RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/NG/S/3
25 April 2000
(00-1630)
Committee on Agriculture
Special Session
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION ON MEASURES CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE
NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE REFORM PROGRAMME ON LEAST-DEVELOPED
AND NET FOOD-IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Background Paper by the Secretariat
1. At the first Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture on 23-24 March 2000, it was
agreed that the Secretariat would provide, inter alia , "a background paper on implementation of the
least-developed and net food-importing developing countries' Decision" (paragraph 7(d) of
G/AG/NG/1).  In response to that request, the present paper further updates and revises the
information provided in the Secretariat's note on Implementation of the Decision on Measures
Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net
Food-Importing Developing Countries (the "Decision").  Th at note was part of last year's report of the
Committee Chairman to the General Council (Annex II of G/L/322, dated 6 October 1999 refers).1
2. Following a brief introduction on the follow-up process to the Decision as a whole (Part I),
this paper sets out the substantive provisions of the Decision and provides information regarding their
implementation (Part II).  A list of related Committee on Agriculture documents is contained in
Attachment 1.  Further details are presented in Attachments 2 to 9.
I. MONITORING OF THE FOLLOW-UP TO THE DECISION
3. The follow-up to the 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 asinformation on technical and financial assistance and other relevant information on actions taken
within the framework of the Decision (G/AG/2, pa ges 33-34 refer).  The annual monitoring of the
follow-up to the Decision in accordance with Article 16 of the Agreement on Agriculture and under
paragraph 18 of the Working Procedures of the Committee on Agriculture is undertaken 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
1999 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 Food
Aid 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 of14 April 2000.
                                                     
1The original version of the Secretariat's note on  implementation of the Decision was circulated as
document G/AG/W/42 (and Rev.1 and 2).G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 2
6. In 1996, the Committee established a WTO list of net food-importing developing countries.2
This list currently contains 19 developing country Members plus the 48 least-developed countries as
defined by the United Nations.3
7. In the same year, the Singapore Ministerial Conference ("SMC") adopted the Committee's
specific recommendations regarding the Decision (G/L/125 refers).
II. PROVISIONS OF THE DECISION AND IMPLEMENTATION
8. The Decision states:
"Ministers recognize  that the progressive implementation of the results of the
Uruguay Round as a whole will generate increasing opportunities for trade expansion
and economic growth to the benefit of all participants" (paragraph 1).
"Ministers recognize  that during the reform programme leading to greater
liberalization of trade in agriculture least-developed and net food-importingdeveloping countries may experience negative effects in terms of the availability of
adequate supplies of basic foodstuffs from external sources on reasonable terms and
conditions, including short-term difficulties in financing normal levels of commercial
imports of basic foodstuffs" (paragraph 2).
9. The remaining paragraphs of the Decision contain a number of specific agreements in the
areas of food aid, technical and financial assistance, differential treatment within the framework of
any agreement on agricultural export credits, and a provision regarding access to the resources of the
international financial institutions.  In the following, these paragraphs are taken up one by one and
supplemented by information available to the Secretariat regarding implementation.
Food aid and technical and financial assistance
10. In light of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Decision quoted above,
"Ministers accordingly agree to establish appropriate mechanisms to ensure that the
implementation of the results of the Uruguay Round on trade in agriculture does not
adversely affect the availability of food aid at a level which is sufficient to continue toprovide assistance in meeting the food needs of developing countries, especially
least-developed and net food-importing developing countries" (chapeau to
paragraph 3).
                                                     
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 list of net food-importing developing countries as it currently stands:  Barbados, Botswana,
Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Hond uras, Jamaica, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco, Pakistan,
Peru, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia and Venezuela (G/AG/5/Rev.3, dated
28 June 1999, refers).G/AG/NG/S/3
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 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 Decision).
Review of food aid levels
12. In reviewing developments with regard to food aid levels, the Committee considered
background notes by the Secretariat which indicated that both  the international food aid commitments
and actual deliveries had declined sharply in recent years (G/AG/W/20 and G/AG/W/36, refer).4  The
minimum annual contributions of the members of the Food Aid Convention (FAC) 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 (Table 1).  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  €13 0 million, respectively (see Attachment 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 fell from 10.4 million tonnes  in 1992/93 to 5.8 million tonnes in 1996/97,
shipments exceeded, except in 1994/95, FAC me mbers' combined minimum annual commitments in
this period.  In 1998/99, food aid shipments by FA C donors reached an estimated 8.1 million tonnes,
2 million tonnes more than in 1997/98 and 2.8 million tonnes more than the aggregate annual
minimum commitment.
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 countryand product coverage, reporting period, and the use of delivery rather than shipment data.  In
Attachment 7, food aid data as reported by FAO are provided for the least-developed and the net
food-importing developing countries on the WTO list  (page 31, refers).
15. According to World Food Programme statistics, global food aid deliveries reached a record of
17.4 million tonnes in 1993 and thereafter declined for four consecutive years to 7.3 million tonnes in1997.   In 1998, global food aid deliveries increased again (Table 2).  It should be noted that food
deliveries as monitored by the World Food Programme include deliveries by the FAC members, other
countries, and non-governmental organizations.
                                                     
4It may be noted that food aid in value terms is small compared to total Official Development
Assistance (3 per cent in 1996).  See OECD Development Assistance Committee Report 1997.G/AG/NG/S/3
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.)
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) 1,973,357
FINLAND 25,000 25,000 19,610 g) h) 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 R 19,306 61,293
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)
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
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
ContinuedG/AG/NG/S/3
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).
R Revised
Source:  Food Aid Committee / International Grains Council.G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 6
Table 2: Food aid deliveries to least-developed and net food-importing developing
countries, 1989-98  (million tonnes)
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Least-developed
countries4.3 4.0 5.2 6.3 4.6 5.3 4.1 3.4 3.4 3.7
Net food-importing
developing countries3.8 4.2 4.0 2.9 2.4 1.8 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.7
Other countries 3.6 5.1 4.1 6.1 10.4 5.7 5.1 3.3 3.1 3.6
Global total 11.7 13.3 13.3 15.3 17.4 12.8 10.2 7.4 7.3 8.0
Notes: Includes cereals in grain equivalent and non-cereals in product weight (see also Table 3).
Net food-importing developing countries refers to Members listed in G/AG/5/Rev.3, dated 28 June 1999.
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 1998 Food Aid Flows, special issue, May 1999 from the Internet (www.wfp.org).
16. Except for Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela, all net food-importing developing
countries on the WTO list were recipients of food aid during 1989-98.   In 1998, aggregate deliveries
to these countries were 70 per cent lower than average deliveries in the period 1989-98 (Table 3).  Insome countries, in particular Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia, food aid deliveries have declined even
more sharply during the past decade.  Deliveries to the least-developed countries in 1998 were 16 per
cent below the ten-year average (1989-98), while glob al deliveries were about 30 per cent below the
long-run average.  In Attachment 4, data are provided of food aid deliveries to all recipient countries
during 1989-98, while Attachment 5 gives a break-dow n of deliveries as between Members and non-
members.
5
Table 3: Food aid deliveries to least-developed and net food-importing developing
countries in 1998 compared to long-term average (million tonnes)
1989-98 average 19981998 in per cent of
1989-98 average
Least-developed countries 4.437 3.728 84.0
Net food-importing developing countries 2.219 0.655 29.5
Other countries 5.016 3.649 72.7
Global total 11.672 8.032 68.8
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.3, dated 28 June 1999.
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 1998 Food Aid Flows, special issue, May 1999 from the Internet (www.wfp.org).
17. As Table 4 indicates, in 1994 a large share of  global food aid deliveries (excluding Europe
and the CIS) was in the form of emergency relief provided in response to man-made or natural
disasters.  More than 50 per cent of the 1.9 million tonne decline in global food aid between 1994 and
1998 was due to lower levels of such emergency relief food aid.
                                                     
5Further 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.  See document G/AG/NG/S/4.G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 7
Table 4: Composition of global food ai d deliveries, excl. Europe and the CIS
('000 tonnes)
1994 1998 Decline from 1994
to 1998% change
Relief food aid 3,590 2,563 1,027 - 29
Programme food aid 2,824 2,071    753 - 27
Project food aid 2,706 2,553    153 -  6
Total 9,120 7,187 1,933 - 21
Notes: All figures include cereal (in grain equivalent) and non-cereal food aid (in product weight).
Relief food aid: targeted and freely distributed to victims of natural or man-made disasters.
Project food aid: provided to targeted beneficiary groups to support specific development objectives.
Always supplied on a grant basis.
Programme food aid: Usually supplied as a resource transfer for balance-of-payments and/or budgetary support
objectives.  Provided as a grant or loan on a bilateral basis.  Not targeted at specific
beneficiary groups but sold on the market of the recipient country.
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: Food Aid Flows 1998, special issue, May 1999 from the Internet (www.wfp.org).
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 food aid deliveries at the global level during 1995-1998.
Table 5: Commodity composition of global food aid deliveries, 1995-98  (million tonnes)
1995 1996 1997 1998
Cereals 8.840 6.381 6.445 7.055
Blended/fortified 0.464 0.374 0.504 0.450
Coarse grains 1.905 1.411 1.628 1.510
Rice 1.145 0.770 0.678 1.012
Wheat & wheat flour 5.326 3.925 3.624 4.082
Non-cereals 1.367 1.013 0.845 0.978
Dairy products 0.072 0.037 0.018 0.023
Meat & fish 0.035 0.034 0.022 0.017
Oils & fats 0.327 0.302 0.320 0.334
Other non-cereals 0.115 0.086 0.120 0.047
Pulses 0.818 0.553 0.364 0.551
Note: Cereals in grain equivalent, non-cereals in product weight.
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 1998 Food Aid Flows, special issue, May 1999 from the Internet (www.wfp.org).
Initiation of food aid negotiations
19. In anticipation of the expiry of the Food Aid Convention, 1995 ("FAC") the SMC agreed that,
in preparation for the re-negotiation of the Food ai d 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 foodG/AG/NG/S/3
Page 8
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).
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).
21. 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 FAC to aim to conclude the substantive negotiations by the end of 1998.
22. 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).
23. 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 AidConvention, 1995 (Argentina, Australia, Canada, EC and its member States, Japan, Norway,
Switzerland and the United States).
24. 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.  Whenallocating 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 new Food Aid Convention.
(ii) Concessionality of Food Aid
25. To the end stated in the chapeau of paragraph 3 of the Decision Ministers also agreed:
"… to adopt guidelines to ensure that an  increasing proportion of basic foodstuffs is
provided to least-developed and net food-importing developing countries in fully
grant form and/or on appropriate concessional terms in line with Article IV of the
Food Aid Convention 1986 …" (paragraph 3(ii) of the Decision).
26. The SMC agreed that the recommendations to be developed by the FAC referred to in
paragraph 19 above should include guidelines in accordance with paragraph 3(ii) of the Decision, as
well as means to improve the effectiveness and positive impact of food aid.  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 re present, at a minimum, 80 per cent of FAC members'
contributions and donors will seek to progressively exceed this share.
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 ofG/AG/NG/S/3
Page 9
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 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 Decision).
29. The SMC called on developed country Members to continue to give full consideration in the
context of their aid programmes to requests for the provision of technical and financial assistance.This recommendation reflects the fact that technical and financial assistance is essentially a bilateral
matter between donors and recipients based on requests made by recipient countries.
30. The Secretariat has no information whether least-developed and net food-importing
developing countries made requests pursuant to  paragraph 3(iii) of the 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.G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 10
31. In addition, in their contributions to the Committee's annual monitoring exercise of the
Decision several of the international observer organizations have provided information on their
respective activities in the area of technical assistance.6  The current technical assistance activities of
the World Bank, including a list of World Bank financed agricultural projects in least-developed
countries, are summarized in the statement of the representative of the World Bank at the Committee's
November 1999 meeting (Attachment 7, pages 36-48 refer).
Differential treatment within the framework of an agreement on agricultural export credits
32. In light of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Decision quoted above, Ministers agreed:
"… to ensure that any agreement relating to agricultural export credits makes
appropriate provision for differential treatment in favour of least-developed and net
food-importing developing countries"   (paragraph  4 of the Decision).
33. Ministers reaffirmed this commitment at the SMC.  In the ongoing negotiations on an
understanding regarding agricultural export credit s undertaken within the framework of the OECD,
consideration is being given to this matter (OECD statement in G/AG/GEN/15, page 8 refers).  At the
November 1999 meeting, the representative of the OE CD reported that another negotiating session
was planned for early 2000 with a view to concluding, if possible, the negotiations before the OECD
Ministerial meeting in May 2000 (Attachment 7, page 33 refers). The further negotiations which havetaken place this year, most recently in April, have advanced the discussions in a number of areas but
have not resulted in any agreement.
Access to the resources of the international financial institutions
34. In the Decision Ministers furthermore recognized that:
"… as a result of the Uruguay Round certain developing countries may experience
short-term difficulties in financing normal levels of commercial imports and 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. Inthis 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 the
World Bank (MTN.GNG/NG14/W/35)" (paragraph 5 of the Decision).
35. At the SMC it was agreed that WTO Members, in their individual capacity as members of
relevant international financial institutions, take appropriate steps to encourage the institutions
concerned, through their respective governing bodies, to further consider the scope for establishing
new facilities or enhancing existing facilities for developing countries experiencing Uruguay Round-
related difficulties in financing normal levels of commercial imports of basic foodstuffs.
(i) Ability to finance commercial imports
36. As noted above, the Decision recognizes that as a result of the Uruguay Round certain
developing countries may experience short-term difficulties in financing normal levels of commercial
imports of basic foodstuffs.  In this context, at various stages of the Committee's annual monitoring
exercise of the Decision, several of the international observer organizations have commented on the
                                                     
6 See World Bank, "A partial listing of projects in LDCs" in G/AG/GEN/31, pages 23-27;  World Bank
in G/AG/GEN/15, pages 3-4; FAO, "Special Programme on Food Production in Support of Food Security inLIFDCs" in G/AG/R/9, paragraph 33.G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 11
development of international food prices.7  At the November 1999 meeting, the representative of the
IMF made the following observations concerning food prices:
"Food prices have continued to weaken considerably since the meeting of the
Committee last year.  The IMF’s index of food prices, measured in terms of U.S.
dollars for October 1999, was more than 14 per cent below the level of one year ago.
The decline reflects the abundant supplies of cereals and oilseeds.  Weatherconditions in the major producing regions for these commodities have been generally
favorable for three consecutive years.  Demand growth, particularly for use as
livestock feed until very recently, has been weaker than usual in a number of
important markets.  As a result, in recent months the U.S. dollar prices of wheat, rice,
maize, soybean meal and soybean oil are at their lowest in 12 to 14 years, and the
price of palm oil at its lowest in 6 years.  Favorable supply conditions have also led to
abundant supplies of sugar and the price of sugar (outside the controlled markets ofthe European Community and the United States) has fallen to its lowest level in 12
years.  By contrast, there has been some turnaround in 1999 in meat prices from the
low levels recorded in 1998.  But overall, the import bill for food items incurred by
net food importing countries is likely to be particularly low this year.  However, for
those net food importers that are also substantial net oil importers, conditions arelikely to be less favorable than in 1998 because of the large increases in oil prices.  In
addition, the prices of many of the non-fuel primary commodities exported by these
countries either have decreased further or increased by only small amounts." (The full
statement in included in Attachment 7, page 32 refers).
37. Attachment 8 provides data with respect to the movement of various IMF commodity price
indices since 1990, including the food price index referred to above (column 3 of Attachment 8).
8
Chart 1 below shows the trend of the non-fuel primary commodity price index which covers more
commodities than the food price index.9  The broken line in Chart 1 which tracks the price
development in real terms indicates that non-fuel primary commodity prices in 1999 were as low as in
1992.  Although prices for food and agricultural raw materials continued to be under pressure for a
variety of reasons, notably the Asian financial crisis, it appears that prices reached their lows in mid-
1999 - since July/August 1999 food and raw material prices have recovered slightly.  For 2000, the
World Bank forecasts that prices of agricultural commodities will increase by 4 per cent compared to
1999.10
38. As regards individual commodities, Attachment 9 provides price data compiled by the World
Bank for a range of agricultural commodities.  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.  Since the peak in 1996, the wheat price index has dropped by 55 per cent and prices have
reached their lowest level since 1990 – the year of the highest world crop ever except for 1996/97.
                                                     
7See FAO in G/AG/GEN/31, page 2 and G/AG/GEN/36, page 1; IMF in G/AG/GEN/15, page 2 and
G/AG/GEN/31, page 6; International Grains Council in G/AG/R/4, page 6; UNCTAD in G/AG/GEN/31,page 12; World Bank in G/AG/GEN/15, page 3 and G/AG/W/12, page 4-6; see also the points raised byMembers in G/AG/R/3, page 6.
8For further details, see the IMF's web site www.imf.org/external/np/res/commod/index.htm.   F o r
UNCTAD's commodity price indices, see G/AG/GEN/31, page 20.
9In this index, metals and fertilizers carry a weight of 26.7 per cent and 1.3 per cent, respectively.
10World Bank, Global Commodity Markets, January 2000.  This publication, which is available in the
WTO library, contains a comprehensive review of agricultural commodity markets as well as price projectionsup to 2010.  Excerpts are available on-line at www.worldbank.org/prospects/gcmonline/index.htm.G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 12CHART 1
INDICES OF NON-FUEL PRIMARY COMMODITY PRICES
(1990 = 100) 1/
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.708090100110120130140150160
708090100110120130140150160
In U.S. DollarsIn SDRsReal 2/G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 13CHART 2 – THE INTERNATIONAL GRAINS COUNCIL WHEAT PRICE INDEX, JANUARY 1987 – MARCH 2000
050010001500200025003000
IGC 04/00* Average wheat prices of seven widely traded varieties of bread wheat: July/Dec 1986=1000 88 89 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90 87 00G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 14
39. At the November 1997 meeting of the Committee, the FAO presented the main findings of a
study on the food situation in the least-devel oped and net food-importing countries (G/AG/GEN/15,
pages 5-6 refer).  The study provides quantitative results on a number of variables affecting the ability
to finance commercial imports, including export earnings, the balance-of-payments situation and the
debt service ratio.  FAO emphasized the fact that as a result of declining levels of food aid and exportsubsidies "a much greater volume of cereals is now imported under commercial terms."  In conclusion
FAO noted that "all the relevant statistics differentiate clearly the LDCs and the NFIDCs from the rest
of the developing countries as regards food availability and capacity to import.  The food security
situation in both the LDCs and the NFIDCs remains precarious and FAO will continue to monitor this
situation as it evolves."
11  An update on the food security situation in the countries covered by the
Decision was presented in Nove mber 1998 (G/AG/GEN/31, pages 2- 3 refer) and in March 1999. At
the March meeting, the FAO representative concluded that "overall, despite the fall in the [cereal]
import bill of the LDCs and the NFIDCs during th e current season, their food security situation
remains precarious in a large number of these countries as it is regularly reported by the GlobalInformation and Early Warning Sy stem" (G/AG/GEN/36, page 2).
40. According to data provided by FAO at th e November 1999 meeting of the Committee, 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 1998/99 total expenditures for cereal imports were slightly lower than in
1994/95 while the volume of commercial imports was 14 per cent higher (Attachment 7, page 31
refers).
(ii) Access to the facilities of the IMF and the World Bank
41. At the November 1995 meeting the IMF informed the Committee of the IMF's two principal
facilities to assist net food-importing developing countries, i.e. the Enhanced Structural Adjustment
Facility (ESAF) and the Compensatory and Cont ingency Financing Facility (CCFF).  Under ESAF
arrangements, funds may be provided on concessional terms in the event of  persistently  higher import
prices for food, regardless of whether or not these are caused by the Uruguay Round.  The CCFF,
particularly its cereal element, was established to deal with financing needs in the event of
temporarily  higher food prices (for further details of  the CCFF see page 6 of document G/AG/W/12).
At the September 1996 Committee meeting, the IMF gave a detailed account of how these facilitieshad been used by the least-developed and net food-importing developing countries in the wake of
rising world food prices.  The general conclusion of the IMF was that, under existing facilities and
with anticipated resources, the IMF was in a position to meet any additional balance-of-payments
related needs that may arise from higher world food prices.
42. At the November 1998 and 1999 meetings of Committee, the IMF provided updated
information with regard to the scope of its lending programmes to least-developed and net food-
importing developing countries to support adjustment programmes or to deal with emergency
situations.  In conclusion the representative of the IMF reiterated that "the Fund has the resources
under existing facilities and has shown its willingness to use these resources in the last year, to meet
the balance of payments needs of net food-importers" (Attachment 7, page 32 refers).
43. 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
                                                     
11 See also "Food Security Assessment: Why Countrie s are at Risk" by the Economic Research Service
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 1999, available via the ERS web site at www.econ.ag.gov.G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 15
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 the
Round and the Bank’s substantial headroom above current IBRD loans outstanding, itseems clear that the Bank will be in a position to meet any additional demands
generated by the Round for loans on IBRD terms.
"In response to the Ministerial Decision, a Working Group involving the World Bank,
the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Food Programme and the IMF met
in 1995 to address the special needs of least-developed and net food-importing
countries.  The Working Group reviewed the range of facilities available for
additional financing needs for developing countries in the event of world price shocksand 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).
44. Furthermore, at the Committee's November 1998 monitoring exercise in respect of the
Decision, the World Bank provided an overview of the World Bank's lending programmes in terms of
agricultural development projects (see above), st ructural adjustment lending and emergency lending
(G/AG/GEN/31, pages 25-27 refer).G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 16
Attachment 1
List of documents related to the implementation of the Decision
G/L/125 Report by the Committee on Agriculture on the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision
on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the ReformProgramme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries(COA report for the SMC)
G/AG/3 Decision by the Committee on Agriculture at its Meeting on 21 November 1995
Relating to the Establishment of a List of WTO Net Food-Importing DevelopingCountries for the Purposes of the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision on MeasuresConcerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on the LeastDeveloped and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries ("The Decision")
G/AG/5/Rev.3 WTO list of net food-importing developing countries for the purposes of the
Marrakesh Ministerial Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible NegativeEffects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-ImportingDeveloping Countries
G/AG/GEN/15 Annual monitoring exercise in respect of the follow-up to the Ministerial
Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the ReformProgramme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries(statements by the international observer organizations)
G/AG/GEN/20 Communication from the Executive Director of the International Grains Council
presented to the 19-20 March 1998 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture
G/AG/GEN/31 Annual monitoring exercise in respect of the follow-up to the Ministerial
Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the ReformProgramme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries(statements by the international observer organizations)
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
G/AG/GEN/36 Statement by the Observer from the FAO presented to the 25-26 March 1999
meeting of the Committee on Agriculture
G/AG/GEN/40 Annual monitoring exercise in respect of the follow-up to the Ministerial
Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the ReformProgramme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries(statements by the international observer organizations).  Reproduced inAttachment 7.
G/AG/W/12 and Add.1 Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform
Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries:the Director-General's consultations with the IMF and the World Bank
G/AG/W/20 Preparatory work programme in respect of paragraph 3(i) and (ii) of the
Marrakesh Ministerial Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible NegativeEffects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-ImportingDeveloping Countries (n ote by the Secretariat)
G/AG/W/36 Review of food aid levels (note by the Secretariat)G/AG/R- series Reports of COA meetingsG/AG/NG/S/3
Page 17
Attachment 2
Compliance with notification requireme nts in respect of actions taken within
the framework of the Decision, 1995-99 (Table NF:1)
Member 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 No tification received
Food Aid Convention donor
Argentina X X X X X ARG/10
Australia X X X X AUS/5, 13, 21, 25
Canada X X X X CAN/11, 18, 25, 34
EC X X X EEC/9, 21
Japan X X X X JPN/15, 27, 33, 46
Norway X X X X NOR/6, 19 and Corr.1, 20
and Corr.1, 26
Switzerland X X X X CHE/23
United States X X X X USA/7, 20, 21, 31
Other donors
Cuba X X CUB/4, 5
New Zealand X X X NZL/6, 13, 17
South Africa X X X X ZAF/7, 9, 17,
"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 88 n.a.*
… number of notifications
received by FAC & other
donors (%)100 100 91 73 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 assistancewas provided or that Table NF:1 was not applicable.*For some Members, the 1999 implementation year, or the allowable delay for the submission of
Table NF:1 notifications, is still under way, hence notifications for 1999 are not yet required.G/AG/NG/S/3
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 needsof 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 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 supplyto 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 theirG/AG/NG/S/3
Page 19
opinion that food aid provided under credit terms shoul d no longer be included in the list of food aid
operations.
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 tothe 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 involume 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/NG/S/3
Page 20
Attachment 4
Food aid deliveries of cereals and non-cereals, 1989-1998 ('000 tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent)
Country/Region 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 LDC NFI MEM
Sub-Sahara Africa         2,882.6         3,000.4         4,045.7         6,112.7         4,890.0         4,413.4         3,333.9         2,701.0         2,432.1         2,940.2  
Angola              66.5            123.6            139.0            113.8            173.5            343.9            219.7            250.6            162.1            219.6 # M
Benin              14.0              14.8                8.3              12.6              33.7              14.9              20.7              10.4              21.9              26.0 # M
Botswana              25.6              16.5                2.9                8.9              13.4                9.1              1 0.3                4.1 N M
Burkina Faso              37.8              33.6              91.2              58.8              36.4              43.9              41.5              26.8              39.6              49.6 # M
Burundi                6.1                2.9                6.1                2.5                7.8              78.2            11 1.6                7.8                3.1                0.3 # M
Cameroon                3.8                3.2              10.3                7.2                1.7                2.7                7.3              24.1                1.5              13.5 M
Cape Verde              53.8              58.7              64.2              59.2              27.8              74.0              73 .4              44.5              67.1              69.4
C. African Rep.                4.9                3.4                3.9                5.2                4.3                5.1                1.5                2.1                1.4                1.9 # M
Chad              27.3              26.0              77.6                8.2                4.7              23.4              18.3              19.7              47.7              16.7 # M
Comoros                3.6                3.8                5.5                7.3                4.4                6.7                5.8                0.6                3.1                4.2 #
Congo                1.4                8.0              10.0              17.1                2.0              16.7              12.6              18.0                0.3              14.0 M
Congo, Dem. Rep.              98.5              97.5              99.2              35.8              23.2              82.1            107.2              54.9              33.9              12.9 # M
Côte d'Ivoire              20.9              66.3              40.1              39.9              52.7              56.3              23.9              54.8              11.4              26.3 N M
Djibouti                8.8                8.6              10.4              10.2              26.3              12.6              20 .2              10.8              12.5              14.2 # M
Equatorial Guinea                3.0                4.6                3.6                3.7                5.5                3.3                3.9                0.6                0.7                1.9 #
Eritrea                  -                  -                  -              42.6            117.1            329.8            104.3              40.4              53.5            110.1 #
Ethiopia            467.2            864.2            942.0         1,198.8            546.2            940.2            634.7            468.4            398.1            630.1 #
Gambia              15.5                4.1              16.3              10.7                8.5                9.7                3 .8                4.3                9.2                7.7 # M
Ghana              93.1              66.1            169.2            142.9            123.7              90.8              97.0              33.8              84.5              60.4 M
Guinea Bissau                9.3                5.2              15.9                7.5              10.8                4.5                3.2                7.8                5.9                9.0 # M
Guinea              34.4              11.2              28.7              29.5              42.8              40.2                7.5              12.9                5.9              22.4 # M
Kenya              69.0              89.8              73.9            271.1            352.4            230.1              79.6              31.8            116.3            139.0 N M
Lesotho              26.6              41.8              27.6              35.1              54.2              34.5              33.7              40.8                9.0                7.0 # M
Liberia              30.1              34.9            169.5            169.3            171.4            176.6            154.8            191.8            122.9            123.9 #
Madagascar              74.5              53.9              31.2              66.5              40.4              26.2              38 .2              22.1              47.1              30.1 # M
Malawi            221.8            219.3            232.5            369.6            541.0            166.9            235.7            128.7              44.8              48.2 # M
Mali              47.5              38.6              47.1              38.5              27.8              27.1              20.0              19.1              27.5              22.0 # MG/AG/NG/S/3
Page 21Country/Region 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 LDC NFI MEM
Mauritania              65.0              57.1            100.0              29.9              82.5              25.6              44. 9              17.3              44.0              13.7 # M
Mauritius                6.4              11.3                6.3              14.0                2.2                0.8                1.0 N M
Mozambique            541.2            422.6            542.7         1,045.9            457.9            378.9            386.2            151.3            147.9            239.3 # M
Namibia                2.3              11.6                9.5              20.4              24.6                0.6                2.7              10.4                0.4 M
Niger              41.7              40.1              92.0              46.2              26.5              46.9              24.6              32.5              70.7              55.9 # M
Nigeria                0.6                1.1 M
Rwanda                5.2                9.0              20.0              25.0            159.0            284.9            300.5            553.3            466.3            249.8 # M
Sao Tome / Principe              13.1                8.6                9.6                9.2                7.1                8.0                7.9                4.9                4.0                3.4
Senegal              64.9              63.5              42.2              80.9              52.2              25.7              21.3              11.9              13.4              11.8 N M
Seychelles                0.5                0.7                0.1                0.2                0.1
Sierra Leone              36.1              11.0              61.4              46.5              28.7              33.6              33.5              55.7              90.3              92.2 # M
Somalia            116.2              98.3              82.4            279.9            215.8            100.5              65.3              51.8                7.4              42.2 #
South Africa                7.8                6.7                9.2                4.8                0.1              14.3                0.1                  -                  -              18.0 M
Sudan            356.7            230.0            551.1            650.3            340.3            415.3              79.9            103.9            135.5            210.0 #
Swaziland                3.8              10.2                4.9              16.5              31.8              11.3                6.3                9.5 M
Tanzania              42.8              35.5              21.7              22.7              39.8              85.2            147.6              29.8              27.0            102.2 # M
Togo              23.4              12.3              20.1              14.4                9.3                9.3                5.9                5.2                3.0                7.0 # M
Uganda              33.3              46.7              65.4              48.4              68.7              81.8              76.9              44.8              75.6            130.2 # M
Zambia              43.9              10.9              63.3            474.4            355.7              19.6              26.1              73.8              14.4              27.9 # M
Zimbabwe              13.3              13.7              17.6            510.0            534.0              22.4              13.0              12.2                0.1              56.2 M
North Africa and
Middle East        2,568.1         2,814.1         3,076.3         1,525.6            956.3            869.3            625.3            567.6            372.7            346.7 
Algeria              47.6                9.6              43.7              18.0              26.2              26.3              27.2              27.1              42.0              16.1
Egypt         1,414.1         1,605.6         1,823.6            616.6            220.9            295.4            208.9            15 4.9              74.4              66.6 N M
Gaza/W.Bank              16.8              25.9              67.7              19.6              25.8              49.3              4 8.3              11.7              14.8              25.8
Iran              28.0              26.3            117.5              82.0              38.5              26.0              13.2                4.9              19.7              12.9
Iraq              46.2            100.0              93.5              73.3            101.8            114.2              90.9              48.3
Israel                1.0                1.0                1.0                2.0 M
Jordan            257.4            261.1            414.1            262.5            174.6            166.2            122.0            167.5              27.4            119.5 M
Lebanon              42.1              42.8              35.9              27.6              10.8              10.0              11.5                7.5                1.7                1.0
Morocco            344.3            270.6            250.8            258.8            158.6            104.0                2.0                0.1              15.9                0.2 N M
Syria              26.2              37.6              39.3              20.1              28.3              40.3              45.0              14.6              21.2              20.4G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 22
Country/Region 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 LDC NFI MEM
Tunisia            321.0            382.8            194.9              62.4              79.0              30.8              26.6              23.3              12.4                0.1 N M
Turkey                3.4              14.5                2.9                5.3                3.0                1.8                0.6                1.0 M
Yemen              30.2              14.6              19.3              17.3              13.7                0.9                2.5                1.1 #
Yemen, Rep. of              37.0            121.7              20.4              34.4              82.4              43.0              15.7              39.7              52.3              35.8 #
Latin America &
the Caribbean        2,041.7         2,306.5         2,014.5         1,844.6         2,101.6         1,318.6            931.6            764.0            646.5            979.6 
Antigua                1.0                3.1 M
Belize                4.2                  - M
Bolivia            239.4            261.5            214.3            114.3            417.3            170.9              85.6            160.1              93.8            217.5 M
Brazil              30.5              28.6              20.0                6.1              38.1              35.3                0.8                0.1                0.1 M
Chile              13.1                7.8              15.1                6.4                6.0                2.8                0 .3                0.1                0.1 M
Colombia                6.4                4.8                8.4              19.0                3.5              27.7              15.3                8.6                1.6                7.0 M
Costa Rica              70.5                7.2              84.3                4.0              92.7                6.0                2.7                1.1 M
Cuba              10.4                2.6                6.8                2.9              23.6                7.0                6. 1              12.7              30.1              19.2 N M
Dominican Rep.              29.4              40.5              11.8              19.9              11.0              13.8                6.4                8.2                3.5                7.1 N M
Dominica              10.6                0.3                2.1                1.2                0.1                0.1                7.0                2.7 M
Ecuador              36.7              76.6              46.9              46.7              11.9              27.0              19.3                1.9              12.1              21.1 M
El Salvador            188.6            202.8            175.3            117.0            169.9              23.7              24.9              26.8              24.3              20.4 M
French Guiana                0.5
Grenada                6.7                2.0                2.6                0.1                4.5 M
Guatemala            162.0            184.8            232.8            145.3            130.3            176.4              64.8              30.7              53.0              70.5 M
Guyana              46.1              45.5              34.0              58.0              44.6              34.0              33.0              42.3              33.5              59.4 M
Haiti            130.2            108.1              70.2            109.5            119.0              94.5            168.1            118.9            171.9            157.5 # M
Honduras            152.2            145.5            128.2            110.5            123.7            115.4              53.2              33.7              28.5              27.1 N M
Jamaica            208.3            293.3            274.5            247.0            239.8              70.1              56.4              58.7              17.1 N M
Mexico            396.1            280.0              95.6              87.7              93.5              31.7              46.0                0.9 M
Nicaragua            102.5            232.5            161.4            130.0              94.4              60.6              60.4              45.1              36.1              87.1 M
Panama                1.3                0.9              17.2                9.6                3.4                0.2                2.2                1.3                0.9                1.5 M
Paraguay                0.6                3.7                0.3                2.9                2.9                0.3                1.4                1.0                0.3 M
Peru            195.6            359.4            413.1            563.3            453.6            391.2            254.7            170.9            139.6            262.2 N M
Saint Lucia                3.0                6.0 N M
St. Vincent                8.6 M
St. Kitts and Nevis                3.4                3.7 MG/AG/NG/S/3
Page 23Country/Region 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 LDC NFI MEM
Suriname              36.2              22.0              29.8              20.0              12.0              21.8 M
Uruguay                0.3              20.1                0.2                0.1                0.2                0.1 M
Europe and CIS            626.4         2,249.2            999.8         3,066.2         7,196.1         3,675.5         2,927.0         1,335.3         1,018.1            846.1 
Albania            238.4            710.0            657.8              40.3              10.5              22.9              17.3              29.1
Armenia              82.9              87.7            356.6            475.4            168.8              81.9            117.6
Azerbaijan                1.4                9.4            229.4            391.0            115.7              28.7              68. 1
Belarus            156.6            336.6            138.6              98.3              39.1                  -
Bosnia                1.1              22.7                8.4              79.1              68.2
Bulgaria            323.5                  -            110.2              49.3                  -              14.7              10.7 M
Croatia              11.9              13.7              28.8              30.2                1.3
Estonia                0.5            363.6              55.0 M
FYROM              46.0
Georgia            100.1            353.2            849.1            598.1            265.8            173.4            114.9 M
Kazakhstan                7.8              60.8                2.4                1.0                0.7                5.0                7.0
Kyrgyz Rep.              56.3            118.1              91.6            150.4              67.7              88.2              38. 4M
Latvia            417.5            207.1 M
Lithuania            379.3            446.2              64.0              40.3              36.0              30.0
Moldova              72.1              58.6            111.9            244.2              48.4                7.2              59.4
Poland            626.4         1,606.4              11.6            216.0 M
Romania            642.8            308.1            119.2            225.6                3.5                  -                0.1                  - M
Russia            368.6         3,407.0            913.9            124.8              79.4              54.5              16.4
Slovenia                3.0 M
Tajikistan              58.6              83.5            105.5            213.5            121.7            134.9            114.3
Turkmenistan                6.5              45.7              51.0              53.3              39.7
U.S.S.R            117.5
Ukraine                0.1            352.9              96.0            120.0              36.3              53.3              39.9
Uzbekistan                0.2                0.2                1.8                1.0                0.4
Ex-Yugoslavia                0.2            165.4            364.5            508.6            368.8            255.8            249.7            130.4
Asia         3,605.2         2,969.4         3,167.7         2,717.1         2,227.8         2,518.4         2,388.7         2,024.8         2,820.2         2,919.5 
Afghanistan            341.3              42.7              29.2              81.4            134.3              98.2            133.2            121.2            220.9              51.8 #
Bangladesh         1,210.3         1,112.2         1,491.9         1,018.7            395.6         1,095.4            590.3            578.0            719.2            851.1 # M
Bhutan                2.3                5.1                5.8                4.6                4.1                3.2                6.4                4.8                5.3                4.8 #G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 24
Country/Region 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 LDC NFI MEM
Cambodia              11.6              25.0              19.3              78.1              99.3              67.7              91.5              48.5              44.6              36.9 #
China            158.6              94.0            137.6            143.5            180.1            147.1            127.8            133.4            132.2              89.2
Hong Kong, China              12.4 M
India            570.7            382.2            250.1            325.9            390.4            357.7            398.3            368.7            302.6            349.6 M
Indonesia            103.9              56.2              59.1              44.2              42.5              36.9              18.6                  -                  -            499.8 M
Korea, Dpr            544.5            510.1            939.8            710.9
Laos              48.1              12.5                3.0              14.3              26.9              16.9              42.8                8.6 #
Malaysia                1.2                0.4                5.1                4.1                0.3 M
Maldives                5.4                2.4                3.2                3.1                2.2                1.4                2.6                3.5                2.7 # M
Mongolia              33.6              15.7              38.8                3.9              11.7                8.5              22 .3              21.3 M
Myanmar                  -                0.1                1.8                4.0                5.3                5.3                4.3 # M
Nepal              13.6                7.8                7.7              18.1              42.4              31.1              38.5              35.4              32.1              49.1 # M
Pakistan            635.2            557.5            388.3            332.2            250.8            140.2            118.8              53.6            182.0              57.6 N M
Papua New Guinea                0.2                0.1                0.3                0.3                0.2                  -                3.3 M
Philippines              75.3            160.5            165.7            157.3            136.8            129.4              55.0              34.0              12.8              72.0 M
Samoa                2.8                5.6 #
Solomon Islands                  - #M
Sri Lanka            278.1            309.6            304.5            266.1            412.3            306.5            148.2              72.8              85.2              37.6 N M
Thailand              92.2            148.9            195.7              93.9              33.6                8.1                2.4                0.1                1.1              10.9 M
Vanuatu                  - #
Vietnam              57.4              61.8              70.8              99.4              61.6              74.9              69.8              30.0              69.3              60.7
Global total       11,724.0       13,339.6       13,304.0       15,266.2       17,371.8       12,795.2       10,206.5         7,392.7         7,289.6         8,032.1
Notes:
LDC least-developed country (#)
NFI net food-importing developing country, as listed in G/AG/5/Rev.3 dated 28 June 1999 (N).
MEM WTO Member (M).
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 1998 Food Aid Flows, special issue, May 1999 from the Internet (www.wfp.org).G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 25
Attachment 5
Food aid deliveries to WTO Members and non-Members, 1995-98
(million tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent)
1995 1996 1997 1998
Members 5.6 4.4 4.1 5.0
Non-Members
    of which:4.6 3.0 3.2 3.0
    Least-developed countries 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.3
    Others 3.2 1.9 2.1 1.7
Global total 10.2 7.4 7.3 8.0
Notes: Includes cereals, in grain equivalent, and non-cereals (see Table 3).
In this table, Georgia is included in the data for Members.
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 1998 Food Aid Flows, special issue, May 1999 from the Internet (www.wfp.org).G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 26
Attachment 6
Technical and financial assistance under paragraph 3(iii) of the Decision, 1995-99
Notifying
MemberProgramme Currency 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Argentina Total technical assistance           0  n.a.  n.a  n.a. n.a.
Australia Total A$ mill. 351.8 400.4 263.0 147.4* NNR
AusAID multilateral core funding 227.0 230.5 161.9 67.6
AusAID regional funding 11.4 9.7 8.1
AusAID bilateral 24.2 48.1 44.533.8
AusAID scholarships 42.0 18.1 30.4 1.3
AusAID humanitarian relief 13.4 81.5 7.2 11.0
ACIAR multilateral programmes 24.0 9.4 8.9
ACIAR bilateral programmes 9.8 3.2 2.124.9
NGOs 4.4
Other government departments 4.4
Canada Total C$ mill. 299.3 271.3 290.9    275.2 NNR
CIDA multilateral core funding 253.4 215.8 243.3    228.9
CIDA bilateral programmes 25.2 25.3 16.9      18.9
CIDA Canadian Partnership Branch 8.3 5.8 5.4        4.0
IDRC bilateral programming 4.5 3.6 3.2        2.7
DFAIT multilateral core funding 7.9 20.8 22.1      20.6
EC Total ECU mill.  n.a.  n.a.  n.a.  NNR NNR
EDF- ACP countries    465.9    180.0    156.0
Development projects with other
countries**   651.1    679.4
Japan Total US$ mill. 434.3 688.2 395.8    327.1 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 NNR NNR
Multilateral core funding/other
multilateral1.5 2.4 3.8
Regional 0.7 0.5 0.3
Bilateral 1.1 1.4 1.8
Norway Total NOK mill. 648.6 718.9 818.5    990.5 NNR
WFP contribution 213.0 219.0 208.2    210.0
Bilateral programmes 285.8 297.7 338.1 459.1
Emergency relief aid 149.8 202.2 272.2    321.4
South Africa Total bilateral aid '000 Rand 705.6 355.0 865.0 1,063.2 NNR
Switzerland Global total international cooperation SFr mill. 1,356.9 1,373.3 1,334.9 1,403.6 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
USA Total US$ mill. 1,080.1 889.1 1,256.6 1,025.3 NNR
USAID global assistance to agriculture 88.0 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        4.4G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 27
Abbreviations:
n.a. not applicable
NNR no notification receivedAusAID Australian Agency for International Development Agency
ACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
CIDA Canadian International Development AgencyIDRC International Development Research CentreDFAIT Department of Foreign Affairs & International TradeEDF European Development Fund
ODA Official Development Assistance
Notes: Annual reporting periods differ among Members.
* Australia's aid figures in 1995-97 are for all recipient countries; in 1998 the entry is for LDCs and net food-
importing  developing countries only.   The global total in 1998 is A$264.3 million.
** 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/NG/S/3
Page 28
Attachment 7
(G/AG/GEN/40)
Committee on Agriculture
ANNUAL MONITORING EXERCISE IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOW-UP TO
THE MINISTERIAL DECISION ON MEASURES CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE
NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE REFORM PROGRAMME ON LEAST-DEVELOPED
AND NET FOOD-IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Attached are copies of statements* made by the representatives of the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), the International Monetary F und (IMF), the OECD, and the World Bank at the
meeting of the Committee on Agriculture on 17 Nove mber 1999 (agenda Item Part II.A refers).
Comité de l'agriculture
EXERCICE ANNUEL DE SURVEILLANCE DE LA SUITE DONNÉE À LA DÉCISION
MINISTÉRIELLE SUR LES MESURES CONCERNANT LES EFFETS NÉGATIFS
POSSIBLES DU PROGRAMME DE RÉFORME SUR LES PAYS LES MOINS
AVANCÉS ET LES PAYS EN DÉVELOPPEMENT IMPORTATEURS
NETS DE PRODUITS ALIMENTAIRES
On trouvera ci-joint la copie de s déclarations* faites par les représentants de l'Organisation des
Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture (FAO), du Fonds monétaire international (FMI), de
l'OCDE, et de la Banque mondiale à la réunion du Comité de l'agriculture du 17 novembre 1999 (point
A de la deuxième partie de l'ordre du jour).
Comité de Agricultura
EJERCICIO ANUAL DE VIGILANCIA DEL SEGUIMIENTO DE LA DECISIÓN
MINISTERIAL SOBRE MEDIDAS RELATIVAS A LOS POSIBLES
EFECTOS NEGATIVOS DEL PROGRAMA DE REFORMA EN
LOS PAÍSES MENOS ADELANTADOS Y EN LOS PAÍSES
EN DESARROLLO IMPORTADORES NETOS
DE PRODUCTOS ALIMENTICIOS
A continuación se adjuntan copias de las declar aciones* formuladas por los representantes de
la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la  Agricultura y la Alimentación (FAO), el Fondo
Monetario Internacional (FMI), la OCDE, y el Banco Mundial en la reunión del Comité deAgricultura celebrada el día 17 de noviembre de 1999 (véase el punto A de la Parte II del orden del
día).
______________
* English only/En anglais seulement/En inglés solamente.G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 29
STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
ORGANIZATION (FAO)
I would like to report briefly on developments in the global cereal supply/demand balance and
recent trends in import bills of the LDCs and the NFIDCs.  In addition, I would like to report on some
activities by the FAO on follow up to the Uruguay Round.
The world supply/demand situation for the 1999/2000 season
With the bulk of the 1999 cereal crops already harvested, world cereal output  in 1999 would
be slightly below the anticipated utilization  in 1999/2000.  As a result, some draw down in stocks  is
expected.  Nevertheless, the ratio between expected global cereal carryovers in 2000 and trendutilization would remain within the 17 to 18 per cent range that the FAO Secretariat considers as the
minimum necessary to safeguard world food security.  It should also be noted that while global cereal
stocks are forecast to decrease, those held by the major exporting countries, which are the main buffer
against any major production shortfall, are forecast to  change relatively little from their opening level,
which now stands at over 150 million tonnes and are more than double the level four years ago whenthe last cereal price surge occurred.
World trade  in cereals is forecast to increase by about 4 per cent in 1999/2000, with the
expansion shared among a few developed countries and several of the developing countries,
particularly those in the Low-Income Food Deficit category. The bulk of the increase would be inwheat and coarse grains, while rice imports are forecast to remain virtually unchanged.
International export prices  of nearly all major cereals remain generally weaker than a year
ago.  With large stocks held by major exporters and in the face of only a modest growth in world
import demand, any major recovery in prices in the coming months is unlikely.  However, the longer-term prospect would depend on next year’s planting as well as the extent of the recovery in cereal
utilization.
Cereal food aid  shipments in 1998/99 reached 9.5 million tonnes, up more than 50 per cent
from 1997/98 and the highest since 1993/94. The bulk of the increase went to the Russian Federation
but several other countries also received more, including Bangladesh, Indonesia, and several countries
in Central America and Africa.  It is important to note that food emergencies persist in many countriesthroughout the world and absorb an increasing share of food aid resources.  The latest information
from FAO points to as many as 35 countries currently facing food shortages of varying intensity.  As
a result of the urgency of responding to these emergencies, the use of food aid in meeting structural
deficits has declined considerably.
12
Cereal import bills of LDCs and the NFIDCs
During the past marketing season (1998/99) the combined cereal import bill of the countries
comprising the LDCs  and the NFIDCs  came to some $6.6 billion, down 15 per cent from the
previous year. This decline reflects a small reduction in the volume of imports but, more substantially,much lower average prices paid for imports. The per unit import cost in 1998/99 was about
US$148/tonne compared to US$171/tonne in 1997/98.  Compared to 1995/96, the year of the most
                                                     
12 In June 1999 major donors approved the new Food Aid Convention (FAC)  and confirmed their
intention to implement it for an initial period of three y ears starting in July 1999.   The new convention calls for
a more flexible approach to food aid, by expanding the list of eligible commodities and the method of
contributions. Overall, the food aid volume commitment under the new Convention would be roughly
equivalent to the level under the 1995 Convention.G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 30
recent price spike, the import bill of these countries in 1998/99 was about one-fourth less. However,
since the price spike, the average cereal import bill of these countries has remained higher than in
earlier years.  It was about 30 per cent higher in both 1996/97 and 1997/98 and 11 per cent higher in
1998/99 compared to the average for 1993/94-94/95.  Only part of this increase is due to an increase
in the volume imported.  The remainder is due to increase in the per unit import cost due to priceincreases, and a reduction in food aid and subsidized imports.
Although food aid increased during 1998/99, it wo uld account for only 8 per cent of the cereal
imports of the LDCs  and the NFIDCs  compared to 15 per cent in 1993/94-94/95.  In addition,
subsidized imports of cereals under the US Export Enhancement Programme which peaked at US$
980 million in 1993/94 (of which US$ 454 to these countries) are virtually absent after 1995/96.
13
Capacity building in developing countries
Finally, I would like to inform briefly the Committee about FAO’s capacity-building activities
related to the Agreements on Agriculture, SPS/TBT, and TRIPs.   The focus of these activities has
now shifted to preparing countries for the conti nuation of the reform process in agriculture and
providing support to them during the forthcoming multilateral trade negotiations, as may be required.
A few examples of such activities that took place recently include the following:
• several national and regional capacity-building activities in Africa, Asia, Latin America,
the Near East and the countries in transition.   These activities are part of a training
umbrella programme, being implemented since June 1999, which includes 14 sub-regional training courses.  The goal of this programme is to train between 4-6 officials
from each country – in total 700-800 officials – in order to create a critical mass of
national experts to support trade negotiations
• a Symposium here in Geneva (23-24 September 1999) on Agriculture, Trade and Food
Security which highlighted developing countries’ concerns, in particular the
interrelationship between agricultural trade, economic development and food security
• a Conference in Melbourne (11-15 October 1999) in collaboration with WHO and WTO,
on food quality and safety issues.
More details on these and other capacity-build ing activities in agriculture, forestry and
fisheries focussing on developing countries and countries in transition can be found in FAO's website
www.FAO.org/ur.    In the months and years ahead, FAO, within the range of its expertise and
resources, will be able to provide technical support to its member countries, in the analysis ofproposals during the negotiations from the perspectives of agricultural development and food security.
                                                     
13 In the case of wheat, which received the bulk of the cereal export bonuses, the subsidy ranged from
US$36 to US$47 per tonne during 1990/91-93/94.G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 31
Cereal Imports of LDCs and NFIDCs (1993/94  to 1999/00) - Information as of November 15, 1999
1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00
Import bill ($ million)
LDCs 1375 2195 2272 1871 2357 1996 na
NFIDCs 3775 4559 6265 5857 5397 4617 na
LDCs+NFIDCs 5150 6754 8537 7728 7754 6613 na
  % change over 1993/94-94/95 -13.5 13.5 43.4 29.8 30.3 11.1 na
Total volume imported (1000 tons)
LDCs 11167 13310 12273 10753 14390 15380 13108
NFIDCs 25516 25995 26093 28038 30974 29370 31542
LDCs+NFIDCs 36683 39305 38366 38791 45364 44750 44650
  % change over 1993/94-94/95 -3.4 3.4 1.0 2.1 19.4 17.8 17.5
Food aid (1000 tons)
LDCs 3932 4326 3305 2553 2669 3157 na
  % of total imports 35.2 32.5 26.9 23.7 18.5 20.5 na
NFIDCs 1857 1325 641 495 622 616 na
  % of total imports 7.3 5.1 2.5 1.8 2.0 2.1 na
LDCs+NFIDCs 5789 5651 3946 3048 3291 3773 na
  % of total imports 15.8 14.4 10.3 7.9 7.3 8.4 na
Benefit from US  EEP ($ million)
L D C s 9 9 3 51000 n a
NFIDCs 355 88 21 0 0 0 na
LDCs+NFIDCs 454 123 22 0 0 0 na
  % change over 1993/94-94/95 57.4 -57.4 -92.4 -100.0 -100.0 -100.0 na
Per unit import cost ($/ton)
LDCs 123.1 164.9 185.1 174.0 163.8 129.8 na
NFIDCs 147.9 175.4 240.1 208.9 174.2 157.2 naLDCs+NFIDCs 140.4 171.8 222.5 199.2 170.9 147.8 na
  % change over 1993/94-94/95 -10.4 9.7 42.0 27.2 9.1 -5.7 na
Wheat export price
US no 2 hard winter ($/ton) 143 157 216 181 142 120 110
  % change over 1993/94-94/95 -4.7 4.7 44.0 20.7 -5.3 -20.0 -26.7
1993/94-94/95 1995/96-96/97 1997/98-98/99
Averages (LDCs+NFIDCs)
Import bill ($ millio n) 5952.0 8132.5 7183.5
Total volume imported (1000 tons) 37993.9 38578.5 45057.0
Food aid (1000 tons) 5719.8 3496.8 3532.0
Benefit from US EEP ($ million) 288.5 11.0 0.0
Per unit import cost ($/ton) 156.7 210.8 159.4
Wheat export price ($/ton) 150.0 198.5 131.0
% change over 1993/94-94/95
Import bill 0.0 36.6 20.7Total volume imported 0.0 1.5 18.6
Food aid 0.0 -38.9 -38.2
Benefit from US EEP 0.0 -96.2 -100.0
Per unit import cost 0.0 34.6 1.8
Wheat export price 0.0 32.3 -12.7
Source:  FAO
.Figures for 1998/99 are provisional and for 1999/00 are estimatesG/AG/NG/S/3
Page 32
STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (IMF)
I am grateful to the Chairman for this opport unity to speak to the Committee.  In previous
years we have made substantial statements and I certainly do not wish to cover ground with which the
Committee is already familiar.  I would, however, like to mention briefly the recent trends in world
food prices since last year, as well as new Fund resources to meet the needs of members.
Food prices have continued to weaken considerably since the meeting of the Committee last
year.  The IMF’s index of food prices, measured in terms of U.S. dollars for October 1999, was more
than 14 per cent below the level of one year ago.  The decline reflects the abundant supplies of cerealsand oilseeds.  Weather conditions in the major producing regions for these commodities have been
generally favorable for three consecutive years.  Demand growth, particularly for use as livestock feed
until very recently, has been weaker than usual in a number of important markets.  As a result, in
recent months the U.S. dollar prices of wheat, rice, maize, soybean meal and soybean oil are at their
lowest in 12 to 14 years, and the price of palm oil at its lowest in 6 years.  Favorable supplyconditions have also led to abundant supplies of sugar and the price of sugar (outside the controlled
markets of the European Community and the United States) has fallen to its lowest level in 12 years.
By contrast, there has been some turnaround in 1999 in meat prices from the low levels recorded in
1998.  But overall, the import bill for food items incurred by net food importing countries is likely to
be particularly low this year.  However, for those net food importers that are also substantial net oilimporters, conditions are likely to be less favorable than in 1998 because of the large increases in oil
prices.  In addition, the prices of many of the nonfuel primary commodities exported by these
countries either have decreased further or increased by only small amounts.
Since our last statement, the Fund’s potential ability to help its members has been improved.
Following extensive discussions on financing of the Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative (HIPC)
and Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility (ESAF) initiatives, agreement has been reached on the
main elements of a financing package that will enable the IMF to make its contribution to the HIPC
Initiative and to continue concessional lending for sustainable growth and poverty reduction in its low
income member countries under a new facility to replace the ESAF, called the Poverty Reduction and
Growth Facility.
The main elements of the financing package of the HIPC-ESAF initiatives—amounting to
SDR 3.9 billion on an “as needed” basis (US$3.5 billion in end-1998 net present value terms)—
comprise contributions by member countries and by the IMF itself.  The financing of the cost of the
HIPC Initiative to the IMF is projected to account for about two-thirds of the IMF’s total financing
requirement.  We believe that these initiatives expand the scope of support the IMF can offer itsmembers.  So we can reiterate what we have said in previous years, that the Fund considers it has
sufficient liquidity to meet any additional need that may arise from higher food prices.
Naturally, Mr. Chairman we are acutely aware of the problems faced by net food importers
(not necessarily related to the price of food imports).  At the present time, 21 net food importing andLDCs are receiving financial support from the Fund to support their adjustment programs or to deal
with emergency situations.  If requested, and if there is a balance of payments need, the Fund
continues to stand ready to help.  It is a relief to note developments in food prices over the last year
(as I have just described), but allow me to reassure the Committee that the Fund has the resources
under existing facilities and has shown its willingness to use these resources in the past, to meet thebalance of payments needs of net food importers.G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 33
STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OECD
The OECD is not currently engaged in any work specifically on the Least Developed
Countries and the Net Food Importing countries.  However, three activities currently underway are
relevant:  (i) Negotiations on an export credit understanding covering agricultural products;
(ii) OECD Member countries trade related pr ogramme of work 1999-2000;  and (iii) Non-OECD
Member countries trade related programme of work 1999-2000.
1. Negotiations on an export credit understanding covering agricultural products
In accordance with a commitment made in the context of the Uruguay Round, the Participants
to the Export Credit Arrangement (the Arrangement) began negotiations in 1997 on complementary
guidelines to cover officially supported export credits for agricultural products (currently excluded
from the Export Credit Arrangement).
Negotiations have proved slow, although an agreement on market-based repayment terms
(180 days maximum credit) and risk-based premium fees are supported by all but one Participant.
The United States, whilst in favour  of an Understanding, has different views on repayment terms
(wanting longer than others for certain products and markets) and constraining legislation on premium
fees.  However, it has recently signalled flexibility in this regard, and has made proposals which
represent a significant step in the direction of the other Participants.
In the Communiqué from the OECD Council Meeting at Ministerial Level held on 26 and 27
May 1999 (PAC/COM/NEWS(99 )52), OECD Ministers:
".....regretted that the Participants to the Export Credit Arrangement had not yet reached
agreement on an Understanding covering agriculture as mandated in the Uruguay Round. They
urged, once more, the Participants to intensify their efforts to conclude this Understandingpromptly, if possible by the Seattle Conference, and to report back at the next Ministerial Council
Meeting."
Against this background, efforts have been redoubled to try to reach an agreement, and the
Participants have met twice since the Ministerial, including once in Special Session.  The Participants
consider that these negotiations represent a comm itment made in the Uruguay Round; therefore, there
is the strong desire to resolve this issue in the foru m of the Participants rather than for the issue to be
deferred to the Millenium Round.
With this in mind, the Participants are now co nsidering a Chairman’s Proposal on the major
issues of repayment terms, premium fees and implementation, with a deadline for responses of the end
of the year.  There will be another Special Session in early 2000 dedicated to the Agriculture issue and
a plenary Meeting in April with a view to concluding (if possible) the negotiations before the OECD
Ministerial in May.
2. OECD Member countries trade related programme of work 1999-2000
Among the shared goals adopted by OECD Agriculture Ministers in March 1998 is the further
integration of the agro-food sector into the multilateral trading system.  In pursuit of this goal,
Ministers mandated the OECD to address ongoing and emerging agricultural trade policy issues and
to provide analytical support to the process of agricultural trade liberalisation.  In response, theG/AG/NG/S/3
Page 34
Committee for Agriculture programme incorporates specific agricultural trade policy issues that are of
major interest to Member countries of the OECD , but which may also concern non-OECD countries.
More specifically, the agricultural trade policy work programme consists of two core
elements.  The first element deals with the evalua tion and strengthening trade liberalisation and the
second one considers issues arising at the interface of trade and domestic policy.
The first element aims to assist policy makers and negotiators as they enter the “Millennium
Round” by:
• assessing in-depth the effects of the URAA on trade and protection levels.  The objective is to
provide a stocktaking of the three pillars of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture
(URAA), -market access, export subsidies and domestic support.  Both primary and processedproducts will be covered.  A preliminary report on market access was discussed at the join session
of the Working Party on Agricultural Policies and Markets of the Committee for Agriculture
(APM) and the Joint Working Party of the Committee for Agriculture and the Trade Committee
(JWP) in June 1999.  The paper deals with market access aspects of the implementation of the
Agreement with particular emphasis on the evaluation of tariff quotas and their administrativemethods.  It also presents a preliminary analysis of the tariff structure in the post-Uruguay Round
era.  First drafts of the analysis on domestic support and export subsidies will be presented to the
APM/JWP meeting to be held on 13-16 March 2000.
• identifying possible impacts on trade and markets of different scenarios for further trade
liberalisation.  The OECD's commodity projection model, Aglink, will be modified and used to
evaluate in a forward looking manner various options for further trade liberalisation regarding the
market access and export subsidy pillars of the URAA.  The development of a database
supporting the work on market access is in the final phase and should be operational by early
2000.  First analytical results will become available in March (export subsidies) and September
(market access) 2000.
• analysing the effect of trade policy instruments such as export credits or export taxes and
restrictions.  The work on export credits aims at evaluating the effects of export credits on
agricultural commodity markets by using survey responses and interest rate data to compute the
effects of export credits on the present value importers pay.  This will give insight in the degree to
which export credits might serve as an alternativ e to export subsidies.  The basic information
needed to do the analysis is extracted through questionnaires asking details of export credit
programmes by OECD Member countries.  A first draft of the analysis will be discussed by theAPM/JWP meeting in March 2000.
Under the second major element of the OECD Member countries agricultural trade policy
work programme the trade implications of different agricultural support measures, including
agri-environmental policies, will be evaluated.  The implications of trade liberalisation for food
security in OECD and selected non-OECD c ountries will also be examined.  Work on
multifunctionality will explore relationships between policies to ensure an adequate supply ofagriculture’s non-food outputs and international trade commitments.  Moreover trade repercussions of
domestic policies in the area of food safety and quality (biotechnology and animal welfare), and
competition policy (geographical labels and state trading) will be explored.  The particular focus is on
clarifying the characteristics of policies that are minimally or non-trade distorting as required under
the URAA.  Reports multifunctionality, state trading, food safety and geographical labels will bepresented to the March 2000 APM/JWP meeting.G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 35
3. Non-OECD Member countries trade related programme of work 1999-2000
A process of analysis and discussion on a range of agricultural trade policy issues of
importance to Emerging and Transition Economies has begun through the OECD Forum on
Agricultural Policies in Non-Member Countries.  Th e objective is to consider the policy lessons that
can be learned from implementation of the URAA and t hus to identify key interests in the traditional
areas of market access, export competition and domestic support that may arise in the forthcoming
Millennium Round.  During the first year of work, the Secretariat's analytical work and policy
dialogue will focus on those issues that can be considered under the “three pillars” of the URAA.
Other trade issues, such as the rules governing sa nitary and phyto-sanitary regulations, are deferred
for consideration next year, when the topics to be discussed in the new round should be clearer.  The
Secretariat's analytical work is being informed inter alia  by responses to questionnaires which have
been sent to a group of about a dozen emerging and transition economies with a heterogeneous trade
profile.G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 36
STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE WORLD BANK
World Bank Support for  the Least Developed
and Net Food Importing Countries
The World Bank is very active in helping the least developed and net food importing
countries in at least three ways that are relevant to the deliberations of the Committee. A first is
through improvements in agricultural production technology. A second is through its lending in
support of agricultural supply response and policy reform in developing countries. A third is through
analytical support for developing countries gearing up to participate in the negotiations on agriculturescheduled under the built-in agenda for the Seattle Ministerial.
Agricultural production technology
The World Bank is a key supporter of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR), which works through a network of 16 international agricultural research centers
to mobilize the best agricultural science on behalf of the world's poor and hungry. Fifty-eight
developing and developed countries, private founda tions, and regional and international organizations,
including the Bank, collectively support the CGIAR. In 1998 CGIAR contributions totaled $340
million, up from the previous year's $320 million. The CGIAR leverages the Bank's support - $50.1million in 1998 - almost eightfold. The CGIAR's research is critical to the Bank's commitment to
environmentally and socially sustainable development and its renewed focus on rural development.
Some 300 CGIAR research projects are increasing agricultural productivity, strengthening national
agricultural research systems, protecting the environment, improving policies, and preserving
biodiversity. The third independent System Review, completed in 1998, concluded that investment inthe CGIAR has been the most effective use of official development assistance.
The World Bank also assists least developed and net food importing countries to improve
their agricultural technology through its projects and technical assistance work. This work is typically
a component of a broader project designed to help the country improve its agricultural supply
response.
Agricultural Supply Response and Production Technology
The emphasis placed on rural sector lending has increased in recent years, in large part
because of recognition that approximately 75 per cent of poor people in developing countries live in
rural areas. Therefore,  the Bank's objective of poverty reduction cannot be met unless widely sharedgrowth, food security, and sustainable natural resources management are achieved in these areas. The
Bank’s rural sector work is undertaken within a broad framework to ensure consistency with overall
development goals, but includes projects in a wide range of areas, ranging from sustainable land and
crop management, livestock, agricultural research and extension, irrigation, river basin management,
natural resources management, and rural finance to cross-cutting areas of food security, gender indevelopment, and community-based rural development. In addition, some projects provide important
infrastructure support, such as upgrading of rural roads.
A summary outline of 45 World Bank lending projects designed to support the agricultural
sectors of  26 Least Developed Countries is given in Appendix Table 1. These projects had a totalvalue of almost $2.2 billion, of which $1.4 billion was lent from the World Bank itself.  As is evident
from the summary, these projects covered a wide range of rural development problems—from
improving rural transport infrastructure in Bangladesh, through strengthening research and extension
systems in Nepal, to institutional strengthening in Zambia.G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 37
A similar summary outline for the Net Food Importing Countries is given in Appendix Table
2. The 28 projects supporting the rural sectors of these countries span 10 countries. The total value of
these projects is $3.3 billion, of which $1.7 billion was provided by the World Bank. As in the case of
the least developed countries, the projects span a wide range of objectives, including land
management and infrastructure; research and extension; and the development of irrigationinfrastructure.
Analytical Support for the WTO Negotiations
Because of their capacity constraints, the least developed and net food importing countries
have a particularly acute need for support to help them determine their positions in the forthcoming
WTO negotiations on agriculture. A major project to support developing countries in thesenegotiations has been launched under the title “Agriculture and the WTO 2000 Negotiations:
Economic Analyses of Issues and Options for Developing Countries”. In addition, an important
conference focussing on the Latin America region was held in late 1998 under joint FAO/World Bank
sponsorship. A World Bank paper will also be presented to the UNCTAD X meeting in Bangkok.
Agriculture and the WTO 2000 Negotiations
This project aims to advance the process a nd implementation of international trade and
agricultural policy reforms affecting agriculture in developing countries and strengthen the capacity of
these countries to participate in the next WTO round of multilateral trade negotiations.  It seeks to
achieve these objectives through an integrated program of research, policy analyses/advice, andcapacity building in developing countries.  The project provides a more detailed perspective on
agricultural issues than the related WTO 2000 project covering the entire agenda for the negotiations.
The first phase of the project involves research and policy analyses required in the lead-up to
the next WTO negotiations in agriculture.  In this phase, research focused on issues of critical
importance to developing countries has been carried out. The 30 papers commissioned in this phasehave evaluated the current status of trade and agricultural policies, estimated remaining trade
barriers/distortions, identified specific policy options in the context of the next round, and evaluated
the costs and benefits of  policy options. The overview research results were presented to a global
policy audience during a conference at WTO in Geneva in October, and selected thematic papers will
be presented in regional seminars in developing countries around early-2000.
The second phase of the project involves the preparation of regional and country-specific
papers by experts from developing countries.  These papers will evaluate current policies, analyzespecific negotiating objectives/options, and assess their costs and benefits at the region and/or country
level.  The outputs from this phase will be used to directly assist policy makers in developing
countries to develop their negotiating objectives through a series of policy workshops and training
activities targeting senior policy makers in developing countries during the year 2000.
The third phase of the project involves capacity building activities through a series of regional
workshops for senior policy makers from developing countries, complemented by training activities
sponsored by the Bank (EDI) and donor partners. This phase will commence once the negotiations
have begun in earnest.  These activities will draw  on the thematic research outputs and results
generated from the regional and country-specific analyses.  A practical handbook including sets of
databases on agricultural protection and simple analytical and software tools for negotiators will beprepared.  The results  will also be used in th e Bank’s rural sector policy and strategy work in
developing countries, and in country programs of the Bank and donor partners.G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 38
FAO/World Bank Seminar for Lati n America and Caribbean Countries
From  23-26 November 1998 a workshop on Furthering Multilateral Agricultural
Negotiations was held in Santiago under the auspices of the WB, and FAO, and in collaboration with
IICA. The purpose was to stimulate wide ranging discussions on agricultural trade matters concerningthe Region in the context of the forthcoming WTO negotiations. The seminar was attended by nearly
40 representatives from 20 countries, plus about another 20 representatives from various international
organizations, universities, and sponsoring agencies.G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 39Attachment 7:  Table 1. Listing of World Bank agricult ural projects in least developed countries, 1997-1999
Proj. Name *Country FY Proj. Cost $m Loan $m Text of Comments
2ND RURAL RDS & MRKT BANGLADESH 1997 192.4 133 Project will improve feeder roads, rural markets, river jetties and
construct rural structures (bridges  & culverts) needed to complete
rural roads built under the food-for-work programs. Importantproject elements are: providing low-cost rural transport,
SILK DEV  PILOT  PROJ. BANGLADESH 1998 15 11.4 Likely to include (i) facilities and equipment for silkworm
breeding and distribution; (ii) sericulture training facilities; (iii)
expansion of ngo extension and credit programs for sericulturists;(iv) improved sericulture re search; (v) pilot development
ROAD REH. MAINT. III BANGLADESH 1999 528.5 273 A long-term strategy and program for improvement and
maintenance of feeder roads type "a" will be prepared and the
first phase of this program will be implemented under the project;
construction of nalka-bonpara road; widening and rehabilitationof dhaka-
RIVER BANK PROT SUP BANGLADESH 1999 45 45 The project will cover: a. Rehabilitation of flood control,
drainage, irrigation and erosion facilities at some 40 sites all over
the country; b. Remedial measures for protection works at
sirajganj site which were damaged during 1998 flood; c. Shortfalldue to depreciation of US dollar against SDR since creditapproval, and d. Preparation of a longer-term plan for river bankprotection and designing a up project.
ROAD REHAB MAIN II S BANGLADESH 1999 100.9 80 Facilitate rehabilitation of the road network which has been
damaged by the devastating 1998 flood.
RURAL ROADS MKT II S BANGLADESH 1999 25.6 20 To finance the cost of repair and reconstruction of physical
facilities and replacement of equipment damaged by the 1998
floods.
COASTAL EMBANKMENT S BANGLADESH 1999 16.5 16.5 Supplemental credit to the coastal embankment projectG/AG/NG/S/3
Page 40
Proj. Name *Country FY Proj. Cost $m Loan $m Text of Comments
BORGOU PILOT RSP BENIN 1998 5 4 Borgou pilot rural support program (lil)
AG SERVICES II BURKINA
FASO1998 50 41.3 Follow up to ag. Services i and ag. Research. Will also include
pilot programs (promotion of rural institutions and small ruralinstitutions and restructuring of the ministry of agriculture andanimal resources. Note: that the project was signed on 12/15/97.
PRIVATE IRRIGATION BURKINA
FASO1999 5.2 5.2 The project would support the government's national program for
irrigation development by promoting the development ofprivately built funded and managed small-and medium scaleirrigation schemes and complementary small-scale commercialactivities.
AGRI.PRODUCT IMP. CAMBODIA 1997 35.1 27 Capacity building program with ministry of agriculture, with
development components for farmer training, agricultural fieldtrials and demonstration ,seed production, integrated pest
management, animal health and production, fisheries
management, small-scale
AG SERVICES PILOT COMOROS 1997 2.8 1.6 To assist govt in implementing agr strategy through (a)
development of nat. Research and ext. Programs; (b) support toprivate sector development in agriculture; and (c) strengthening
government's capacity for sector planning, monitoring and
coordination.
AG. RESEARC & TRAIN ETHIOPIA 1998 90.6 60 Project would consolidate, strengthen, and expand the Ethiopian
agri- cultural research system with a focus on regional researchstations, enhanced human resource capacity and participatoryapproach in research planning and prioritization.
PVRTY ALL.&MUNIC.DEV GAMBIA 1999 10 10 The project is a follow-up to the public works and capacity
building which will close in June, 1998 and concerns essentiallytwo sectors: (i) the urban sector, in its municipal managementaspect; and (ii) the labor sector more narrowly, its civil andpublic
VILLAGE SUPPORT PROG GUINEA 1999 20 15 Poverty alleviation at the community level, decentralization at the
crd level; support in basic rural infrastructure and maintenance.
VILLAGE COMUNTY SPRT GUINEA 1999 22 22 Poverty alleviation at the community level, decentralization at the
crd level; support in basic rural infrastructure and maintenance.G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 41Proj. Name *Country FY Proj. Cost $m Loan $m Text of Comments
FOREST & PARKS TA HAITI 1997 27.5 21.5 To stem environmental degradation in three national reserves, by
improving living standards of rural population living in parkbuffer areas, by providing agroforestry technology services,institutional development and a pilot buffer zone productiveactivities
LA-PROVIN. INFRAST. LAO, P.D.R. 1999 27.8 27.8 The project aims to improve the core rural transport network of
Laos as a means to alleviate rural poverty through the provisionof greater access to markets and other key social infrastructure.
LA DIST UPLAND DEV LAO, P.D.R. 1999 2.2 2 Develop local government's capacity to implement poverty
reduction programs in the context of bio-diversity conservation.
LA DIST UPLAND DEV LAO, P.D.R. 1999 2.2 2 Develop local government's capacity to implement poverty
reduction programs in the context of bio-diversity conservation.
AG POL & CAP BLDG LESOTHO 1998 14.3 6.8 1) support strategic reforms in policy reforms in the sector; (2)
support capacity building through MOA inst. Restructuring,delivery of core services.
RURAL WATER SEC.PILO MADAGASCAR 1998 22.3 17.3 The project would improve local capacity to expand and maintain
rural water supply facilities through: (i) providing a policy &
legal frame-work for the sector, (ii) reorganizing the sector andbuilding institutional capacity, (iii) carrying out benefic
IRRIG PROMOTION MALI 1997 4.7 4.2 Provision of technical and institutional support to private
investment in irrigated agriculture.
RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE MALI 1999 45 45 Project will support (a) construc tion/rehabilitation of rural roads;
(b) a rural water supply program; (c) development of bottomlands; and (d) development of collective infrastructure for theprocessing and marketing of agricultural products. Joint task
RAINFED NAT RES MGT MAURITANIA 1997 23.5 18 The project would aim at the management of their resource base
by rural communities by (a) financing protective and productivevillage- level investments, (b) institutional capacities buildingthrough staffing and equipment of technical services and (c) c
INTEG DEV PROG FOR I MAURITANIA 1999 78 18 Development of private irrigation plus selected rehabilitation of
publicly-constructed irrigation schemes. Project preparation hasstarted as part of completion of the Senegal river right bank watermaster plan.G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 42
Proj. Name *Country FY Proj. Cost $m Loan $m Text of Comments
AGRIC SECTOR PEP MOZAMBIQUE 1999 202 30 Support to the national agricultural investment program. The
program will focus on (i) agriculture research and extension (ii)pilot land demarcation, adjudication and cadastre&(iii)institutional reform and modernization of the min. Of agric.& fisheries and the development of its human resources and
management system. Program would also include priority
reforms in the sector policy environment.
IRRIG SECTOR DEVT NEPAL 1998 103 79.8 Finance construct. & rehab.of small/medium-surface & new
groundwater schemes to be managed by farmer irrig.assns., &rehab of existing farmer-managed schemes; and institutional
devt. Support for dept of irrigation, dept. Of agriculture, dept. Of
hydrology
AGRI RES & EXTENSION NEPAL 1998 45 24.3 Institutional development -- improve the management and
capacity of agric. research & extens. Service institutions to (a)
develop location-specific agric. Technology on the basis of close
consultation with farmers;(b)improve technology delivery systemby (
RURAL INFRA LIL NEPAL 1999 5.8 5 The project will aim at strengthening the institutional capacity of
local government entities in planning and managing district roads
to improve district roads in se lected districts using a cost-
effective and sustainable technology.
LIL AGRICULTURE RWANDA 1999 5 5 This lil will test different approaches of promoting local rural
marketing systems and encouraging increased participation by theprivate sector, including farmer cooperatives.
NAT EXT PROJ PH.II TANZANIA 1997 34.4 31.1 Support reorganization and strengthening of agricultural
extension with enhanced role for farmers and users, improvinglinkage between research and extension and establishing amonitoring and evaluation system.
RIVER BASIN MGM.SMAL TANZANIA 1997 30.8 26.3 Project will focus on water management problems in river basins
and improvement of small holder irrigation.
LAKE VICTORIA ENV. TANZANIA 1997 10.1 10.1 Establish a regional program for rehabilitation and maintenance
of the lake Victoria ecosystem (the lake and its catchment),
including fisheries management, fisheries research and extension,
water hyacinth control, water pollution control and monitoring,anG/AG/NG/S/3
Page 43Proj. Name *Country FY Proj. Cost $m Loan $m Text of Comments
AGRIC RESEARCH TANZANIA 1998 46.1 21.8 Research program; strengthen zonal research; emphasize client
orienta -tion; develop human resources and training andstrengthen monitoring and evaluation.
NAT.AGRICULTURE SERV TOGO 1998 52 26.2 Rehabilitation of major agricultural support services and sectoral
management capacity of ministry of rural development, including
agricultural research and pilot rural credit
LAKE VICTORIA ENV. UGANDA 1997 12.1 12.1 Establish a regional program for rehabilitation and maintenance
of the lake Victoria ecosystem (the lake and its catchment),including fisheries management, fisheries research and extension,
water hyacinth control, water pollution control and monitoring,
an
ROAD SECT/INST.SUPP UGANDA 1998 33 30 Credit for institutional and engineering support to the road sector.
Institutional and capacity building of the road sub-sector.
Feasibility studies (economic, engineering, environment) for
selected roads.
ICB-PAMSU UGANDA 1999 14.4 12.4 Assistance to government to develop institutional capacity to
conserve and manage protected areas and their bio-diversity andto develop environmental sustainable tourism with benefits tolocal and national economies.
AGRIC.RES & TRNG. II UGANDA 1999 40 40 (a) institutional strengthening Naro's capacity to manage the
national agricultural research program, improve participation ofstakeholders, & coordination of donors financing agriculturalresearch; and research & graduate training capacity of theagriculture
AGRIC.RES & TRNG. II UGANDA 1999 26 26 (a) institutional strengthening Naro's capacity to manage the
national agricultural research program, improve participation ofstakeholders, & coordination of donors financing agriculturalresearch; and research & graduate training capacity of the
agriculture faculties of Makerere university;(b)technology
development and adoption; and (c) Naro's technical backstoppingand in-service training for the decentralized extension service.
FLOOD EMERGENCY YEMEN 1997 35 30 Rehabilitation of flood damage in the agricultural and roads &
bridges sectors, in addition to provision of equipment for the
water supply sector.G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 44
Proj. Name *Country FY Proj. Cost $m Loan $m Text of Comments
S.GOV AGRI PRIVATIZA YEMEN 1998 45.8 24.7 Project will raise income in poor rural areas of Yemen; southern
governorates through land and water development, agriculturalservices and support to non-farm rural enterprises.
SEEDS & AG. SERVICES YEMEN 1998 14.3 12.5 Improvement of seed and plant materials and input supply,
institutional support through improved regulatory framework,
private sector development, training and technical assistance.
ENVIRONMENT ZAMBIA 1997 20.8 12.8 The program will assist in coordination of donor project funding,
provide investment capital and tech. asst. in env. and nat.resource use problems in Zambia. Primary focus consists ofinstitutional strengthening.
* In English only.G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 45Attachment 7:  Table 2. Listing of World Bank agricultural projects in net food importing developing countries, 1997-1999
Project Name *Country FY Proj. Cost
$mLoan $m Text of Comments
RURAL LAND (PNGTER) COTE D'IVOIRE 1997 60.8 41 On the basis of land use and land feature maps and a
community-based planning process, the project wouldsupport community organization land management andrural infrastructure development
AGRIC. SVCS. II COTE D'IVOIRE 1999 50 50 (1) follow-up to agric. Services i; (2) support for
restructuring of ag. Research support; and (3) supportrural communitarian radio implementation.
EAST DELTA AG.SERV. EGYPT 1998 91.4 15 Project provides agricultural support services, on-farm
infra structure, drinking water, financial services &
project management to facilitate settlement and increasedagriculture production on 130,000 feddans of recentlyreclaimed land in the east delta.
SOHAG RURAL DEV. EGYPT 1999 50 25 Rural development and poverty reduction.
P. S. REHAB. III EGYPT 1999 253 120 Rehabilitation and repair of about 77 pumping stations,
provision of spare parts and o & m equipment, upgradingof management information system, and institutionalsupport.
PRVT SECT.& AG. DEV. EGYPT 1999 600 300 Financial support to the private sector in the form of a
credit line to finance agricultural infrastructure, on- farmtechnology improvements, agro-industry development,land improvement and development and institutiondevelopment.
RURAL LAND MGMT HONDURAS 1997 41.8 34 Institutional strengthening to complement ag sac reforms
in following areas: (i) land administration; (ii) naturalresources management, (iii) research and extensionservices and (iv) bio-diversity conservation.
NARP II KENYA 1997 60 39.7 The project would strengthen ag. research and extension
capability in Kenya through support to key nat. crop,livestock & production factor research centers andprograms. Incl. assistance for network of regionalresearch ctrs to strengthen res/ext linkages. IdG/AG/NG/S/3
Page 46
Project Name *Country FY Proj. Cost
$mLoan $m Text of Comments
LAKE VICTORIA ENV. KENYA 1997 12.8 12.8 Establish a regional program for rehabilitation and
maintenance of the lake Victoria ecosystem(the lake andits catchment), including fishe-ries management, fisheriesresearch and extension, water Hyacinthe control, waterpollution control and monitoring a
WATER RESOURCE MGMT. MOROCCO 1998 25 20 Through policy reforms, capacity building and
investment actions, the project would lay the foundationfor an integrated and sustainable management of waterresources in morocco.
RURAL W.S.& SANITATN MOROCCO 1998 57 10 So provide for reliable potable water supply for the rural
poor and sanitation facilities where needed.
LAKHDAR WATERSHED MG MOROCCO 1999 5.8 4 Pilot participatory natural resource management project
providing infrastructure, agricultural services, andinstitution building.
PILOT FISHERIES DEV. MOROCCO 1999 23 5 Objectives are to enhance sector value added and
promote export competitiveness through pilot activities toimprove fish handling & marketing, strengthen qualitymanagement, improve information system, support sectorplanning, and promote profession
PILOT FISHERIES DEV. MOROCCO 1999 16 5 Objectives are to enhance sector value added and
promote export competitiveness through pilot activities toimprove fish handling & marketing, strengthen qualitymanagement, improve information system, support sectorplanning, and promote professional associations.
PVT SECTOR GROUND WA PAKISTAN 1997 104.8 56 Increase agricultural production through improved and
timely availability of supplementary irrigation; controlthe groundwater levels and soil salinity; replaceinefficient scarp tube wells with more efficient privatetube wells; and avoid environmental hazards
NATIONAL DRAINAGE PR PAKISTAN 1998 785 285 Project objectives: restore sustainability of
environmentally-sound irrigated agriculture through: (a)minimization of drainable surplus; and (b) facilitatingevacuation of drainable surplus. Project components: (a)drainage research and sector planning;G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 47Project Name *Country FY Proj. Cost
$mLoan $m Text of Comments
AG. SECTOR INV. CRED PAKISTAN 1999 201.8 110 As a follow up to the agriculture sector study
recommendations, the objectives are to (a) improve theefficiency of pricing, marketing and distribution of majorcrops and inputs; (b) examine and rationalize the role ofthe public sector.
ON FARM WTR MGMT IV PAKISTAN 1999 185 125 The proposed project would be a program type operation
concentrating on rehabilitating & improving the irriginfras & transferring the irrig mgmt to the farmers' org atthe distributary minor level. The components wouldconsist of a social mobilization program
IRRIG. REHAB PERU 1997 160 85 Rehabilitate irrigation schemes, establish effective cost
recovery mechanisms and maintenance; and introduceprivatization of operation.
SIERRA NATURAL RES. PERU 1997 93.2 51 Small scale rural investment for poor people in the sierra.
SUST.PART.ENGY.MGMT. SENEGAL 1997 19.3 5.2 The project will (i) improve the management of forest-
based energy resources; (ii) improve the end-use ofhousehold fuels; and (iii) reduce the loss of carbonsequestration capacity
AGR SEC ADJ CREDIT SENEGAL 1997 1.8 1.8 This is a supplemental credit for ida reflows to credit
2738 approved on a non-objection basis on 11/14/96.
AG.EXPORT PROMOTION SENEGAL 1998 8 8 The project's main objectives are to help expand and
diversify the ag. export base of Senegal through provision
of export promotion and diversification support;
strenghtening of producers' and exporters' organizations;support to project management; and upg
AGR.SRCVES&PROD.ORGS SENEGAL 1999 47.1 27.4 Support national research, extension services, producers'
organizations and restructuring of the ministries ofagriculture and livestock.
MAHAWELI RESTRUCTURI SRI LANKA 1998 74.2 57 Institutional restructuring and rehabilitation and
improvement of irrigation and drainage facilities inmahaweli system h.
NATURAL RESOURCE MGM TUNISIA 1997 51.3 26.5 To promote sustainable land resource management and
planning and sector-wide investments. Componentswould be: (i)nat rsc mgmt operats in three agro-G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 48
Project Name *Country FY Proj. Cost
$mLoan $m Text of Comments
ecological zones thru' particpatory development plans
with community and subsectoral investment in soils/wa
ASIL 2 TUNISIA 1998 69.3 42 The project will support line items in the moa's 1998 and
1999 budget in support of water resources management,and agricultural extension, research and training.
WATER SECTOR LOAN TUNISIA 1999 160 100 The project would comprise an integrated investment and
rehabilitation program with the objective to enable further
mobilization of water resources to fill the demand,
without harming the environment and by encouraging tothe extent possible full cost recovery.
     * In English only.G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 49
Attachment 8
Indices of primary commodity prices, 1990-2000 (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-------------------------------------- ------------------------
-----
1990 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
1991 90.1 94.3 99.1 93.5 96.4 85.7 103.2 84.3
1992 89.5 94.4 101.3 80.5 99.0 83.7 98.0 82.8
1993 86.4 96.1 99.9 85.6 115.0 71.9 83.0 73.0
1994 92.2 109.0 105.1 149.7 125.9 83.8 89.6 69.4
1995 99.8 118.1 113.6 151.1 131.3 100.2 99.1 74.8
1996 104.9 116.7 127.5 124.9 127.7 88.2 112.7 88.6
1997 100.6 112.9 113.6 165.5 119.1 90.9 113.9 83.8
1998 79.6 96.3 99.4 140.3 99.6 76.1 117.1 56.9
1999 85.1 89.6 84.3 110.5 101.5 75.2 112.4 79.0
97 Q2 101.7 117.2 116.5 189.6 123.0 92.8 114.2 80.5
97 Q3 98.5 111.2 107.5 167.6 117.8 93.4 111.9 81.2
97 Q4 96.1 106.4 110.4 157.8 108.7 85.4 113.3 82.0
98 Q1 85.0 102.2 106.3 165.1 102.8 79.6 117.1 61.6
98 Q2 81.1 98.2 101.4 141.8 102.0 77.6 118.0 57.8
98 Q3 77.2 92.4 93.7 129.1 96.8 74.9 117.9 56.6
98 Q4 75.1 92.3 96.4 125.3 96.8 72.2 115.5 51.6
99 Q1 73.3 89.4 89.6 119.3 99.3 68.3 115.4 51.3
99 Q2 80.9 88.0 83.9 110.9 99.3 72.2 115.1 71.2
99 Q3 89.2 88.7 81.8 98.6 101.2 78.6 111.2 90.0
99 Q4 96.9 92.2 82.4 113.2 105.9 81.8 107.8 103.3
00 Q1 6/ 102.8 93.2 84.7 102.8 105.0 86.6 106.6 115.8
Jul-98 77.3 93.4 97.3 128.7 96.1 75.1 118.6 55.4
Aug-98 76.0 91.8 92.1 132.8 96.4 74.4 118.1 54.4
Sep-98 78.5 91.9 92.1 125.9 97.8 75.0 117.0 60.1
Oct-98 77.6 92.1 96.2 123.3 96.4 72.9 116.6 57.7
Nov-98 75.5 93.0 97.7 126.4 96.9 73.0 115.3 51.7
Dec-98 72.1 91.7 95.6 126.3 96.9 70.7 114.7 45.3
Jan-99 73.7 91.1 94.0 124.2 99.3 68.3 115.9 49.8
Feb-99 71.1 88.9 88.9 118.1 98.7 68.4 115.2 46.8
Mar-99 75.1 88.2 86.0 115.6 100.2 68.2 115.2 57.3
Apr-99 79.8 87.7 85.1 110.9 97.9 71.3 115.2 69.1
May-99 81.8 89.1 84.0 112.3 101.3 73.5 115.2 71.9
Jun-99 81.3 87.6 82.7 109.7 100.2 71.7 114.8 72.7
Jul-99 84.8 86.5 78.0 100.7 99.6 76.5 112.2 82.5
Aug-99 88.7 88.7 82.9 98.0 100.9 77.9 111.4 88.5
Sep-99 94.5 91.3 84.4 97.2 104.6 81.4 110.1 98.8
Oct-99 93.4 91.8 82.8 105.5 106.7 80.6 109.6 95.6
Nov-99 97.7 92.3 82.7 116.4 105.5 81.2 106.9 105.2
Dec-99 99.7 92.6 81.6 117.6 105.4 83.8 106.9 109.3
Jan-00 100.8 93.9 84.5 106.4 105.6 87.6 106.9 110.2
Feb-00 103.7 93.5 85.0 101.0 105.2 87.3 105.9 117.6
Mar-00 103.9 92.3 84.8 101.1 104.1 84.7 106.9 119.6
 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.G/AG/NG/S/3
Page 50
Attachment 9
Commodity price data, 1998-2000
Annual averages Quarterly averages Monthly averages
Commodity Unit Jan-
DecJan-
DecJan-
MarApr-
JunJul-
SepOct-
DecJan-
MarJan Feb Mar
  1998 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2000 2000
Beverages            
Cocoa ¢/kg 167.6 113.5 139.4 113.6 105.7 95.4 90.0 91.9 85.7 92.6
Coffee, arabica ¢/kg 298.1 229.1 238.0 235.5 198.8 244.0 231.7 245.0 228.1 222.1
Coffee, robusta ¢/kg 182.3 148.9 172.7 149.1 135.4 138.4 109.0 117.2 107.7 102.0
Tea, average 3 auctions ¢/kg 204.6 183.9 167.6 181.5 190.8 195.8 180.5 185.5 181.2 174.8
Tea, Calcutta auctions ¢/kg 216.5 206.8 162.3 223.4 224.9 216.6 158.2 186.1 152.4 136.2
Tea, Colombo auctions ¢/kg 207.5 164.9 160.3 145.9 170.7 182.9 181.9 182.7 180.8 182.1
Tea, Mombasa auctions ¢/kg 189.9 180.0 180.3 175.1 176.9 187.8 201.4 187.6 210.5 206.2
Fats and Oils            
Coconut oil $/mt 657.9 737.1 736.0 832.3 681.3 698.7 599.0 654.0 591.0 552.0
Copra $/mt 411.1 461.5 457.7 521.3 433.7 433.3 411.3 420.0 411.0 403.0
Groundnut oil $/mt  909.4 787.7 808.0 755.7 781.7 805.3 773.0 789.0 774.0 756.0
Palm oil $/mt 671.1 436.0 563.3 458.7 353.7 368.3 343.3 348.0 332.0 350.0
Palmkernel oil $/mt 686.7 694.1 704.7 729.0 656.7 686.0 588.0 628.0 580.0 556.0
Soybean meal $/mt 170.3 152.2 145.7 140.0 152.3 170.7 182.3 180.0 187.0 180.0
Soybean oil $/mt 625.9 427.3 492.3 426.7 406.3 384.0 363.3 371.0 357.0 362.0
Soybeans $/mt 243.3 201.7 210.3 200.0 196.3 200.0 214.3 208.0 214.0 221.0
Grains            
Maize $/mt 102.0 90.2 95.9 93.4 85.4 86.1 94.5 93.3 95.2 95.1
Rice, Thai, 5% $/mt 304.2 248.4 278.7 244.5 244.3 226.3 236.1 241.4 241.0 225.8
Rice, Thai, 25% $/mt 259.9 216.3 239.6 211.6 217.9 196.1 196.4 201.6 199.0 188.7
Rice, Thai, 35% $/mt 249.7 210.5 232.9 205.9 212.7 190.6 188.7 194.4 191.0 180.8
Rice,Thai, A1.Special $/mt 213.0 192.6 214.2 189.5 201.1 165.7 155.8 158.2 156.7 152.5
Sorghum $/mt 98.0 84.4 90.9 87.6 79.5 79.6 90.3 89.3 89.9 91.7
Wheat, Canada $/mt 162.9 151.3 160.7 148.2 148.2 148.0 149.2 150.7 150.4 146.5
Wheat, US, HRW $/mt 126.1 112.0 119.9 112.8 109.2 106.4 106.5 105.8 107.9 105.7
Wheat, US, SRW $/mt 111.5 96.3 99.5 96.4 93.4 95.9 98.6 98.6 100.1 97.2
Other Food            
Bananas, EU $/mt 1 005.0 850.4 1092.8 824.1 745.8 739.0 889.8 885.5  919.6  864.4
Bananas, US $/mt 489.5 373.8 461.1 346.2 351.6 336.4 514.4 482.3 578.7 482.3
Beef ¢/kg 172.6 184.3 177.1 175.6 192.5 192.1 196.8 194.5 196.5 199.3
Fishmeal $/mt 661.9 392.5 453.3 343.3 369.3 404.0 405.7 416.0 409.0 392.0
Lamb ¢/kg 275.0 261.0 247.0 263.2 267.1 266.7 270.8 272.7 269.8 270.0
Oranges $/mt 442.4 430.8 420.3 458.6 474.8 369.6 226.1 245.3 229.3 203.8
Shrimp ¢/kg 1 579 1 461 1 413 1 470 1 485 1 473 1 493 n.a. 1 488 1 501
Sugar, EU, domestic ¢/kg 59.75 59.17 59.72 58.78 58.55 59.65 58.77 60.01 58.51 57.78
Sugar, US, domestic ¢/kg 48.64 46.60 49.45 49.88 47.01 40.05 39.06 39.00 37.65 40.54
Sugar, world ¢/kg 19.67 13.81 15.40 12.63 13.06 14.14 11.80 12.41 11.73 11.27
Other Raw Materials            
Cotton, "A Index" ¢/kg 144.5 117.1 123.9 129.4 113.8 101.3 116.5 104.6 118.5 126.3
Cotton, Memphis ¢/kg 165.8 123.0 n.q. n.q. n.q. 120.5 136.0 129.4 134.3 144.3
Jute $/mt 258.0 276.3 250.0 260.0 295.0 300.3 299.3 300.0 300.0 298.0
Rubber, Malaysia ¢/kg 72.2 62.9 68.0 59.7 55.6 68.1 70.1 64.9 74.2 71.1
Rubber, US ¢/kg 89.5 80.9 83.7 77.5 74.6 87.7 85.8 84.1 89.0 84.2
Rubber, Singapore ¢/kg 70.9 62.0 65.5 59.9 55.9 66.9 68.8 64.5 73.7 68.2
Sisal $/mt 820.8 691.5 779.2 731.7 647.5 607.7 558.3 550.0 550.0 575.0
Wool ¢/kg 429.0 398.8 368.0 400.3 414.2 412.5 402.6 410.4 400.3 397.2
Note: In US$ or US cent per unit. For detailed commodity notes, see  www.worldbank.org/prospects/pinksheets/pink0400.htm.
Source: World Bank.
__________