RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/W/42/Rev.2
4 October 1999
(99-4188)
Committee on Agriculture
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION ON MEASURES CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE
NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE REFORM PROGRAMME ON LEAST-DEVELOPED
AND NET FOOD-IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Note by the Secretariat
Revision
1. The present note further updates the information provided in the Secretariat note
G/AG/W/42/Rev.1, the original version of which was circulated on 10 February 1999.  G/AG/W/42
was prepared in response to the request made at the November 1998 meeting of the Committee onAgriculture that the Secretariat provide an overview  on the state of play in implementing the Decision
on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-
Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Count ries (the "Decision") (G/AG/R/17, page 6).
Following a brief introduction on the follow-up process to the Decision as a whole (Part I), this note
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 5.
I. MONITORING OF THE FOLLOW-UP TO THE DECISION
2. The follow-up to the Decision has represented an important element in the Committee's work.
This subject has been on the agenda at each regular Committee meeting.
3. In 1995, the Committee established notification requirements under which donor Members
are required to submit data on food aid donations (quantity and concessionality) as well asinformation on technical and financial assistance and other relevant information on actions taken
within the framework of the Decision (G/AG/2, page s 33-34).  The annual monitoring of the follow-
up to the Decision in accordance with Article 16 of the Agreement on Agriculture and under
paragraph 18 of the Working Procedures of the Committee on Agriculture is undertaken on the basis,
inter alia,  of these Table NF:1 notifications.
4. Attachment 2 summarizes compliance with NF:1 notification requirements in the first three
years of implementation.  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).   It should be noted that a number of other
Members have submitted NF:1 notifications stating that no food aid or technical/financial assistance
was provided or that Table NF:1 was not applicable.G/AG/W/42/Rev.2
Page 2
5. In 1996, the Committee established a WTO list of net food-importing developing countries.1
This list currently contains the 48 least-developed countries as defined by the United Nations and
19 other developing country Members.2
6. In the same year, the Singapore Ministerial Conference ("SMC") adopted the Committee's
specific recommendations regarding the Decision (G/L/125).
7. At various stages of the Committee's annual monitoring exercise of the Decision, some of the
international observer organizations, including the IMF, have commented on the development of
world food prices.3  International wheat prices increased sharply in 1995/96 (Chart 1).  By 1999,
however, world market prices for wheat had fallen, in nominal terms, to their lowest level since 1990
– the year of the highest world wheat crop ever except for 1997/98.  A variety of supply and demand
factors caused the observed price development, however as a practical matter, it is hardly feasible to
identify and accurately quantify each of them.
8. Attachment 3 shows the development of various IMF commodity price indices since 1987.4
Following peaks in 1995 (agricultural raw materials) and 1996 (food), the respective price indices
have fallen steadily in terms of US dollars and are currently at the same level or lower than in the
early 1990s.  Chart 2 shows the trend of the non-fuel primary commodity price index which covers
more commodities than the food price index (column 3 of Attachment 3).5  The broken line in Chart 2
which tracks the price development in real terms shows that non-fuel primary commodity prices in thefirst half of 1999 were as low as in 1992.
                                                     
1 The decision to establish this list was taken on the understanding that "being listed would not as such
confer automatic benefits since, under the mechanisms covered by the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision, donors
and the institutions concerned would have a role to play" (G/AG/R/14, paragraph 17).
2 Barbados, Botswana, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Honduras, Jamaica, Kenya,
Mauritius, Morocco, Pakistan, Peru, Saint Lucia, Sene gal, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia and
Venezuela (G/AG/5/Rev.3, dated 28 June 1999, refers).
3 See 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.
4 For 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.
5 It should be noted that in this index metals and fertilizers carry a weight of 26.7 per cent and 1.3 per
cent, respectively.G/AG/W/42/Rev.2
Page 3Chart 1 – The International Grains Council wheat price index, January 1987 – July 1999
050010001500200025003000
* Average wheat prices of seven widely traded varieties of bread wheat: July/Dec 1986=1000 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
G/AG/W/42/Rev.2
Page 4
Source:  International Monetary Fund.G/AG/W/42/Rev.2
Page 5
II. PROVISIONS OF THE DECISION AND IMPLEMENTATION
9. The Decision states:
"Ministers recognize  that the progressive implementation of the results of the
Uruguay Round as a whole will generate increasing opportunities for trade expansion
and economic growth to the benefit of all participants" (paragraph 1).
"Ministers recognize  that during the reform programme leading to greater
liberalization of trade in agriculture least-developed and net food-importing
developing countries may experience negative effects in terms of the availability of
adequate supplies of basic foodstuffs from external sources on reasonable terms and
conditions, including short-term difficulties in financing normal levels of commercial
imports of basic foodstuffs" (paragraph 2).
10. The remaining paragraphs of the Decision contain a number of specific agreements in the
areas of food aid, technical and financial assistance, differential treatment within the framework ofany agreement on agricultural export credits, and a recognition regarding access to the resources of
the international financial institutions.  In the foll owing, these paragraphs are taken up one by one and
supplemented by information available to the Secretariat regarding implementation.
Food aid and technical and financial assistance11. 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 to
provide assistance in meeting the food needs of developing countries, especiallyleast-developed and net food-importing developing countries" (chapeau to
paragraph 3).
(i) Review of Food Aid Levels and Initiation of Food Aid Negotiations
12. To the end enunciated in the chapeau of paragraph 3 of the Decision, Ministers agreed:
"… to review the level of food aid established periodically by the Committee on Food
Aid under the Food Aid Convention 1986 and to initiate negotiations in the
appropriate forum to establish a level of food aid commitments sufficient to meet the
legitimate needs of developing countries during the reform programme ..."
(paragraph 3(i) of the Decision).
Review of food aid levels
13. In reviewing developments with regard to food aid levels, the Committee considered
background notes by the Secretariat which indicated that both the international food aid commitments
and the actual deliveries had declined sharply in recent years (G/AG/ W/20 and G/AG/W/36 refer).
6
While the decline in food aid reflected reduced availabilities, and coincided with rising world market
prices for cereals, it appears that reduced demand  for food aid was also an important factor.  As
Table 1 indicates, in 1994 a large share of global food aid deliveries (excluding Europe and the CIS)
                                                     
6 It may be noted that food aid in value terms is small compared to total Official Development
Assistance (3 per cent in 1996).  See OECD Development Assistance Committee Report 1997.G/AG/W/42/Rev.2
Page 6
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.
Table 1: 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).
14. FAO estimates that in the marketing year 1998/99 (July/June) cereal food aid provided to
least-developed and net food-importing developing countries increased by 24 per cent, toapproximately 4.3 million tonnes compared to 3.5 mill ion tonnes in 1997/98 (Table 2).  As indicated
in the following Table, in 1998/99, cereals food aid to least-developed country recipients increased by
1.15 million tonnes, whereas such aid to the net food-importing developing countries decreased by
0.3 million tonnes.  Overall the 1998/99 level still falls short of the corresponding levels in 1993/94
and 1994/95.
Table 2: Cereal food aid provided to least-de veloped and net food-importing developing
countries, 1993/94 – 1998/99 ('00 0 tonnes grain equivalent)
1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99
Least-developed countries 3,932     4,326     3,305 2,671 2,852     4,004
Net food-importing
developing countries1,868     1,327 644 509        636 334
Total 5,800     5,654     3,949     3,180     3,489     4,338
Source: FAO.
Initiation of food aid negotiations
15. 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 byG/AG/W/42/Rev.2
Page 7
relevant organizations, to develop recommendations with a view towards establishing a level of food
aid commitments, covering as wide a range of donors and donable products as is possible, which is
sufficient to meet the legitimate needs of developing countries during the reform programme
(G/L/125, paragraph 18(i) refers).
16. Since January 1997 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 newfood aid donors.  In December 1997 the FAC Food Aid Committee decided to extend the FAC for one
year (until June 1999) and to open the Convention for renegotiation taking into account, among other
things, "the food security and trade liberalization objectives under the WTO and the World Food
Summit Action Plan" (IGC statement in G/AG/GEN/20).
17. In early 1998 the Food Aid Committee confirmed its intention to bring a new Food Aid
Convention into effect on 1 July 1999 and  requested the Working Group which was undertaking the
re-negotiation of the FAC to aim to conclude the substantive negotiations by the end of 1998.
18. In November 1998, the Food Aid Committee held a further dialogue meeting with
representatives of food aid recipient countries regarding the main elements of the new Convention
(G/AG/GEN/31, page 4 refers).
19. The negotiations on the Food Aid Convention, 1999 were completed on 24 March 1999 and
the new Convention provisionally entered into force on 1 July 1999.  Its members, includingprovisional members, are the same as the members of the Food Aid Convention, 1995 (Argentina,
Australia, Canada, EC and its member States, Japan, Norway, Switzerland and the United States).
20. Under the new Food Aid Convention, the list of eligible products which may be supplied has
been broadened significantly beyond cereals.  When allocating their food aid, FAC members
undertake to give priority to the least-developed countries and Low-Income Countries, many of whichare on the present 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 4 reproduces a summary by the IGC Executive Director of the outcome of the
negotiations on the new Food Aid Convention.
(ii) Concessionality of Food Aid
21. 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 fullygrant form and/or on appropriate concessional terms in line with Article IV of the
Food Aid Convention 1986 …" (paragraph 3(ii) of the Decision).
22. The SMC agreed that the recommendations to be developed by the FAC referred to in
paragraph 15 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.
23. Table 3 shows the proportion of food aid provid ed to least-developed and net food-importing
developing countries in the form of donations as notified by Members. All notifying Members, exceptthe United States, provided the food aid to the countries concerned in fully grant form.  In the case of
the United States, in the first three years of implementation between 83 and 93 per cent of food aid
was donated, with the remainder being provided in  accordance with the relevant FAC guidelines.G/AG/W/42/Rev.2
Page 8
Table 3: Proportion of food aid provided in fully grant form
Member Concessionality of food aid
FAC donors
Argentina no notification received
Australia 100 % grant terms
Canada 100 % grant terms
EC 100 % grant terms
Japan 100 % grants of cash
Norway 100 % grant terms
Switzerland 100 % grant terms
USA proportion of food aid to LDCs and NFIDCs on 100 % grant terms:
1995/96 -   84 %
1996/97 -   93 %1997/98 -   83 %
the remainder is provided in accordance with FAC guidelines
Other donors
Cuba 100 % grant terms
New Zealand 100 % grants of cash
South Africa not applicable (no food aid provided)
(iii) Technical and Financial Assistance
24. 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).
25. 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.
26. The Secretariat has no information whether least-developed and net food-importing
developing countries made requests pursuant to th is paragraph.  However, Attachment 5 provides an
overview of spending on bilateral technical and financial assistance programmes as notified byMembers, including in a number of cases funding given to multilateral organizations and other aid.
Some Members noted in their notifications that it had not always been possible to identify
expenditures that were exclusively targeted to agriculture and to least-developed and net food-
importing developing countries.G/AG/W/42/Rev.2
Page 9
27. 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.7
Differential treatment within the framework of an agreement on agricultural export credits
28. 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).
29. Ministers reaffirmed this commitment at the SMC.  In the ongoing negotiations on an
understanding regarding agricultural export credit s undertaken within the framework of the OECD,
consideration is being given to this matter (OECD statement in G/AG/GEN/15, page 8 refers).
Access to the resources of the international financial institutions
30. 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 financialinstitutions under existing facilities, or such facilities as may be established, in the
context of adjustment programmes, in order to address such financing difficulties. In
this regard, Ministers take note of paragraph 37 of the report of the Director-General
to the CONTRACTING PARTIES to GATT 1947 on his consultations with the
Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund and the President of theWorld Bank (MTN.GNG/NG14/W/35)" (paragraph 5 of the Decision).
31. 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
32. 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 commercialimports of basic foodstuffs.  Whether or not such difficulties have occurred or to what extent they are
likely to materialize in the future is essentially an empirical question.  In this context, the FAO
presented to the Committee in November 1997 the main findings of a study on the food situation in
the least-developed and net food-importing countrie s (G/AG/GEN/15, pages 5-6).  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 the result of declining levels of food aid and export subsidies "a muchgreater 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
                                                     
7 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 in
LIFDCs" in G/AG/R/9, paragraph 33.G/AG/W/42/Rev.2
Page 10
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 thissituation as it evolves."
8  An update on the food security situation in the countries covered by the
Decision was presented in November 1998 (G/AG/GEN/31, page 2-3 refers) and in March 1999.At the March meeting, FAO concluded that "overall, despite the fall in the [cereal] import bill ofthe LDCs and the NFIDCs during the current season, their food security situation remainsprecarious in a large number of these countries as it is regularly reported by the Global Informationand Early Warning System" (G/AG/GEN/36, page 2).
(ii) Access to the facilities of the IMF and the World Bank
33. 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 oftemporarily  higher food prices (for further details of  the CCFF see page 6 of document G/AG/W/12).
At the September 1996 Committee meeting, the IMF gave a detailed account on how these facilities
had been used by the least-developed and net food-importing 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-paymentsrelated needs that may arise from higher world food prices.
34. At the November 1998 meeting the IMF advised the Committee that 27 least-developed and
net food-importing developing countries, nine more than 1997, received financial support from the
IMF to support their adjustment programmes or to deal with emergency situations.  Among the
additional countries that received IMF loans in 1998 are seven listed WTO Members (Bangladesh,
Central African Republic, Côte d'Ivoire, the Gambia, Rwanda, Senegal and Uganda).   In conclusion
the IMF reiterated that "the Fund has the resources under existing facilities and has shown itswillingness to use these resources in the last year, to meet the balance of payments needs of net food-
importers."
35. 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.  Anumber 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
                                                     
8 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/W/42/Rev.2
Page 11
countries.  The Working Group reviewed the range of facilities available for
additional financing needs for developing countries in the event of world price shocks
and production shortfalls and provided a report to the WTO in late 1995.  Given the
wide range of facilities and the small price impacts expected to arise as a consequence
of  the Round, and the difficulty involved in distinguishing Uruguay Round impacts
from other shocks, it did not seem appropriate to establish a special Uruguay Roundadjustment facility" (G/AG/GEN/15, page 3).
36. 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).G/AG/W/42/Rev.2
Page 12
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
Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-ImportingDeveloping Countries (COA report for the SMC)
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 Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries
G/AG/GEN/15 Annual monitoring exercise in re spect of the follow-up to the Ministerial
Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the
Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-ImportingDeveloping Countries (statements by the international observerorganizations)
G/AG/GEN/20 Communicati on from the Executive Director of the International Grains
Council presented to the 19-20 March 1998 meeting of the Committee on
Agriculture
G/AG/GEN/31 Annual monitoring exercise in re spect of the follow-up to the Ministerial
Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the
Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-ImportingDeveloping Countries (statements by the international observerorganizations)
G/AG/GEN/35 Communicati on 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/W/12 and Add.1 Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the
Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-ImportingDeveloping Countries:   the Director-General's consultations with the
IMF and the World Bank
G/AG/W/20 Preparatory work programme in respect of paragraph 3(i) and (ii) of the
Marrakesh Ministerial Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible
Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed andNet Food-Importing Developing Countries (note 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/W/42/Rev.2
Page 13
Attachment 2
Compliance with notification requireme nts in respect of actions taken within
the framework of the Decision, 1995-97 (Table NF:1)
Member 1995 1996 1997 Noti fication received
Food Aid Convention donor
Argentina
Australia X X X AUS/5, 13, 21
Canada X X X CAN/11, 18, 25
EC X EEC/9
Japan X X X JPN/15, 27, 33
Norway X X X NOR/6, 19 and Corr.1, 20 and Corr.1
Switzerland X X X CHE/23
United States X X X USA/7, 20, 21
Other donors
Cuba X X CUB/4, 5
New Zealand X X X NZL/6, 13, 17
South Africa X X X ZAF/7, 9, 17
"Nil" notifications
Brazil X X BRA/2, 7
Burkina Faso X BFA/2
Fiji X X FJI/3, 5
Indonesia X X IDN/6, 7
Korea X X KOR/9, 17
Malta X MLT/3
Morocco X MAR/9
Philippines X PHL/7
United Arab Emirates X ARE/1
Uruguay X URY/6
Compliance calculated as:
… number of notifications  
received by FAC donors (%)88 75 75
… number of notifications
received by FAC & otherdonors (%)91 82 73
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 1998 implementation year, or the allowable delay for the submission of
Table NF:1 notifications, is still under way, hence notifications for 1998 are net yet required.G/AG/W/42/Rev.2
Page 14
Attachment 3
Indices of Primary Commodity Prices, 1987-99
(1990=100) 1
All
Primary
Commodities2Non-Fuel Primary Commodities3Petroleum5
Non-fuel
Primary
CommoditiesFood BeveragesAgricultural
Raw
Materials 4/Metals Fertilizers
(weights) (100.0) (32.9) (6.8) (32.3) (26.7) (1.3)
--------------------------------------------------------------In Terms of US Dollars------------------------------------------- -------------
1987 84.0 87.5 84.3 134.6 87.3 79.4 88.9 79.21988 89.8 108.6 108.6 138.3 94.2 118.8 102.5 64.3
1989 94.6 106.8 110.6 114.6 97.3 112.0 104.7 77.9
1990 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.01991 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 96.1 100.0 85.6 115.0 71.9 83.0 73.01994 92.2 109.0 105.1 149.7 125.9 83.8 89.6 69.4
1995 99.8 118.1 113.7 151.1 131.3 100.2 99.1 74.8
1996 104.9 116.7 127.5 124.9 127.7 88.2 112.7 88.61997 100.6 112.9 113.7 165.5 119.1 90.9 113.9 83.8
1998 79.6 96.2 99.2 140.3 99.6 76.1 117.1 56.9
97Q1 106.1 116.6 120.3 147.0 126.8 92.0 116.3 91.7
97Q2 101.7 117.2 116.6 189.6 123.0 92.8 114.2 80.5
97Q3 98.5 111.2 107.5 167.6 117.8 93.4 111.9 81.297Q4 96.1 106.4 110.4 157.8 108.7 85.4 113.3 82.0
98Q1 85.1 102.2 106.4 165.1 102.8 79.6 117.1 61.6
98Q2 81.1 98.2 101.2 141.8 102.0 77.6 118.0 57.8
98Q3 77.2 92.3 93.3 129.1 96.8 74.9 117.9 56.6
98Q4 75.0 92.2 96.1 125.3 96.8 72.2 115.5 51.6
99Q1 73.3 89.4 89.8 119.3 99.3 68.1 115.4 51.3
99Q2
680.7 87.7 83.8 110.9 98.5 72.2 115.1 71.2
97Oct. 99.0 107.4 109.7 155.6 110.5 88.3 111.5 87.5
97Nov. 97.3 107.5 111.9 152.5 111.1 85.9 114.2 83.497Dec. 92.0 104.4 109.6 165.5 104.4 82.0 114.2 75.0
98Jan. 86.9 102.5 107.7 169.7 100.8 80.2 117.0 65.5
98Feb. 85.6 103.1 106.9 170.6 104.2 79.1 117.0 61.7
98Mar. 82.7 101.1 104.6 154.8 103.3 79.6 117.3 57.6
98Apr. 82.5 100.3 103.2 150.2 102.8 80.1 117.5 58.398May 82.7 98.7 101.8 141.4 103.0 77.7 117.8 60.8
98June 78.1 95.5 98.7 133.9 100.1 74.9 118.6 54.3
98July 77.3 93.4 97.1 128.7 96.1 75.1 118.6 55.398Aug. 75.9 91.7 91.5 132.8 96.5 74.4 118.1 54.3
98Sep. 78.3 91.7 91.2 125.9 97.8 75.1 117.0 60.0
98Oct. 77.5 92.0 95.5 123.3 96.5 72.9 116.6 57.798Nov. 75.5 93.0 97.5 126.4 97.0 73.0 115.3 51.7
98Dec. 72.1 91.7 95.3 126.3 97.0 70.7 114.7 45.3
99Jan. 73.7 91.2 94.0 124.2 99.2 68.3 115.9 49.8
99Feb. 71.0 88.8 88.8 118.1 98.5 68.4 115.2 46.8
99Mar. 75.3 88.5 86.6 115.6 100.2 68.2 115.2 57.3
99Apr. 79.8 87.6 85.0 110.9 97.8 71.4 115.2 69.0
99May
681.6 88.7 83.9 112.1 100.2 73.5 115.2 71.9
99June682.1 89.0 82.6 109.7 104.5 71.7 114.8 72.7
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.
6Provisional.
Source: International Monetary Fund.G/AG/W/42/Rev.2
Page 15
Attachment 4
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 bymember Governments, will come into effect on 1 July 1999.
The objectives of the FAC 1999 are "to contribute to world food security and to improve the
ability of the international community to respond to emergency food situations and other food needs
of developing countries".
Under the new Convention, the list of eligible products which may be supplied has been
broadened significantly beyond cereals.  There are also stronger provisions to cover transportation and
other operational costs associated with food aid transactions, especially when food aid is directed to
least-developed countries and in emergencies.
FAC donors may now express their commitments in to nnage, or in value, or in a combination
of tonnage and value.  Accordingly, the mini mum annual tonnage and value commitments of FAC
members amount in total to 4,895,000 tonnes (wheat equivalent) and  €130 million, respectively.
When allocating their food aid, FAC members will give priority to Least-Developed
Countries and Low-Income Countries – many of which are on the WTO list of Net Food-Importing
Developing Countries (NFIDCs).  Eligible food aid recipients will include Lower Middle-Income
Countries and all other countries on the present WTO list of NFIDCs, when experiencing food
emergencies or internationally recognized financial crises leading to food shortage emergencies, orwhen food aid operations are targeted on vulnerable groups.
The new FAC contains stronger provisions to promote local agricultural development in
recipient countries.  This includes possible "triangular transactions" i.e. donor countries using their
cash contributions to purchase food in developing countries for supply to a recipient country, and
"local purchases", i.e. food being purchased by donors in one part of a developing country for supply
to a deficit area in that country.
All FAC food aid to least-developed country recipients covered by members' commitments
will be in the form of grants.  Overall, food aid pr ovided in the form of grants under this Convention
will represent not less than 80 per cent of a member's contributions and, to the extent possible,
members will seek progressively to exceed this percentage.
In determining whether, and the extent to which, food aid provision on long-term
concessional credit terms should continue to be covered under any Food Aid Convention, FAC
members will take account of the results of relevant multilateral negotiations bearing on food aid.
All FAC members agreed that the provisions of the new Convention should neither prejudice
nor constrain future negotiations, including those in the framework of the WTO, on the status of food
aid provisions on concessional credit terms.  The EU and some other members re-affirmed theirG/AG/W/42/Rev.2
Page 16
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 offood aid under the FAC will not be tied in any wa y to commercial exports of goods or services to
recipient countries.
During the negotiations, a dialogue was maintained with food aid recipient countries.  Efforts
to broaden the list of FAC donors were also made and will continue.  I am also pleased to note that
close co-operation with the WTO was maintained throughout, regular progress reports being made to
the Committee on Agriculture.
FAC members have emphasized that the new Food Aid Convention is evidence of their desire
to maintain international cooperation in support of world food security and to follow up on the WTO
Singapore Ministerial recommendations.  Whether their specific FAC commitments are expressed in
volume or in value, they are all about meeting th e food aid needs of developing countries adequately,
irrespective of fluctuations in world food prices and supplies.G/AG/W/42/Rev.2
Page 17
Attachment 5
Technical and financial assistance under paragraph 3(iii) of the Decision
Notifying
MemberProgramme Currency 1995 1996 1997
Australia Total A$ mill. 351.8 400.4 263.0
AusAID multilateral core funding 227.0 230.5 161.9
AusAID regional funding 11.4 9.7 8.1
AusAID bilateral 24.2 48.1 44.5
AusAID scholarships 42.0 18.1 30.4
AusAID humanitarian relief 13.4 81.5 7.2
ACIAR multilateral programmes 24.0 9.4 8.9
ACIAR bilateral programmes 9.8 3.2 2.1
Canada Total C$ mill. 299.3 271.3 290.9
CIDA multilateral core funding 253.4 215.8 243.3
CIDA bilateral programmes 25.2 25.3 16.9
CIDA Canadian Partnership Branch 8.3 5.8 5.4
IDRC bilateral programming 4.5 3.6 3.2
DFAIT multilateral core funding 7.9 20.8 22.1
EC Total ECU mill.      1,117.0 NNR NNR
EDF- ACP countries 465.9
Development projects with other countries 651.1
Japan Total US$ mill. 434.3 688.2 395.8
grant aid 268.1 202.1 158.0
technical cooperation 107.1 129.7 114.4
ODA loans 59.1 356.5 123.4
New Zealand Total NZ$ mill. 3.3 4.2 5.9
multilateral core funding/other multilateral 1.5 2.4 3.8
regional 0.7 0.5 0.3
bilateral 1.1 1.4 1.8
Norway Total NOK mill. 648.6 718.9 818.5
WFP contribution 213.0 219.0 208.2
bilateral programmes 285.8 297.7 338.1
emergency relief aid 149.8 202.2 272.2
South Africa Total bilateral aid '000 Rand 705.6 355.0 865.0
Switzerland Global total international cooperation SFr mill. 1,356.9 1,373.3    1,334.9
bilateral ODA – Africa n.a. 280.9 269.6
bilateral ODA – Asia n.a. 249.6 216.5
bilateral ODA – Latin America n.a. 118.4 100.4
USA Total US$ mill. 1,080.1 889.1 1,256.6
USAID global assistance to agriculture 88.0 37.1 33.6
USAID bilateral assistance to agriculture 157.7 -- --
contributions to multilateral organizations 829.5 846.4 1217.5
Cochran Fellowship Program 0.3 0.3 0.3
Peace Corps 4.7 5.2 5.2
Abbreviations:
NNR no notification received
AusAID Australian Agency for International Development Agency
ACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
CIDA Canadian International Development AgencyIDRC International Development Research CentreDFAIT Department of Foreign Affairs & International Trade
EDF European Development Fund
ODA Official Development Assistance
Notes: Annual reporting periods differ among Members.
EC aid excludes aid provided by member States.
For further details, see NF:1 notifications.
__________