RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/W/42/Rev.4
27 November 2001
(01-6047)
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
Revision
1. The present note further updates the information in the Secretariat note G/AG/W/42/Rev.3 on
implementation of the Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform
Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Impor ting Developing Countri es (NFIDC Decision).
2. Following 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 and provides informationregarding their implementation (Part II).  A list of related Committee on Agriculture documents is
contained in Attachment 1.  Further deta ils are presented in Attachments 2 to 8.
I. MONITORING OF THE FOLLOW-UP TO THE NFIDC DECISION
3. 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.
4. 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 Agricultureand under paragraph 18 of the Working Procedures of the Committee on Agriculture is undertaken on
the basis, inter alia , of these Table NF:1 notifications.
5. Attachment 2 summarizes compliance with NF :1 notification requirements in the 1995 to
2000 implementation years.  For the purposes of Attachment 2, "compliance" refers to any NF:1
notification received by the eight Members (counting the EC as one) that are donors under the FoodAid Convention and three other Members that have  identified themselves as donors in their
notifications (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
20 November 2001.
6. In 1996, the Committee established a WTO list of net food-importing developing countries.
1
This list currently contains 21 developing country Members plus the 49 least-developed countries as
                                                     
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/4, paragraph 17).G/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 2
defined by the United Nations.2  In the same year, the Singapore Ministerial Conference adopted the
Committee's specific recommendations regard ing the NFIDC Decision (G/L/125 refers).
7. At its meeting on 15 December 2000, the General Council instructed the Committee on
Agriculture to examine possible means of improvin g the effectiveness of the implementation of the
NFIDC Decision (WT/L/ 384).  In the course of the Committee's consultations on this implementation-
related issue, seventeen WTO net food-importing devel oping countries comprising Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba,
Dominican Republic, Egypt, Honduras, Jamaica, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco, Pakistan, Peru,
Senegal, Sri Lanka, St. Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia and Venezuela submitted jointly a
"Proposal to Implement the Marrakesh Minister ial Decision in favour of LDCs and NFIDCs"
(G/AG/W/49 and Add.1 and Corr.1).  Progress re ports by the Committee on Agriculture on its
consultations are contained in doc uments G/AG/7 and G/AG/10.   At the Doha Ministerial Conference,
Ministers adopted the recommendations by the Committee on Agriculture contained in the report
G/AG/11 (WT/MIN(01)17, paragraph 2.2 refers).
II. PROVISIONS OF THE NFIDC DECISION AND IMPLEMENTATION
8. 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 trade expansionand 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).
9. 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 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
10. 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 notadversely affect the availability of food aid at a level which is sufficient to continue to
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 WTO net food-importing developing countries:  Barbados, Botswana, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba,
Dominican Republic, Egypt, Honduras, Jamaica, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco, Pakistan, Peru, Saint Kitts andNevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia andVenezuela (G/AG/5/Rev.4, dated 3 April 2001, refers).G/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 3
(i) Review of Food Aid Levels and Initiation of Food Aid Negotiations
11. 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 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 NFIDC Decision).
Review of food aid levels
12. The international food aid commitments under the Food Aid Convention are specified in
terms of minimum annual contributions by its members (Table 1).  The aggregate annual
commitments decreased from a total of 7.517 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 (seeAttachment 3).
13.  Table 1 summarizes the annual food aid shipments by FAC members in respect of their
commitments under the 1986 and 1995 Food Aid Conventions since 1992/93.   Although food aid
shipments of grain decreased from 10.4 million tonn es in 1992/93 to 6.1 million tonnes in 1997/98,
shipments exceeded, except in 1994/95, FAC me mbers' combined minimum annual commitments in
this period.   Food aid shipments in 2000/01, th e second year under the Food Aid Convention 1999
are estimated to be close to 10 million tonnes (wheat equivalent) compared with 8 million tonnes in
1999/2000, exceeding significantly the FAC members’ combined commitments under the new
Convention.   The food aid was almost entirely in th e form of donations to least-developed and other
low-income developing countries.  Most of the food aid was in the form of cereals and cerealproducts.  In addition, other products were provided, including oilseeds and oilmeals, pulses, sugar,
skimmed milk, and various blended products, to meet the specific needs of recipient countries.
14. 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.
15. 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.   Another peak was reached in 1999 when food
aid totalled 15.1  million tonnes (Table 2).   This was mainly due to a sharp increase of deliveries to
"other countries" although deliveries to least-developed and net food-importing developing countries
also increased.  It should be noted that food deliveries as monitored by the World Food Programme
include deliveries by the FAC members, othe r countries, and non-governmental organizations.G/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 4Table 1 - Food Aid Convention - Annual Shipmen ts Of Grain - 1992/93-1998/ 99*  (July/June years)
metric tons: 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
(prov.)MINIMUM
ANNUAL
CONTRIBUTION
(1999 Conv.)
a) a)
ARGENTINA 35,000 f) - - 35,000 13,400 - - 10,135 m) 35,000
AUSTRALIA 300,000 309,561 307,874 334,090 300,000 l) 298,146 305,127 293,221 273,064 250,000
AUSTRIA 20,000 18,000 7,100 39,400            d)      d)            d)           d)      d)
CANADA 600,000 762,766 c) 659,103 632,881 400,000 448,764 468,431 417,917 487,095 420,000
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) 1,973,357 1,320,000
and  €130 million
o)
FINLAND 25,000 25,000 19,610 g
h208 h)            d)      d)            d)          d)      d)
JAPAN b) 300,000 390,912 341,293 388,438 300,000 474,870 326,835 302,626 561,643 300,000
NORWAY b) i) 30,000 33,646 47,941 33,584 20,000 6,233 32,816 R 19,306 61,293 30,000
SWEDEN 40,000 62,560 b) 48,736 b
)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) 40,000
USA 4,470,000 6,119,687 4,688,779 3,526,994 2,500,000 2,849,384 2,553,283 R 2,818,500 4,734,121 2,500,000
TOTAL   e) 7,517,000 10,388,033 8,714,178 7,113,428 5,350,000 n) 6,580,267 5,774,719 R 6,110,647 8,139,647 4,895,000
and  €130 million
ContinuedG/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 5Table 1 - continued
Notes:
* Unless otherwise specified, all shipments were in respect of the Food Aid Convention, 1986 and the Food Aid Convention, 1995.
These figures refer to actual shipments completed during the years shown and do not necessarily represent the performance of me mbers in relation to their
minimum obligations.
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 and detailed in Annex 2.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 repor ted 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 tons of wheat, to be 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 200
Bolivia 15,000 Mali 2,000 Tadjikistan 4,000Cape Verde Islands 7,000 Mozambique 5,400 Yemen 5,000Georgia 7,000 Nicaragua 600Haiti 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 respect of its obligations for the previous year.
l) Australia's minimum contribution was reduced to 250,000 tons 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 tons (taking into account th e revised minimum contribution f or Australia).
o) Includes transport and other operational costs.
R Revised
Source:  Food Aid Committee / International Grains Council.G/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 6
Table 2: Food aid deliveries to least-developed and net food-importing developing
countries, 1991-2000  (million tonnes)
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Least-developed
countries4.8 6.3 4.6 5.4 4.0 3.3 3.5 3.6 4.6 4.2
Net food-importing
developing countries3.9 2.9 2.4 1.8 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.3 1.1
Other countries 4.0 6.1 10.4 5.7 5.2 3.2 3.2 4.2 9.3 5.7
Global total 12.7 15.3 17.3 12.9 10.2 7.2 7.4 8.4 15.1 11.0
Notes: Includes cereals in grain equivalent and non-cereals in product weight (see also Table 5).
Net food-importing developing countries refers to Members listed in G/AG/5/Rev.4, dated 3 April 2001.
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 2000 Food Aid Flows, May 2001 at http://www.wfp.org/interfais/.
16. 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 1991-2000.   In 2000,
aggregate deliveries to these countries were 31 per cent lower than average deliveries in the period1991-2000 (Table 3).  In some countries, in particular Egypt and Tunisia, food aid deliveries declined
even more sharply during the past decade.  Deliveries to the least-developed countries in 2000 were
slightly lower than their ten-year average (1991-2000), while global deliveries were 7 per cent below
the long-run average.  In Attachment 4, data are provided of food aid deliveries to all recipient
countries during 1991-2000, while Attachment 5 gives a break-down of deliveries as betweenMembers and non-Members.
3
Table 3: Food aid deliveries to least-developed and net food-importing developing
countries in 2000 compared to long-term average (million tonnes)
1991-2000 average 20002000 in per cent of
1991-2000 average
Least-developed countries 4.4 4.2 95
Net food-importing developingcountries1.6 1.1 69
Other countries 5.7 5.7 100
Global total 11.8 11.0 93
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.4, dated 3 April 2001.
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 2000 Food Aid Flows, May 2001 at http://www.wfp.org/interfais/.
17. As Table 4 indicates, the share of global food aid deliveries (excluding Eastern Europe and
the CIS) that was provided in the form of emergency relief in response to man-made or natural
disasters has increased since 1991 while the share of programme food aid fell.
                                                     
3Further detailed information on food aid deliveries provided to least-developed and net food-importing
developing countries is contained in the NF:1 notifications of Argentina, Australia, Canada, EC, Japan, Norway,Switzerland and the United States.G/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 7
Table 4: Composition of global food aid deliv eries, excluding Eastern Europe and the CIS
(per cent)
1991 1994 1997 2000
Emergency relief food aid 28 40 42 53
P r o j e c t  f o o d  a i d 2 33 13 62 5
Programme food aid 49 29 22 22
Total         100         100         100         100
Notes: All figures include cereal (in grain equivalent) and non-cereal food aid (in product weight).
Emergency 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 the recipient country.
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 2000 Food Aid Flows, May 2001 at http://www.wfp.org/interfais/.
18. In Tables 1 to 3, as well as in Attachments 4 and 5, the food aid deliveries represent aggregate
quantities which include both cereals, in grain equivalent, and non-cereals in product weight.  Table 4
shows the composition of global food aid deliverie s (excluding Eastern Europe and the CIS) since
1991.
Table 5: Commodity composition of global food aid deliveries,
excluding Eastern Europe and the CIS (thousand tonnes)
1991 1994 1997 2000
Cereals 10,781 8,206 5,596 7,875
Wheat and wheat flour 7,179 5,006 2,929 4,613
Rice 940 711 710 1,284
Coarse grains 2,336 2,005 1,510 1,492
Blended / fortified 326 484 446 486
Non-cereals 938 1,014 755 994
Dairy products 136 45 14 27
Meat and fish 40 26 19 7
Oils and fats 328 367 266 387
Pulses 366 484 361 498
Other non-cereals 69 92 95 75
Cereals (per cent) 92 89 88 89
Non-cereals (per cent) 81 11 21 1
Note: Cereals in grain equivalent, non-cereals in product weight.
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 2000 Food Aid Flows, May 2001 at http://www.wfp.org/interfais/.
Initiation of food aid negotiations
19. In anticipation of the expiry of the Food Aid Convention, 1995 ("FAC") the Singapore
Ministerial Conference agreed that, in preparati on for the re-negotiation of the Food Aid Convention,
action be initiated in 1997 within the framework of the Convention, under arrangements forparticipation 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 is possible, which is sufficient to meet the legitimate needs of developing
countries during the reform programme (G/L/125, paragraph 18(i) refers).G/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 8
20. 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 toextend 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 on
1 July 1999 and  requested the Working Group which was undertaking the re-negotiation of the FACto 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).
21. 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 three
years.  Its members, including provisional members, are 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).
22. 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 andLow-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 Executive
Director of the outcome of the negotiations on the new Food Aid Convention.
23. At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Ministers agreed "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 contributions  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)
(ii) Concessionality of Food Aid
24. 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).
25.  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 percent of FAC members' contributions and donors wi ll seek to progressively exceed this share.
26. At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Ministers decided 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:  (i) that to the maximum extent possible
their levels of food aid to developing countries are maintained during periods in which trends in world
market prices of basic foodstuffs have been increasing;  and (ii) that all food aid to least developedG/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 9
countries is provided in fully grant form and, to the maximum extent possible, to WTO net food-
importing developing countries as well". (G/AG/11, Part B paragraph 3 I(b) refers)
27. 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 the case of
the United States, in the first four 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
Argentina 100 % grant terms
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
USA 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 %
the remainder is provided in accordance with Food Aid
Convention guidelines
Other donors
Cuba 100 % grant terms
New Zealand 100 % grants of cash
South Africa not applicable (no food aid provided)
(iii) Technical and Financial Assistance
28. 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).
29. 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 theiragricultural productivity and infrastructure. 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.
30. Furthermore, Ministers decided "that, in support of the priority accorded by least-developed
and net food-importing developing countries to the development of their agricultural productivity andG/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 10
infrastructure, the WTO General Council call upon relevant international development organisations,
including the World Bank, the FAO, IFAD, the UNDP 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 as under such facilities and programmes asmay be introduced". (G/AG/11, Part B paragraph 3 II(b) refers)
31. The Secretariat has no information whether least-developed and net food-importing
developing countries made requests pursuant to paragraph 3(iii) of the NFIDC Decision.  However,
Attachment 6 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 exclusiv ely targeted to agriculture and to least-developed
and net food-importing developing countries.  In addition, in their contributions to the Committee's
annual monitoring exercise of the NFIDC Decision se veral of the international observer organizations
have provided information on their respective activities in the area of technical assistance.
4
Differential treatment within the framework of an agreement on agricultural export credits
32. In light of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the NFID C 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 NFIDC Decision).
33. Negotiations on a proposed Sector Understanding  on Export Credits for Agricultural Products
amongst WTO Members which are participants to the OECD Export Credit Arrangement have been
ongoing for a number of years.  Members involved in these negotiations have informed the
Committee that this work has reached an advanced stage, in the form of a proposed text which is
acceptable to most but not all of the participants concerned, and which makes provision for
differential treatment in favour of least-developed and net food-importing developing countries.
34. At the same time work within the WTO on the question of agricultural export credits has been
progressing in both the regular meetings of the Committee on Agriculture and in the Special Session
Negotiations under Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture 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.   At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Ministersreaffirmed the commitment in paragraph 32 above and adopted a general understanding regarding
procedures for the development of disciplines pursuant to Article 10.2 and the related provisions of
the NFIDC Decision. (G/AG/ 11, Part A paragraph 4)
Access to the resources of the international financial institutions
35. 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
                                                     
4 See G/AG/GEN/46, pages 32-36, for a recent listing by the World Bank of its agricultural projects in
LDCs and net-food-importing developing countries.G/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 11
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).
36. At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Ministers agreed "that an inter-agency panel of financial
and commodity experts be established, with the requested participation of the World Bank, the IMF,
the FAO, the International Grains Council and the UNCTAD, to explore ways and means for
improving access by least-developed and WTO net food-importing developing countries to
multilateral programs and facilities to assist with short term difficulties in financing normal levels of
commercial imports of basic foodstuffs, as well as the concept and feasibility of the proposal for theestablishment of a revolving fund (G/AG/W/49, Add.1 and Corr.1)".   The panel is to submit its
recommendations to the General Council by the end of June 2002.
(i) Ability to finance commercial imports
37. 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 monitoring
exercise of the NFIDC Decision, several of the in ternational observer organizations have commented
on the development of international food prices.
5
38. Chart 1 below shows the trend of the IMF price index for non-fuel primary commodities
which covers food, beverages, agricultural raw materials, as well as metals and fertilizers.6  T h e
broken line in Chart 1 which tracks the price development in real terms indicates that non-fuel
primary commodity prices have declined further since last year and have reached the lowest level
since 1986/87.  Attachment 7 provides IMF data with respect to the movement of various commodity
price indices since 1991, including for food (column 4 of Attachment 7).  It may be noted that in
1999-2001 food prices (in US dollars) were lower than at any other time in the past decade.
Attachment 8 provides price data compiled by the World Bank for a range of agricultural
commodities.
39. Chart 2 below shows world market prices for wheat since 1987, as measured by the wheat
price index (in nominal terms) of the International Grains Council.  From its peak in 1996, the wheatprice index has dropped by approximately 50 per cent and in 2000 international wheat prices reached
their lowest level since 1990 – the year of the highest world crop ever except for 1996/97.
                                                     
5See 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 and G/AG/GEN/46, page 7;
International Grains Council in G/AG/R/4, page 6; UNCTAD in G/AG/GEN/31, page 12; World Bank inG/AG/GEN/15, page 3 and G/AG/W/12, page 4-6 and G/AG/GEN/46, pages 18-28; see also the points raised byMembers in G/AG/R/3, page 6.
6In this index, metals and fertilizers carry a weight of 26.7 per cent and 1.3 per cent, respectively.G/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 12CHART 1
INDICES OF NON-FUEL PRIMARY COMMODITY PRICES, 1982 –2001
(1990 = 100) 1/
7080901001101201301401501601701801902001982
1983
19841985
1986
1987198819891990
1991
1992
199319941995
1996
19971998
1999
200020017090110130150170190
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 (www.imf.org/external/np/res/commod/index.htm).G/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 13CHART 2 – THE INTERNATIONAL GRAINS COUNCIL WH EAT PRICE INDEX, JANUARY 1987 – OCTOBER 2001
050010001500200025003000
87
IGC 10/01* Average wheat prices of seven widely traded varieties of bread wheat: July/Dec 1986=100001 89 91 93 95 97 99G/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 14
40.  The FAO has been monitoring the food security situation in both the least-developed and net
food-importing developing countries and  has regularly presented its findings to the Committee on
Agriculture (see for example, G/ AG/GEN/15).  In its latest update of November 2000, the FAO
concluded that "overall, while the situation in the LDCs and NFIDCs, as reflected by recent levels of
cereal import bills, has improved somewhat compared to 3-4 years ago, the food security situation inmany of these countries remains precarious. " (G/ AG/GEN/46, page 3).  Acco rding to FAO data, the
aggregate cereal import bill (not including food aid) of the least-developed and net food-importing
developing countries has declined year after year since 1995/96, the year when cereal prices increased
sharply (see Chart 2).   By 1999/2000 total expenditures for cereal imports were equal to the average
of 1993/94 and 1994/95 while the volume of commercial imports was 20 per cent higher
(G/AG/GEN/46, page 5 refers).
(ii) Access to the facilities of the IMF and the World Bank
41. At a WTO roundtable held in June 2001, the IMF informed participants of the IMF's principal
facilities to assist net food-importing developing countries: (i) Stand-by arrangements, (ii) the
Extended Fund Facility, (iii) the Compensatory Financing Facility (CFF), and (iv) the Poverty
Reduction and Growth Facility (G/ AG/11, pages 27-28 refer).  The IMF representative stressed that
the IMF had sufficient financial resources to assist LDCs and net food-importing developing countries
but lending by the IMF had to be aimed at addressing balance-of payments problems.
42. 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 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, 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 foradditional 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 Roundadjustment facility" (G/AG/GEN/15, page 3).
43. Furthermore, at the Committee's November 1998 monitoring exercise in respect of the
NFIDC Decision, the World Bank provided an over view of the World Bank's lending programmes in
terms of agricultural development projects (see above), structural adjustment lending and emergency
lending (G/AG/GEN/31, pages 25-27 refer).G/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 15
Attachment 1
List of documents related to the implementation of the NFIDC Decision
G/L/125  (1996) Report by the Committee on Agriculture on the NFIDC Decision (COA
report adopted by the Singapore Ministerial Conference)
G/AG/11 (2001) Report by the Committee on Agriculture (regular meetings) on
implementation-related issues (COA report adopted by the DohaMinisterial Conference)
G/AG/3 (1995) Decision by the Committee 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/5/Rev.4 (2001) WTO list of net food-importing developing countries for the purposes of
the NFIDC Decision
G/AG/7 and 10 (2001) Examination of Possible Means of Improving the Effectiveness of the
Implementation of the NFIDC Decision, Reports by the Vice-Chairman,Minister Yoichi Suzuki, to the General Council
G/AG/W/49, Add.1, Corr.1 (2001)      Proposal to Implement the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision in favour of
LDCs and NFIDCs submitted by  Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Dominican
Republic, Egypt, Honduras, Jama ica, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco,
Pakistan, Peru, Senegal, Sri Lanka, St. Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago,Tunisia and Venezuela
G/AG/GEN/15 (1997) Annual monitoring exercise in respect of the follow-up to the NFIDC
Decision (statements by the international observer organizations)
G/AG/GEN/20 (1998) Communication from the Executive Director of the International Grains
Council presented to the 19-20 March 1998 meeting of the Committee onAgriculture
G/AG/GEN/31 (1998) Annual monitoring exercise in respect of the follow-up to the NFIDC
Decision (statements by the international observer organizations)
G/AG/GEN/35 (1999) Communication from the Executive Director of the International Grains
Council presented to the 25-26 March 1999 meeting of the Committee onAgriculture
G/AG/GEN/36 (1999) Statement by the Observer from the FAO presented to the 25-26 March
1999 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture
G/AG/GEN/40 (1999) Annual monitoring exercise in respect of the follow-up to the NFIDC
Decision (statements by the international observer organizations)
G/AG/GEN/46 (2000) Annual monitoring exercise in respect of the follow-up to the NFIDC
Decision (statements by the international observer organizations)
G/AG/W/12 & Add.1 (1995) NFIDC  Decision:  the Director-General's consultations with the IMF and
the World Bank
G/AG/W/20 (1996) Preparatory work programme in respect of paragraph 3(i) and (ii) of the
NFIDC Decision (note by the Secretariat)
G/AG/R- series Reports of COA meetingsG/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 16
Attachment 2
Compliance with notification requireme nts in respect of actions taken within
the framework of the NFIDC Decision, 1995-2000 (Table NF:1)
Member 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Notification circulated  in
G/AG/N-series
Food Aid Conventiondonor
A r g e n t i n a XXXXXX A R G / 1 0 ,  1 5
Australia X X X X X AUS/5, 13, 21, 25, 32/Rev.1
Canada X X X X X CAN/11, 18, 25, 34, 42
EC X X X X EEC/9, 21 and Add.1., 25
Japan X X X X X JPN/15, 27, 33, 46, 68
Norway X X X X X X NOR/6, 19 and Corr.1, 20 and
Corr.1, 26, 33, 34 & Corr.1
Switzerland X X X X CHE/23
United States X X X X USA/7, 20, 21, 31
Other donors
Cuba X X X X CUB/4, 5, 14
New Zealand X X X X X NZL/6, 13, 17, 25, 26
South Africa X X X X X X ZAF/7, 9, 17, 32, 39
"Nil" notifications
Brazil X X X X BRA/2, 7, 17
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 (%)100 100 100 100 63 n.a.
… number ofnotifications received byFAC & other donors (%) 100 100 100 100 64 n.a.
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 assistance was
provided or that Table NF:1 was not applicable.
"n.a." denotes not applicable since at least one Member  is still within the allowabl e delay for the submission of
Table NF:1 notifications in the 2000 implementation year (the relevant fiscal/marketing year);  as regards 2001,the implementation year is still underway for all donor Members.G/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 17
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 to
least-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 food
emergencies 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 their
cash 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.4
Page 18
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 WTO
Singapore 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.4
Page 19Attachment 4
Food aid deliveries of cereals and non-cereals, 1991-2000 ('000 tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent)
Country/Region 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 LDC NFI MEM
Sub-Sahara Africa 4,033.9 6,200.2 4,884.8 4,513.1 3,298.8 2,551.6 2,504.1 2,767.7 2,828.5 3,794.3  
Angola 135.6 113.7 173.5 344.0 219.7 250.6 181.4 202.8 134.1 277.7 #M
Benin 8.3 12.6 33.7 14.9 20.6 10.2 21.8 25.5 12.1 11.6 #M
Botswana 2.9 8.9 13.4 9.1 10.3 3.7 0.4 NM
Burkina Faso 91.2 58.8 36.4 49.1 41.5 26.9 39.9 27.7 58.5 38.0 #M
Burundi 6.1 2.5 7.6 79.0 103.2 7.8 3.0 0.7 6.8 11.3 #M
Cameroon 10.3 7.2 1.7 2.7 7.3 24.1 1.4 10.2 7.5 3.1 M
Cape Verde 64.2 59.2 27.8 73.4 73.4 44.5 65.3 59.9 57.8 52.7
C. African Rep. 3.9 5.2 4.3 5.1 1.5 2.1 1.4 11.5 1.3 3.3 #M
Chad 77.6 8.2 4.2 22.6 21.2 19.7 52.7 18.2 14.7 22.1 #M
Comoros 5.5 7.3 4.4 6.7 5.8 0.6 1.0 8.9 0.2 #
Congo 10.0 17.1 2.0 16.7 12.6 18.0 0.3 14.1 14.5 16.0 M
Congo, Dem. Rep. 99.2 35.8 23.0 82.3 109.5 32.5 29.5 11.1 19.0 69.7 #M
Côte d'Ivoire 40.0 39.9 52.7 56.3 23.9 54.8 11.4 26.3 37.4 16.9 NM
Djibouti 10.4 10.2 26.3 12.6 20.2 10.8 13.8 11.2 10.5 11.9 #M
Equatorial Guinea 3.6 3.7 5.5 3.3 3.9 0.6 0.7 1.9 1.7 #
Eritrea 42.6 117.1 331.9 104.3 40.4 53.5 110.1 35.0 246.1 #
Ethiopia 943.8 1,209.7 533.6 948.6 635.7 457.0 436.3 594.2 894.9 1,449.3 #
Gabon 0.1 1.1 M
Gambia 16.3 10.7 8.5 9.7 3.8 4.3 9.2 7.7 6.5 8.9 #M
Ghana 169.0 142.8 123.6 90.8 96.9 33.7 86.5 58.4 26.8 100.4 M
Guinea Bissau 15.9 7.5 10.8 4.5 3.2 7.8 5.9 3.6 12.3 11.2 #M
Guinea 28.7 29.5 42.8 40.2 7.5 12.9 9.8 1.7 35.0 5.2 #M
Kenya 73.9 274.3 353.1 230.1 79.6 31.8 117.0 142.7 72.5 295.1 NM
Lesotho 27.6 35.1 54.2 34.5 33.7 40.2 8.9 15.8 5.8 5.6 #M
Liberia 171.8 169.3 176.3 179.3 160.8 169.4 117.5 86.1 94.3 134.7 #
Madagascar 30.2 69.5 37.4 26.2 38.2 22.1 36.5 30.5 31.8 42.9 #M
Malawi 232.5 369.6 541.0 166.9 235.9 122.9 51.2 59.6 77.8 33.9 #M
Mali 47.0 38.5 27.8 27.1 20.0 19.1 22.3 27.8 21.3 7.8 #MG/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 20
Country/Region 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 LDC NFI MEM
Mauritania 90.0 29.9 82.5 25.6 44.9 17.3 44.0 13.8 31.4 16.6 #M
Mauritius 6.3 14.0 2.2 0.8 1.0 NM
Mozambique 542.7 1,046.9 457.9 400.2 385.7 151.3 175.5 201.4 135.8 144.9 #M
Namibia 9.5 20.4 24.6 0.6 2.7 10.4 0.4 2.0 2.1 M
Niger 91.9 46.2 26.4 46.9 24.6 32.4 62.0 45.7 53.1 13.8 #M
Nigeria 0.6 1.1 1.1 M
Rwanda 20.0 25.0 157.0 273.2 274.5 488.9 487.2 300.2 269.2 234.1 #M
Sao Tome / Principe 9.6 9.2 7.1 8.0 7.9 4.9 4.0 3.7 1.2 4.8
Senegal 42.2 80.9 52.2 25.7 21.3 8.6 13.0 6.5 32.9 39.5 NM
Seychelles 0.1 0.2 0.1
Sierra Leone 61.4 46.5 28.7 33.6 33.5 55.0 88.5 80.8 31.5 28.5 #M
Somalia 82.4 275.2 211.3 149.0 52.9 31.7 5.0 68.5 37.7 59.7 #
South Africa 9.2 4.8 0.1 14.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 18.0 8.8 3.0 M
Sudan 550.3 728.8 351.9 439.0 82.4 108.3 115.2 200.3 321.8 167.0 #
Swaziland 4.9 16.5 31.8 11.3 6.6 9.5 5.0 5.0 M
Tanzania 21.7 22.7 39.8 85.0 144.5 29.8 42.3 81.2 34.1 60.3 #M
Togo 20.1 14.4 9.3 9.3 5.9 5.1 3.0 9.9 4.0 4.0 #M
Uganda 65.4 48.4 68.7 81.8 76.9 42.6 72.6 85.3 104.8 79.5 #M
Zambia 63.3 467.5 355.7 19.7 26.1 73.8 11.4 22.4 38.3 47.3 #M
Zimbabwe 17.6 513.1 534.7 22.4 13.0 12.2 0.1 56.7 28.3 10.1 M
North Africa and
Middle East 
Algeria 43.7 18.0 26.2 26.3 27.2 27.1 42.0 15.8 36.2 16.9
Egypt 1,823.6 616.6 220.8 295.2 208.9 154.9 74.4 66.5 61.2 40.8 NM
Gaza/West Bank 67.7 19.6 25.8 49.3 48.3 11.7 15.0 26.2 27.6 28.0
Iran 117.3 82.0 38.5 26.0 13.2 4.9 19.7 12.9 7.8 3.2
Iraq 46.5 99.8 93.5 73.3 101.9 113.8 90.9 47.8 23.1 18.8
Israel 1.0 1.0 2.0 M
Jordan 416.5 262.5 174.6 166.2 122.2 167.5 27.4 119.5 108.7 399.8 M
Lebanon 35.8 27.8 10.8 10.0 11.5 7.5 1.7 1.1 0.9 42.4
Morocco 250.8 258.8 158.6 104.0 2.0 0.1 15.9 0.2 10.5 240.9 NM
Syria 39.2 20.1 28.3 40.3 45.0 14.6 21.0 26.5 30.0 35.7G/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 21Country/Region 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 LDC NFI MEM
Tunisia 194.9 62.4 79.0 30.8 26.6 23.3 12.4 3.1 3.8 NM
Turkey 2.9 5.2 3.0 1.8 0.6 1.0 0.0 M
Yemen 39.7 51.7 96.1 43.9 17.9 41.0 52.3 35.8 167.7 195.3 #
Latin America &
the Caribbean2,006.3 1,845.7 2,101.6 1,320.1 939.5 766.8 649.1 991.3 1,217.6 906.6 
Antigua 1.0 3.1 M
Belize 0.0 0.1 M
Bolivia 214.3 114.3 417.6 170.9 85.6 157.1 96.8 217.0 75.2 86.9 M
Brazil 20.0 6.1 38.1 35.3 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 M
Chile 15.1 6.4 6.0 2.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 M
Colombia 8.4 19.0 3.5 27.7 15.3 8.6 1.6 7.0 13.1 12.0 M
Costa Rica 84.3 4.0 92.7 6.0 2.7 1.1 M
Cuba 6.8 2.9 23.6 7.0 6.1 12.7 27.5 19.1 59.2 24.0 NM
Dominican Rep. 11.8 19.9 11.0 13.8 6.4 8.2 3.5 7.3 120.3 1.6 NM
Dominica 2.1 1.2 0.1 0.1 7.0 2.7 M
Ecuador 46.9 46.7 11.9 27.0 19.4 1.8 12.1 20.5 41.3 73.5 M
El Salvador 175.3 117.0 169.9 23.7 25.0 26.8 24.3 20.4 69.6 2.8 M
French Guiana 0.5
Grenada 2.0 2.6 0.1 4.5 M
Guatemala 231.5 146.6 130.3 176.4 70.4 36.1 53.8 72.0 115.7 133.9 M
Guyana 34.0 58.0 44.6 34.0 33.0 42.3 33.5 61.2 37.3 26.3 M
Haiti 70.2 109.5 119.0 94.5 168.1 118.9 174.6 158.3 144.5 150.4 #M
Honduras 128.2 110.5 123.7 115.4 53.2 33.7 28.5 31.6 179.3 72.0 NM
Jamaica 274.5 247.0 239.8 70.1 56.4 58.4 17.3 13.2 46.5 NM
Mexico 95.6 87.7 93.5 31.7 46.0 0.9 2.8 1.6 M
Montserrat 8.7
Nicaragua 161.4 130.0 94.4 62.3 63.0 45.1 34.5 88.3 230.3 61.9 M
Panama 17.2 9.6 3.4 0.2 2.2 1.3 0.9 1.5 M
Paraguay 0.3 2.9 2.9 0.3 1.4 1.0 0.3 0.0 M
Peru 406.3 563.3 453.6 391.2 254.1 171.4 139.6 265.2 115.5 192.6 NM
Saint Lucia 3.0 6.0 NM
St. Vincent 8.6 NM
St. Kitts and Nevis 3.4 3.7 0.0 NMG/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 22
Country/Region 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 LDC NFI MEM
Suriname 36.2 22.0 29.8 20.0 12.0 21.8 M
Uruguay 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 M
Venezuela 11.5  N M
Europe and CIS 999.7 3,066.3 7,203.9 3,706.2 2,955.2 1,311.7 1,062.8 874.0 5,377.8 2,102.4
Albania 238.4 710.0 657.8 40.3 10.5 22.9 17.3 29.4 17.2 17.1 M
Armenia 82.9 87.7 357.1 475.7 168.8 144.8 117.8 18.9 93.5
Azerbaijan 1.4 9.4 229.2 391.2 115.7 28.7 69.8 34.4 27.6
Belarus 156.6 336.6 138.6 98.3 39.1 0.0
Bosnia 1.1 22.7 8.4 79.1 89.7 88.0 84.3
Bulgaria 323.5 0.0 110.2 49.3 0.0 14.7 10.7 5.0 0.6 M
Croatia 11.9 13.7 28.8 30.2 1.4 M
Estonia 0.5 363.6 55.0 M
FYROM 100.1 353.4 856.8 598.1 265.8 173.4 121.3 78.0 98.7
Georgia 7.8 60.8 2.4 1.0 0.7 5.0 7.0 0.1 M
Kazakhstan 56.3 118.1 91.6 150.4 67.7 88.2 38.4 81.9 60.0
Kyrgyz Rep. 417.5 207.1 M
Latvia 379.3 446.2 64.0 40.3 36.0 30.0 M
Lithuania 46.0 98.3 3.7 M
Moldova 72.1 58.6 111.9 244.3 48.4 7.2 59.4 27.5 13.8 M
Poland 11.6 216.0 0.0 M
Romania 308.1 119.2 225.6 3.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 M
Russia 368.6 3,407.0 913.9 124.8 79.4 54.5 16.9 4,537.3 1,159.6
Slovenia 3.0 M
Tajikistan 58.6 83.5 99.2 226.1 121.8 134.9 117.1 68.3 60.5
Turkmenistan 6.5 45.7 51.0 53.3 39.7 8.1 6.5
U.S.S.R 117.5
Ukraine 0.1 352.9 96.0 120.0 36.3 53.3 39.9 0.0
Uzbekistan 0.2 0.2 1.8 1.0 0.4 68.4
Ex-Yugoslavia 0.2 165.4 372.1 537.4 383.7 232.0 231.3 124.9 315.1 408.1
Asia 2,600.4 2,663.8 2,187.9 2,518.0 2,388.7 2,010.8 2,825.0 3,435.7 5,183.6 3,142.4 
Afghanistan 27.9 81.4 134.3 93.6 133.2 121.0 238.5 68.0 139.9 207.3 #
Bangladesh 1,083.0 976.2 395.6 1,095.4 590.3 575.0 712.8 879.6 1,443.2 294.6 #M
Bhutan 5.8 4.6 4.1 3.2 6.4 4.8 5.2 4.1 4.7 3.3 #G/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 23Country/Region 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 LDC NFI MEM
Cambodia 18.0 76.3 99.3 67.7 91.5 48.5 44.6 36.9 28.0 62.5 #
China 137.6 143.5 180.1 147.1 127.8 133.6 132.2 89.2 355.1 108.6
East Timor 9.3 32.7
Hong Kong, China 12.4 M
India 250.1 325.9 390.4 360.0 398.3 359.3 300.3 329.1 361.4 349.2 M
Indonesia 59.1 44.2 42.5 36.9 18.6 0.0 0.0 931.1 801.2 414.8 M
Korea, Dpr 544.5 510.1 914.6 787.6 1,096.6 1,176.8
Laos 12.5 3.0 14.3 26.9 16.9 54.9 19.1 17.3 4.7 #
Malaysia 5.1 4.1 0.3 M
Maldives 3.2 3.1 2.2 1.4 2.6 3.5 2.7 3.0 4.9 2.7 #M
Mongolia 13.6 15.7 38.8 6.0 11.7 8.5 22.3 21.3 39.0 40.0 M
Myanmar 1.8 4.0 3.6 5.3 2.9 8.4 8.1 #M
Nepal 5.9 18.1 42.4 31.1 38.5 35.4 32.1 42.1 60.0 43.5 #M
Pakistan 358.3 324.6 210.8 140.2 118.8 53.6 185.0 57.6 444.7 19.3 NM
Papua New Guinea 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 4.3 8.0 M
Philippines 165.7 157.3 136.8 129.4 55.0 34.0 12.8 72.2 141.3 218.4 M
Samoa 5.6 #
Solomon Islands 0.0 #M
Sri Lanka 304.5 266.1 412.3 306.5 148.2 72.8 91.2 31.6 119.2 55.2 NM
Thailand 91.8 92.6 33.6 8.1 2.4 0.1 1.1 8.3 2.3 0.7 M
Vanuatu 0.0 #
Vietnam 70.8 99.4 61.6 74.9 69.8 30.0 69.3 47.8 99.2 99.9
Global total 12,718.9 15,301.4 17,334.3 12,926.5 10,207.5 7,208.3 7,413.6 8,424.3 15,081.3 10,971.2
Notes:
LDC least-developed country (#)
NFI net food-importing developing country, as listed in G/AG/5/Rev.4 dated 3 April 2001 (N).
MEM WTO Member (M).Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 2000 Food Aid Flows, May 2001 at http://www.wfp.org/interfais/.G/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 24
Attachment 5
Food aid deliveries to WTO Members and non-Members, 1997-2000
(million tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent)
1997 1998 1999 2000
Members 3.9 5.3 6.4 4.7
Non-Members
    of which:3.5 3.1 8.7 6.2
    Least-developed countries 1.1 1.2 1.7 2.5
    Others 2.4 1.9 7.0 3.7
Global total 7.4 8.4 15.1 11.0
Notes: Includes cereals in grain equivalent and non-cereals in product weight (see Table 5).
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 2000 Food Aid Flows, May 2001 at http://www.wfp.org/interfais/.G/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 25
Attachment 6
Technical and financial assistance under paragr aph 3(iii) of the NFIDC Decision, 1995-2000
Notifying
MemberProgramme Currency 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Argentina Total technical assistance          0  n.a.  n.a  n.a. n.a. n.a.*
Australia Total A$ mill. 351.8 400.4 263.0 147 .4**  116.8 NNR
AusAID multilateral core funding 227.0 230.5 161.9 67.6    60.6
AusAID regional funding 11.4 9.7 8.1
AusAID bilateral 24.2 48.1 44.533.8    33.3
AusAID scholarships 42.0 18.1 30.4 1.3      1.4
AusAID humanitarian relief 13.4 81.5 7.2 11.0    12.4
ACIAR multilateral programmes 24.0 9.4 8.9
ACIAR bilateral programmes 9.8 3.2 2.124.9 3.4
NGOs 4.4      1.8
Other government departments 4.4      4.0
Canada Total C$ mill. 299. 3 271.3 290.9   275.2  245.2 NNR
CIDA multilateral core funding 253.4 215.8 243.3   228.9  189.6
CIDA bilateral programmes 25.2 25.3 16.9     18.9    24.0
CIDA Canadian Partnership Branch 8.3 5.8 5.4       4.0      9.4
IDRC bilateral programming 4.5 3.6 3.2       2.7      2.9
DFAIT multilateral core funding 7.9 20.8 22.1     20.6    19.3
EC Total ECU
mill. n.a.  n.a.  n.a.  n.a. NNR NNR
EDF- ACP countries   465.9   180.0   156.0   238.0
Development projects with other
countries***  651.1   679.4 1,161.4
Japan Total US$ mill. 434.3 688.2 395.8   327.1 NNR NNR
Grant aid 268.1 202.1 158.0   177.9
Technical cooperation 107.1 129.7 114.4     94.6
ODA loans 59.1 356.5 123.4     54.7
New Zealand Total NZ$ mill. 3.3 4.2 5.9       5.4      6.8 NNR
Multilateral core funding/other
multilateral1.5 2.4 3.8       2.4      2.7
Regional 0.7 0.5 0.3       0.1      1.3
Bilateral 1.1 1.4 1.8       2.4      2.0
Emergency food aid  n.a.  n.a.  n.a.       0.5      0.7
Norway Total NOK
mill.648.6 718.9 818.5   990.5 746.7  810.6
WFP contribution 213.0 219.0 208.2   210.0  190.0  190.0
Bilateral programmes 285.8 297.7 338.1 459.1  332.5  467.8
Emergency relief aid 149.8 202.2 272.2   321.4  224.2  152.8
South Africa Total bilateral aid '000
Rand705.6 355.0 865.0 1,063.2 0 7,118.1G/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 26
Notifying
MemberProgramme Currency 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Switzerland Global total international
cooperationSFr mill. 1,356.9 1,373.3 1,334.9 1,403.6 NNR NNR
Bilateral ODA – Africa n.a. 280.9 269.6 253.9
Bilateral ODA – Asia n.a. 249.6 216.5 236.1
Bilateral ODA – Latin America n.a. 118.4 100.4 100.8
United States Total US$ mill. 1,080.1 889.1 1,256.6 1,025.3 NNR NNR
USAID global assistance to
agriculture88.0 37.1 33.6     34.4
USAID bilateral assistance to
agriculture157.7 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Contributions to multilateral
organizations829.5 846.4 1217.5   985.8
Cochran Fellowship Program 0.3 0.3 0.3       0.6
Peace Corps 4.7 5.2 5.2       4.4
Abbreviations:
n.a. not applicable
NNR no notification received
AusAID Australian Agency for International Development AgencyACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural ResearchCIDA Canadian International Development Agency
IDRC International Development Research Centre
DFAIT Department of Foreign Affairs & International TradeEDF European Development FundODA Official Development Assistance
Notes: Annual reporting periods differ among Members.
*   Argentina notified its technical and financial assistance projects without related outlays.
** Australia's aid figures in 1995-97 are for all recipient countries; since 1998 entries are LDCs and net food-
importing  developing countries only.
*** EC aid does not include aid provided by member States. The data on "development projects with othercountries" refer to calendar years 1995 and/or 1996 (ECU 651.1 million) and 1996 and/or 1997 (ECU 679.4million).
For further details, see NF:1 notifications.G/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 27
Attachment 7
Indices of primary commodity prices, 1991-2001 (1990=100) 1
Non-Fuel Primary Commodities 3/
Non-fuel Agricultural
Primary Food Beverages Raw Metals FertilizersAll
Primary
Commodities
2/
Commodities Materials 4/Petroleum
5/
(weights) (100.0) (32.9) (6.8) (32.3) (26.7) (1.3)
---------------------------------------------------------------- in terms of U.S. dollars-------------------------------------- ------------------------
1991 90.2 94.5 99.2 93.5 96.3 86.4 103.2 84.3
1992 89.6 94.6 101.4 80.5 98.9 84.4 98.0 82.9
1993 86.4 96.2 100.1 85.6 114.9 72.3 83.0 73.1
1994 92.3 109.1 105.3 149.7 125.8 84.2 89.6 69.4
1995 99.9 118.2 113.8 151.1 131.2 100.8 99.1 74.9
1996 104.8 116.7 127.7 124.9 127.1 88.8 112.7 88.7
1997 100.8 113.2 114.0 165.5 119.4 91.5 113.9 83.9
1998 79.8 96.6 99.7 140.3 100.0 76.6 117.1 56.9
1999 84.9 89.8 84.1 110.5 102.2 75.5 112.4 78.3
2000 104.7 91.4 83.7 92.2 104.2 84.6 106.4 122.8
98 Q4 75.1 92.3 96.3 125.4 96.5 72.8 115.5 51.6
99 Q1 73.1 89.6 89.5 119.3 99.8 68.6 115.4 50.7
99 Q2 80.5 88.3 83.4 110.9 100.8 72.4 115.1 69.8
99 Q3 89.0 88.9 81.4 98.6 102.1 78.8 111.2 89.1
99 Q4 97.1 92.3 82.1 113.2 106.2 82.1 107.8 103.6
00 Q1 103.2 94.0 84.5 102.8 106.9 87.4 106.6 115.6
00Q2 102.7 92.5 84.1 95.5 108.1 82.7 106.9 116.7
00Q3 106.6 89.7 80.2 88.6 102.3 85.6 108.0 129.7
00Q4 106.3 89.4 86.0 81.8 99.6 82.8 104.1 129.2
01Q1 101.2 89.9 86.5 80.9 100.4 83.2 102.5 116.6
01Q2 100.0 88.1 83.9 76.7 101.3 79.7 100.3 116.3
01Q3 96.0 86.4 88.4 70.9 98.3 73.1 98.2 109.1
Oct-99 93.8 91.7 82.5 105.5 106.6 80.9 109.6 96.6
Nov-99 97.9 92.3 82.4 116.4 105.9 81.5 106.9 105.5
Dec-99 99.6 92.9 81.5 117.6 106.2 84.0 106.9 108.7
Jan-00 100.2 93.5 84.4 106.4 103.9 88.4 106.9 109.4
Feb-00 104.4 94.5 85.2 101.0 107.4 88.1 105.9 117.9
Mar-00 104.9 94.0 84.0 101.1 109.3 85.6 106.9 119.7
Apr-00 96.9 92.5 84.9 97.2 107.6 81.9 106.9 102.9
May-00 103.9 93.4 84.6 97.0 109.5 83.4 106.9 118.2
Jun-00 107.4 91.5 82.7 92.2 107.2 82.7 106.9 129.0
Jul-00 103.4 90.1 79.3 92.9 104.8 84.5 107.3 121.6
Aug-00 104.9 88.0 79.6 86.6 99.2 84.4 108.4 127.9
Sep-00 111.5 90.9 81.8 86.5 103.0 88.0 108.4 139.7
Oct-00 109.6 89.7 84.0 85.6 101.2 83.3 106.8 136.7
Nov-00 111.6 90.2 85.5 81.9 103.7 81.3 103.0 140.8
Dec-00 97.6 88.4 88.4 78.0 93.8 83.9 102.5 110.2
Jan-01 103.9 91.2 88.2 79.7 101.7 84.7 102.5 121.2
Feb-01 102.9 90.6 86.0 82.4 102.1 83.9 102.5 119.7
Mar-01 96.8 88.0 85.2 80.6 97.6 81.1 102.5 108.8
Apr-01 98.0 88.0 82.7 78.0 101.8 79.8 102.2 111.7
May-01 101.7 88.4 84.6 78.5 100.0 81.2 100.8 119.8
Jun-01 100.3 87.8 84.4 73.6 102.2 78.1 97.9 117.4
Jul-01 95.7 86.8 88.4 70.7 98.0 75.2 97.9 107.9
Aug-01 98.2 87.8 89.2 72.1 101.7 73.0 98.3 112.4
Sep-01 94.0 84.5 87.5 69.8 95.2 71.2 98.4 106.9
 Notes :1Weights are based on 1987-89 average world export earnings.
2Petroleum and non-fuel primary commodities index. The weights are 57 per cent for the index of non-fuel primary commodities
prices and 43 per cent for the index of petroleum prices.
3Indices comprise 39 price series for 33 non-fuel primary commodities.
4Includes forestry products.
5Spot crude. Average of UK Brent, Dubai, and West Texas Intermediate, equally weighted.
Source: International Monetary Fund (www.imf.org/external/np/res/commod/index.htm).G/AG/W/42/Rev.4
Page 28
Attachment 8
Commodity price data, 1999-2001
Annual averages Quarterly averages Monthly averages
Commodity Unit Jan-
DecJan-
DecJul-
SepOct-
DecJan-
MarApr-
JunJul-
SepAug Sep Oct
  1999 2000 2000 2000 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
Beverages            
Cocoa ¢/kg 113.5 90.6 91.2 88.3 100.4 104.5 100.8 103.2 102.4 108.5
Coffee, arabica ¢/kg 229.1 192 176.4 157.5 146.7 146.4 129.7 131.7 128 124.3
Coffee, robusta ¢/kg 148.9 91.3 86.6 73 69.5 64.1 57 56.9 53.5 51.2
Tea, average 3 auctions ¢/kg 183.9 187.6 198.7 183.6 170.9 160 159.8 158.1 152.8 146
Tea, Calcutta auctions ¢/kg 206.8 180.6 208.6 165.6 157.3 183.1 181.5 174.9 161.5 141
Tea, Colombo auctions ¢/kg 164.9 179.3 176.9 188.6 179.8 152.9 151.2 151.8 158.1 158.2
Tea, Mombasa auctions ¢/kg 180 202.9 210.6 196.5 175.6 144.1 146.6 147.5 138.8 138.8
Fats and Oils            
Coconut oil $/mt 737.1 450.3 367.7 345.3 297.7 301.7 347.7 363 322 307
Copra $/mt 461.5 304.8 260 225 193.3 189.3 222.7 235 210 195
Groundnut oil $/mt 787.7 713.7 668 685 690.3 697.7 665.7 664 665 666
Palm oil $/mt 436 310.3 302 259 249.3 246.7 334 362 310 277
Palm kernel oil $/mt 694.1 443.5 364.3 329.7 283.7 295 343.7 363 316 289
Soybean meal $/mt 152.2 189.2 181.3 206.7 189 171.7 183.7 183 182 181
Soybean oil $/mt 427.3 338.1 327 316.7 312.3 310.3 404.3 422 382 376
Soybeans $/mt 201.7 211.8 201.3 208.7 201.7 186 207.3 212 202 187
Grains            
Maize $/mt 90.2 88.5 77.1 90.6 92.5 85.1 91.7 93.1 90.1 86.6
Rice, Thai, 5% $/mt 248.4 202.4 184.8 185.6 181.3 165.4 170.2 168.3 173 170.8
Rice, Thai, 25% $/mt 216.3 172.8 163.6 159.8 153.6 143.1 155.5 153 161 159
Rice, Thai, 35% $/mt 210.5 167.2 159.5 154.5 148.8 139.1 151.5 149.3 157.3 155.2
Rice,Thai, A1.Special $/mt 192.6 143.5 143.4 131.3 131.3 124.4 142.1 140.8 148.3 147.2
Sorghum $/mt 84.4 88 77.7 95.5 98.1 92.9 94.7 95.1 94.6 95
Wheat, Canada $/mt 151.3 147.1 138.9 152.5 156.9 152.4 148 145.8 145.9 146.3
Wheat, US, HRW $/mt 112 114.1 111.6 128 130.4 130.6 122.6 121.9 122 123.3
Wheat, US, SRW $/mt 96.3 98.9 93.3 104.2 106.9 100.4 107.2 105.9 107.6 115
Other Food            
Bananas, EU $/mt 850.4 712.4 611 628.2 910.2 834.9 686 696.4 726.8 686.6
Bananas, US $/mt 373.8 424 354.1 399.4 587.6 599.2 650.9 683.4 571.8 483.6
Beef ¢/kg 184.3 193.2 188.2 190.1 196 203 226.1 224.5 236.6 227.1
Fishmeal $/mt 392.5 413 419.7 430 462.3 443.7 499 508 507 509
Lamb ¢/kg 261 261.9 254.6 260.6 285.8 291.3 283.9 276.8 299 300.8
Oranges $/mt 438.2 363.2 386.3 351 437 729.4 768.9 778.4 573 484.5
Shrimp ¢/kg 1,461 1,513 1,508 1,540 1,627 1,653 1,524 1,543 1,374 1,312
Sugar, EU, domestic ¢/kg 59.17 55.52 54.22 52.89 53 53.12 52.57 52.54 53.48 53.07
Sugar, US, domestic ¢/kg 46.6 42.76 42.09 47.56 47.44 46.96 46.78 46.94 47.09 46.64
Sugar, world ¢/kg 13.81 18.04 22.13 22.56 21.65 20.15 18.03 17.88 16.84 14.97
Other Raw Materials            
Cotton, "A Index" ¢/kg 117.1 130.2 133 140.2 131.7 109.2 95.6 95.5 91 82
Cotton, Memphis ¢/kg 122.8 146.2 148.9 151 146.7 117.5 108.5 112.6 101.6 90.8
Jute $/mt 276.3 277.4 261.3 262.5 295.8 339.6 347 346 310 305
Rubber, Malaysia ¢/kg 62.9 69.1 68.3 66.7 62.8 62.8 59.5 59.9 57.2 56.2
Rubber, US ¢/kg 80.9 83.2 82.2 82 78.2 76.7 75.2 76 72.9 70.5
Rubber, Singapore ¢/kg 62 66.7 65.5 63.8 59.5 60.2 59 58.6 58 53.8
Sisal $/mt 691.5 631.8 650 680 723.8 732.9 676.6 673.8 650 650
Wool ¢/kg 398.8 437 451.7 448.3 449.7 430.7 407 400 398 381
Note: In US$ or US cent per unit. For detailed commodity notes at http://www.worldbank.org/prospects/pinksheets/pink1101.htm.
Source: World Bank.
__________