors
Argentina 100% grant terms
Cuba 100% grant terms
New Zealand 100% grants of cash
South Africa Not applicable (no food aid provided)
B. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
27. To the end stated in the chapeau of paragraph 3 of the NFIDC 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 and
infrastructure".  (Paragraph 3(iii) of the NFIDC Decision).
28. The Doha Ministerial Conference 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 by least-developed and net food-importing developing countries to improve their
agricultural productivity and infrastructure.  This recommendation reflects the fact that technical and
financial assistance is essentially a bilateral matter between donors and recipients based on requestsmade by recipient countries.
29. Furthermore, the Doha Ministerial Conference approved the recommendation:
" ... that, in support of the priority accorded by least-developed and net food-
importing developing countries to the development of their agricultural productivity
and infrastructure, the WTO General Council call upon relevant internationaldevelopment organisations, including the World Bank, the FAO, IFAD, the UNDPG/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 11
and the Regional Development Banks to enhance their provision of, and access to,
technical and financial assistance to least-developed and net food-importing
developing countries, on terms and conditions conducive to the better use of such
facilities and resources, in order to improve agricultural productivity and
infrastructure in these countries under existing facilities and programmes, as well asunder such facilities and programmes as may be introduced".  (G/AG/11, Part B
paragraph 3 II(b) refers)
30. The responses that have been received from the African Development Bank, the European
Investment Bank, FAO and the World Bank have been circulated in documents G/AG/W/57 and
Add.1.
C. D
IFFERENTIAL TREATMENT WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF AN AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURAL
EXPORT CREDITS
31. In light of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the NFID C Decision quoted above, Ministers agreed:
" … to ensure that any agreement relatin g 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 NFIDC Decision).
32. At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Ministers reaffirmed the commitment above and
approved a general understanding regarding procedures for the development of disciplines pursuant to
Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and the related provisions of the NFIDC Decision
(G/AG/11, Part A paragraph 4).  Accordingly, work  within the WTO on the question of agricultural
export credits has been undertaken in both the regular meetings of the Committee on Agriculture and
in the Special Session negotiations on the basis, inter alia , of the proposals that have been tabled and
other inputs, including with respect to special and differential treatment in favour of developing
countries.
D. ACCESS TO THE RESOURCES OF THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
33. In the NFIDC 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 that
these 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 the
Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund and the President of theWorld Bank (MTN.GNG/NG14/W/35)".  (Paragraph 5 of the NFIDC Decision.)G/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 12
1. Ability to finance commercial imports
34. As noted above, the NFIDC 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.  In this context, at various stages of the Committee's annual monitoringexercise of the NFIDC Decision, several of the in ternational observer organizations have commented
on the development of international food prices.
8  Moreover, the Inter-agency panel report provides a
detailed examination of the question of financing food imports by NFIDCs and LDCs.9
35. As regards wheat, the most important food commodity in the import basket of the NFIDCs
and LDCs, Chart 1 below shows world market prices for wheat since 1987.  Overall, from their peak
in 1996, international wheat prices have dropped sharply, although another price spike occurred in
2002.
36. The FAO is monitoring the food security situation in the least-developed and net food-
importing developing countries and has regularly presented its assessment to the Committee on
Agriculture.10
2. Access to the facilities of the IMF and the World Bank
37. The question of access to the resources of the international financial institutions has been the
subject of examination by the Inter-agency panel of financial and commodity experts.  The relevant
short-term lending facilities of the IMF and the World Bank are set out in the report, with the focus on
the operation of the Compensatory Financing Facility (CFF) of the IMF.11  The CFF is being reviewed
by the IMF this year.
38. In the context of the Committee's annual monitoring exercise of the NFIDC Decision in
December 2001, the IMF representative reiterated the position of the IMF regarding the question of
access to its resources by stating:
"With existing facilities and resources, the Fund is in a position to meet any balance
of payments needs of our members that may arise from higher  world food prices."12
39. The position of the World Bank regarding the issue of access to short-term multilateral
financing 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 been
experienced in recent years.  Given the small size of the shocks resulting from theRound and the Bank's substantial headroom above current IBRD loans outstanding,
                                                     
8 See FAO in G/AG/GEN/31, page 2 and G/AG/GEN/36, page 1 and G/AG/GEN/46, page 2; IMF in
G/AG/GEN/15, page 2;  G/AG/GEN/31, page 6; G/AG/GEN/40, page 5;  G/AG/GEN/46, page 7 andG/AG/GEN/49, page 7;  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 and G/AG/GEN/46, pages 18-28;
FAO and the World Bank in G/AG/GEN/56;  see also the points raised by Members in G/AG/R/3, page 6.
9  See WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13, in particular, Chapter II, Section A and the Conclusions in Chapter III.
10 See G/AG/GEN/56.
11 WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13 refers.
12 G/AG/GEN/49, page 8 refers.G/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 13
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-importingcountries.  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 impacts
from other shocks, it did not seem appropriate to establish a special Uruguay Round
adjustment facility."  (G/AG/GEN/15, page 3.)G/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 14 CHART 1 – THE INTERNATIONAL GRAINS COUNCIL WHEAT PRICE INDEX, JANUARY 1987 – JULY 2003
050010001500200025003000
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03
IGC 10/03* Average wheat prices of seven widely traded varieties of bread wheat: July/Dec 1986=1000 G/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 15
ATTACHMENT 1
List of documents related to the implementation of the NFIDC Decision
G/AG/17 (14/7/2003) Proposal by the African Group on Special and Differential
Treatment referred to the Committee by the Chairman of theGeneral Council - Report to the General Council by the Chairman
G/AG/16 (4/7/2003) COA follow-up report to the General Council on implementation-
related issues
G/AG/W/58 (28/10/2002) Proposal for follow-up to the recommendation of the Inter-agency
panel on examining the feasibility of the revolving fund operating asan ex-ante financing mechanism (Submission by Bangladesh, Cuba,Egypt, Jordan, Kenya and Sri Lanka on behalf of the NFIDCs andLDC Group of the WTO)
G/AG/W/57 (21/10/2002)
and Add. 1 (29/11/2002)Marrakech Net Food-Importing Developing Countries ("NFIDC")
Decision − Technical and financial assistance in the context of aid
programmes to improve agricultural productivity and infrastructure -Responses from International Development Organizations andRegional Development Banks
G/AG/14 (9/10/2002) COA follow-up report to the General Council on implementation-
related issues
WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13
(28/06/2002)Report of the Inter-agency panel on short-term difficulties in
financing normal levels of commercial imports of basic foodstuffs
G/AG/5/Rev.5
(26/3/2002)WTO list of net food-importing developing countries for the
purposes of the NFIDC Decision
G/AG/GEN/49
(28/02/2002)Annual monitoring exercise in 2001 in respect of the follow-up to
the NFIDC Decision (statements by the international observerorganizations)
G/AG/11 (28/09/2001) Report on implementation-related issues (COA report adopted by
the Doha Ministerial Conference)
G/AG/10 (06/07/2001) Report by the Vice-Chairman to the General Council on Examination
of Possible Means of Improving the Effectiveness of theImplementation of the NFIDC Decision
G
/AG/W/49 & Add.1 &
Corr.1 (19/03/01, 23/05/01
& 27/06/01)Proposal to Implement the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision in favour
of LDCs and NFIDCs submitted by  Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, DominicanRepublic, Egypt, Honduras, Jama ica, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco,
Pakistan, Peru, Senegal, Sri Lanka, St. Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago,Tunisia and Venezuela
G/AG/7 (25/04/2001) Report by the Vice-Chairman to the General Council on Examination
of Possible Means of Improving the Effectiveness of theImplementation of the NFIDC Decision
G/AG/GEN/46
(28/11/2000)Annual monitoring exercise in 2000 in respect of the follow-up to
the NFIDC Decision (statements by the international observerorganizations)
G/AG/GEN/40
(19/11/1999)Annual monitoring exercise in 1999 in respect of the follow-up to
the NFIDC  Decision (statements by the international observerorganizations)
G/AG/GEN/35
(01/04/1999)Communication from the Executive Director of the International
Grains Council presented to the 25-26 March 1999 meeting of theCommittee on Agriculture
G/AG/GEN/36
(31/03/1999)Statement by the Observer from the FAO presented to the 25-26
March 1999 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture
G/AG/GEN/31 Annual monitoring exercise in 1998 in respect of the follow-up toG/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 16
(15/12/1998) the NFIDC Decision (statements by the international observer
organizations)
G/AG/GEN/20
(24/03/1998)Communication from the Executive Director of the International
Grains Council presented to the 19-20 March 1998 meeting of theCommittee on Agriculture
G/AG/GEN/15
(18/12/1997)Annual monitoring exercise in 1997 in respect of the follow-up to
the NFIDC Decision (statements by the international observerorganizations)
G/L/125 (24/10/1996) Report on the NFIDC Decision (COA report adopted by the
Singapore Ministerial Conference)
G/AG/W/20 (14/03/1996) Preparatory work programme in respect of paragraph 3(i) and (ii) of
the NFIDC Decision (note by the Secretariat)
G/AG/3 (24/11/1995) Decision by the Committ ee on Agriculture at its Meeting on 21
November 1995 Relating to the Establishment of a List of WTO NetFood-Importing Developing Countries for the Purposes of the NFIDCDecision
G/AG/W/12 & Add.1
(07/11/1995 and20/11/1995)NFIDC  Decision:  the Director-General's consultations with the
IMF and the World Bank
G/AG/R- series Reports of COA meetingsG/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 17
ATTACHMENT 2
Compliance with notification requireme nts in respect of actions taken within
the framework of the NFIDC Decision, 1995-2002 (Table NF:1)
Member 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Notification circulated
in G/AG/N-series
Food Aid Convention donor
A u s t r a l i a XXXXXXX AUS/5, 13, 21, 25,
32/Rev.1, 39, 48
C a n a d a XXXXX C A N / 1 1 ,  1 8 ,  2 5 ,  3 4 ,  4 2
E C XXXXXXXX E E C / 9 ,  2 1  a n d  A d d . 1 . ,
25, 35, 46
J a p a n XXXXXX J P N / 1 5 ,  2 7 ,  3 3 ,  4 6 ,  6 8 ,  7 8
N o r w a y XXXXXXX NOR/6, 19 and Corr.1, 20
and Corr.1, 26, 33, 34 andCorr.1, 37
S w i t z e r l a n d XXXX C H E / 2 3
U n i t e d  S t a t e s XXXXX U S A / 7 ,  2 0 ,  2 1 ,  3 1 ,  4 8
Other donors
A r g e n t i n a XXXXXXX A R G / 1 0 ,  1 5 ,  2 1
C u b a XXXXXXX C U B / 4 ,  5 ,  1 4 ,  1 8 ,  2 2
N e w  Z e a l a n d XXXXXX N Z L / 6 ,  1 3 ,  1 7 ,  2 5 ,  2 6 ,  3 0
S o u t h  A f r i c a XXXXXXX ZAF/7, 9, 17, 24, 32, 39,
42
"Nil" notifications
B r a z i l XXXXXXX B R A / 2 ,  7 ,  1 7 ,  2 0
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 receivedby FAC donors (%)100 100 100 100 86 57 43 n.a.
… number of
notifications receivedby FAC & otherdonors (%)100 100 100 100 91 73 55 n.a.
Notes: (1) Annual reporting periods differ among Members.
(2) "X" means that a notification was received.  A blank means that no notification was received.
(3) "Nil" notification means that the notification indicated that no food aid or technical/financial assistance
was provided or that Table NF:1 was not applicable.
(4) "n.a." denotes not applicable since at least one Member is still within the allowable delay for the
submission of Table NF:1 notifications in the 2002 implementation year (the relevant fiscal/marketing
year);  as regards 2003, the implementation year is still underway for all donor Members.
(5) Argentina informed the WTO Secretariat on 30 July 2003 that it no longer was a food aid donor under the
Food Aid Convention.G/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 18
ATTACHMENT 3
G/AG/GEN/35:  Communication from the Executive Director of the International Grains
Council presented to the 25-26 March 1999 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture
In my letter of 3 December 1997, I informed you that members of the Food Aid Committee
had decided to open the Food Aid Convention, 1995 for re-negotiation, thus following up on the
Recommendations that WTO Ministers adopted at their Singapore Conference in respect of Least-
Developed and Net Food-Impor ting Developing Countries.
These negotiations were completed on 24 March.  Under cover, I have pleasure in conveying
to you the text of a new Food Aid Convention 1999 (FAC) which, subject to the necessary actions by
member Governments, will come into effect on 1 July 1999.
The objectives of the FAC 1999 are "to contribute to world food security and to improve the
ability of the international community to respond to emergency food situations and other food needs
of developing countries".
Under the new Convention, the list of eligible products which may be supplied has been
broadened significantly beyond cereals.  There are also stronger provisions to cover transportation and
other operational costs associated with food aid transactions, especially when food aid is directed toleast-developed countries and in emergencies.
FAC donors may now express their commitments in to nnage, or in value, or in a combination
of tonnage and value.  Accordingly, the mini mum annual tonnage and value commitments of FAC
members amount in total to 4,895,000 tonnes (wheat equivalent) and  €130 million, respectively.
When allocating their food aid, FAC members will give priority to Least-Developed
Countries and Low-Income Countries – many of which are on the WTO list of Net Food-Importing
Developing Countries (NFIDCs).  Eligible food aid recipients will include Lower Middle-Income
Countries and all other countries on the present WTO list of NFIDCs, when experiencing foodemergencies or internationally recognized financial crises leading to food shortage emergencies, or
when food aid operations are targeted on vulnerable groups.
The new FAC contains stronger provisions to promote local agricultural development in
recipient countries.  This includes possible "triangular transactions" i.e. donor countries using theircash contributions to purchase food in developing countries for supply to a recipient country, and
"local purchases", i.e. food being purchased by donors in one part of a developing country for supply
to a deficit area in that country.
All FAC food aid to least-developed country recipients covered by members' commitments
will be in the form of grants.  Overall, food aid pr ovided in the form of grants under this Convention
will represent not less than 80 per cent of a member's contributions and, to the extent possible,
members will seek progressively to exceed this percentage.
In determining whether, and the extent to which, food aid provision on long-term
concessional credit terms should continue to be covered under any Food Aid Convention, FAC
members will take account of the results of relevant multilateral negotiations bearing on food aid.
All FAC members agreed that the provisions of the new Convention should neither prejudice
nor constrain future negotiations, including those in the framework of the WTO, on the status of food
aid provisions on concessional credit terms.  The EU and some other members re-affirmed their
opinion that food aid provided under credit terms shoul d no longer be included in the list of food aid
operations.G/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 19
The new FAC will seek to improve the effectiveness and the impact of food aid transactions,
inter alia , in terms of the assessment of food aid needs, the monitoring of the aid provided, and co-
operation between food aid donors, recipients and others concerned.  In addition, the provision of
food aid under the FAC will not be tied in any wa y to commercial exports of goods or services to
recipient countries.
During the negotiations, a dialogue was maintained with food aid recipient countries.  Efforts
to broaden the list of FAC donors were also made and will continue.  I am also pleased to note that
close co-operation with the WTO was maintained throughout, regular progress reports being made to
the Committee on Agriculture.
FAC members have emphasized that the new Food Aid Convention is evidence of their desire
to maintain international cooperation in support of world food security and to follow up on the WTOSingapore Ministerial recommendations.  Whether their specific FAC commitments are expressed in
volume or in value, they are all about meeting th e food aid needs of developing countries adequately,
irrespective of fluctuations in world food prices and supplies.G/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 20
ATTACHMENT 4
Food aid deliveries of cereals and non-cereals, 1993-2002 ('000 tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent)
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 LDC NFIDC MEM
TOTAL 17,338.2 12,925.7 10,202.7 7,228.3 7,327.7 8,404.8 15,045.1 11,335.2 10,849.5 9,605.5
Least Developed Countries 4,639.5 5,505.4 4,119.6 3,342.5 3,523.7 3,694.1 4,599.7 4,501.3 4,564.7 3,649.2
Low-Income, Food-Deficit Countries 9,112.4 9,728.7 8,171.5 5,905.6 6,351.8 7,275.1 9,292.1 8,575.8 9,000.8 7,986.3
 
Sub-Saharan Africa 4,883.5 4,513.8 3,298.6 2,570.1 2,429.0 2,776.7 2,790.3 3,991.5 3,595.8 2,985.9
 
Angola 173.5 344.0 219.7 250.6 181.4 202.5 147.6 287.8 193.8 243.6 # M
Benin 33.7 14.9 20.6 10.2 21.8 25.5 11.3 12.4 15.9 26.5 #M
Botswana 13.4 9.1 10.3 3.7 0.4 NM
Burkina Faso 36.4 49.1 41.5 26.9 45.7 27.8 62.2 33.2 42.8 44.0 #M
Burundi 7.6 80.2 103.2 7.8 3.0 0.7 6.8 11.3 66.4 36.9 #M
Cameroon 1.7 2.7 7.3 24.1 1.4 10.2 6.5 4.2 8.8 2.9 M
Cape Verde 27.8 73.4 73.4 44.5 65.3 59.9 57.0 53.2 35.5 41.3 #
Central African Republic 4.3 5.1 1.5 2.1 1.4 11.5 1.3 3.2 1.0 6.7 #M
Chad 4.7 22.2 21.2 19.7 49.5 18.2 13.4 23.4 36.4 13.1 #M
Comoros 4.4 6.7 5.8 0.6 1.0 8.9 0.2 #
Congo 2.0 16.7 12.6 18.0 0.3 14.1 12.3 17.7 41.4 18.3 M
Côte d'Ivoire 52.7 56.3 23.9 54.8 11.4 26.3 37.4 16.9 6.2 14.8 NM
Congo, Dem. Rep. of the 23.0 82.3 109.5 32.5 29.5 9.6 24.7 73.5 47.0 90.4 #M
Djibouti 26.3 12.6 20.2 10.8 13.8 11.0 10.7 12.0 11.1 21.4 #M
Equatorial Guinea 5.5 3.3 3.9 0.6 0.7 1.9 1.7 1.9 #
Eritrea 117.1 331.9 104.3 40.4 53.5 110.1 35.0 256.9 319.1 177.4 #
Ethiopia 533.6 948.6 635.7 457.0 434.2 593.8 876.6 1,527.1 1,168.5 403.1 #
Gabon 0.1 1.1 MG/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 21RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 LDC NFIDC MEM
Gambia 8.5 9.7 3.8 4.3 9.2 7.7 6.5 8.4 3.4 4.3 #M
Ghana 123.6 90.8 96.9 33.7 86.5 58.4 25.8 101.2 57.5 82.9 M
Guinea 42.8 40.2 7.5 12.9 9.8 1.7 35.0 5.2 42.9 48.7 #M
Guinea Bissau 10.8 4.5 3.2 7.8 5.9 3.6 17.1 27.1 6.3 7.2 #M
Kenya 353.1 230.1 79.6 31.8 117.0 142.3 71.7 301.3 387.1 185.8 NM
Lesotho 54.2 34.5 33.7 40.2 8.9 15.5 6.1 6.3 3.4 57.7 #M
Liberia 176.3 179.3 161.0 169.3 117.5 85.6 99.2 115.9 22.2 38.5 #
Madagascar 37.4 26.2 38.2 22.1 36.5 30.4 26.6 37.2 62.4 54.0 #M
Malawi 541.0 166.9 235.9 122.9 45.4 64.8 73.3 36.3 38.4 194.4 #M
Mali 27.8 27.1 20.0 19.1 23.0 23.9 14.1 12.3 20.8 4.3 #M
Mauritania 82.5 25.6 44.9 17.3 44.0 18.6 30.7 16.6 38.2 60.5 #M
Mauritius 2.2 0.8 1.0 NM
Mozambique 457.9 400.2 385.7 151.3 172.8 188.8 155.7 180.9 157.3 175.3 #M
Namibia 24.6 0.6 2.7 10.4 0.4 2.0 2.0 4.5 22.9 NM
Niger 26.4 46.9 24.6 32.4 62.0 53.7 37.9 20.4 62.7 37.0 #M
Nigeria 1.1 1.1 2.2 12.5 M
Rwanda 157.0 273.2 274.2 507.6 420.3 303.8 275.2 232.4 65.6 74.6 #M
Sao Tome and Principe 7.1 8.0 7.9 4.9 4.0 3.7 1.2 4.8 4.9 5.6 #
Senegal 52.2 25.7 21.3 8.6 13.0 12.0 31.8 53.9 30.3 8.3 #N M
Seychelles 0.1
Sierra Leone 28.7 33.6 33.5 55.0 88.5 79.6 31.5 28.3 62.7 89.0 #M
Somalia 211.3 149.0 52.9 31.7 5.0 68.5 40.2 60.8 8.7 34.1 #
South Africa 0.1 14.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 18.0 8.8 3.0 0.1 15.1 M
Sudan 350.2 439.0 82.4 108.3 114.4 201.0 293.5 182.4 202.8 144.5 #
Swaziland 31.8 11.3 6.6 9.5 5.0 5.0 14.8 M
Tanzania 39.8 85.0 144.5 29.8 42.3 81.2 32.3 62.9 184.5 92.9 #M
Togo 9.3 9.3 5.9 5.1 3.0 9.9 4.0 4.0 6.0 #M
Uganda 68.7 81.8 76.9 42.6 72.6 87.7 99.3 87.0 80.0 91.2 #MG/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 22
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 LDC NFIDC MEM
Zambia 355.7 19.7 26.1 73.8 11.4 22.4 34.5 49.5 45.3 68.1 #M
Zimbabwe 534.7 22.4 13.0 12.2 0.1 56.7 28.3 14.8 0.0 221.3 M
 
Asia 2,187.9 2,517.0 2,384.1 2,012.3 2,815.2 3,398.8 5,096.8 3,173.1 4,078.7 3,720.9
 
Afghanistan 134.3 92.6 133.2 121.0 233.1 73.2 134.3 210.0 276.8 527.3 #
Bangladesh 395.6 1,095.4 585.7 578.0 708.7 877.5 1,443.0 268.9 813.4 263.1 #M
Bhutan 4.1 3.2 6.4 4.8 5.2 4.1 4.3 3.6 4.7 7.7 #
Cambodia 99.3 67.7 91.5 48.5 44.6 36.9 28.7 61.8 50.4 69.3 #M
China 180.1 147.1 127.8 133.6 132.2 89.2 355.1 90.5 42.0 109.2 M
East Timor 9.1 32.7 3.2
Hong Kong M
India 390.4 360.0 398.3 357.8 300.3 310.8 359.1 321.2 229.1 306.9 M
Indonesia 42.5 36.9 18.6 0.0 0.0 885.8 822.6 429.1 287.0 267.7 M
Korea, D.P.R. 544.5 510.1 914.6 812.4 1,026.8 1,263.6 1,525.6 1,205.4
Lao, People's Dem. Rep. of 3.0 14.3 26.9 16.9 54.9 19.1 17.3 4.7 18.7 23.8 #
Malaysia 0.3 M
Maldives 2.2 1.4 2.6 3.5 2.7 3.0 4.9 2.7 8.0 #M
Mongolia 38.8 6.0 11.7 8.5 22.3 21.3 39.0 45.8 60.0 27.3 M
Myanmar 1.8 4.0 3.6 5.3 2.9 6.9 9.7 3.8 8.0 #M
Nepal 42.4 31.1 38.5 35.4 31.9 37.6 55.2 53.1 46.5 46.6 #M
Pakistan 210.8 140.2 118.8 53.6 185.0 59.6 444.7 19.6 275.0 435.3 NM
Papua New Guinea 0.3 0.2 0.0 4.3 8.0 M
Philippines 136.8 129.4 55.0 34.0 12.8 73.7 140.4 218.4 196.0 272.7 M
Solomon Islands 0.3 #M
Sri Lanka 412.3 306.5 148.2 72.8 91.2 31.6 119.8 55.5 125.5 87.2 NM
Thailand 33.6 8.1 2.4 0.1 1.1 8.3 2.3 1.0 0.1 1.5 MG/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 23RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 LDC NFIDC MEM
Vanuatu #
Viet Nam 61.6 74.9 69.8 30.0 69.3 47.5 75.0 81.5 113.0 61.8
 
Eastern Europe & CIS 7,204.9 3,705.2 2,955.2 1,311.7 1,062.8 866.9 5,453.8 2,272.1 1,307.1 970.6
 
Albania 657.8 40.3 10.5 22.9 17.3 29.4 17.3 18.2 13.1 57.7 M
Armenia 87.7 357.1 475.7 168.8 144.8 117.8 18.9 95.5 37.2 47.3 M
Azerbaijan 9.4 229.2 391.2 115.7 28.7 69.8 34.5 28.1 21.4 33.0
Belarus 336.6 138.6 98.3 39.1 0.0
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.1 22.7 8.4 79.1 89.7 90.8 84.3 82.7 96.2
Bulgaria 110.2 49.3 0.0 14.7 10.7 5.0 0.6 15.0 12.3 M
Croatia 11.9 13.7 28.8 30.2 1.4 M
Estonia 55.0 M
Georgia 353.4 856.8 598.1 265.8 173.4 121.3 106.5 70.7 96.5 72.2 M
Kazakhstan 60.8 2.4 1.0 0.7 5.0 7.0 0.1
Kyrgyzstan 118.1 91.6 150.4 67.7 88.2 38.4 81.9 60.0 33.0 73.1 M
Latvia 207.1 M
Lithuania 446.2 64.0 40.3 36.0 30.0 M
Macedonia, F.Y.R. 46.0 98.3 62.8 13.2 0.3 M
Moldova 58.6 111.9 244.3 48.4 7.2 59.4 27.5 13.8 49.7 22.5 M
Poland 216.0 0.0 M
Romania 225.6 3.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 4.8 M
Russian Federation 3,407.0 913.9 124.8 79.4 54.5 16.9 4,539.4 1,403.0 245.1 91.1
Serbia and Montenegro 373.0 536.4 383.7 232.0 231.3 117.7 357.4 300.1 327.3 46.8
Slovenia 3.0 M
Tajikistan 83.5 99.2 226.1 121.8 134.9 117.1 68.4 60.2 251.5 208.7
Turkmenistan 45.7 51.0 53.3 39.7 8.1 6.5 17.2G/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 24
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 LDC NFIDC MEM
Ukraine 352.9 96.0 120.0 36.3 53.3 39.9 0.0 0.0 5.5
Uzbekistan 0.2 1.8 1.0 0.4 68.4 104.4 199.2
 
Middle East & North Africa 960.4 869.5 625.3 567.5 372.6 370.0 489.6 1,070.3 875.0 746.3
 
Algeria 26.2 26.3 27.2 27.1 42.0 15.8 36.6 32.8 38.5 61.1
Egypt 220.8 295.2 208.9 154.9 74.4 66.5 61.2 40.8 37.7 12.7 NM
Iran 38.5 26.0 13.2 4.9 19.7 12.9 7.8 3.2 15.7 8.0
Iraq 93.5 73.3 101.9 113.8 90.9 47.8 23.1 18.4 8.5 10.9
Israel 1.0 2.0 M
Jordan 174.6 166.2 122.2 167.5 27.4 119.5 108.7 400.7 227.4 218.2 N M
Lebanon 10.8 10.0 11.5 7.5 1.7 1.1 1.0 42.4 96.0 115.4
Morocco 158.6 104.0 2.0 0.1 15.9 0.2 10.5 240.9 62.0 6.8 N M
Palestinian Territory 25.8 49.3 48.3 11.7 15.0 40.7 43.1 56.5 184.5 177.2
Syrian Arab Republic 28.3 40.3 45.0 14.6 21.0 26.5 30.0 35.4 17.4 11.8
Tunisia 79.0 30.8 26.6 23.3 12.4 3.1 3.8 N M
Turkey 3.0 1.8 0.6 1.0 0.0 M
Yemen 96.1 44.0 17.9 41.0 52.3 35.8 167.7 195.3 187.4 124.0 #
Yemen, P.D.R. 4.2 0.3
 
Latin America & the Caribbean 2,101.6 1,320.1 939.5 766.8 648.1 992.4 1,214.6 828.2 992.8 1,181.9
 
Antigua 3.1 M
Belize 0.0 0.1 0.4 M
Bolivia 417.6 170.9 85.6 157.1 96.8 217.0 75.2 80.0 48.5 102.7 M
Brazil 38.1 35.3 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 M
Chile 6.0 2.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 M
Colombia 3.5 27.7 15.3 8.6 1.6 7.0 13.1 12.0 35.2 9.5 MG/AG/W/42/Rev.6
Page 25RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 LDC NFIDC MEM
Costa Rica 92.7 6.0 2.7 1.1 M
Cuba 23.6 7.0 6.1 12.7 27.5 19.2 59.2 23.9 29.0 8.4 N M
Dominica 0.1 0.1 7.0 2.7 NM
Dominican Republic 11.0 13.8 6.4 8.2 3.5 7.6 120.0 1.6 77.8 13.0 N M
Ecuador 11.9 27.0 19.4 1.8 12.1 20.4 41.3 42.1 153.4 95.8 M
El Salvador 169.9 23.7 25.0 26.8 24.3 20.4 69.6 2.8 60.4 100.8 M
French Guayana 0.5
Grenada 0.1 4.5 M
Guatemala 130.3 176.4 70.4 36.1 53.8 72.0 116.4 136.9 102.5 248.5 M
Guyana 44.6 34.0 33.0 42.3 33.5 61.2 37.3 26.3 38.8 62.7 M
Haiti 119.0 94.5 168.1 118.9 174.6 158.3 144.7 163.6 67.1 184.7 # M
Honduras 123.7 115.4 53.2 33.7 28.5 31.6 179.2 68.2 72.3 54.2 N M
Jamaica 239.8 70.1 56.4 58.4 17.3 13.2 46.5 20.5 N M
Mexico 93.5 31.7 46.0 0.9 2.8 1.6 0.9 0.6 M
Nicaragua 94.4 62.3 63.0 45.1 33.5 89.1 226.7 62.1 83.6 64.0 M
Panama 3.4 0.2 2.2 1.3 0.9 1.5 M
Paraguay 2.9 0.3 1.4 1.0 0.3 0.0 M
Peru 453.6 391.2 254.1 171.4 139.6 265.2 115.5 148.7 202.2 236.9 NM
St. Lucia 3.0 6.0 NM
St. Kitts and Nevis 3.7 0.0 N M
St. Vincent 8.6 NM
Suriname 22.0 29.8 20.0 12.0 21.8 M
Uruguay 0.2 0.1 M
Venezuela 11.5 NM
Notes: LDC: Least-developed country (#).
NFIDC: Net food-importing developing country, as listed in G/AG/5/Rev.6 dated 10 April 2003 (N).
MEM: WTO Member (M).
Source: Food Aid Monitor:  2002 Food Aid Flows, May 2003 at:  http://www.wfp.org/interfais/.
__________