G/AG/W/233  
 
3 April  2023 
(23-2325) Page: 1/9 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
  
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES  TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ON LDC AND NFIDC MEMBERS' 
UTILIZATION OF  WTO FLEXIBILITIES ( G/AG/GEN/214)  
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
Paragraph 8  
"We reaffirm the importance of effective implementation and monitoring of the Marrakesh Decision 
on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on 
Least -Developed and Net Food -Importing Developing Countries. In this regard, we commit to 
having a dedicated work programme in the Committee on Agriculture t o examine how this Decision 
could be made more effective and operational pursuant to Article 16 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture and to consider concerns raised by Members in their current and future submissions. 
The work programme shall consider the needs of LDCs and NFIDCs to increase their resilience in 
responding to acute food instability including by considering the best possible use of flexibilities 
to bolster their agricultural production and enhance their domestic food security as needed in an 
emerge ncy."  
Pursuant to Paragraph 8 of the Ministerial Declaration on the Emergency Response to Food 
Insecurity2, the Committee on Agriculture (CoA), at its 21 -22 November 2022 meeting, established 
a work programme along with the thematic areas to be examined  thereunder and working methods 
and future planning.3 The Committee also agreed to establish a Working Group for the conduct of 
thematic discussions under the work programme.  At the first meeting of the Working Group on 
7 December 2022, Members finalized a questionnaire on "food security needs and challenges of LDCs 
and NFIDCs and their utilization of WTO flexibilities" to guide and inform substantive discussions 
under the work programme.   
The questionnaire in document G/AG/GEN/214 was circulated to all Me mbers on 8  December  2022 
requesting Members to submit their responses to the Secretariat by 3 February 2023. This note 
contains a summary of Members' responses to the questionnaire received by the Secretariat as of 
3 April 2023 . In the interest of brevity,  the note does not reproduce the background and justifications 
provided by Members in their responses. The concerned Members will have the opportunity to share 
such background and justifications during discussions on this matter in the Working Group.  
 
____ ___________  
 
 
  
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO. The document incorporates 
additional responses received  after the circulation of previous version in RD/AG/103.  
2 WT/MIN(22)/28 -WT/L/1139 . 
3 G/AG/35.  G/AG/W/233  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  The questionnaire was distributed to Members on 8 December 2022. By 3 April 2023, a total 
of 29 responses had been received from : Argentina ; Australia ; Bangladesh ; Brazil, Canada ; Chile; 
China ; Dominican Republic; Egypt ; the European Union ; Hong Kong, China; India; Japan ; Korea, 
Republic of; the LDC Group ; Mauritius ; Myanmar ; Nepal ; New Zealand ; Pakistan; Paraguay ; the 
Russian Federation ; Sri Lanka ; Switzerland ; Chinese  Taipei ; Thailand ; Türkiye;  the United Kingdom ; 
and the United States of America. The questionnaire contained a total of seven questions; not all 
questions were answered by all respondents.  A summary of Members' responses to the individual 
questions is presented below:  
1.1  What are the needs of least -developed and net food -importing developing countries 
(LDCs and  NFIDCs) to increase their resilience in responding to acute food instability?  
1.2.  A large majority of respondents to this question were LDCs and NFIDCs. Enhancing 
agricultural p roduction and productivity  and access to open and predictable agricultural 
and input markets  were flagged by several respondents as the core needs of LDCs and NFIDCs to 
increase their resilience in responding to acute food instability. Advancing agricultur al reform process 
to limit recourse to distorting domestic support and establishing fairer conditions of agricultural trade 
were considered to positively support both these core needs.  
1.3.  Availability of finance  to facilitate agricultural investment and to ac cess inputs, as well as the 
provision of technical assistance and capacity building to absorb new agricultural technology, 
including in response to climatic challenges, were highlighted by a few respondents as necessary to 
sustainably enhance agricultural production and productivity.  Diversifying crop portfolio, improv ing 
water management systems , robust domestic supply chains and associated infrastructure (e.g. 
roads, storage capacity, distribution networks and markets) , promoting private sector investment  in 
agriculture,  and enabling smallholder farmers' access to credit were emphasized to  impart resilien ce 
to local food systems. It was also suggested that considering their inherent vulnerabilities, LDCs and 
NFIDCs should be considered for preferential ter ms for accessing agricultural inputs at reasonable 
prices as well as for access to international logistical and shipping infrastructure (e.g. containers) , 
especially during a crisis. A few respondents also alluded to possible policy choices and measures 
(e.g. disaster response mechanisms, including social protection policies, public stockholding and 
maintenance of strategic stocks); these aspects related to policy options are captured in detail in 
responses to latter questions.   
1.4.  Reliability of international  food markets to access food was emphasized by several respondents. 
They specifically flagged the negative impact of export restrictions  of major exporting countries 
in limiting the ability of LDCs and NFIDCs to import food at affordable prices. This had b ecome a 
significant challenge , especially considering the growing food consumption needs in LDCs and 
NFIDCs due to demographic changes and their excessive reliance on imports for meeting their 
domestic food needs (share of cereals in LDC food imports was a lmost three times the world 
average). Several respondents highlighted the importance of finance and financial support to enable 
normal levels of commercial imports, especially during acute food instability. The need for 
diversifying sources of food imports  towards resilient and uninterrupted food supply and 
maintenance of early warning food security information system towards efficient and speedy crisis 
response were some other suggestions in Members' responses to question 1.   
1.2  What are the challenges which LDCs and NFIDCs face in the utilization of flexibilities4 
under the WTO agriculture rules to bolster their agricultural production and enhance their 
domestic food security as needed in an emergency ?  
1.5.  Most respondents to this question were LDCs and NFIDCs. Some respondents argued that 
existing flexibilities within the WTO framework of agriculture rules were neither appropriate nor 
effective in enabling LDCs and NFIDCs to satisfactorily address their food security challenges. Th ey 
flagged cases where i) access to flexibilities depended on the goodwill of donors, ii) reduction 
commitment flexibilities had already been incorporated in the results of the Uruguay Round and 
hence were not actual flexibilities anymore, iii) TRQ-related  flexibilities had been granted to LDCs 
 
4 Please refer to G/AG/W/227.  G/AG/W/233  
 
- 3 - 
 
  and NFIDCs when they rarely implemented TRQs, and iv) flexibilit ies existed for the provision of 
export subsidies whereas the major challenge during the crisis had been how to procure/import food.  
1.6.  Differential Aggre gate Measurement of Support  (AMS) entitlements, insufficient de minimis  
level (10%) which got further eroded by the calculation requirement to use fixed external reference 
prices based on 1986 -88 prices, including for public stockholding (PSH) programmes f or food 
security, AMS accounting of support under PSH programmes in developing countries entailing stock 
acquisition at administered prices , and strict conditions in the use of Article  6.2 support (e.g. 
targeting low -income or resource -poor producers only)  was also underlined in the responses. Some 
respondents alluded to the lack of technical/legal knowledge or fiscal resources in utilizing flexibilities 
for agricultural subsidization.  Absence of any flexibilit y for NFID Cs under the Agreement on 
Agriculture  (AoA)  was also pointed out . 
1.3  What are your suggestions for the best possible use of flexibilities to bolster LDCs and 
NFIDCs' agricultural production and enhance their domestic food security as needed in an 
emergency?  
1.7.  On the issue of WTO flexibilities, several responses drew attention to the comprehensive note 
by the Secretariat in G/AG/W/227 on this theme. Some responding Members referred to an 
important linkage between their responses to questions 3 and responses that  would be provided by 
Members, in particularly LDCs and NFIDCs, to questions 1 and 2. It was noted that the question of 
the 'best possible use of flexibilities' would depend on local circumstances and the nature of 
emergencies encountered , and Members coul d consider developing detailed methodologies and 
objective criteria for a fuller assessment of this issue. One respondent recalled that these rules and 
associated flexibilities were mostly adapted to medium to long term objectives rather than 
emergency act ions in the event of food security crisis.  Another respondent highlighted the need to 
recognize the importance of special and differential treatment  (S&DT) for NFIDCs to enable the ir 
access to require policy choices in the domain of agriculture.  
1.8.  Several re spondents underlined that open, predictable, diversified and market -oriented 
international agricultural trade  was an important element of an integrated approach to deal with 
domestic food security challenges and creat e resilient food systems. It was also h ighlighted that 
domestic food security challenges were often multidimensional where a range of options needed to 
be deployed to enhance domestic food security taking into account the domestic circumstances in 
individual countries. Some respondents had disc ouraged unjustified use of restrictive measures 
which could undermine food security of other Members.  Similarly, distortions caused by higher level 
of subsidization in other Members could have detrimental effect on the economies and food security 
of develo ping countries, including LDCs and NFIDCs.  
1.9.  Several responses referred to the importance of investing in agricultural research and 
innovation , rural infrastructure and extension network to address current and emerging 
agricultural and food security challeng es. Some of them also referred to the Green Box framework 
which exempted expenditures for research and other public agricultural investments under general 
services from any monetary ceiling. The need to ensure reliable sources of food supplies during 
emerg encies was frequently echoed in the responses. International food aid, social protection 
schemes, national stockpiles, international or regional stock -sharing arrangements figured among 
possible food emergency toolbox of actions.  
1.10.  Members had called attent ion to the following issues and possible actions in their responses5: 
a. There was a need for improved transparency  on i) the utilization by LDCs and NFIDCs 
of current WTO flexibilities, especially under the domestic support and export competition 
pillars , ii) how current WTO rules constrained policy actions by LDCs and NFIDCs to bolster 
domestic production and enhance domestic food security in an emergency, iii) donor 
Members' actions (e.g. international food aid, export finance) in favour of LDCs and 
NFIDCs , and iv) modalities for LDCs and NFIDCs to make 'requests for the provision of 
technical and financial assistance ' as alluded to in paragraph 3 of the Marrakesh Decision 
in order for those requests to receive due consideration.  
 
5 Some elements of Members' responses to Q3 have been summarized and included against Q4 to avoid 
duplication.  G/AG/W/233  
 
- 4 - 
 
  b. Technical assistance events and workshops should be regularly organized by the 
Secretariat with a view to enhancing the knowledge and awareness of LDCs and NFIDCs 
about existing WTO flexibilities a nd other generally applicable WTO rules (e.g. Green Box 
general services to enhance productivity and resilience) towards greater practical 
application of these rules and flexibilities .  
c. LDCs and NFIDCs should have flexibility (e.g. waiver) in the applicati on of intellectual 
property (IP)  provisions in relation to agricultural technologies, climate -resistant seeds 
and other agro -chemical products.   
d. Work programme under Paragraph 8 should undertake an examination  of i) the impact 
of existing disciplines on ex port subsidies, export restrictions, procurement and sale of 
public food stocks maintained for food security purposes, utilisation of emergency food 
stocks, and emergency food aid on food security of LDCs and NFIDCs, ii) international 
food financing mechan ism in the event of price spike, iii) potential for food production 
across borders under international land -sharing arrangements, iv) the role of input 
subsidies in bolstering sustainable agriculture production in developing countries, and 
v) assessing the  impact of food aid on the short -term and long -term food security of LDCs 
and NFIDCs. Improved data collection of global food shipments may assist in this task.  
1.11.  Responding Members' suggestions on how the food security of LDCs and NFIDCs could be 
enhanced further included the need to contain food waste, enabling diversification of food supply 
sources to be able to import from different countries to reduce vulnerability to external shocks, 
exploring ways to strengthen domestic markets to improve producers' a ccess to markets towards 
their improved productivity and resilience and limiting food losses, establishing balance between 
domestic productions of food and cash crops, promoting crop diversification, establishing support 
and market regulatory mechanisms to  address concerns of small farmers , and providing duty free 
and quota free market access to exports by LDCs and NFIDCs. Some of these elements were further 
elaborated in Members' responses to question 4.  
1.12.  Contrasting positions were manifest in Members' resp onses on the scope  of the work 
programme in relation to WTO rules.  
a. Some considered these rules to have been written long ago in an era of surplus production 
and declining prices , and hence not appropriate for the current environment of soaring 
prices, pri ce volatility and supply chain disruptions. The work programme should therefore 
not be limited to the existing rules and should rather explore the need for additional 
mechanisms to deal with emergency situations and overcome any shortcomings in the 
existin g rules.  Suggestions made included granting additional flexibilities to LDCs 
and NFIDCs, including in respect of existing disciplines (product -specific AMS and 
PSH programmes), levelling the domestic support playing field by eliminating AMS above 
de minimi s;  
b. Some others highlighted the numerous existing WTO rules and flexibilities available to 
LDCs and NFIDCs, notably under the domestic support and export competition pillars of 
the AoA as well under the Ministerial Decisions on LDCs and NFIDCs in 1994, on general 
services at Bali and on export competition at Nairobi. These Members also considered that 
any discussion on additional flexibilities fell outside the domain of the Committee on 
Agriculture. In respect of rules and flexibilities to NFIDCs under the export competition 
pillar, one responding Member alluded to the need for review of the current NFIDC list and 
advocated a graduation mechanism to exclude a Member from the list when its trade 
status has changed.  
1.4  How can Members support LDCs and NFIDCs to increase their resilience in responding 
to acute food instability, and what are the challenges they face in doing so?  
1.13.  Some respondents provided specific examples of their international agricultural cooperation 
and assistance programmes to support LDCs and NFIDCs, including through engagement with 
international organizations (IOs) and via the private sector in recipient co untries.  References are 
also made to respondents' NF notifications to the Committee.  G/AG/W/233  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.14.  Members' suggestions to support LDCs and NFIDCs 'to increase their resilience in responding 
to acute food instability' broadly fell in the following categories:  
a. Timely p rovision of food assistance to needy LDCs and NFIDCs , consistent with the 
relevant provisions of the Nairobi Decision on export competition , to augment their 
domestic food supply during food shortages and emergency was flagged by several 
respondents. Respo ndents preferred cash transfers to avoid trade distortions and support 
local production and resilience; they favoured local or regional food procurement in case 
of in-kind food assistance.  Enhanced transparency of international food aid transactions, 
including monetization, were also highlighted by some. One respondent alluded to the 
need of transparency of import regulations by recipient countries applicable to 
international food aid for a timely delivery of food assistance in an emergency.  
b. Technical and financial assistance, capacity building  and transfer of technology  
could play a critical role in enhancing domestic food security and long -term resilience of 
LDCs and NFIDCs especially in respect of i) collaborative research, sharing of natio nal best 
practices in the domain of agricultural production and associated technologies  
(e.g. integrated pest management, crop rotation, no -till farming, fallowing) , including on 
the efficacy of different types of agricultural investments on farmers' resil ience and 
productivity taking into account local conditions in the recipients LDCs and NFIDCs; 
ii) technical and financial assistance to improve agricultural productivity and 
infrastructure, access to inputs and agricultural equipment, development of early -warning 
systems, storage and supply -chain infrastructure to contain food losses, and establishing 
regulatory infrastructure (e.g. food safety and animal health -related SPS frameworks by 
enabling producers' access to digital tools and technology); iii) training of farmers and 
transfer of low -cost but modern technology, including in respect of climatic change 
adaptation and mitigation, high yielding seeds and livestock breeds; and iv) assistance to 
promote diversification of production and production of nutr itious local products entailing 
financial prudence and sound environmental practices. Respondents also considered that 
technical and financial assistance by donor Members and international organizations 
should be in grant form or on concessional terms to a void future debt and imposing a 
burden on their balance of payments.   
c. Application of WTO rules was another theme underlined by several respondents under 
this question. Specific suggestions focused on an efficient and transparent application of 
existing rul es and also reforming and improving flexibilities in these rules. The suggestions 
included i) strengthening of disciplines in the domain of food export restrictions; 
ii) avoidance of the imposition of export restrictions and prohibitions during food securi ty 
shocks considering the susceptibility of LDCs and NFIDCs to such price shocks, or seeking 
ways to limit the exposure of such measures on LDCs and NFIDCs, for example, by relying 
on export quotas rather than outright prohibitions, and committing to trans parent 
implementation of such measures; iii) exemption of food destined for LDCs and NFIDCs 
from the application of export restrictions by Members particularly during acute food 
instability ; iv) operationalization of the S&D T provisions in  the Nairobi Deci sion on export 
competition, on repayment terms of export finance transactions in favour of LDCs and 
NFIDCs, or exempting such export finance from export competition rules altogether ; 
v) waiver from the Nairobi Decision on export competition to allow LDCs and NFIDCs to 
finance normal level of imports; vi) ability of LDCs and NFIDCs to implement an effective 
and operational SSM , and provide price support, including under PSH programmes; vii) 
enabling government to government ( G2G) provision of food from public stocks to  needy 
countries in times of crisis; viii) facilitat ing access of LDCs and NFIDCs to import financing 
and related import credits/guarantees; and ix) exempt ing support to produ cers in LDCs 
and NFIDCs for the purchase of technology to enhance productivity from any monetary 
limitation.  
d. Mainstreaming trade in LDC and NFIDC Members' strategy for food security resilience 
was also underlined by some respondents. The MC12 Declaration on Food Insecurity 
underscored that fair and market orientated agri -food trade, including for critical inputs, 
played a vital role in improving global food security'. The importance of Members' 
adherence to WTO rules and open markets was highlighted, in th e absence of which LDCs 
and NFIDCs might suffer disproportionately from the negative impact of increased volatility 
and less reliable access to food. A few respondents suggested that LDCs and NFIDCs G/AG/W/233  
 
- 6 - 
 
  should maintain open markets by lowering tariffs, other i mport barriers , and trade costs, 
especially during a food emergency, to enable them to replenish domestic food supply 
efficiently; open markets also allowed countries to adopt a diversified import strategy. 
Some respondents called for supporting LDC and NF IDC exports by reducing trade barriers 
against them, providing technical assistance to these countries to help comply with food 
safety and quality regulations to access new lucrative markets, enabling informed 
participation of LDCs and NFIDCs in the negoti ations for agricultural reform.  It was also 
suggested that trade measures implemented to address food security should be 
trade-facilitating rather than restrictive in nature and should not negatively impact the 
food security of other Members. One responden t sought to discourage the imposition of 
economic measures on agricultural products, inputs, logistics , and finance to enable flow 
of international food supply at minimum cost.   
e. Gender -balance assessment: Considering that women were disproportionally affec ted 
by food insecurity and malnutrition,  a gender -based  assessment of support or other 
mechanism was proposed to increase resilience. There was also a suggestion to enhance 
women's participation in the agriculture sector.  
1.15.  As regards the latter part of the question dealing with possible 'challenges', respondents 
highlighted the following:  
a. Several respondents alluded to the lack of policy space and financial resources in LDCs 
and NFIDCs  to invest in the development of agricultural sector and their inability to finance 
import demand due to balance of payments ( BoP) constraints.  
b. Few respondents referred to the link between high level of agricultural support and the 
associated environmental  harm or nutritional inefficiency and human health implications, 
including for long -term food security interests of LDCs and NFIDCs.  
c. Concentration of power in big transnational corporations in the agri -food sector and 
associated competition policy -related domestic pressures were highlighted as among 
important challenges to be looked at.  
d. One respondent flagged the issue of fiscal pressure on official development assistance 
(ODA), increasing frequency and severity of food security shocks , and lack of timely 
information on the situation and needs of LDCs and NFIDCs.  
e. Other specific challenges noted in the responses included i) the regulatory regime in 
several Members prohibited the planting or importation of genetically modified ( GM) 
products which compromised their ability to replenish food supplies or adopt relevant 
technology, and ii)  limited uptake by LDCs of a duty-free and quota -free ( DFQF ) scheme 
maintained by one respondent.  
1.16.  Finally, a few respondents alluded to the work of international organizations o n the subject 
and recognized the important contributions these organizations could make to the discussions of the 
Working Group, while at the same time avoiding duplication of work being carried with the 
Committee on Agriculture.  
1.5  Have you been able to reg ularly examine the NF notifications in order to get additional 
details and clarifications on the actions notified within the framework of the Marrakesh 
Decision  under the Committee's review process? What steps could be implemented to 
assist LDC and NFIDC  Members in the review of NF notifications?  
1.17.  Most LDCs and NFIDC r espondents expressed their inability to regularly examine 
NF notifications primarily due to resource constraints. Respondents among donor Members referred 
to their NF notifications and notification practices. Some respondents expressed concern over the 
lack of timely NF notifications by donor Members. The following steps were suggested in Members' 
responses to enable an improved review of NF notifications by LDCs and NFIDCs:  
a. Streamlining of notification requirements:  Presentation of information on 
internati onal food aid, which was potentially included under three distinct notification G/AG/W/233  
 
- 7 - 
 
  formats, namely the NF:1, ES:1 and ES:3, and the export competition 
questionnaire  (ECQ), should be streamlined and duplication avoided. Ongoing discussions 
in the CoA on the st reamlining of existing export competition notification and transparency 
requirements might be a possible avenue for achieving this suggested objective. It should 
also be ensured that transparency requirements were not  burdensome for LDCs 
and NFIDCs  to implement .  
b. Harmonized notification practices : To facilitate review of NF notifications, there should 
be a harmonization of donor Members' NF notification practices in respect of the reporting 
of international food aid, and technical and financial assi stance by breaking this 
information down by recipient countries.  
c. Technical assistance by the Secretariat:  The Secretariat, possibly assisted by donor 
Members, should regularly undertake technical assistance activities, information sessions 
and workshops in  all three WTO official languages to assist LDCs and NFIDCs in the review 
of information contained in Members' NF notifications and their responses to the ECQ. An 
explanation of the NF format and the type of information and the level of details expected 
in Members' notifications might also be useful. The Secretariat could produce regular 
reports on international food aid amounts granted by donor Members along with the share 
of that food aid in recipient country's total imports, consumption , and food needs. The 
Secretariat could also maintain a database on the relevant notified information.  
1.18.  One respondent expressed concerns over the continuing provision of in -kind food aid instead 
of less trade -distorting cash -based assistance, while another suggested that im proved transparency 
alone might not necessarily improve food security. One Member alluded to the role of the Secretariat 
annual NF background note released in the G/AG/W/42/ series  in assisting LDCs and NFIDCs in the 
examination of NF notifications. A sugg estion was also made to include in that background note a 
summary of contributions by observer international organizations with regard to their technical and 
financial assistance activities in favour of LDCs and NFIDCs.  
1.6  What is your appreciation of the ex isting transparency and information -sharing 
processes on Members' reporting of their actions in respect of the mechanisms  provided 
under paragraph 3 of the Marrakesh Decision (international food aid, its terms and 
conditions, technical and financial assist ance)? What further improvements could be 
considered in these existing mechanisms and processes, including for NF notifications and 
export competition transparency?  
1.19.  Several respondents noted the importance of transparency in guaranteeing an effective 
imple mentation of Members' commitments; they expressed concerns over the lack of, inaccurate, 
partial or delayed, notifications to the CoA. Improved data collection and analysis in respect of 
mechanisms under paragraph 3 of the Marrakesh Decision was emphasized  by one respondent.  
Another  respondent raised the question of impractical deadlines (e.g. 90 days) to submit an NF 
notification. The following were the main elements in  Members' responses to question 6 in addition 
to what was already mentioned above under the previous question s: 
a. Transparency of international food aid  cuts across several Members' responses.  In 
addition to the elements included above on the streamlining of the formats and addressing 
the current duplication in the transparency requirements, re spondents emphasized i) the 
need for data on the effectiveness of food aid , ii) presentation of food aid data by 
recipients, iii) additional details by donors on the choice of instruments (in -kind vs cash) 
and modalities (bilateral vs multilateral channels ) of international food aid delivery , 
iv) collaboration with the WFP information systems to assess trends in global food aid 
deliveries , and v) enhanced communication and coordination among relevant stakeholders 
and organizations .  
b. Fulsome reply to the Export competition questionnaire (ECQ)  was referred to by 
several respondent as a possible tool to enhance transparency in favour of LDCs and 
NFIDCs, including in respect of international food aid . Specific suggestions in this regard 
included: i) enhanced participation of the Membership in submitting detailed and timely 
replies to the ECQ  with support and technical assistance by the Secretariat , and ii) detailed G/AG/W/233  
 
- 8 - 
 
  information on trade finance (export credits, credit insurance) and its terms, including 
repayment period, provided for exports destined for LDCs and NFIDCs . 
c. Data automation and reliance on digital tools  were mentioned by several 
respondents , including by reference to the newly launched ECQ -AGIMS module . They 
advocated technological and digital improvements in the notification processes as well as 
in the dissemination of notified information (e.g . trends in food aid). The need for a simpler 
and standardized language in the formats and in the notified information for enhanced 
clarity were emphasized.   
1.20.  One respondent expressed the view that the existing implementation and transparency gap 
in respect of the Marrakesh NF Decision originated in the lack of political will among Members, and 
their insistence on establishing a link between LDC and NFIDC Members' food security challenges to 
the implementation of the agriculture reform process under the AoA. Simultaneously, another 
respondent flagged that  the Marrakesh Decision might not be an appropriate context to anchor food 
security collaboration when, unlike the core concerns expressed about agricultural reforms and 
potentially declining support levels at the time of the adoption of the Decision in 19 94, agricultural 
support has lately been growing whereas the global commitment on furthering reforms has been 
dwindling.  
1.21.   One respondent noted that transparency issues should be discussed and negotiated under 
the Special Session of the CoA. The question of  enhanced transparency of export restrictions, raised 
earlier by several Members in response to question 4, was mentioned by another respondent 
considering the critical role these measures could pose for access to food.   
1.7  What possible steps and practical m echanisms could be considered to foster 
cooperation with international organizations and to benefit from their actions in respect 
of the mechanisms provided under the  Marrakesh Decision ? 
1.22.  Several respondents welcomed and encouraged the continued collaboration in the CoA with 
several international organizations , especia lly those who had observer status in the Committee. 
Members in their responses appreciated the detailed contributions by international organizations to 
the CoA and requested the Secretariat to consider ways to enhance dissemination of those reports, 
possib ly by compiling individual contributions into a single document. Specific references were also 
made to other existing mechanisms of cooperation and coordination, including the Agricultural 
Market Information System  (AMIS) and Joint Statements on food security developments by the 
Heads of Agencies.  Specific suggestions by respondents on fostering cooperation with international 
organizations, within respective mandates, broadly fell in the following four categories:  
a. Market m onitoring to enhance transparency in respect of production, prices, stocks and 
trade to better inform government's policy response was pointed as an important avenue 
for enhanced collaboration with international organizations (IOs).  Referring to various 
sources of data and initiatives (e.g. AMIS, FAO's hand -in-Hand initiative), there was a 
suggestion for the IOs to consider developing a single platform where food security -related 
statistics of relevance to LDCs and NFIDCs was hosted. LDCs and NFIDCs could  be involved 
in the process and asked to express their data needs in designing such a global food 
security platform.  
b. Financing in the event of price shocks figured in several responses as a target of 
collaboration with IOs. Respondents referred to paragraph  5 of the Marrakesh Decision 
concerning short -term difficulties faced by LDCs and NFIDCs in financing normal levels of 
commercial imports of basic foodstuffs. Respondents also advocated accommodating 
flexible terms and conditions of financing for LDCs and NFIDCs during crisis. One 
respondent  requested a summary of funds and financial resources made available by 
international financial institutions , which LDCs and NFIDCs could draw upon , to finance 
normal levels of commercial imports.  Another proposed coordi nation with international or 
regional financial institutions to set up a special agricultural fund to improve agricultural 
productive capacities.   
c. Capacity building via policy guidance and knowledge sharing in the domain of food 
security  and newer challenges like climate change was another area  that the respondents G/AG/W/233  
 
- 9 - 
 
  highlighted. Specifically in the context of the ongoing paragraph 8 work programme, 
several respondents encouraged the relevant IOs to contribute to the CoA discussions on 
the agreed thematic areas in G/AG/35 possibly by organizing specific workshops in the 
WTO. IOs were also invited to share information with the CoA on their technical assi stance 
activities in the domain of food security. One respondent expressed the need for 
consistency between the policy advice by IOs and the rule -making process under the WTO. 
Closer policy and research collaboration with international organizations was al so 
emphasized; specific suggestions in this regard included engagement with the 
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and with the FAO in 
the implementation of International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and 
Agricul ture. Possible support and assistance by international organizations to countries in 
developing national agriculture development plans was also mentioned by one respondent. 
There was also a suggestion for the WTO Secretariat to explore the possibility of organizing 
regular joint seminars with international organizations and academia on food security and 
enhanced preparedness to deal with future food security crises.  
d. Coordinated rapid response in times of crisis has been flagged by  several respondents 
as ano ther area of collaboration with IOs. These organizations should also develop tools 
for early warning of food insecurity to enable timely preparation and adequate responses. 
Specific suggestions in Members' responses included coordination between IOs on foo d aid 
and establishment of partnership with the private sector and other stake holders to 
maintain global emergency food stocks. A suggestion was also made to explore ways to 
increase international funding for food procurement through multilateral institut ions.  
__________