G/AG/W/42/Rev.19  
 
1 February 2018  
(18-0736)  Page: 1/16 
Committee on Agriculture    
 
IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E DECISION ON MEASUR ES CONCERNING THE PO SSIBLE 
NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE REFORM PROGRAMME  ON LEAST DEVELOPED  
AND NET FOOD -IMPORTING DEVELOPING  COUNTRIES  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
Revision  
The present note updates the information in the Secretaria t note G/AG/W/42/Rev.1 8 dated 
8 February  2016 on implementation of the Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative 
Effects of the Reform Programme on Least -Developed and Net Food -Importing Developing 
Countries (NFIDC Decision).  Followin g 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 Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.   G/AG/W/42/Rev.19  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MONITORING OF THE FO LLOW -UP TO THE NFIDC DECI SION  ................................ ...... 3 
2   PROVISIONS OF THE NF IDC DECI SION AND IMPLEMENTAT ION ................................ . 4 
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 negotiations  ................................ ................................ .............  6 
2.1.2    Concessionality of Food Aid  ................................ ................................ ........................  8 
2.2   Technical and financial assistance  ................................ ................................ ..................  8 
2.3   Differential treatment in the framework of an agreement on export credits  ........................ 10 
2.4   Access to the resources of t he international financial institutions  ................................ ......11 
2.4.1    Ability to finance commercial imports  ................................ ................................ ......... 11 
2.4.2    Access to the facilities of the IMF and the World Bank  ................................ .................. 14 
Annex 1: List of notifications under Article  16.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
(Table  NF:1) for the reporting years 1995 -2016 ................................ ................................ .....16 
 G/AG/W/42/Rev.19  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1  MONITORING OF THE FO LLOW -UP TO THE NFIDC DECI SION  
1.1.  In 1995, the Committee on Agriculture established notification requirements under which 
donor Members are required to submit data on f ood 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 R eform Programme on Least -Developed and Net Food -Importing Develop ing 
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 paragraph 18 of the Worki ng 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.  Table NF:1  notifications are required by all donor Members in respect of actions taken within 
the framework of the NFIDC Decision.  Annex 1 summarizes the record of Members' Table NF:1 
notification s for the  implementation years 1995 to 201 6.4 The list of notifying Me mbers include 
signatories of the  Food Aid Convention5 as well as  other Members that have in the past identified 
themselves as food aid donors in their Table NF:1 notifications.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.  The latest change to 
the list was agreed at the March 2012 meeting of the Committee to include Antigua and Barbuda 
and El Salvador among the beneficiary developing coun tries wi thin the framework of the 
NFIDC  Decision.  The list currently contains 31 developing country Members (NFIDCs) in addition to 
least-developed countries (LDCs) as re cognized 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 recommend ation 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 sub mitted in June 2002, included an examination of specific proposals submitted by a  group of 
seventeen WTO NFIDCs.12 
1.6.  Between 2003 and 2006, the Committee on Agriculture also considered at its regular 
meetings, a proposal by the African Group calling for devel oped-country Members to, inter alia , 
contribute to a revolving fund for normal levels of food imports.13 In September 2004, the 
                                                
2 See G/AG/2, pages 33 -34. 
3 According to the Working Procedures, the annual monitoring exercise is to be undertaken at the 
November meetings of the Committee.  In view of the preparatory process for the 11th Ministerial Conference, 
the Committee at its October 2017 meeting agreed to postpone that year's annual monitoring to be to be 
undertaken at the February 2018 meeting of the Committee (paragraph 3.3 of G/AG/R/ 86 refers ).   
4 The list does not include "nil returns" where Members have 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.  
5 A series of multilateral cooperation instruments in the form the Food Aid Convention remained  in force 
from 1967 to 2012 . The latest in the series is the Food Assistance Convention (FAC) which entered into force 
on 1 January 2013.  
6 Argentina informed the WTO Secretariat on 30 July 2003 that it no longer is a food aid donor under 
the Food Aid Convention.  
7 See G/AG/3 and G/AG/5.  The decision to establish this list was t aken 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, 
paragraph  17). 
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 G/AG/W/49/Add.1 and G/AG/W/ 49/Corr.1) and Inter-agency panel 
report (WT/GC/62 , G/AG/13).  
13 Paragraph 52 of TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2 refers.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.19  
 
- 4 - 
 
  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 
reflecte d in the Committee's follow -up report to the General Council.15 
1.7.  Global actions to address food insecurity in general  and food price volatility in particular, 
were also adopted within the G -20 framework.  Recognizing 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 dialogue and coordination o f policy responses, and 
to build data collection capacity in participating countries.  The AMIS Secretariat is housed in the 
FAO and other international organizations including th e WTO contribute to the System.16 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.17 
2  PROVISIONS OF THE NFI DC DECISION AND IMPL EMENTATION  
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 gr owth to the benefit of all participa nts." ( 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 ex perience 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 o f 
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 agr icultural export 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 information available to the Secretariat regard ing 
their implementation.  
2.3.  Developing country Members eligible as beneficiaries within the framework of the NFIDC 
Decision have regularly emphasized the need of an effective implementation of the Decision.  
During the 2014 NFIDC annual monitoring discussions18, the Africa Group urged Members to 
improve  the implementation of the NFIDC Decision so as to achieve its intended objectives.19 On 
that occasion some Members also emphasized the importance of establishing strong disciplines in 
the area of export competiti on in general and international food aid in particular. The need to 
improve the implementation of the NFIDC Decision was highlighted again by the NFIDC Group 
during the 2016 annual monitoring when the Group also presented some specific suggestions to 
reinvigorate the annual monitoring exercise.20 
                                                
14 See G/AG/16, paragraph 19(c). Progress 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 para graphs 11 -12 of G/AG/16/Add.1 dated 13 June 2006.  
16 The initial focus of AMIS is on four grains that are particularly important in international food markets, 
namely wheat, maize, rice and soybeans. For more details please refer to http://www.amis -outlook. org/amis -
about/en/ . 
17 See http://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs -home/en/  for details.  
18 Section 2.1 of G/AG/R/76 refers.  
19 Specific suggestions made by the Africa Group towards an improved implementation of the 
NFIDC Decision are included in paragraph 2.3 of G/AG/R/76.  
20 Paragraphs 2.2 to 2.7 of G/AG/R/83 refer.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.19  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.4.  At the tenth Ministerial Conference of the WTO  (MC-10) at Nairobi, Ministers  reaffirmed their 
commitment to full y implement the NFIDC Decision.21 WTO Ministers at MC -10 simultaneously also 
adopted the Decision22 on export competition  which states that nothing in this Decision  can be 
construed to diminish in any way the existing commitments contained in the NFIDC  Decision nor 
shall the monitoring and  review  of the latter be affected .23  
2.1  Food aid  
2.5.  In light of paragraphs 1 and 2 of t he NFIDC Decision quoted above,  
"Ministers  accordingly agree  to establish appropriate mechanisms to ensure that the 
implementation of the resu lts 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 develop ing countries, especially 
least-developed and net f ood-importing developing co untries." (chapeau to 
paragraph  3 of the NFIDC Decision)  
2.6.  The MC -10 Decision on export competition also includes disciplines on international food aid. 
In the context of the thrust of the NFIDC Decision on the availabi lity and ade quacy of food aid, the 
Decision on export competition in relation to  international food aid disciplines says:  
"Members  reaffirm their commitment to maintain an adequate level of international 
food aid , to take account of the interests of food aid recipients and to ensure that the 
disciplines contained hereafter do not unintentionally impede the delivery of food aid 
provided to deal with emergency situations. "24  
2.7.  Members, as a part of the MC -10 Decision o n export competition, also agreed to review the 
provisions on international food aid contained therein within the regular Committee on Agriculture 
monitoring of the NFIDC Decision.25   
2.1.1   Review of Food Aid Levels and initiation of Food Aid Negotiations  
2.8.  In ord er 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  
2.9.  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 saf ety net in 
terms of international food aid availability.  Under the Food Aid Convention 1999, the latest in a 
series of such Conventions, the combined minimum annual volume and value commitments of 
donor M embers stood at 4.8 million tonnes (in wheat equival ent) and EUR 130 million.  
2.10.   The Food Aid Convention, 1999 e xpired on 30 June 2012. On 1st January 2013, a new Food 
Assistance Convention (FAC) came into effect. The 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 most food insecure and vulnerable populations.  
                                                
21 Paragraph 25 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration (WT/MIN(15)/DEC) refers.  
22 Ministerial Decision on Export Competition in document WT/MIN(15)/45 and WT/L/990 refers.  
23 Paragraph 3 of WT/MIN(15)/45 and WT/L/980 refers.  
24 Paragraph 22 of WT/MIN(15)/45 and WT/L/980 refers. Similar commitment "to maintain needed 
levels" of international food aid may also be found in paragraph 30 of the MC -10 Decision.  
25 Paragraph 32 of WT/MIN(15)/45 and WT/L/980 refers.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.19  
 
- 6 - 
 
  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 or a combination of both to be 
notified to the FAC Secretariat.26 The annual commitments of the parties who have ratified, 
accepted  or approved the FAC are as set out below.  
Donor  Comm itments in 201 7 
Australia  AUD 80 million 
Austria  EUR 1.495  million 
Canada  CAD 250 million 
Denmark  DKK 185 million  
European Union  EUR 350 million  
Finland  EUR 6 million 
France  EUR 33 million 
Japan  JPY 10 billion 
Luxembourg  EUR 4 million 
Russian Federation  USD 15 million 
Slovenia  EUR 30,000  
Spain  EUR 10 million  
Sweden  SEK 200 million 
Switzerland  CHF 34 million 
United States of America  USD 2.2 billion 
Source:  http://www.foodassistanceconvention.org/commitments.aspx   
(information available  as on 30 January  2018). 
 
2.11.   The food aid shipments by donors under the Food Aid Convention  often exceeded t heir 
combined minimum annual commitments. 27. Similarly under the new Food Assistance 
Convention  (FAC), the donors have consistently fulfilled their annual FAC commitments. The 
annual commitments of FAC donors in 201 6 exceeded USD  3 billion which were fulfi lled by all 
donors  and in many cases these commitments were comfortably exceeded.28 
2.12.   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 ar e not 
directly comparable with data reported by donors 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.  Data on global food aid deliveries until t he year 2014 based on the 
WFP International Food Aid Information System (INTERFAIS) are included in the previous revisions 
of this note.  The WFP has since discontinued the INTERFAIS and the collection of global food aid 
flow data.   
2.1.1.2   Initiation of food aid negotiations  
2.13.   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, a ction 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 
                                                
26 The parties may modify their minimum annual commitments sub ject to notification to the 
FAC Secretariat.  
27 For example, food aid shipments in 2011/2012, as reported by the International Grains Council (IGC) , 
totalled 5.7 million tonnes in wheat equivalent, representing a 4% decrease from the previous year.  See 
http://www.foodaidconvention.org/en/index/facshipmentreport.aspx  for more details.  
28 2016 Narrative Report on food assistance by FAC donors may be accessed at:  
https://www.foodassistanceconvention.org/downloads/sumrec/fac2016nr.pdf . G/AG/W/42/Rev.19  
 
- 7 - 
 
  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 countri es during the reform 
programme.29 
2.14.   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 food aid donors.  In December 1997, the Food Aid 
Committee decided to open the Convention for renegotiation ta king into account, amongst other 
things, " the food security and trade l iberalization objectives under the WTO and the World Food 
Summit Action Plan ".30 In early 1998, the Food Aid Committee confirmed its intention to bring a 
new Food Aid Convention into eff ect and held a further dialogue with representatives of food aid 
recipients regarding the main elements of the new Convention.31 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 impro ve the effectiveness and the 
impact of food aid  and the priority was accorded  to the LDCs and low -income countries  among the 
food aid recipients .  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)  
2.15.   The Food Aid Convention 1999 was to expire 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 m ost 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 WT O negotiations.  In these circumstances, the Food Aid Convention  1999 
continued to be extended on an annual basis while informal deliberations were pursued between 
its members.  At its 103rd Session  in December 2010 , the Food Aid Committee launched the forma l 
process of renegotiati ng the Food Aid Convention 1999 . The new Food Assistance 
Convention  (FAC)32 was adopted on 25 April 2012.  It was opened for signature on 11  June 2012 
and entered into force on 1 January 2013.  
2.16.   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 relation ship between 
its provisions and the existing or future WTO rules, particularly on international food aid.  The 
Decision on export competition adopted a t MC-10 at Nairobi includes specific disciplines on 
international food aid.33 Some of these food aid disciplines in the MC -10 Decision also make a 
reference to the FAC.34  
                                                
29 See G/L/125, paragraph 18(i) refers.  
30 See IGC statement in G/AG/GEN/20.  
31 See G/AG/GEN/31, page 4.  
32 Accessible at http://www.foodassistanceconvention.org/convention/ FoodAssistance.pdf . Please also 
see paragraph 2.10 of this note  for additional details on the FAC.  Submissions by the IGC made at the annual 
monitoring exercises also includes details about the thrust and activities of the FAC (G/AG/GEN/124 and 
G/AG/GEN/13 6 refer).  
33 "International Food aid" section on pages 6 -7 of document WT/MIN(15)/45 and WT/L/980 refers.  
34 Refer specifically to paragraphs 28 and 30 of document WT/MIN(15)/45 and WT/L/980.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.19  
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.1.2   Concessionality of Food Aid  
2.17.   To the end stated in the chapeau of paragraph 3 of the NFIDC Decision, Ministers also 
agreed:  
"(ii) to adopt guidelines to ensure that an increasing proportio n of basic foodstuffs is 
provided to least -developed and net food -importing developing countries in fully grant 
form and/or on appropriate concessional terms in line with Article IV of t he Food Aid 
Convention 1986 […] ". (paragraph 3(ii) of the NFIDC Decisi on) 
2.18.   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 8 0% of members' contributions.  Similarly, under the Food 
Assistance Convention (FAC), no less than 8 0% of a party's committed fo od assistance to eligible 
countries and vulnerable populations35 shall be in fully grant form.  Donors are to seek to exceed 
progressively this percentage.  
2.19.   At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Ministers approved the recommendation that:  
"WTO Members which are  donors of food aid shall, within the framework of their food 
aid policies, statutes, programmes and commitments, take appropriate measures 
aimed at ensuring: […] (ii) that all food aid to least developed countries is provided in 
fully grant form and, to t he maximum extent possible, to WTO net food -importing 
developing countries as well".  (G/AG/11, Part B paragraph 3 I(b) refers)  
2.20.   The issue of food aid to be in fully grant form also came up frequently in the NFIDC annual 
monitoring discussions .36 Members' Tab le NF:1 notifications37 include information on the level of 
concessionality of the respective food aid deliveries to LDCs and NFIDCs.  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 grant form ranged between 83 % to 10 0% 
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 U nited States indicated in its 
notification38 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 Se ction 416(b) Programs is provided in fully 
grant form."  
2.21.   In the agri culture negotiations under the "export competition"  pillar on the theme of 
international food aid, Members specifically considered the question of providing food aid 
exclusively in fully grant form.  The Decision on export competition adopted at MC -10 at Nairobi 
requires Members to ensure that all international food aid is in fully -grant form.39 
2.2  Technical and financial assistance  
2.22.   To the end stated in the chapeau of paragraph 3 of the NFIDC D ecision 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 agricultu ral productivity and 
infrastructure."  (paragraph 3(iii) of the NFIDC Decision)  
                                                
35 "Eligible country" and "eligible vulnerable populations" are def ined in Article 4 of the FAC.  
36 Refer, for example, to paragraph 2.5 of G/AG/R/76.  
37 See Annex 1 for the relevant notification symbols.  
38 See G/AG/N/USA/65 and G/AG/N/USA/76. A note along similar lines is included in Table  NF:1 
notifications for reporting years 2008/09 -2015/16 (Please refer to Annex I for notification symbols ). With 
regard to Title I aid, the United  States clarified during the review process of the Committee at its 
November  2012 meeting that "t he concessional financing mechanism of Title I of the Food for Peace Act has 
not been used since 2006 " (G/AG/W/106 refers).  
39 Subparagraph 23.b of document WT/MIN(15)/45 and WT/L/980 refers.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.19  
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.23.   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 o f 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 informat ion has not been recaptured or summarized in this background note and 
should be consulted by directly accessing the specific Table NF:1 notifications40 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.41 On the occasion of the annual 
monitoring in November 2012, the United States informed the Commi ttee 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, marke t analysis and post -distribution impact assessments. Such 
assessments minimized the possibility of commercial trade displacement while reducing the 
potential for beneficiary populations to develo p a food assistance dependency.42 
2.24.   Furthermore, the Doha Minist erial Conference approved the recommendation:  
" [...] that, in support of the priority accorded 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 organi zations, 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 fo od-importing 
developing countries, on terms and conditions conducive to the better use of such 
facilities and resources, in order to improve agricultural productivity and infrastructure 
in these countries under existing facilities and programmes, as well a s under such 
facilities and programmes as may be introduced."43 
2.25.   The initial responses from the African Development Bank, the European Investment Bank, 
FAO and the World Bank were circulated in 2002.44 Since then, a number of IGOs have updated 
the Committee o n Agriculture on their respective initiatives and action plans in this area.  
2.26.   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 tr ade 
liberalization.45 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 flexi ble framework for structural conditionality, while 
lending facilities were revamped.  The reform measures 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.46 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.47 During the November 2012 annual  monitoring, the IMF reiterated the commitment 
to maintain its focus on low -income countries (LIC) in Fund's technical assistance programmes. It 
                                                
40 Table NF:1 notifications may be accessed from the WTO public website at 
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/ag_work_e.htm  or the Agriculture Information Management 
System (AG -IMS) at http://agims.wto.org/ . 
41 See G/AG/GEN/94.  
42 Paragraph 2.5 of G/AG/R/67 refers.  
43 G/AG/11, Part B paragraph 3 II(b) refers . 
44 See G/AG/W/57 and G/AG/W/57 /Add.1.  
45 See G/AG/GEN/71, G/AG/GEN/76 and G/AG/GEN/78.  
46 See G/AG/GEN/90.  
47 See G/AG/GEN/94.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.19  
 
- 10 - 
 
  further informed the Committee that the demand from LICs for concessional financing remained 
high with annual c ommitments averaging about US$2 billion during 201 0-2012.48 
2.27.   The World Bank offers assistance to developing countries towards increasing agricultural 
productivity.  The Bank's Agricultural Action Plan for 2010 -2012 emphasizes increased support to 
raising agri cultural productivity as one of its priority areas.  In the financial year 2011, overall 
World Bank Group lending to agriculture and related sectors amounted to US$5.8 billion including 
US$2.2  billion contributed by the International Finance Corporation (IFC).  The Bank also provides 
assistance through better technology, trade, and aid 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 B ank also emphasizes 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 ca n be used to 
finance specific interventions.  As one of the largest donors of Aid -for-Trade, the World Bank is also 
committed to supporting countries in need of trade f inance and technical expertise.49 
2.28.   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 progr amme.  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 a rising 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 bene fitted from these WFP products.50 
2.29.   The Inter -American Institute fo r Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) reported on its efforts 
towards improving agricultural productivity and food security in Latin America and the Caribbean.  
In this context the IICA, described its 201 4-2018 Medium-Term P lan where one of the objectives 
of the Plan is to improve agriculture's contribution to food security. The IICA also reported on 
various technical cooperation mechanisms and projects in Latin America and Caribbean countries 
organizing them based on the four dimensions of food security (i.e.  availability, access, utilization 
and stability) .51 
2.30.   The Organization for Economic Co -operation and Development (OECD)  in its contribution 
during the 2014 annual monitoring emphasized the role of complementary policies that enhance 
investment in social infr astructure (such as health and education) along with broader 
macroeconomic policies aimed at promoting growth. Referring specifically to the nutritional 
dimension of food security, the role of complementary policy measures in the form of public 
services an d social safety nets was also underlined. In this context, the OECD dwelt on the 
potential role of Official Development Assistance (ODA) towards the provision of public goods 
aimed at improving food and nutrition security in developing countries.52 
2.3  Differen tial treatment in the framework of an agreement on export credits  
2.31.   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)  
2.32.   At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Ministers reaffirmed the commitment above and 
approved a general understanding regard ing procedures for the development of disciplines 
pursuant to Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture 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 expo rt credits has been undertaken both in the regular meetings of the Committee 
                                                
48 See G/AG/GEN/107.  
49 See G/AG/GEN/90 and G/AG/GEN/96.  
50 See G/AG/GEN/94 and G/AG/GEN/100.  
51 See G/AG/GEN/93, G/AG/GEN/97, G/AG/GEN/111 , G/AG/GEN/121  and G/AG/GEN/136 . 
52 See G/AG/GEN/123 and G/AG/GEN/123/Corr.1.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.19  
 
- 11 - 
 
  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 dif ferential treatment in 
favour of developing countries.53 
2.33.   At MC -10 at Nairobi, the Ministers adopted the Decision on export competition which , 
inter alia, includes disciplines in the area of export credits , export credit  guarantees or insurance 
programmes. Provisions towards a more favourable treatment of least -developed and net 
food-importing developing countries are included under "Special and Differential Treatment " (S&D) 
part of the disciplines.54  
2.4  Access to the resources of the international financial ins titutions  
2.34.   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 e ligible 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, Minister s take note of paragraph 37 of the report of the Director -General 
to the CONTRACTING PARTIES to GATT 1947 on his consultations with the Managing 
Director of the International Monetary Fund and the President of the World Bank 
(MTN.GNG/NG14/W/35)".  (Paragrap h 5 of the NFIDC Decision)  
2.4.1   Ability to finance commercial imports  
2.35.   In 2002, the Inter -agency panel report provided a detailed examination of the question of 
financing food imports by NFIDCs and LDCs.55 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 issu es.56 
2.36.   Cereals and oilseeds  (including vegetable oils)  remain among the most important food 
commodities in the import basket of the NFID Cs and LDCs.  Chart 1 below shows the Grains and 
Oilseeds Index (GOI) of the  IGC during the period 2000 -2017. The GOI has been developed by the 
IGC in January 2011 and is considered as a good indicator for measuring global grains and oilseeds 
price movement s. Cereals contribute to more than 6 5% of the GOI composition.  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, these p rices declined, 
whilst still remaining above 2006 levels.  The global grain prices experienced another surge from 
July 2010 onwards.  An unexpected crop failure in some major exporting countries followed by 
national responses and speculative behaviour were a mongst 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 primari ly due to tighter markets and adverse weather conditions in some of the 
important grains and oilseeds producing countries.  While  the situation was not deemed to  be an  
impending food crisis, an enhanced role for market information and transparency was 
empha sized.57 Starting from the lat ter part of 2012, cereal and oilseed prices have been on a 
general ly declining trend as evident in the chart below. Production uncertainties and adverse 
weather events led to some upward movement in the grains and oilseed prices in 2016; since then 
price variability has remained relatively mute due to ample global supplies and balanced markets. 
Current large stocks may buffer against any potential shortfall resulting from unfavourable 
weather conditions.  
                                                
53 See, for example, G/AG/16 and G/AG/16/ Add.1 . 
54 Refer specifically to paragraph 17 of WT/MIN(15)/45  and WT/L/980.  
55 See WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13, in particular, Chapter II, Section A and the Conclusions in Chapter  III. See 
also the contribution by UNCTAD in G/AG/GEN/68, pp. 16 -18. 
56 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.  
57 See, for example, FAO's press release of 6 September 2012 at 
http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/155659/icode/ . G/AG/W/42/Rev.19  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Chart  1: The IGC Grains and Oilseeds Index (GOI) * (2000 -2017) 
 
* IGC Grains and Oilseeds Index composition: wheat (30%), 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).  
 
2.37.   At various stages of the Committee's annual monitoring exercise, intern ational observer 
organizations have commented on the development of international food prices and their impacts 
on LDCs and NFIDCs.58 They also reported on various actions that they undertake in response to 
food security -related risks arising from developme nts in food prices and food price volatility.  
2.38.    The food security situation in LDCs and NFIDCs is being monitored by FAO on a regular 
basis, notably with regard to overall trends in cereal imports and cereal import bills.  The focus of 
FAO reports to the Co mmittee also remains on developments in food price volatility and their 
potential impact on LDCs and NFIDCs. The FAO has also reported on the declining proportion of 
food aid in total cereal imports of LDCs and NFIDCs compared to much higher food aid share s that 
existed in early 2000s.  This is also evident from Chart 2 below where total imports of cereals by 
the LDCs and NFIDCs have generally been increasing over the last ten years whereas during the 
same period the quantity of food aid has been on a declining trend. 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 variou s countries for select cereals.59 
                                                
58 See, for example, the observations by the FAO, IGC, OECD, 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.  
59 See the statement by the FAO contained in G/AG/GEN/98 , G/AG/GEN/ 106, G/AG/GEN/ 114 and 
G/AG/GEN/ 122. 
050100150200250300350
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017G/AG/W/42/Rev.19  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Chart  2: Total imp orts of cereals (HS Chapter 10) by LDCs and NFIDCs during 2007 -2016  
 
Sourc e: UN Comtrade database.  
 
2.39.   In November 2009, WFP reported in detail on the activities and initiatives aimed at 
addressing global food insecurity and malnutrition.  The WFP had allocated 7 2% of development 
and relief resources to LDCs and 9 3% 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 pr ocurement of h umanitarian food.60 
2.40.   During the 2014 annual monitoring, the OECD elaborated on the role of trade to food 
security paying specific attention to the dimension s of availability  and accessibility . Referring to net 
agricultural trade data, the OECD noted that the  trade balance deficit of LDCs and NFIDCs has 
grown constantly and that the increase in imports compared to exports  is particularly noticeable in 
NFIDCs . Reporting on food imports trends as a share of  total merchandise imports, the  OECD  
simultaneously pointed that the relative cost of food imports in the total import bill  has been falling  
implying that meeting the cost of food import bills has become less onerous over time.61 
2.41.   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 
                                                
60 See G/AG/GEN/90, G/AG/GEN/94 and G/AG/GEN/110.  
61 See G/AG/GEN/123 and G/AG/GEN/123/Corr.1.  
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
NFIDCs 41,447 38,553 31,871 43,696 46,404 39,763 46,799 39,019 40,004 39,826
LDCs 15,836 16,213 17,320 17,275 19,298 17,231 29,391 34,290 24,756 24,680
Rest of world 201,238 198,983 216,044 187,170 198,854 219,798 224,976 241,237 261,027 247,339
WORLD (excluding EU intra trade) 258,521 253,749 265,235 248,141 264,557 276,792 301,167 314,546 325,787 311,845258,521253,749265,235
248,141264,557276,792301,167314,546325,787
311,845
050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000350,000000 tonnes
Rest of world LDCs NFIDCsG/AG/W/42/Rev.19  
 
- 14 - 
 
  accounts for close to 8 0% of the market) and reduce  the gap between demand and supply of trade 
finance.  In this context, it was observed that the scarcity of trade finance could le ad 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.   
2.42.   The S&D disciplines in the area of export credits, export credit guarantees or insurance 
programmes included in the MC-10 Decision on export competition also acknowledge and address 
"exceptional circumstances"  that may be faced by LDCs and NFIDCs in respect of financing of 
normal levels of commercial imports of basic foodstuffs and/or in accessing loans by financial 
institutions.62 
2.4.2   Access to the facilities of the IMF and the World Bank  
2.43.   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 2002.63 
2.44.   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 me et any balance of payments needs of our 
members that may arise from higher world food prices. "64 
2.45.   In November 2009, the IMF described its reformed lending framework65 for LDCs 
and NFIDCs, under which support was channelled  through a new instrument under the P overty 
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 coun tries. 
Towards its continuing efforts for crisis prevention in emerging economies, the IMF introduced a 
new Precautionary Credit Line (PCL) for countries with sound economic policies and moderate 
vulnerabilities.  Simultaneously, the existing Flexible Credi t Line (FCL) facility was reformed to 
allow for a more flexible access for a longer period of time.66 In November 2012, the IMF informed 
the Committee about additional strengthening and streamlining of its various concessional 
financing and lending instrume nts. The IMF also 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.67 
2.46.   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 o n 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 loa ns 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.  
                                                
62 Paragraph 17 of WT/MIN(15)/45 and WT/L/9 80 refers.  
63 See WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13.  
64 See G/AG/GEN/49, page 8.  
65 See G/AG/GEN/90.  
66 See G/AG/GEN/94.  
67 See G/AG/GEN/107.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.19  
 
- 15 - 
 
  In response to the Ministerial Decision, a Working Group involving the World Bank, the 
Food and Agriculture Or ganization, 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 countr ies in the event of world price shocks and 
production shortfalls and provided a report to the WTO in late 1995.  Given the wide 
range of facilities and the small price impacts expected to arise as a consequence of 
the Round, and the difficulty involved in d istinguishing Uruguay Round impacts from 
other shocks, it did not seem appropriate to establish a special Uruguay Round 
adjustment facility." (G/AG/GEN/15, pag e 3) 
2.47.   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 power of the poor; reduce their exposure to 
negative income shocks; and improve the functioni ng of the global food distribution and food aid 
systems.68 
2.48.   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 an d more volatile food prices.  In response to continued concerns about food price 
volatility in 2010, the Bank reinstated the expedited recourse to GFRP till June 2012.  By the end of 
October 2011, GFRP support of around US$1.5 billion had been distributed fo r 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 respo nse 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 Response phase) as well measures towards 
economic recovery and res ilience.  In 2011, the Bank informed the Committ ee 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.69 
                                                
68 See, for example, G/AG/GEN/71 (pp. 15 -17) for a detailed description of ex ante risk management 
systems (price related and weather  related) and recently -launched joint WFP -World Bank pilot projects; and 
G/AG/GEN/73.  
69 See the contributions of the World Bank in G/AG/GEN/90 and G/AG/GEN/96.   
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.19  
 
- 16 - Annex 1: List of n otification s under Article  16.2 of the Agreem ent on Agriculture (Table  NF:1) for the reporting years  1995 -2016 
Year  Argentina  Australia  Canada  Cuba  European Union  Japan  New Zealand  Norway  Russia n 
Federation  South Africa  Switzerland  United States  
1995  ARG/10  AUS/5  CAN/11  CUB/4  EEC/9  JPN/15  NZL/6  NOR/6   ZAF/7  CHE/23   
1996  ARG/10  AUS/13  CAN/18  CUB/5  EEC/21 & Add.1  JPN/27  NZL/13  NOR/19 & Corr.1   ZAF/9  CHE/23  USA/7  
1997  ARG/10  AUS/21  CAN/25  CUB/14  EEC/21 & Add.1  JPN/33  NZL/17  NOR/20 & Corr.1   ZAF/17  CHE/23  USA/20  
1998  ARG/10  AUS/25  CAN/34  CUB/14  EEC/25  JPN/46  NZL/25  NOR/26   ZAF/24  CHE/23  USA/21  
1999  ARG/10  AUS/32/Rev.1  CAN/42  CUB/18  EEC/35  JPN/68  NZL/26  NOR/33   ZAF/32  CHE/30  USA/31  
2000  ARG/15  AUS/39  CAN/52  CUB/18  EEC/35  JPN/78  NZL/30  NOR/34 & Corr.1   ZAF/39  CHE/30  USA/46  
2001  ARG/21  AUS/48  CAN/52  CUB/22  EEC/46 & Add.1  JPN/87  NZL/39  NOR/37   ZAF/42  CHE/30  USA/52  
2002   AUS/51 & Corr.1  CAN/57  CUB/24  EEC/46 & Add.1  JPN/107  NZL/39  NOR/42   ZAF/50  CHE/30  USA/52  
2003   AUS/57  CAN/57  CUB/36  EEC/50  JPN/125 & Corr.1  NZL/40  NOR/42   ZAF/56  CHE/39 & Corr.1  USA/56  
2004   AUS/60  CAN/67  CUB/36  EEC/56  JPN/125 & Corr.1  NZL/45/Rev.1  NOR/44   ZAF/60  CHE/39 & Corr.1  USA/65  
2005   AUS/68  CAN/72  CUB/36  EEC/56  JPN/144  NZL/56 & Corr.1  NOR/44   ZAF/67  CHE/39 & Corr.1  USA/65  
2006   AUS/71  CAN/81  CUB/34  EU/1 JPN/145  NZL/56 & Corr.1  NOR/44   ZAF/69  CHE/53  USA/65  
2007   AUS/75 & Corr.1  CAN/88  CUB/34  EU/2 JPN/145  NZL/60  NOR/54/Rev.1   ZAF/72  CHE/53  USA/76  
2008   AUS/81  CAN/93  CUB/38  EU/3 JPN/160  NZL/60  NOR/54/Rev.1   ZAF/72  CHE/53  USA/76  
2009   AUS/84  CAN/93  CUB/41  EU/4 JPN/172  NZL/68  NOR/60   ZAF/82  CHE/64  USA/83  
2010   AUS/93  CAN/100  CUB/43  EU/15  JPN/180  NZL/71  NOR/62   ZAF/82  CHE/64  USA/90  
2011   AUS/93  CAN/100  CUB/46  EU/15  JPN/199  NZL/77  NOR/68   ZAF/82  CHE/64  USA/97 & Corr.1  
2012   AUS/93   CUB/46  EU/21   NZL/82  NOR/70   ZAF/82  CHE/76  USA/98  
2013   AUS/9 8 CAN/1 15 CUB/48  EU/21   NZL/95 NOR/79   ZAF/82  CHE/76 USA/105 /Rev.1  
2014   AUS/105 CAN/1 15 CUB/55 EU/27   NZL/95 NOR/84  RUS/7  ZAF/8 9 CHE/76 USA/113  
2015   AUS108   CUB/55 EU/32   NZL/95 NOR/88  RUS/14   CHE/81 & Corr.1  USA/116  
2016     CUB/55   NZL/101  NOR/93  RUS/17     
Note:  A blank cell indicates that no notification was received for the reporting year concerned.  An annual NF notification requirement is applicable only when actions within the 
framework of the NFIDC Decision are taken in the relevant year. A "nil return" is not required in the absence of such actions.  
 Annual reporting periods ("year" ) differ among Members.  
 Notification symbols in the table refer to notifications in the G/AG/N/ -- series.  
 
 
__________