G/AG/W/42/Rev.16  
 
17 September 2013  
(13-4899)  Page: 1/22  
Committee on Agriculture    
 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION ON MEASURES CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE 
NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE REFORM PROGRAMME ON LEAST DEVELOPED 
AND NET FOOD-IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
Revision 
The present note updates the information in the Secretariat note G/AG/W/42/Rev.15 dated 
2 November 2012 on implementation of the Deci sion on Measures Concerning the Possible 
Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing 
Developing Countries (NFIDC Decision). Following a brief introduction on the follow-up process to the NFIDC Decision as a whole (Part I), this paper sets out the substantive provisions of the 
Decision and provides information regarding their implementation (Part II). 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/AG/W/42/Rev.16 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Table of Contents 
1   MONITORING OF THE FOLLOW -UP TO THE NFID C DECISION ...................................... 3  
2   PROVISIONS OF THE NFIDC DE CISION AND IMPL EMENTATION ................................. 5  
2.1   Food aid ................................................................................................................... 5  
2.1.1   Review of Food Aid Levels and initiation of Food Aid Negotiations ................................... 5  
2.1.1.1   Review of food aid levels ....................................................................................... 5  
2.1.1.2   Initiation of food aid nego tiations .......................................................................... 10 
2.1.2   Concessional ity of Food Aid ..................................................................................... 11 
2.2   Technical and fi nancial assi stance ............................................................................... 12 
2.3   Differential treatment in the framew ork of an agreement on export credits ....................... 14 
2.4   Access to the resources of the international financ ial institutions ..................................... 14 
2.4.1   Ability to finance commercial imports ........................................................................ 14 
2.4.2   Access to the facilities of the IMF and th e World Bank ................................................. 16 
Annex 1: Compliance with notificati on requirements (Table NF:1) ........................................... 18 
Annex 2: Food aid deliveries of cereals and non-cereals, 2003-2012 (actual quantities, 
thousand tonnes) ............................................................................................................. 19 
 G/AG/W/42/Rev.16 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1  MONITORING OF THE FOLLOW -UP TO THE NFIDC DECISION 
1.1.  In 1995, the Committee on Agriculture esta blished notification requirements under which 
donor Members are required to submit data on food aid donations (quantity and concessionality) as well as information on technical and financial assistance and other relevant information on 
actions taken within the framework of the Decision  on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative 
Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-De veloped and Net Food-Importing Developing 
Countries (NFIDC Decision).
2 
1.2.  The annual monitoring of the follow-up to the NFIDC Decision in accordance with Article 16 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture and under paragr aph 18 of the Working Procedures of the 
Committee is an important element in the work of the Committee.3 It is undertaken on the basis, 
inter alia , of the Table NF:1 notifications.  
1.3.  Annex 1 summarizes compliance with Table NF:1 notification requirements during the 
implementation years 1995 to 2012. For the purposes of this annex, "compliance" refers to any Table NF:1 notification received by the donor Members
4 under the Food Aid Convention5 and other 
Members that have in the past identified themselves as food aid donors in their Table NF:1 
notifications. A number of Members have also submitted Table NF:1 notifications stating that no food aid or technical/financial assistance was provided or that the Table NF:1 notification 
requirement was not applicable.
6 
1.4.  In 1996, the Committee established a WTO list of net food-importing developing countries.7 
The list is regularly reviewed during the March meetings of the Committee. Since the annual monitoring exercise in November 2011, two de veloping country Members, Antigua and Barbuda 
and El Salvador, have been added to the list. The list currently contains 31 developing country 
Members (NFIDCs) in addition to least-developed countries (LDCs) as recognized by the United Nations.
8 
1.5.  In December 2000, the Committee was instructed by the General Council9 to examine 
possible means of improving the effectiveness of  the implementation of the NFIDC Decision.10 The 
Committee's report on this question11 was approved by the Doha Ministerial Conference in 2001, 
and included, inter alia , a recommendation for the establishment of an Inter-agency panel of 
financial and commodity experts to examine the issue of short-term difficulties by NFIDCs and 
LDCs in financing normal levels of commercial imports of basic foodstuffs. The panel report, which was submitted in June 2002, included an examination of specific proposals submitted by a group of 
seventeen WTO NFIDCs.
12 
                                               
2 See G/AG/2, pages 33-34. 
3 According to the Working Procedur es, the annual monitoring exercise  is to be undertaken at the 
November meetings of the Committee. At its June 2013 meeting, the Committee agreed to undertake the 2013 annual monitoring exercise at its September meeting (G/AG/R/71 refers). 
4 Counting the European Union (EU) and its member states as one. 
5 The Food Aid Convention was in force from 1967 to 2012 and has been succeeded by the Food 
Assistance Convention (FAC) which entered into force on 1 January 2013. 
6 This is the case, for example, fo r Brazil, Burkina Faso, Fiji, Indonesia, Malta, Morocco, Philippines, 
United Arab Emirates and Uruguay. 
7 See G/AG/3 and G/AG/5. 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/4, 
paragraph17). 
8 See G/AG/5/Rev.10. 
9 See WT/L/384. 
10 See progress reports to the General Council on  such consultations in G/AG/7 and G/AG/10. 
11 See G/AG/11. 
12 See proposals (G/AG/W/49 and 49 /Add.1 and Corr.1) and Inter-agency panel report (WT/GC/62, 
G/AG/13). G/AG/W/42/Rev.16 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.6.  Between 2003 and 2006, the Committee on Agriculture also considered at its regular 
meetings, a proposal by the African Group calling for developed-country Members to, inter alia , 
contribute to a revolving fund for normal levels of food imports.13 In September 2004, the 
Committee decided to revert to this matter on the basis of the recommendation contained in its 
report to the General Council on Implementation-Related Issues.14 Informal consultations 
specifically dedicated to that proposal were also held in May 2005 and again in February 2006, as part of the discussions on implementation-related  issues. The outcome of such consultations is 
reflected in the Committee's follow-up  report to the General Council.
15 
1.7.  In April 2008, following the rise in global food prices and the crisis it triggered, the United 
Nations (UN) Chief Executives Board established a High-Level Task Force (HLTF) on the Global Food Security Crisis. The WTO is represented on the HLTF and has participated in its deliberations 
since its inception. The Task Force developed its firs t prioritized plan of action in the form of the 
Comprehensive Framework of Action in July 2008 adopting a comprehensive approach to food security – availability, access, stability and ut ilization. In September 2010, the Framework was 
updated to cover a wider range of issues and a more detailed treatment of all aspects of food and 
nutrition security after an intensive collaboration and consultations with various stakeholders.
16 
The WTO Secretariat participated in the Dublin dialogue held in May 2010 and contributed, in 
particular, to the discussions in the working grou p on "trade and tax policies, and international 
food markets" which explored the linkages between food security and international trade. On the 
occasion of the November 2010 annual monitori ng exercise, Mr David Nabarro, Task Force 
Coordinator, was invited to an information session to address WTO Members, observer 
governments, and Secretariat staff, about the role and activities of the HLTF, with particular 
reference to the Updated Comprehensive Framework of Action. In January 2013, the HLTF adopted 
the Zero Hunger Challenge (ZHC)17 as its central theme of work during the period 2013-14. 
1.8.  In the aftermath of the global food crisis of 2007/2008, the Committee on World Food 
Security (CFS) was reformed at its 35th Session in October 2009. The reforms envisage that the CFS becomes an inclusive international and intergovernmental platform dealing with global food 
security and nutrition.
18 
1.9.  Global actions to address food insecurity in  general, and food price volatility in particular, 
were also adopted within the G-20 framework. Reco gnizing the importance of timely and accurate 
market and policy information and transparency towards meeting the challenges posed by price 
volatility the G-20 agriculture ministers agreed to launch the Agriculture Market Information 
System (AMIS) with a view to encourage policy dial ogue and coordination of policy responses, and 
to build data collection capacity in participating countries. The AMIS Secretariat is housed in the 
FAO and other international organizations including the WTO contribute to the System.19 
                                               
13 The proposal itself is contained in paragraph 52 of TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2 (dated 17 July 2002). It was 
referred to the Committee on Agriculture in 2003 by the Chairman of the General Council in the context of the WTO's Work Programme on Special and Differential Tr eatment under the Doha Development Agenda (Decision 
adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004, paragraph 1.d of WT/L/579 refers). 
14 See G/AG/16, paragraph 19(c). Prog ress reports relating to the African Group proposal are contained 
in G/AG/17 and G/AG/17/Corr.1; G/AG/20; and G/AG/22. 
15 See paragraphs 11-12 of G/AG/16/Add.1 dated 13 June 2006. 
16 Please refer to http://un-foodsecurity.org/  for more details. 
17 The UN Secretary-General launched the Zero Hunger Challenge (ZHC) in June 2012 outlining a vision 
for a future free from hunger. Please refer to www.zerohungerchallenge.org for more details. 
18 See http://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-home/en/  for details. 
19 The initial focus of AMIS is on fo ur grains that are particularly impo rtant in international food markets, 
namely wheat, maize, rice and soybea ns. For more details please refer to http://www.amis-outlook.org/amis-
about/en/ . G/AG/W/42/Rev.16 
 
- 5 - 
 
  2  PROVISIONS OF THE NFIDC DECISION AND IMPLEMENTATION 
2.1.  The NFIDC Decision states: 
"Ministers recognize  that the progressive implementation of the results of the Uruguay 
Round as a whole will generate increasing opportunities for trade expansion and economic 
growth to the benefit of all participants." (paragraph 1 of the NFIDC Decision) 
"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 of the NFIDC Decision) 
2.2.  The other four paragraphs of the NFIDC Decision contain a number of specific agreements in 
the areas of food aid, technical and financial assistance, differential treatment within the framework of any agreement on agricultural expo rt credits, and a provision regarding access to 
the resources of the international financial institutions. In the following sections, these paragraphs 
are taken up one by one and supplemented by info rmation available to the Secretariat regarding 
their implementation. 
2.1  Food aid 
2.3.  In light of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the NFIDC Decision quoted above,  
"Ministers  accordingly agree  to establish appropriate mechanisms to ensure that the 
implementation of the results of the Uruguay Round on trade in agriculture does not 
adversely affect the availability of food aid at a level which is sufficient to continue to 
provide assistance in meeting the food needs of developing countries, especially least-developed and net food-importing developing countries." (chapeau to paragraph 3 of the 
NFIDC Decision) 
2.1.1  Review of Food Aid Levels and initiation of Food Aid Negotiations 2.4.  In order to work towards the objective enunciated in the chapeau of paragraph 3 of the 
NFIDC Decision, Ministers agreed: 
"(i) to review the level of food aid established periodically by the Committee on Food Aid 
under the Food Aid Convention 1986 and to initiate negotiations in the appropriate forum to establish a level of food aid commitments sufficient to meet the legitimate needs of 
developing countries during the reform programme [...]" (paragraph 3(i) of the NFIDC 
Decision) 
2.1.1.1  Review of food aid levels 
2.5.  The Food Aid Conventions remained in operation from 1967 to 2012 in a long series of 
multilateral co-operation instruments. The commitments of donor countries under the Food Aid Conventions were specified in terms of minimum annual contributions and provided a safety net in 
terms of international food aid availability. Unde r the Food Aid Convention 1999, the latest in a 
series of such Conventions, the combined minimum annual volume and value commitments of donor members stood at 4.8 million tonnes (in wheat equivalent) and EUR 130 million.  
2.6.  The Food Aid Convention, 1999 expired on 30 June 2012. On 1 January 2013, a new Food 
Assistance Convention (FAC) came into effect. Th e FAC expands the traditional focus of previous 
Food Aid Conventions and includes all forms of food assistance (in-kind donation of eligible products, cash transfers, cash-based or commodity-based vouchers, as well as nutritional 
interventions) towards meeting the needs of the mo st food insecure and vulnerable populations. 
Each donor country, party to the FAC, assumes annual commitment of food assistance (i.e. the "minimum annual commitment") in terms of value or quantity to be notified to the FAC G/AG/W/42/Rev.16 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Secretariat.20 The annual commitments of the parties who have ratified, accepted or approved the 
FAC are as set out below. 
Donor Commitments in 2013 
Austria €1.495m. 
Canada C$250m. 
Denmark DKK185m. 
European Union €200m. 
Finland €6m. 
Japan JPY10bn. 
Switzerland CHF34m. 
United States of America $1.6bn 
Source: http://www.foodassistance convention.org/en/commit ments/commit ments.aspx   
 (information avalable as on 12 Septembre 2013) 
2.7.  The food aid shipments by donors, party to the Food Aid Conventions, often exceeded their 
combined minimum annual commitments. Food aid shipments in 2010/2011, as reported by the International Grains Council (IGC), totalled 5.6 million tonnes in wheat equivalent, representing a 19% decrease from the previous year.
21 
2.8.  There are a number of other sources of food  aid data, particularly the Food and Agriculture 
Organization (FAO) and the World Food Programme (WFP). Data from these sources are not directly comparable with data reported by dono rs under the Food Aid Conventions mainly due to 
differences in country and product coverage, reporting period, and the use of delivery rather than 
shipment data.
22 
2.9.  WFP data show that global food aid deliveries present a cyclical pattern, with a record of 
17.3 million tonnes reached in 1993.23 Another peak was reached in 1999 when food aid totalled 
14.6 million tonnes. In this context, the Doha Ministerial Conference approved the following 
recommendation made by the Committee on Agriculture: 
"WTO Members which are donors of food aid sh all, within the framework of their food aid 
policies, statutes, programmes and commitments, take appropriate measures aimed at 
ensuring: (i) that to the maximum extent possible their levels of food aid to developing countries are maintained during periods in which trends in world market prices of basic 
foodstuffs have been increasing […]."
24 
                                               
20 The parties may modify their minimum annual commitments subject to notification to the FAC 
Secretariat. 
21 See http://www.foodaidconvention.org/ en/index/facshipmentreport.aspx  for more details. 
22 For example, the food aid delive ries monitored by WFP include deli veries by Food Aid Convention 
members, other countries, and non-governmental organizations. 
23 See G/AG/GEN/49, pp. 10-11. 
24 G/AG/11, Part B para graph 3 I(b) refers. G/AG/W/42/Rev.16 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Chart 1: Evolution of food aid deliveries: 2003-2012 (million tonnes) 
 
Source: WFP 
Notes: "NFIDC" refers to the 31 Members listed in paragraph (b) of G/AG/5/Rev.10. Data for 2012 are provisional. 
2.10.  Chart 1 shows that total food aid deliveries as monitored by WFP have been generally 
following a declining trend over the last ten years. In 2012, global food aid deliveries were 
4.1 million tonnes representing an increase of 5% from the level in 2011. This annual increase 
should, however, be seen in light of the fact that  global food aid deliveries in 2011 were 3.9 million 
tonnes, which, according to the WFP, was the lowest level since 1990. WFP remains the primary means of delivering global food aid and has a share close to 60% in total food aid deliveries. In 
2012, the amount of total food aid to LDCs amounted to 2.9 million tonnes representing an 
increase of 11% from the previous year, whereas the corresponding amount channelled to NFIDCs (0.5 million tonnes) declined by more than 34% compared to the level in 2011. Annex 2 gives a 
detailed breakdown of food aid deliveries by recipients during the period 2003-2012 as monitored 
by WFP. In absolute terms, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of Korea, Yemen, Bangladesh and Somalia were the major recipients of food aid in 2012. 
2.11.  According to WFP data, NFIDCs on the WTO list except for the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela, Botswana, Gabon, Grenada, Dominica, Mauritius, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Tunisia and Trinidad  and Tobago have been occasional or regular 
recipients of food aid during the period 2003-2012. Total food aid deliveries to NFIDCs in 2012 
decreased substantially (about 34% decrease over the amount recorded in 2011), primarily due to 
a decline in food aid channelled to Pakistan and Kenya.  
2.12.  LDCs continue to be the major recipients of global food aid receiving more than 70% of 
global food aid deliveries in 2012. Among LDCs, Ethiopia, Yemen, Bangladesh, Somalia, Sudan, 
Democratic Republic of Congo and Mozambique we re the major recipients of food aid in 2012. 
2.13.  WFP statistics are compiled based on the following three food aid categories: 
a. Emergency  food aid – defined by WFP as being destined to victims of natural or man-
made disasters – is freely distributed to targeted beneficiary groups, and is usually provided on a grant basis. It is channelled multilaterally through NGOs or, sometimes, bilaterally. 2003 2008  2012
Other 3.9 1.3 0.7
NFIDC 0.7 0.5 0.5
LDC 5.3 4.4 2.9
TOTAL 9.8 6.3 4.19.8 
6.3
4.1
0.02.04.06.08.010.012.0G/AG/W/42/Rev.16 
 
- 8 - 
 
  b. Project  food aid aims at supporting specific poverty-alleviation and disaster-prevention 
activities. It is usually freely distributed to targeted beneficiary groups, but may also be sold on the open market and is then referred to as "monetized" food aid. It is provided 
on a grant basis and is channelled multilaterally through NGOs or bilaterally. 
c. Programme  food aid is usually supplied as a resource transfer for balance of payments or 
budgetary support activities on a government-to-government basis. Unlike most of the food aid provided for project or emergency purposes, it is not targeted to specific 
beneficiary groups. It is sold on the open market, and provided either as a grant or as a 
loan. 
2.14.  WFP statistics compiled in Chart 2 below indicate that emergency food aid provided in the 
form of relief in response to man-made emergencies or natural disasters remained the 
predominant category in 2012 accounting for 67% of total food aid deliveries. On the other hand, 
programme food aid, which accounted for 30% in 2000, has been declining with its share standing at 3% in 2012. 
Chart 2: Composition of global food aid deliveries (per cent) 
 
Source: WFP. Data for 2012 are provisional. 
2.15.  Food aid may be distributed directly to bene ficiaries or may be partly or fully sold in the 
recipient country to generate funds to finance,  for example, the transport of food or other 
activities. Programme food aid, as referred to in paragraph 2.13(c) above, is usually sold in the 
market. WFP data compiled in Chart 3 below show s that over the last ten years (2003-2012), the 
amount of global food aid deliveries sold in market has been generally declining. This may in turn 
be resulting from shrinking shares of both project and programme  food aid components in the 
global food aid deliveries that are more usually sold on the market unlike most of emergency food 
aid distributed directly to beneficiaries. 2000 2012
Emergency  
46%Emergency  
67% Project  
24%Project 
30%
Programme
30%Programme  
3%G/AG/W/42/Rev.16 
 
- 9 - 
 
  Chart 3: Food aid sold in global food  aid deliveries (2003-2012) (million tonnes) 
 
Source: WFP 
 
2.16.  WFP also categorizes food aid deliveries according to the origin of the food aid commodities: 
a. Local purchases  are the transactions by which food aid is purchased and 
distributed/utilized in the recipient country. 
b. Triangular  purchases are the transactions by which a donor provides commodities 
purchased in a third country as food  aid to a final recipient country. 
c. Direct transfers  are the transactions by which food aid is directly delivered from donor to 
recipient countries. Such operations do not involve either local or triangular purchases. 
2.17.  Chart 4 below indicates that over the last 10 years (i.e. 2003 to 2012), the share of local 
purchases in global food aid deliveries has increased from 9% to 20%, while the respective shares 
of direct transfers and triangular transactions declined from 72% to 68%; and from 19% to 12%. 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011  2012 
Food aid directly  
ditributed  7.5 5.0 6.0 4.9  4.4 5.7  5.3 5.2 3.4 3.5
Food aid sold 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.7  1.4 0.6  0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5024681012
9.8
5.7 5.8 6.3 
5.86.77.3 7.0 
4.13.9 7.9 G/AG/W/42/Rev.16 
 
- 10 - 
 
  Chart 4: Delivery modes of global  food aid: 2003-2012 (million tonnes) 
 
Source: WFP. Data for 2012 are provisional. 
2.1.1.2  Initiation of food aid negotiations 
2.18.  In 1996, the Singapore Ministerial Conference adopted the recommendation by the 
Committee on Agriculture that in anticipation of the expiry of the Food Aid Convention 1995 and in 
preparation for the re-negotiation of the Food Aid Convention, action be initiated in 1997 within 
the framework of the Convention, under arrangements  for participation by all interested countries 
and by relevant organizations, to develop recommendations with a view towards establishing a 
level of food aid commitments, covering as wide a range of donors and eligible products as 
possible, which is sufficient to meet the legitimate needs of developing countries during the reform programme.
25 
2.19.  Between January 1997 and March 1999, several meetings took place within the framework 
of the Food Aid Convention, including meetings with least-developed and net food-importing developing countries as well as potential new fo od aid donors. In December 1997, the Food Aid 
Committee decided to open the Convention for renegotiation taking into account, amongst other 
things, " the food security and trade liberalization ob jectives under the WTO and the World Food 
Summit Action Plan ".
26 In early 1998, the Food Aid Committee confirmed its intention to bring a 
new Food Aid Convention into effect and held a fu rther dialogue with representatives of food aid 
recipients regarding the main elements of the new Convention.27 The negotiations were completed 
on 24 March 1999 and the new Convention provisionally entered into force on 1 July 1999 for an initial duration of three years. Document G/AG/GEN/35 outlines the major changes introduced in 
the Convention. For example, the list of eligible products which may be supplied was broadened 
significantly beyond cereals; new provisions were included to improve the effectiveness and the impact of food aid. When allocating food aid, FAC members undertook to give priority to the LDCs and low-income countries, many of which are on the present WTO list of NFIDCs. Other eligible 
food aid recipients include low middle income countries and all other countries included in the WTO 
list of NFIDCs at the time of negotiation of the new Convention. 
                                               
25 See G/L/125, paragraph 18(i) refers. 
26 See IGC statement in G/AG/GEN/20. 
27 See G/AG/GEN/31, page 4. 2003 2004  2005 2006  2007 2008  2009 2010  2011 2012  
Triangular purchases  1.9 1.4  1.5 1.3  1.5 1.4 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.5
Local purchases  0.9 1.0  1.2 1.2  1.0 1.0 0.9 1.6 1.1 0.8
Direct transfers  7.1 4.7  5.3 4.2  3.3 3.8 3.5 3.1 2.1 2.8024681012
9.8
5.7 5.86.3
5.86.7 7.9
7.0
4.1 3.9G/AG/W/42/Rev.16 
 
- 11 - 
 
  2.20.  At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Ministers approved the recommendation of the 
Committee: 
"[…] that early action be taken within the framework of the Food Aid Convention 1999 
(which unless extended, with or without a decision regarding its renegotiation, would expire 
on 30 June 2002) and of the UN World Food Programme by donors of food aid to review 
their food aid contributions with a view to better identifying and meeting the food aid needs of least-developed and WTO net food-importing developing countries". (G/AG/11, Part B 
paragraph 3 I(a) refers) 
2.21.  The Food Aid Convention 1999 was to expi re on 30 June 2002. Initially, the Food Aid 
Committee agreed to extend it year after year . In June 2004, it decided to undertake its 
renegotiation with the aim of bringing into effect a " more effective instrument to provide food to 
those identified needs when food aid is the most appropriate response ". Furthermore, in view of 
the relationship between the review process in the Food Aid Committee and negotiations underway in the WTO, the Food Aid Committee decided that conclusive recommendations should await the 
outcome of the WTO negotiations. In these circumstances, the Food Aid Convention 1999 
continued to be extended on an annual basis wh ile informal deliberations were pursued between 
its members. At its 103rd Session, the Food Aid Committee launched the formal renegotiation 
process. The new Food Assistance Convention (FAC)
28 was adopted on 25 April 2012. It was 
opened for signature on 11 June 2012 and entered into force on 1 January 2013. 
2.22.  The FAC expands the scope of FAC donors' food assistance commitments beyond food and 
seeds. Some of the principles of the FAC include a focus on food assistance effectiveness and 
accountability, involvement of beneficiaries in the needs assessment, and an enlarged list of 
"eligible products" and "eligible activities" (including the provision of cash and vouchers and nutritional interventions). It addresses both short-term emergency assistance as well as long-term 
rehabilitation and development objectives. Article 3 of the FAC sets out the relationship between 
its provisions and the existing or future WTO rules, particularly on international food aid. 
2.1.2  Concessionality of Food Aid 
2.23.  To the end stated in the chapeau of pa ragraph 3 of the NFIDC Decision, Ministers also 
agreed: 
"(ii) to adopt guidelines to ensure that an increasing proportion of basic foodstuffs is 
provided to least-developed and net food-importi ng developing countries in fully grant form 
and/or on appropriate concessional terms in line  with Article IV of the Food Aid Convention 
1986 […] " (paragraph 3(ii) of the NFIDC Decision) 
2.24.  Under the Food Aid Convention 1999, all food aid provided to LDCs was to be in the form of 
grants and to represent at least 80% of members' contributions. Similarly, under the Food 
Assistance Convention (FAC), no less than 80% of  a party's committed food assistance to eligible 
countries and vulnerable populations
29 shall be in fully grant form. Donors are to seek to exceed 
progressively this percentage. 
2.25.  At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Ministers approved the recommendation that: 
"WTO Members which are donors of food aid sh all, within the framework of their food aid 
policies, statutes, programmes and commitments, take appropriate measures aimed at 
ensuring: […] (ii) that all food aid to least developed countries is provided in fully grant form 
and, to the maximum extent possible, to WTO net food-importing developing countries as 
well". (G/AG/11, Part B paragraph 3 I(b) refers) 
2.26.  Moreover, the Agreed Framework30 for establishing modalities in agriculture provides that: 
"The question of providing food aid exclusively in  fully grant form will also be addressed in the 
                                               
28 Accessible at http://www.foodassistanceconvention.org/convention/FoodAssistance.pdf . Please also 
see paragraph 2.6 for additional details on the FAC. 
29 "Eligible country" and "eligibl e vulnerable populations" are defined in Article 4 of the FAC. 
30 Paragraph 18 of Annex A of WT/L/579 refers. G/AG/W/42/Rev.16 
 
- 12 - 
 
  negotiations ". As part of the on-going agriculture negotiations, draft provisions specifically 
addressing this objective have been considered by Members.31 
2.27.  Members' Table NF:1 notifications32 include information on the level of concessionality of the 
respective food aid deliveries to LDCs and NFIDC s. Most notifying Members have notified the 
provision of food aid to the countries concerned in fully grant form. In the case of the United 
States, the proportion of food aid in fully gr ant form ranged between 83% to 100% during 
1995/1996 2002/2003, with the remainder being provided in accordance with the relevant FAC 
guidelines. For reporting years 2003/2004-2007/2008, the United States indicated in its 
notification33 that: 
"Title I aid is provided in fully grant form or on long-term concessional terms in accordance 
with Food Aid Convention guidelines. Aid under Food for Education, Title II, Title III, Food for 
Progress and Section 416(b) Programs is provided in fully grant form." 
2.2  Technical and financial assistance 2.28.  To the end stated in the chapeau of paragraph 3 of the NFIDC Decision Ministers agreed: 
"(iii) to give full consideration in the context of their aid programmes to requests for the 
provision of technical and financial assistance to least-developed and net food-importing developing countries to improve their agricultural productivity and infrastructure." 
(paragraph 3(iii) of the NFIDC Decision) 
2.29.  The Doha Ministerial Conference called on developed country Members to continue to give 
full consideration in the context of their aid programmes to requests for the provision of technical and financial assistance by least-developed and net food-importing developing countries to 
improve their agricultural productivity and infrastructure. This recommendation reflects the fact 
that technical and financial assistance is essentially a bilateral matter between donors and recipients based on requests made by recipient countries. Technical and financial assistance by 
Members under paragraph 3(iii) of the NFIDC Decision is reported in their Table NF:1 notifications. 
This notified information has not been recaptured or summarized in this background note and should be consulted by directly accessing the specific Table NF:1 notifications
34 by donor Members. 
During the November 2010 annual monitoring exercise, the European Union and Switzerland 
reported on their respective food assistance policy frameworks as well as specific actions to assist developing countries in meeting food security challenges.
35 On the occasion of the annual 
monitoring in November 2012, the United States  informed the Committee about the changes that 
had occurred in its food assistance programme. The United States specifically referred to the steps 
taken by the government to significantly improve targeting through the use of more robust food security needs assessments, market analysis and post-distribution impact assessments. Such 
assessments minimized the possibility of commercial trade displacement while reducing the 
potential for beneficiary populations to develop a food assistance dependency.
36 
2.30.  Furthermore, the Doha Ministerial Conference approved the recommendation: 
" [...] that, in support of the priority accord ed by least-developed and net food-importing 
developing countries to the development of their agricultural productivity and infrastructure, the WTO General Council call upon relevant international development organisations, including the World Bank, the FAO, IFAD, the UNDP and the Regional Development Banks to 
enhance their provision of, and access to, technical and financial assistance to least-
developed and net food-importing developing countries, on terms and conditions conducive 
to the better use of such facilities and resources, in order to improve agricultural 
                                               
31 See, for example, Anne x L of TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4. 
32 See Annex 1 for the releva nt notification symbols. 
33 See G/AG/N/USA/65 and 76. A note along similar line s is included in Table NF:1 notifications for 
2008/09 and 2009/10 (G/AG/N/USA/83 and G/AG/N/USA/90 refer). 
34 Table NF:1 notifications may be acce ssed from the WTO public website at 
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/ag_work_e.htm . 
35 See G/AG/GEN/94. 
36 Paragraph 2.5 of G/AG/R/67 refers. G/AG/W/42/Rev.16 
 
- 13 - 
 
  productivity and infrastructure in these countries under existing facilities and programmes, 
as well as under such facilities and programmes as may be introduced."37 
2.31.  The initial responses from the African Development Bank, the European Investment Bank, 
FAO and the World Bank were circulated in 2002.38 Since then, a number of IGOs have updated 
the Committee on Agriculture on their respective initiatives and action plans in this area. 
2.32.  The IMF renewed its commitment to providing assistance to developing countries in capacity 
building and in coping with balance-of-payment shortfalls resulting from multilateral trade 
liberalization.39 During the global food and financial crisis in 2007/08, the IMF undertook a number 
of internal reform measures which, inter alia , boosted its capacity to provide financial assistance to 
low-income developing countries with a more flexible framework for structural conditionality, while lending facilities were revamped. The reform measur es included higher concessionality in financial 
support and zero interest payments through the end of 2011 on new and outstanding concessional 
loans. The IMF also stepped up its technical assistance programme predominantly through a network of regional technical assistance centres, thus contributing to effective surveillance and 
building capacity for policymaking.
40 In November 2010, the IMF reported having provided around 
US$189 billion in financial support to emerging and developing countries since the beginning of the crisis. Furthermore, the regional technical assistance network in Africa and Central Asia was 
strengthened.
41 During the November 2012 annual monitori ng, the IMF reiterated the commitment 
to maintain its focus on low-income countries (LIC) in Fund's technical assistance programmes. It further informed the Committee that the demand fr om LICs for concessional financing remained 
high with annual commitments averaging about US$2 billion during 2010-2012.
42 
2.33.  The World Bank offers assistance to developing countries towards increasing agricultural 
productivity. The Bank's Agricultural Action Pl an for 2010-2012 emphasizes increased support to 
raising agricultural productivity as one of its pr iority areas. In the financial year 2011, overall 
World Bank Group lending to agriculture and rela ted sectors amounted to US$5.8 billion including 
US$2.2 billion contributed by the International Fina nce Corporation (IFC). The Bank also provides 
assistance through better technology, trade, and ai d to address the long-term challenges of food 
security. It views access to global agricultural markets as critical to achieving long-term food 
security. In that context, the Bank also emphasiz es the role of improvements in trade facilitation 
infrastructure in creating incentives for augmenting food production in more fertile areas, reducing cost of food staples and further integrating markets.  Its Trade Facilitation Facility can be used to 
finance specific interventions. As one of the larges t donors of Aid-for-Trade, the World Bank is also 
committed to supporting countries in need of trade finance and technical expertise.
43 
2.34.  Through its Purchase for Progress (P4P) initiative, the WFP purchases food directly from 
farmers and provides technical expertise to farmers in the field of agricultural and market 
development. In November 2010, the WFP reported having trained more than 17,300 farmers and warehouse operators under the P4P programme. Similar positive feedback was reported to the 
Committee on Agriculture in November 2011, including with respect to the improvement of 
agricultural potential in developing countries and the development of innovative insurance schemes to manage risks arising from climate change. Underlining the importance of such ex ante  
measures to build resilience against extreme weather events, WFP observed that farmers in China 
and Ethiopia already benefitted from these WFP products.
44 
2.35.  The Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) reported on its efforts 
towards improving agricultural productivity and fo od security in Latin America and the Caribbean. 
In this context the IICA, described its 2010-2014 Medium Term Plan and Food Security strategy.45 
                                               
37 G/AG/11, Part B para graph 3 II(b) refers. 
38 See G/AG/W/57 and G/AG/W/57/Add.1. 
39 See G/AG/GEN/71, G/AG/GEN/76 and G/AG/GEN/78. 
40 See G/AG/GEN/90. 
41 See G/AG/GEN/94. 
42 See G/AG/GEN/107. 
43 See G/AG/GEN/90 and G/AG/GEN/96. 
44 See G/AG/GEN/94 and G/AG/GEN/100. 
45 See G/AG/GEN/93 and G/AG/GEN/97. G/AG/W/42/Rev.16 
 
- 14 - 
 
  2.3  Differential treatment in the framew ork of an agreement on export credits 
2.36.  In light of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the NFIDC Decision quoted above, Ministers agreed: 
"[…] to ensure that any agreement relating to agricultural export credits makes appropriate 
provision for differential treatment in favour of least-developed and net food-importing 
developing countries". (paragraph 4 of the NFIDC Decision) 
2.37.  At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Ministers reaffirmed the commitment above and 
approved a general understanding regarding procedures for the development of disciplines 
pursuant to Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agri culture and the related provisions of the NFIDC 
Decision (G/AG/11, Part A paragraph 4). Accordingly, work within the WTO on the question of agricultural export credits has been undertaken bo th in the regular meetings of the Committee on 
Agriculture and in the Special Session negotiations on the basis, inter alia , of the proposals that 
have been tabled and other inputs, including with  respect to special and differential treatment in 
favour of developing countries.
46 
2.38.  Moreover, the Agreed Framework for estab lishing modalities in agriculture provides that: 
"Members will ensure that the disciplines on export credits, export credit guarantees or 
insurance programmes to be agreed will ma ke appropriate provision for differential 
treatment in favour of least-developed and net food-importing developing countries as 
provided for in paragraph 4 of the Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative 
Effects of the Reform Programme on Least De veloped and Net Food-Importing Developing 
Countries. Improved obligations for monitoring and surveillance of all new disciplines as foreshadowed in paragraph 48 will be critically important in this regard. Provisions to be 
agreed in this respect must not undermine the commitments undertaken by Members under 
the obligations in paragraph 18 above." (par agraph 24 of Annex A of WT/L/579 refers) 
2.39.  The above objective was reaffirmed du ring the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.
47 As part 
of the on-going agriculture negotiations, draft provisions specifically addressing these matters 
have been considered by Members.48 
2.4  Access to the resources of the international financial institutions 
2.40.  In the NFIDC Decision, Ministers further recognized that: 
"[…] as a result of the Uruguay Round certain developing countries may experience short-
term difficulties in financing normal levels of commercial imports and that these countries may be eligible to draw on the resources of international financial institutions under existing 
facilities, or such facilities as may be established, in the context of adjustment programmes, 
in order to address such financing difficulties. In this regard, Ministers take note of paragraph 37 of the report of the Director -General to the CONTRACTING PARTIES to GATT 
1947 on his consultations with the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund 
and the President of the World Bank (MTN.G NG/NG14/W/35)". (paragraph 5 of the NFIDC 
Decision) 
2.4.1  Ability to finance commercial imports 
2.41.  In 2002, the Inter-agency panel report pr ovided a detailed examination of the question of 
financing food imports by NFIDCs and LDCs.
49 The LDC Group organized a Conference on WTO 
rules and the food crisis in Geneva on 17 July 2008 in partnership with a research and 
development organization focusing on global issues.50 
                                               
46 See, for example, G/AG/16 and Add.1. 
47 See paragraph 6 of WT/MIN(05)/DEC. 
48 See, for example, Anne x J of TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4. 
49 See WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13, in particular, Chapter II,  Section A and the Conclusions in Chapter III. See 
also the contribution by UNCT AD in G/AG/GEN/68, pp. 16-18. 
50 The full report is contained in document G/AG/GEN/77 dated 11 November 2008. See also 
WT/COMTD/LDC/W/43 on the impact of price rises on LDCs. G/AG/W/42/Rev.16 
 
- 15 - 
 
  2.42.  Cereals and oilseeds remain among the most important food commodities in the import 
basket of the NFIDCs and LDCs. Chart 5 below sh ows the Grains and Oilseeds Index (GOI) of the 
IGC during the period 2000-2013. The GOI has been developed by the IGC in January 2011 and is considered as a good indicator for measuring glob al grains and oilseeds price movements. Cereals 
contribute to more than 65% of the GOI compos ition. The chart depicts strengthening of world 
grain prices in the course of 2006, reaching a peak  in February 2008. Subsequently, at the outset 
of the global financial and economic downturn, th ese prices declined, whilst still remaining above 
2006 levels. The global grain prices experienced another surge from July 2010 onwards. Fears 
were raised concerning a possible repeat of the 2007/08 food crisis. An unexpected crop failure in some major exporting countries followed by national responses and speculative behaviour were amongst the main factors considered responsible for the escalation of world grain prices and the 
observed price volatility. Prices started to recede in early September 2011. In 2012, an upward 
trend in agricultural commodity prices was again noticed primarily due to tighter markets and adverse weather conditions in some of the important grains and oilseeds producing countries. 
While the situation was not deemed as an impending food crisis, an enhanced role for market 
information and transparency was emphasized.
51 Starting from the later part of 2012 and 
continuing in 2013, cereal and oilseed prices have been on a declining trend as evident in chart 5 
below. This is driven primarily by a strong proj ected growth in world cereal production in 2013/14 
and particularly a record global coarse grains output projection. Global oilseeds production (especially soybean) in 2013/14 is also projected to increase contributing to a downward trend in the GOI. 
Chart 5: The IGC Grains and Oilseeds Index (GOI)* (2000-2013) (per cent) 
 
* IGC Grains and Oilseeds Index composition: wheat (3 0%), maize (22%), barley (4%), sorghum (2%), rice 
(8%), soybeans (31%), rapeseed/canola (2%). See http://www.igc.int  for more details. January 2000=100 
Source: International Grains Council (IGC). 
2.43.  At various stages of the Committee's a nnual monitoring exercise, international observer 
organizations have commented on the development of international food prices and their impacts 
on LDCs and NFIDCs. The food security situatio n in LDCs and NFIDCs is being monitored by FAO 
                                               
51 See, for example, FAO's press release of 6 September 2012 at 
http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/155659/icode/  050100150200250300350
2000 2001 2002  2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 G/AG/W/42/Rev.16 
 
- 16 - 
 
  on a regular basis, notably with regard to overall trends in cereal imports and cereal import bills.52 
During the 2011 and 2012 annual monitoring, in addition to briefing Members on the rising cost of food import bills in developing countries and LDCs, FAO also reported on the role and functioning of the Agricultural Market Information System (AMIS) as well as the price transmission scenarios 
in various countries for select cereals.
53 
2.44.  In November 2009, WFP reported in detail on the activities and initiatives aimed at 
addressing global food insecurity and malnutri tion. The WFP had allocated 72% of development 
and relief resources to LDCs and 93% to low-income net food-deficit countries in 2008. WFP also 
deployed innovative, targeted food safety-net programmes in some beneficiary countries like 
school feeding, mother-and-child health and nutrition, targeted cash transfers and food vouchers, and local food purchases. The newly-created Forward Purchase Facility, where food was purchased 
on the basis of aggregated projected needs for a region, enabled WFP to save resources by making 
food purchases when prices were favourable. The WFP underlined that its vulnerability analysis and mapping was particularly important to develop an effective response in the event of food crisis 
and natural disasters. An "Economic Shock and Hunger Index" (ESHI) was developed to identify 
vulnerable countries as a result of the global financial and economic crisis. During the 2011 annual monitoring, the WFP brought to Committee's attention the negative effects of export-limiting 
measures on WFP's procurement of humanitarian food.
54 
2.45.  During the global financial crisis beginning in 2008 which resulted, inter alia , in serious 
shortage of trade finance, the WTO worked with other multilateral and regional organizations to mobilize various actors to shoulder some of the risk arising from private sector financing (which 
accounts for close to 80% of the market) and redu ce the gap between demand and supply of trade 
finance. In this context, it was observed that the scarcity of trade finance could lead to a slowdown 
of trade as well as production and could constrain the developing and low-income countries from 
participating fully in international trade. The development of trade financing infrastructure has also 
been pursued under the Aid-for-Trade initiative. On 25 October 2011, having considered the situation of low income countries, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, in consultation 
with the WTO and other relevant organizations,  adopted technical changes to the regulatory 
regime of trade finance.
55 
2.4.2  Access to the facilities of the IMF and the World Bank 2.46.  The question of access to the resources of the international financial institutions has been 
the subject of a detailed examination by an Inter- agency panel of financial and commodity experts 
in 2002.
56 
2.47.  In the context of the Committee's annual monitoring exercise in December 2001, the IMF 
reiterated its position regarding the question of access to its resources by stating: " With existing 
facilities and resources, the Fund is in a position to meet any balance of payments needs of our members that may arise from higher world food prices. "
57 
2.48.  In November 2009, the IMF described its reformed lending framework58 for LDCs and 
NFIDCs, under which support was channelled through a new instrument under the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT). The Contingent Financing Facility (CFF) was eliminated. The PRGT has three lending windows: (i) the Extended Credit Facility (ECF), which helps to address 
medium-term balance of payments needs; (ii) the Standby Credit Facility (SCF), which can help 
the low-income countries that do not face protracted BoP problems but need occasional assistance; and (iii) the Rapid Credit Facility (RCF), which provides assistance during urgent 
financing needs with limited conditionality. In 2010, IMF members agreed to raise loan and 
subsidy contributions for the PRGT up to US$ 17 billion to assist the low-income countries. Towards its continuing efforts for crisis prevention in emerging economies, the IMF introduced a 
                                               
52 See, for example, the observations by the FAO, IGC, WFP, IMF, UNCTAD and World Bank on rising 
food prices and possible impacts on LDCs and NFIDCs . The statements and contributions by international 
observer organizations can be found in the G/AG/GEN/-- document series. 
53 See the statement by the FAO contained in G/AG/GEN/98 and G/AG/GEN/106. 
54 See G/AG/GEN/90, G/AG/GEN/94 and G/AG/GEN/100. 
55 For more details, see http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs205.pdf  
56 See WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13. 
57 See G/AG/GEN/49, page 8. 
58 See G/AG/GEN/90. G/AG/W/42/Rev.16 
 
- 17 - 
 
  new Precautionary Credit Line (PCL) for countries with sound economic policies and moderate 
vulnerabilities. Simultaneously, the existing Flexib le Credit Line (FCL) fa cility was reformed to 
allow for a more flexible access for a longer period of time.59 In November 2012, the IMF informed 
the Committee about additional strengthening and streamlining of its various concessional 
financing and lending instruments. The IMF al so considered that the reformed financing 
architecture was better tailored to diverse needs of the recipient countries, and reported that since the beginning of the global economic crisis in 2008, it had assumed 138 new lending commitments 
amounting to US$534 billion (gross) and disbursed US$154 billion.
60 
2.49.  The position of the World Bank regarding the issue of access to short-term multilateral 
financing was initially outlined in November 1997 as follows: 
"The World Bank continues to monitor the progress of liberalization resulting from the 
implementation of commitments made under the Uruguay Round Agreement. A number of 
recent studies using different methodologies and assumptions confirm that the long run impacts of the Uruguay Round agreement on agricultural prices will be relatively small 
certainly far smaller than the price increases that have been experienced in recent years. 
Given the small size of the shocks resulting from the Round and the Bank's substantial headroom above current IBRD loans outstanding, it seems clear that the Bank will be in a 
position to meet any additional demands generated by the Round for loans on IBRD terms. 
In response to the Ministerial Decision, a Working Group involving the World Bank, the Food 
and Agriculture Organization, the World Food Programme and the IMF met in 1995 to address the special needs of least developed and net food-importing countries. The Working 
Group reviewed the range of facilities available for additional financing needs for developing 
countries in the event of world price shocks an d 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 th e Round, and the difficulty involved in 
distinguishing Uruguay Round impacts from other shocks, it did not seem appropriate to establish a special Uruguay Round adjustme nt facility." (G/AG/GEN/15, page 3) 
2.50.  In more recent years, the World Bank has focused on the strengthening of the food security 
of developing countries and has developed strategies to deal with food price instability and its negative impacts. In cooperation with development partners, the World Bank studied ways to use commodity price insurance mechanisms as a tool to anticipate food crises, both at farm and at 
government level. According to the World Bank , food insecurity was best addressed through 
programmes designed to raise the purchasing po wer of the poor; reduce their exposure to 
negative income shocks; and improve the functionin g of the global food distribution and food aid 
systems.
61 
2.51.  In November 2009, the World Bank reported on the launching of a Global Food Crisis 
Response Programme (GFRP) in 2008 to mitigate the effects of soaring costs and to help countries 
adapt to higher and more volatile food prices. In  response to continued concerns about food price 
volatility in 2010, the Bank reinstated the expedite d recourse to GFRP till June 2012. By the end of 
October 2011, GFRP support of around US$1.5 billion had been distributed for operations in 47 countries to improve short-term smallholder supply response, social protection and nutrition 
intervention, price stabilization, including support to reduce import duties and the creation of food 
taxes. Since then, additional crisis response mechanisms had been established, including the Horn of Africa Regional Drought Response Plan and the Rapid Social Response Programme targeting 
both short-term measures (called the Rapid Respon se phase) as well measures towards economic 
recovery and resilience. In 2011, the Bank informed the Committee that an allocation of US$288 million would be made towards increasing livelihood protection as a rapid response 
measure under the Horn Regional Drought Response Plan.
62 
 
                                               
59 See G/AG/GEN/94. 
60 See G/AG/GEN/107. 
61 See, for example, G/AG/GEN/71 ( pp. 15-17) for a detailed descripti on of ex ante risk management 
systems (price related and weather re lated) and recently-launched joint WFP-World Bank pilot projects; and 
G/AG/GEN/73. 
62 See the contributions of the World Bank in G/AG/GEN/90 and G/AG/GEN/96.  
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.16  
 
- 18 - Annex 1: Compliance with notifica tion requirements (Table NF:1) 
Reporting 
period 
 
 Member 
1995 
1996 
1997 
1998 
1999 
2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
2004 
2005 
2006 
2007 
2008 
2009 
2010 
2011 
2012 Notification circulated in 
G/AG/N/- series Food Aid Convention donors Australia X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X    AUS/5; 13; 21; 25; 32 & 
Rev.1; 39; 48; 51 & Corr.1; 
57; 60; 68; 71; 75 & Corr.1; 
8; 84 
Canada X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X    CAN/11; 18; 25; 34; 42; 52; 
57; 67; 72; 81; 88; 93 
European 
Union X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X  EEC/9; 21 & Add.1; 25; 35; 46 
& Add.1; 50; 56; EU/1; 2; 3; 
4;15 
Japan X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X   JPN/15; 27; 33; 46; 68; 78; 
87; 107; 125 & Corr.1; 144; 
145; 160; 172;180 
Norway X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X  NOR/6; 19 & Corr.1; 20 & 
Corr.1; 26; 33; 34 & Corr.1; 
37; 42; 44; 54 & Rev.1; 60; 
62;68 
Switzerland X X X X X X X X X X X X X X     CHE/23; 30; 39 & Corr.1; 53 
United States  X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X   USA/7; 20; 21; 31; 46; 52; 
56; 65; 76; 83; 90 Other donors Argentina X X X X X X X            ARG/10; 15; 21 
Cuba X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X    CUB/4; 5; 14; 18; 22; 24; 34; 
36; 38; 41 
Republic of Korea X  X                  K O R / 9 ;  1 7  
New Zealand X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X  NZL/6; 13; 17; 25; 26; 30; 
39; 40; 45 & Rev.1; 56 & 
Corr.1; 60; 68; 71; 77 
South Africa X X X X X X X X X X X X X X     ZAF/7; 9; 17; 24; 32; 39; 42; 
50; 56; 60; 67; 69; 72 
Compliance (%) 86 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 86 57 29 0  
Notes: 
1. "X" means that a notification was received. A bl ank means that no noti fication was received. 
2. Annual reporting periods differ among Members. 
3. Compliance is calculated as the number of notifi cations received from Food Aid Convention donors.  
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.16  
 
- 19 - Annex 2: Food aid deliveries of ce reals and non-cereals, 2003-2012 (actual quantities, thousand tonnes) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 LDC NFIDC MEM 
TOTAL 9,814.7 6,989.7  7,932.7  6,674.6  5,773.3  6,266.1  5,842.7  5,668.9  3,872.1  4,065.8     
Least Developed Countries  5,276.4 3,788.6  4,860.5  3,945.6  3,314.3  4,412.6  3,937.7  3,806.2  2,559.3  2,854.9     
Net food-importing countries  678.9 627.8  711.5  1,017.8  545.9  526.5  741.0  1,341.4  824.7  542.3     
Sub-Saharan Africa 5,122.6 3,522.8  4,482.4  3,849.0  3,095.5  3,997.9  3,763.6  3,315.6  2,451.6  2,522.9     
Angola 272.6 126.7 55.5 26.4 10.4 0.0 0.0 3.6 3.6 73.8 #  M 
Benin 20.1 21.8 14.9 14.6 7.1 11.4 18.4 18.8 13.8 8.6 #  M 
Burkina Faso 29.1 38.9 38.1 40.1 42.1 44.2 27.9 40.3 18.1 44.7 #  M 
Burundi 68.0 79.1 72.0 82.5 66.8 38.5 60.4 21.8 26.0 14.1 #  M 
Cameroon 10.3 31.2 13.6 11.2 5.5 15.1 10.2 32.9 12.7 11.0   M 
Cape Verde 40.7 35.4 28.5 28.1 4.9 11.7 18.1 16.1 4.1 6.7   M 
Central African Republic 5.1 5.4 4.4 10.3 28.3 14.9 23.8 8.6 21.5 6.8 #  M 
Chad 16.0 41.5 72.1 59.2 67.6 82.0 111.1 108.4 84.3 85.8 #  M 
Comoros 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 #   
Congo, Democratic Republic of 79.6 79.9 93.8 100.9 103.0 117.4 192.6 164.7 130.5 136.0 #  M 
Congo 10.2 8.2 8.4 8.5 16.2 3.6 7.0 7.3 6.5 9.8   M 
Côte d'Ivoire 23.3 31.6 32.7 23.2 26.3 14.7 34.1 12.7 26.3 22.0  N M 
Djibouti 7.2 9.3 18.8 11.8 8.5 10.9 23.1 8.4 7.1 12.6 #  M 
Eritrea 347.8 268.2 227.0 32.0 14.8 17.2 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 #   
Ethiopia 1,963.9 743.8 1,112.4 736.9 624.6 1,021.6 1,138.7 1,416.6 749.7 727.6 #   
The Gambia 18.3 6.1 11.2 13.4 8.2 4.0 4.8 23.4 1.7 32.1 #  M 
Ghana 81.7 70.4 62.1 50.7 38.7 42.6 39.1 6.5 22.2 35.7   M 
Guinea 38.7 26.5 37.8 27.2 18.8 42.8 15.6 3.9 10.4 1.9 #  M 
Guinea Bissau 12.8 4.4 10.5 6.7 15.4 8.2 2.4 6.6 5.0 5.2 #  M 
Kenya 144.2 136.3 148.2 370.5 261.1 245.2 269.5 202.5 256.9 158.4  N M 
Lesotho 25.4 40.4 38.6 22.4 36.9 16.9 6.9 4.8 7.9 13.8 #  M 
Liberia 51.5 73.5 94.8 63.3 43.5 40.5 26.1 28.2 42.7 73.4 #   
Madagascar 57.2 39.8 46.8 44.1 51.9 32.8 22.2 25.4 37.5 32.7 #  M 
Malawi 113.5 74.5 145.4 238.4 91.6 68.5 97.0 37.7 42.0 33.5 #  M 
Mali 28.6 13.7 39.0 37.7 46.0 22.2 30.0 27.5 33.8 89.1 #  M 
Mauritania 86.9 45.3 91.3 41.2 43.2 55.4 29.2 34.2 11.3 34.3 #  M 
Mozambique 238.9 150.5 116.3 148.6 86.2 141.8 169.3 84.6 167.0 129.2 #  M 
Namibia 23.1 5.5 1.6 6.5 9.8 4.4 0.4 0.8 1.0 0.7  N M 
Niger 22.0 38.5 138.3 91.3 77.0 60.6 48.2 152.0 60.7 122.1 #  M  
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.16  
 
- 20 - RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 LDC NFIDC MEM 
Nigeria 13.3 0.0 19.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.3   M 
Rwanda 42.7 44.6 40.4 49.3 25.7 24.9 28.3 7.2 12.3 7.4 #  M 
Sao Tome and Principe 1.4 3.0 4.7 1.3 1.6 7.2 5.2 3.3 0.5 4.4 #   
Senegal 36.6 20.8 29.9 15.0 27.9 29.5 18.2 56.8 12.3 66.0 # N M 
Seychelles  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    
Sierra Leone 49.9 35.3 36.0 31.0 30.1 30.7 17.6 22.1 21.9 13.3 #  M 
Somalia 33.1 43.7 39.3 203.2 109.6 366.9 297.0 70.2 163.9 164.9 #   
South Africa 19.9 58.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   M 
South Sudan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 28.1 70.8 #   
Sudan 253.7 376.4 913.2 590.8 492.6 672.8 512.1 472.8 203.2 159.0 #   
Swaziland 23.8 11.1 11.5 15.8 16.1 17.9 2.7 3.4 13.9 6.0  N M 
Tanzania 129.5 110.7 115.0 93.8 78.1 84.5 28.5 34.2 67.3 29.5 #  M 
Togo 8.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 2.1 6.2 25.2 0.5 1.5 0.0 #  M 
Uganda 188.1 235.4 281.8 257.2 261.5 190.1 135.9 78.1 69.6 50.3 #  M 
Zambia 147.8 88.1 143.4 108.4 40.1 32.1 16.4 8.8 3.0 2.9 #  M 
Zimbabwe 337.8 249.1 73.1 134.5 155.7 342.2 242.9 59.6 34.6 25.5   M 
Asia 2,353.5 1,994.8  2,372.0  1,346.5  1,708.8  1,514.5  1,386.3  1,649.7  834.2  957.8     
Afghanistan 228.4 231.2 207.3 160.5 224.7 314.8 207.1 126.9 131.0 75.6 #   
Bangladesh 462.3 225.6 293.5 228.0 221.1 333.2 164.9 205.3 99.0 183.9 #  M 
Bhutan 6.5 6.4 2.2 1.3 3.3 4.1 2.0 3.4 2.8 2.2 #   
Cambodia 25.2 31.3 23.8 27.5 31.9 43.8 33.0 19.4 26.0 23.4 #  M 
China 53.5 35.1 49.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0   M 
India 68.3 138.3 96.0 147.0 115.9 50.7 53.7 14.1 17.8 18.9   M 
Indonesia 222.2 159.2 173.9 91.0 33.9 8.9 8.3 0.4 1.9 1.4   M 
Korea, Democratic Republic 944.4 844.8 1,097.3 307.5 720.5 375.2 297.9 94.8 46.6 353.9    
Laos 19.8 25.3 19.2 12.7 19.5 15.4 18.0 14.8 3.3 2.7 #  M 
Maldives 10.6 5.4 8.7 6.2 6.6 4.7 17.4 9.0 9.0 0.0  N M 
Mongolia 28.2 28.4 54.8 9.3 33.4 27.3 25.0 0.0 0.0 16.2  N M 
Myanmar 6.2 18.1 16.5 27.4 25.9 106.1 76.9 31.5 33.3 45.4 #  M 
Nepal 36.5 54.8 56.4 65.8 50.0 74.6 54.7 24.3 13.2 28.0 #  M 
Pakistan 47.7 59.3 30.1 170.9 21.5 56.9 275.5 964.1 382.5 164.6  N M 
Philippines 90.5 29.6 120.6 18.9 109.0 15.3 70.3 82.9 19.4 29.3   M 
Sri Lanka 26.7 38.2 120.4 61.7 77.4 73.6 74.0 57.9 33.0 11.9  N M 
Thailand 1.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0   M 
Timor-Leste 0.3 7.5 1.3 10.9 14.3 8.5 7.7 0.8 15.4 0.4 #   
Viet Nam 75.0 56.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   M  
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.16  
 
- 21 - RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 LDC NFIDC MEM 
Eastern Europe & CIS  649.8 397.0  270.8  378.0  303.1  108.9  77.2 41.5 10.4 3.7    
Albania  9.5 31.2 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   M 
Armenia 33.1 8.8 16.2 9.0 84.5 8.4 6.2 0.4 0.4 0.0   M 
Azerbaijan 25.0 44.4 9.2 90.6 41.2 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    
Bosnia and Herzegovina 24.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    
Bulgaria 17.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   M 
Georgia 66.8 91.9 15.3 30.7 77.7 13.0 15.2 0.9 0.1 0.1   M 
Kazakhstan 0.0 0.6 0. 0 4.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    
Kyrgyz Republic 4.6 2.1 139.3 26.2 58.1 0.3 16.4 33.1 9.9 3.0   M 
Moldova 17.5 18.3 8.2 28.0 9.4 45.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   M 
Romania 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   M 
Russian Federation 65.7 31.8 20.5 17.5 13.5 8.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0   M 
Serbia & Montenegro 75.2 23.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0    
Tajikistan 79.8 62.3 57.8 171.6 17.8 30.6 39.0 7.1 0.0 0.6    
Ukraine 209.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   M 
Uzbekistan 20.8 82.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    
Middle East & North Africa  1,263.3 536.2  185.2  477.3  328.3  315.9  294.1  204.1  290.5  404.9     
Algeria  9.0 38.9 32.0 20.5 22.9 32.0 20.1 26.2 28.3 25.4    
Cyprus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   M 
Egypt 16.3 10.6 11.6 29.4 2.3 5.6 1.7 2.8 9.2 2.0  N M 
Iran 30.3 3.3 2.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 3.1 4.0 4.3 1.7    
Iraq 936.7 10.4 32.8 58.4 47.3 46.3 18.5 5.2 0.4 0.2    
Israel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.6 0.0   M 
Jordan 162.3 126.9 3.3 110.5 4.4 6.7 4.3 0.0 0.0 4.9  N M 
Lebanon 10.0 0.0 12.0 35.7 1.9 4.2 1.6 0.8 0.0 2.5    
Libya 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.0 2.8    
Morocco 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  N M 
Palestinian Territory 53.5 152.5 64.0 117.5 185.3 148.8 174.5 76.0 127.9 123.7    
Syria 9.4 13.2 7.6 4.3 7.8 44.6 27.4 19.7 2.4 40.4    
Tunisia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0  N M 
Yemen 34.2 180.2 19.5 100.2 55.1 26.4 41.8 69.4 70.6 201.5 #    
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.16  
 
- 22 - RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 LDC NFIDC MEM 
Latin America & the Caribbean  425.4 539.0  622.3  623.8  337.7  328.9  321.5  458.0  285.3  176.5     
Barbados  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  N M 
Belize 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   M 
Bolivia, Plurinational State of  109.6 82.7 59.2 110.9 54.6 10.9 20.7 6.2 6.0 1.9   M 
Brazil 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   M 
Chile 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0   M 
Colombia 8.7 12.3 14.0 17.5 18.1 19.8 13.2 11.2 13.2 6.1   M 
Cuba 3.3 5.0 7.0 4.4 2.9 1.4 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0  N M 
Dominican Republic 2.5 12.9 0.3 12.0 0.0 2.8 2.8 25.2 11.9 50.2  N M  
Ecuador 5.8 21.1 43.2 31.3 0.8 2.7 0.4 2.3 1.3 0.7   M 
El Salvador 11.5 12.0 66.2 18.7 3.8 1.1 0.8 3.5 31.1 3.5  N M 
Guatemala 61.9 66.9 67.5 107.6 42.4 31.2 68.1 68.1 65.8 24.1   M  
Guyana 0.0 23.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   M 
Haiti 62.8 122.4 137.4 111.3 107.4 188.6 192.1 336.8 93.5 46.2 #  M 
Honduras 50.6 42.8 96.7 95.8 40.7 26.2 8.8 2.5 27.8 35.9  N M 
Jamaica 0.0 11.0 11.0 3.6 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  N M 
Mexico 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   M 
Nicaragua 41.4 56.8 42.4 46.3 55.1 35.6 8.8 1.8 34.7 6.9   M 
Paraguay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0   M 
Peru 66.6 69.8 77.5 64.3 10.4 8.5 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0  N M 
Notes:  
LDC: Least-developed country (#). NFIDC: Net food-importing developing country, as listed in G/AG/5/Rev.10 dated 23 March 2012 (N). MEM: WTO Member (M). 
Source: WFP. Data for 2012 are provisional. 
  
__________