WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/AG/W/42/Rev.15 
2 November 2012 
 (12-6077) 
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.14 dated 
21 October 2011 on implementation of the Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Devel oped 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 subs tantive provisions of the Decision and provides 
information regarding their implementation (Part II). 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared  under the Secretariat's own respon sibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/AG/W/42/Rev.15 
Page 2 
 
 
  Table of Contents 
 
I.  MONITORING OF THE FOLLOW-UP TO THE NFIDC DECISION ............................. 3  
II.  PROVISIONS OF THE NFIDC DECISION AND IMPLEMENTATION ......................... 5  
A.  FOOD AID  .............................................................................................................................. ...... 5 
1.  Review of Food Aid Levels and initiation of Food Aid Negotiations .................................... 5  
(a)  Review of food aid levels ..................................................................................................... ...... 5 
(b)  Initiation of food aid negotiations ........................................................................................... .. 10 
2.  Concessionality of Food Aid ...................................................................................................  11 
B.  TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE  ................................................................................. 12  
C.  DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN THE FR AMEWORK OF AN AGREEMENT ON EXPORT 
CREDITS  .............................................................................................................................. ....... 14 
D.  ACCESS TO THE RESOURCES OF THE IN TERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS  ..................... 15  
1.  Ability to finance commercial imports .................................................................................. 15  
2.  Access to the facilities of the IMF and the World Bank ...................................................... 17  
 
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.15 
 Page 3 
 
 
  I. MONITORING OF THE FOLLOW-UP TO THE NFIDC DECISION 
1. In 1995, the Committee on Agriculture estab lished notification requirements under which 
donor Members are required to submit data on fo od aid donations (quantity and concessionality) as 
well as information on technical and financial assist ance and other relevant information on actions 
taken within the framework of the Decision on M easures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of 
the Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Ne t Food-Importing Developing Countries (NFIDC 
Decision).2 
2. The annual monitoring of the follow-up to the NFIDC Decision in accordance with Article 16 
of the Agreement on Agriculture and under pa ragraph 18 of the Working Procedures of the 
Committee is an important element in the work of  the Committee.  It is undertaken on the basis, inter 
alia, of the Table NF:1 notifications. 
3. Annex 1 summarizes compliance with Table NF:1 notification requirements during the 
implementation years 1995 to 2011.  For the purposes of this annex, "compliance" refers to any 
Table NF:1 notification received by the donor Members3 under the Food Aid Convention and other 
Members that have in the past identified th emselves as food aid donors in their Table NF:1 
notifications.  A number of Members have also su bmitted Table NF:1 notifications stating that no 
food aid or technical/financial assistance was provide d or that the Table NF:1 notification requirement 
was not applicable.4 
4. In 1996, the Committee established a WTO lis t of net food-importing developing countries.5  
The list is regularly reviewed during the March meetings of the Committee.  Since the annual 
monitoring exercise in November 2011, two devel oping 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 defined by the United Nations.6 
5. In December 2000, the Committee was instructed by the General Council7 to examine 
possible means of improving the effectiveness of the implementation of the NFIDC Decision.8  The 
Committee's report on this question9 was approved by the Doha Mini sterial 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 sp ecific proposals subm itted by a group of se venteen WTO NFIDCs.10 
                                                      
2 See G/AG/2, pages 33-34. 
3 Counting the European Union an d its member States as one. 
4 This is the case for example for Brazil, Burkina Faso, Fiji, Indonesia, Malta, Morocco, Philippines, 
United Arab Emirates and Uruguay. 
5 See G/AG/3.  The decision to establish this list was taken on the understanding that " being listed 
would not as such confer automatic benefits since, unde r 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). 
6 See G/AG/5/Rev.10. 
7 See WT/L/384. 
8 See progress reports to the General Council on such consultations in G/AG/7 and G/AG/10. 
9 See G/AG/11. 
10 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.15 
Page 4 
 
 
  6. Between 2003 and 2006, the Committee on Agriculture also considered, at each of 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.11  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 Implem entation-Related Issues.12  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.  Th e outcome of such consultations is reflected in the Committee's 
follow-up report to the General Council.13   
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 fi rst prioritized plan of action in the form of the 
Comprehensive Framework of Action in July 20 08 adopting a comprehensive approach to food 
security – availability, access, stability and utiliza tion.  In September 2010, the Framework was 
updated to cover a wider range of  issues and a more detailed treat ment of all aspects of food and 
nutrition security after an intensive collaboration and consultations with various stakeholders.14  The 
WTO Secretariat participated in the Dublin dialogue  held in May 2010 and contributed, in particular, 
to the discussions in the working group on "trade a nd tax policies, and international food markets" 
which explored the linkages between food security a nd international trade.  On the occasion of the 
November 2010 annual monitoring 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 pa rticular reference to th e Updated Comprehensive 
Framework of Action. 
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 intergovernme ntal platform dealing with global food security 
and nutrition.15 
9. Global actions to address food insecurity in ge neral 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 of policy responses, and 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.16 
                                                      
11 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 Differentia l Treatment under the Doha Development Agenda 
(Decision adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004, paragraph 1.d of WT/L/579 refers). 
12 See G/AG/16, paragraph 19(c).  Progress reports relating to the African Group proposal are 
contained in G/AG/17 and Corr.1;  G/AG/20; and G/AG/22. 
13 See paragraphs 11-12 of G/AG/16/Add.1 dated 13 June 2006. 
14 Please refer to http://un-foodsecurity.org/  for more details. 
15 See http://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-home/en/  for details on the reforms of the CFS.  
16 The initial focus of AMIS is on four grains that  are particularly important in international food 
markets, namely wheat, maize, rice and soyb eans.  For more details please refer to http://www.amis-
outlook.org/amis-about/en/ .  G/AG/W/42/Rev.15 
 Page 5 
 
 
  II. PROVISIONS OF THE NFIDC DECISION AND IMPLEMENTATION 
10. 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 ef fects in terms of the availability of 
adequate supplies of basic foodstuffs from  external sources on reasonable terms and 
conditions, including short-term difficulti es in financing normal levels of 
commercial imports of basic foodstuffs."  (paragraph 2 of the NFIDC Decision) 
11. The other four paragraphs of the NFIDC Decisi on contain a number of specific agreements in 
the areas of food aid, technical and financial assist ance, differential treatment within the framework of 
any agreement on agricultural export credits, and a provision regarding access to the resources of the 
international financial institutions.  In the followi ng sections, these paragra phs are taken up one by 
one and supplemented by information available to  the Secretariat regarding their implementation. 
A. F
OOD AID  
12. In light of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the NFIDC Decision quoted above,  
"Ministers  accordingly agree  to establish appropriate mech anisms to ensure that the 
implementation of the results of the Ur uguay 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 de veloping countries." (chapeau to 
paragraph 3 of the NFIDC Decision) 
1. Review of Food Aid Levels and initiation of Food Aid Negotiations 
13. In order to work towards the objective enuncia ted 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 198 6 and to initiate negotiations in the 
appropriate forum to establish a level of f ood aid commitments sufficient to meet the 
legitimate needs of developing countri es during the reform programme [...]" 
(paragraph 3(i) of the NFIDC Decision) 
(a) Review of food aid levels 
14. The Food Aid Convention (FAC)
17 provides a safety net in terms of food aid availability.  The 
international food aid commitments under the FA C are specified in terms of minimum annual 
                                                      
17 The Food Aid Convention (FAC) expired in June 2012 and will be  succeeded by a newly adopted 
Food Assistance Convention.  More details on the Food Assistance Convention are included in the latter part of 
the document. G/AG/W/42/Rev.15 
Page 6 
 
 
  contributions by its members.  Aggregate annua l commitments, expressed in wheat equivalent, 
decreased from a total of 7.5 million tonnes (under  the Food Aid Convention 1986) to 5.4 million 
tonnes (under the Food Aid Convention 1995).18  Under the Food Aid Convention 1999, the combined 
minimum annual volume and value commitments of FAC members are established at 4.8 million 
tonnes and EUR 130 million.  In this respect, the Inte r-agency panel referred to  in paragraph 5 above 
noted that: 
"[…] the fact that these commitments are expressed mainly in volume terms is 
significant in times of high world market  prices for cereals, as it provides assurances 
of minimum supplies of food aid irrespective of world food price and supply 
fluctuations."19 
15. The value of FAC commitments in volume term s was demonstrated when food prices rose 
sharply in 2007/2008 and subsequently when several donors to ok major budgetary initiatives to meet 
their food aid obligations.  The food aid shipment s by FAC members often exceeded their combined 
minimum annual commitments.  Food aid shipments in 2010/2011, as reported and published annually by the International Grains Council (IGC),
20 totalled 5.6 million tonnes in wheat equivalent, 
representing a 19 per cent decrease from the previous year. 
16. 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 of the Food Aid Committee ma inly due to differences in country and product 
coverage, reporting period, and the use of  delivery rather than shipment data.21  
17. WFP data show that global food aid deliveries present a cyclical pattern, with a record of 
17.3 million tonnes reached in 1993.22  Another peak was reached in 1999 when food aid totalled 
14.6 million tonnes.  In this context, the D oha Ministerial Conference approved the following 
recommendation made by the Committee on Agriculture: 
"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:  (i) that to the maximum extent possible their levels of food aid to 
developing countries are maintained during pe riods in which trends in world market 
prices of basic foodstuffs have been increasing […]"23 
                                                      
18 See G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 for historical data relating to donor commitments and shipments under the 
Food Aid Convention. 
19 See WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13, paragraph 44. 
20 See http://www.foodaidconvention.org/Pdf/ annual_reports/faoperations_1011.pdf  for more details. 
21 For example, the food aid deliveries monitored by WFP include deliveries by FAC members, other 
countries, and non-governmental organizations.  
22 See G/AG/GEN/49, pp. 10-11.  
23 G/AG/11, Part B paragraph 3 I(b) refers  G/AG/W/42/Rev.15 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Chart 1:  Evolution of food aid deliveries:  2002-2011 
2002 2006 2011
Other 4.3 1.9 0.6
NFIDC 1.4 1.1 0.9
LDC 3.7 4.0 2.60.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.010.0million tonnes9.4
6.9
4.1
 
Notes : Includes cereals in grain equivalent and non-cereals in product weight.  "NFIDC" refers to the 31 Members listed 
in paragraph (b) of G/AG/5/Rev.10.   Data for 2011 are provisional. 
Source : Food Aid Information System (FAIS) at http://www.wfp.org/fais/reports/ . 
18. Chart 1 shows that total food aid deliveries as monitored by WFP are generally following a 
declining trend.  In 2011, global food aid deliveries were 4.1 million tonnes representing a decline of 
31 per cent from the level in 2010, 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 per cent in 
total food aid deliveries.  In 2011, the amount of total food aid to LDCs and NFIDCs amounted to 
3.5 million tonnes representing a decline of 34 per cent from the previous year.  Annex 2 gives a 
detailed breakdown of food aid deliveries by recipi ents during the period 2002-2011 as monitored by 
WFP.  In absolute terms, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Kenya, Sudan and Mozambique were the major 
recipients of food aid in 2011. 
19. According to WFP data, several NFIDCs on the WTO list have been occasional or regular 
recipients of food aid during the period 2002-2011, 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.  Total food aid deliveries to NFIDCs in 2011 
decreased substantially (36 per cent decrease over th e amount recorded in 2010), which reflected the 
overall reduction of global food aid deliveries in 2011. 
20. While LDCs continue to be the major recipients  of global food aid receiving more than 60 per 
cent of global food aid deliveries in 2011, a declining trend in food aid deliveries is noticeable also 
here.  The amount of food aid to LDCs in 2011 decreased by about 33 per cent compared to 2010 G/AG/W/42/Rev.15 
Page 8 
 
 
  deliveries.  Among LDCs, Ethiopia, Sudan, Mo zambique, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo 
and Afghanistan were the major recipients of food aid in 2011. 
21. WFP statistics are compiled based on the following three food aid categories: 
(a) Emergency  food aid – defined by WFP as being des tined to victims of natural or man-
made disasters, is freely distributed to ta rgeted beneficiary groups, and is usually 
provided on a grant basis.  It is channelled multilaterally, through NGOs, or, 
sometimes, bilaterally. 
(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 a nd 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. 
22. WFP statistics compiled in Chart 2 below indicate that emergency food aid provided in the 
form of relief in response to man-made emergenc ies or natural disasters remained the predominant 
category in 2011 accounting for 67 per cent of tota l food aid deliveries.  On the other hand, 
programme food aid, which accounted for 29 per cent in 2000, has been declining with its share 
standing at 3 per cent in 2011. 
Chart 2:  Composition of global food aid deliveries (per cent)  
2000 2011
Emergency
47%
Emergency
67%Project
24%Project
30%
Programme
29%Programme
3%
 
Source :  Food Aid Information System (FAIS) at http://www.wfp.org/fais/reports/ .  Data for 2011 are 
provisional.   G/AG/W/42/Rev.15 
 Page 9 
 
 
  23. Food aid may be distributed directly to benefici aries 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 21(c) above, is usually sold in the market.  WFP data 
compiled in Chart 3 below shows that over the last ten years (2002-2011), the share of global food aid 
deliveries sold in the market has been consistently  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 the food aid provided for emergency  purposes. 
Chart 3:  Share of food aid sold in global food aid deliveries (2002-2011) 
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Food aid directly
ditributed5.9 7.9 5.3 6.4 5.2 4.7 5.9 5.6 5.4 3.6
Food aid sold 3.5 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.401234567891011million tonnes9.4
6.16.5
6.07.08.3
7.310.2
4.15.9
Source :  WFP 
 
24. 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 . 
25. Chart 4 below indicates that over the last 10 years (i.e. 2002 to 2011), the share of direct 
transfers in global food aid deliver ies has declined from 83 to 53 per cent, while the respective shares 
of local purchases and triangular transactions increased from 6 to 29 per cent; and from 11 to 18 per 
cent. G/AG/W/42/Rev.15 
Page 10 
 
 
  Chart 4:  Delivery modes of global food aid:  2002-2011 
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Triangular purchases 1.0 2.0 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.7
Local purchases 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.6 1.2
Direct transfers 7.9 7.3 4.9 5.5 4.3 3.4 3.9 3.6 3.2 2.201234567891011million tonnes
 
Source :  Food Aid Information System (FAIS) at http://www.wfp.org/fais/reports/ .  Data for 2011 are 
provisional. 
(b) Initiation of food aid negotiations 
26. In 1996, the Singapore Ministerial Conference adopted the recommendation by the 
Committee on Agriculture that in anticipation of th e expiry of the Food Aid Convention 1995 and in 
preparation for the re-negotiation of the Food Aid C onvention, action be initiated in 1997 within the 
framework of the Convention, under arrangements for participation by all interested countries and by 
relevant organizations, to devel op recommendations with a view towards establishing a level of food 
aid commitments, covering as wide a range of dono rs and eligible products as possible, which is 
sufficient to meet the legitimate needs of de veloping countries during the reform programme.24 
27. Between January 1997 and March 1999, several me etings took place within the framework of 
the FAC, including meetings with least-develope d and net food-importing de veloping countries as 
well as potential new food aid donors.  In Decem ber 1997, the Food Aid Committee decided to open 
the Convention for renegotiation taking into account, amongst other things, " the food security and 
trade liberalization objectives under the WTO and the World Food Summit Action Plan ".25  In early 
1998, the Food Aid Committee confirmed its inten tion to bring a new Food Aid Convention into 
effect and held a further dialogue with representa tives of food aid recipients regarding the main 
elements of the new Convention.26 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 ma jor changes introduced in the C onvention.  For example, the 
list of eligible products which may be supplie d was broadened significantly beyond cereals; new 
                                                      
24 See G/L/125, paragraph 18(i) refers.  
25 See IGC statement in G/AG/GEN/20.  
26 See G/AG/GEN/31, page 4.   G/AG/W/42/Rev.15 
 Page 11 
 
 
  provisions were included to improve the effectivene ss 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.  Ot her eligible food aid recipients include low 
middle-income countries and all other countries include d in the WTO list of NFIDCs at the time of 
negotiation of the new Convention. 
28. At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Mini sters 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 contributi ons 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) 
29. 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 most appropriate response ".  Furthermore, in view of the relationship 
between the review process in the Food Aid Commi ttee and negotiations underway in the WTO, the 
Food Aid Committee decided that conclusive r ecommendations should await the outcome of the 
WTO negotiations.  In these circumstances, the Food  Aid Convention 1999 c ontinued to be extended 
on an annual basis while informal deliberations were pursued between it s members.  At its 
103rd Session, the Food Aid Committee launched the formal renegotiation process.  The new Food 
Assistance Convention27 was adopted on 25 April 2012.  It was opened for signature on 11 June 2012 
and is expected to come into effect on 1 January 2013. 
30. The reformed Convention expands the scope of FAC donors' food assistance commitments 
beyond food and seeds.  Some of the principles of  the new Food Assistance Convention include a 
focus on food assistance effectiven ess and accountability, involvement of beneficiaries in the needs 
assessment, an enlarged list of "eligible products" an d "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 Food Assistance 
Convention sets out the relationship between its pr ovisions and existing or future WTO agreements. 
2. Concessionality of Food Aid 
31. To the end stated in the chapeau of paragr aph 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- importing developing countries in fully 
grant form and/or on appropriate concessional terms in line with Article IV of the Food Aid Convention 1986 […] " (paragraph 3(ii) of the NFIDC Decision) 
32. Under the Food Aid Convention 1999, all food aid pr ovided to LDCs was to be in the form of 
grants and represent at least 80 per cent of FAC me mbers' contributions.  Similarly, under the new 
Convention, no less than 80 per cent of a party's co mmitted food assistance to eligible countries and 
                                                      
27 Accessible at http://www.foodaidconvention.org/en/index/foodassistance.aspx . G/AG/W/42/Rev.15 
Page 12 
 
 
  vulnerable populations28 shall be in fully grant form.  Donors are to seek to progressively exceed this 
share. 
33. 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 a ppropriate 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) 
34. Members' Table NF:1 notifications29 include information on the level of concessionality of 
the respective food aid deliveries to LDCs and NF IDCs.  Most notifying Members have notified the 
provision of food aid to the countries concerned in full y grant form.  In the case of the United States, 
the proportion of food aid in fully grant fo rm ranged between 83 to 100 per cent during 
1995/1996-2002/2003, with the remainder being pr ovided in accordance with the relevant FAC 
guidelines.  For reporting years 2003/2004-2007/2008, the United States indicated in its notification30 
that: 
"Title I aid is provided in fully grant fo rm or on long-term concessional terms in 
accordance with Food Aid Convention guide lines.  Aid under Food for Education, 
Title II, Title III, Food for Progress and Section 416(b) Programs is provided in fully 
grant form." 
B. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE  
35. To the end stated in the chapeau of paragr aph 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 impr ove their agricultural productivity and 
infrastructure."  (paragraph 3(iii) of the NFIDC Decision) 
36. The Doha Ministerial Conference called on devel oped country Members to continue to give 
full consideration in the context of their aid progra mmes to requests for the provision of technical and 
financial assistance by least-developed and net f ood-importing developing countries to improve their 
agricultural productivity and infrastructure.  This recommendation reflects the f act that technical and 
financial assistance is essentially a bilateral ma tter between donors and recipients based on requests 
made by recipient countries.  Technical and fina ncial 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
31 by donor Members.  During the November 2010 annual 
monitoring exercise, the European Union and Swit zerland reported on their respective food assistance 
                                                      
28 "Eligible country" and "eligible vulnerable po pulations" are defined in Article 4 of the Food 
Assistance Convention.  
29 See Annex 1 for the relevant notification symbols. 
30  See G/AG/N/USA/65 and 76.  A note along similar lin es 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).  
31 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.    G/AG/W/42/Rev.15 
 Page 13 
 
 
  policy frameworks as well as specific actions to ass ist developing countries in meeting food security 
challenges.32 
37. Furthermore, the Doha Ministerial Conference approved the recommendation: 
" [...] that, in support of the priority accorded by least-developed and net food-
importing developing countries to the devel opment of their agricultural productivity 
and infrastructure, the WTO General Council call upon releva nt international 
development organisations, including the World Bank, the FAO, IFAD, the UNDP 
and the Regional Development Banks to e nhance 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 productivity and infrastructure in these countries under existing facilities and programmes, as well as 
under such facilities and programmes as may be introduced."
33 
38. The initial responses from the African Developm ent Bank, the European Investment Bank, 
FAO and the World Bank were circulated in 2002.34   Since then, a number of IGOs have updated the 
Committee on Agriculture on their respective initiatives and action plans in this area. 
39. The IMF renewed its commitment to providing assistance to developing countries in capacity 
building and in coping with balance-of-payme nt shortfalls resulting from multilateral trade 
liberalization.35  During the global food and financial cris is 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 flexib le framework for structural conditionality, while 
lending facilities were revamped.  The reform meas ures 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 assi stance programme predominantly through a network 
of regional technical assistance centres, thus c ontributing to effective surveillance and building 
capacity for policymaking.36  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 assi stance network in Africa and Central Asia was 
strengthened.37 
40. The World Bank offers assistance to developi ng countries towards increasing agricultural 
productivity.  The Bank's Agricultural Action Plan for 2010-2012 emphasizes increased support to raising agricultural productivity as one of its priority  areas.  In the financial year 2011, overall World 
Bank Group lending to agricultu re and related sectors amounted to US$5.8 billion including 
US$2.2 billion contributed by the International Fi nance 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 agricultura l markets as critical to achieving long-term food 
security.  In that context, the Bank also emphasi zes 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 market s.  Its Trade Facilitation Facility can be used to 
                                                      
32 See G/AG/GEN/94. 
33 G/AG/11, Part B paragraph 3 II(b) refers 
34 See G/AG/W/57 and Add.1.  
35 See G/AG/GEN/71, G/AG/GEN/76 and G/AG/GEN/78.  
36 See G/AG/GEN/90.  
37 See G/AG/GEN/94. G/AG/W/42/Rev.15 
Page 14 
 
 
  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 finance and technical expertise.38 
41. Through its Purchase for Progress (P4P) initia tive, 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 reporte d having trained more than 17,300 farmers and 
warehouse operators under the P4P programme.  Si milar positive feedback was reported to the 
Committee on Agriculture in November 2011, in cluding with respect to the improvement of 
agricultural potential in developing countries and th e 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.39 
42. The Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) reported on its efforts 
towards improving agricultural pr oductivity and food security in Latin  America and the Caribbean.  In 
this context the IICA, described its 2010-2014 Me dium Term Plan and Food Security strategy.40 
C. DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN THE FRAMEW ORK OF AN AGREEMENT ON EXPORT CREDITS  
43. In light of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the NFIDC Decision quoted above, Ministers agreed: 
"[…] to ensure that any agreement rela ting to agricultural export credits makes 
appropriate provision for differential treatm ent in favour of least-developed and net 
food-importing developing countries".  (paragraph 4 of the NFIDC Decision) 
44. At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Mini sters reaffirmed the commitment above and 
approved a general understa nding regarding procedures for the development of disciplines pursuant to 
Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture a nd the related provisions of the NFIDC Decision 
(G/AG/11, Part A paragraph 4).  Accordingly, wo rk within the WTO on the question of agricultural 
export credits has been undertaken both in the regul ar 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.41  
45. Moreover, the Agreed Framework for establis hing modalities in agriculture provides that: 
"Members will ensure that the disciplin es on export credits, export credit guarantees 
or insurance programmes to be agreed  will make appropriate provision for 
differential treatment in favour of least-developed and net food-importing developing countries as provided for in pa ragraph 4 of the Decision on Measures 
Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on 
Least-Developed 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 comm itments undertaken by Members under the 
obligations in paragraph 18 above."  (p aragraph 24 of Annex A of WT/L/579 refers) 
                                                      
38 See G/AG/GEN/90 and 96.  
39 See G/AG/GEN/94 and 100. 
40 See G/AG/GEN/93 and 97. 
41 See, for example, G/AG/16 and Add.1   G/AG/W/42/Rev.15 
 Page 15 
 
 
  46. The above objective was reaffirmed during the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.42  As part 
of the on-going agriculture negotia tions, draft provisions specifically addressing these matters have 
been considered by Members.43 
D. ACCESS TO THE RESOURCES OF THE IN TERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS  
47. In the NFIDC Decision, Ministers further recognized that: 
"[…] as a result of the Uruguay Round cer tain developing countries may experience 
short-term difficulties in financing normal levels of commercia l imports and that 
these countries may be eligible to draw on the resources of international financial 
institutions under existing facilities, or su ch 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 pa ragraph 37 of the report of the Director-
General to the CONTRACTING PARTIES to GATT 1947 on his consultations with 
the Managing Director of the Internationa l Monetary Fund and the President of the 
World Bank (MTN.GNG/NG14/W/35)".  (paragraph 5 of the NFIDC Decision) 
1. Ability to finance commercial imports 
48. In 2002, the Inter-agency panel report provide d a detailed examination of the question of 
financing food imports by NFIDCs and LDCs.44  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.45 
49. Cereals and oilseeds remain among the most impor tant food commodities in the import basket 
of the NFIDCs and LDCs.  Chart 5 below shows the Grains and Oilseeds Index (GOI) of the IGC 
during the period 2000-2012.  The GOI has been de veloped by the IGC in January 2011 and is 
considered as a good indicator for measuring global  grains and oilseeds price movements.  Cereals 
contribute to more than 65 per cent 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 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 cris is.  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 escalati on of world grain prices and the observed price 
volatility.  Prices started to recede in early Septembe r 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 produci ng countries.  While the situation was not deemed 
as an impending food crisis, an enhanced role for market information and transparency was 
emphasized.46  
                                                      
42 See paragraph 6 of WT/MIN(05)/DEC.  
43 See, for example, Annex J of TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4.  
44 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. 
45 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.  
46 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.15 
Page 16 
 
 
  Chart 5:  The IGC Grains and Oilseeds Index (GOI) * (2000-2012) 
 
 
50100150200250300350
 
* IGC Grains and Oilseeds Index composition:   wheat (30%), maize (22% ), barley (4%), sorghum (2%), rice (8%), soybeans 
(31%), rapeseed/ canola (2%).  See www.igc.int  for more details.  January 2000=100 
Source :  International Grains Council (IGC). 
50. At various stages of the Committee's annual monitoring exercise, international observer 
organizations have commented on the development of  international food prices and their impacts on 
LDCs and NFIDCs.  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.47 During 
the November 2011 meeting of the Committee, in a ddition to briefing Members on the rising cost of 
food import bills in developing countries and LDCs , FAO 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.48 
51. In November 2009, WFP reported in deta il on the activities and initiatives aimed at 
addressing global food insecurity and malnutrition.  The WFP had allocated 72 per cent of development and relief resources to LDCs and 93 per cent to low-income net food-deficit countries in 
2008.  WFP also deployed innovative, targeted f ood 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 need s 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 
                                                      
47 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. 
48 See the statement by the FA O contained in G/AG/GEN/98.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.15 
 Page 17 
 
 
  crisis and natural disasters.  An 'Economic S hock and Hunger Index' ( ESHI) was developed to 
identify vulnerable countries as a result of the gl obal 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.49 
52. 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 ri sk arising from private sector financing (which 
accounts for close to 80 per cent of the market) and reduce the gap between demand and supply of trade finance.  In this context, it was observed th at the scarcity of trade finance could lead to a 
slow-down of trade as well as production and c ould constrain the developing and low-income 
countries from participating fully in internationa l 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 countri es, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, in 
consultation with the WTO and ot her relevant organizations, adopt ed technical changes to the 
regulatory regime of trade finance.
50 
2. Access to the facilities of the IMF and the World Bank 
53. The question of access to the resources of the in ternational financial institutions has been the 
subject of a detailed examination by an Inter-age ncy panel of financial and commodity experts in 
2002.51 
54. In the context of the Committee's annual m onitoring exercise in December 2001, the IMF 
reiterated its position regardi ng 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 ."52 
55. In November 2009, the IMF described its reformed lending framework53 for LDCs and 
NFIDCs, under which support was channeled throug h a new instrument under the Poverty Reduction 
and Growth Trust (PRGT).  The Contingent Financ ing Facility (CFF) was eliminated.  The PRGT has 
three lending windows:  (i) the Extended Credit F acility (ECF), which helps to address medium-term 
balance of payments needs; (ii) the Standby Cred it 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 ra ise loan and subsidy contributions for the PRGT 
up to US$ 17 billion to assist the low-income count ries.  Towards its continuing efforts for crisis 
prevention in emerging economies, the IMF introduced a new Precautionary Credit Line (PCL) for 
countries with sound economic polic ies and moderate vulnerabilities.   Simultaneously, the existing 
Flexible Credit Line (FCL) facility was reformed to allow for a more flexible access for a longer 
period of time.54 
56. The position of the World Bank regarding the i ssue of access to short-term multilateral 
financing was initially outlined in November 1997 as follows: 
                                                      
49 See G/AG/GEN/90, 94 and 100.  
50 For more details, see http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs205.pdf   
51 See WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13.  
52 See G/AG/GEN/49, page 8.  
53 See G/AG/GEN/90.  
54 See G/AG/GEN/94. G/AG/W/42/Rev.15 
Page 18 
 
 
  "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 sma ller than the price increases that have been 
experienced in recent years.  Given the sm all 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 and production shortfalls a nd provided a report to the WTO in late 1995.  Given the 
wide range of facilities and the small pr ice impacts expected to arise as a 
consequence of the Round, and the difficulty involved in distinguishing Uruguay Round impacts from other shocks, it did not seem appropriate to establish a special 
Uruguay Round adjustment facility." (G/AG/GEN/15, page 3). 
57. 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 partne rs, 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 w as best addressed through programmes designed to 
raise the purchasing power of the poor; reduce their exposure to negative inco me shocks; and improve 
the functioning of the global food distribution and food aid systems.
55  
58.  In November 2009, the World Bank reporte d 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 b illion 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 mech anisms had been established, including the Horn of 
Africa Regional Drought Response Plan and the Ra pid Social Response Programme targeting both 
short-term measures (called the Rapid Response pha se) as well measures towards economic recovery 
and resilience.  In 2011, the Bank informed th e Committee that an allocation of US$288 million 
would be made towards increasing livelihood protection as a rapid response measure under the Horn 
of Africa Regional Drought Response Plan.56 
                                                      
55 See, for example, G/AG/GEN/71 (pp. 15-17) for a detailed description of ex ante  risk management 
systems (price- and weather-relate d) and recently-launched joint WF P-World Bank pilot projects; and 
G/AG/GEN/73. 
56  See the contributions of the World Bank in G/AG/GEN/90 and 96.   
   G/AG/W/42/Rev.15
 Page 19Annex 1:  Compliance with notification requirements (Table NF:1) 
 
Reporting period1 
 Member 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Notification circulated in G/AG/N/- series Food Aid Convention (FAC) 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   EEC/9; 21 & Add.1; 25; 35; 46 & Add.1; 
50; 56; EU/1; 2; 3; 4 
Japan 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 
Norway 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 
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   CU B/4; 5; 14; 18; 22; 24; 34; 36; 38; 41 
Republic of 
Korea X  X                 KOR/9; 17 
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 
Compliance2 86% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 86% 29% 0%   
Notes:   "X" means that a notification was received.  A blank means that no notification was received. 
                                                      
1 Annual reporting periods differ among Members.  
2 Compliance is calculated as the number of not ifications received from FAC donors (percentage).   
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.15 
Page 20 Annex 2:  Food aid deliveries of  cereals and non-cereals, 2002-2011 
 
(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 LDC NFIDC MEM 
TOTAL 9,387.0 10,189.5 7,272.8 8,249.5 6,941.3 6,043.0 6,512.5 6,092.9 5,876.1 4,068.0       
of which                           
Least Developed Countries  3,655.2 5,388.2 3,881.4 4,951.8 4,020.9 3,377.5 4,511.5 4,032.6 3,905.6 2,595.6    
Net food-importing countries  1,429.0 717.0 632.7 731.7 1,052.9 610.0 579.7 806.0 1,416.3 904.6    
                            
                            
Sub-Saharan Africa 2,861.0 5, 253.6 3,611.8 4,562. 0 3,927.9 3,204.9 4,121.6 3,885.2 3,401.2 2,488.6       
Angola 262.4 275.1 127.7 56.5 27.4 10.8 0.0 0.0 4.5 4.4 #   M 
Benin 21.5 19.6 21.4 14.9 14.5 7.1 11.4 18.8 18.8 24.2 #   M 
Burkina Faso 36.3 30.1 39.4 39.0 40.8 43.9 46.1 29.9 45.1 19.1 #   M 
Burundi 36.9 70.5 81.7 73.5 84.8 68.3 39.2 63.3 23.1 28.5 #   M 
Cameroon 2.9 10.3 31.2 13.6 11.2 5.6 16.2 10.4 32.9 12.7     M 
Cape Verde 48.5 40.7 35.6 28.7 28.2 5.0 11.7 18.1 16.1 4.1     M 
Central African Republic 7.3 5.7 5.9 4.8 11.3 30.9 16.3 26.1 9.6 22.6 #   M 
Chad 13.1 19.8 46.0 73.9 62.7 72.1 85.5 114.8 111.0 85.8 #   M 
Comoros 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 #     
Congo, Democratic Republic of 90.8 89.1 86.5 103.0 105.0 111.1 126.0 207.4 190.9 134.8 #   M 
Congo 18.3 10.3 8.3 8.8 8.5 16.2 3.6 7.0 7.4 6.7     M 
Côte d'Ivoire 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.5 15.5 35.1 13.0 26.3   N M 
Djibouti 21.4 7.7 10.5 21.1 13.0 9.0 12.8 23.3 10.5 8.7 #   M 
Eritrea 162.0 350.2 271.3 231.7 32.0 15.2 17.2 0.0 0.0 13.0 #     
Ethiopia 338.4 2,006.6 760.9 1,121.5 750.4 626.9 1,033.8 1,150.9 1,427.0 754.5 #     
The Gambia 4.3 18.5 6.0 11.3 13.4 8.3 4.0 4.8 23.4 1.7 #   M 
Ghana 74.3 84.1 70.8 66.4 54.3 41.9 44.0 39.5 6.6 22.2     M 
Guinea 48.3 41.4 27.4 41.2 28.8 19.7 43.1 16.2 3.9 10.4 #   M 
Guinea Bissau 7.2 13.2 4.8 10.9 7.1 16.2 8.6 2.8 6.7 5.0 #   M 
Kenya 124.6 149.0 144.2 155.2 383.7 286.1 266.7 291.6 218.3 275.3   N M 
Lesotho 57.5 28.4 46.1 43.6 24.4 40.4 18.8 7.6 5.4 8.9 #   M 
Liberia 37.0 57.3 83.1 102.3 71.0 47.5 44.7 27.4 30.8 45.1 #     
Madagascar 46.8 59.5 40.7 47.4 45.3 52.8 33.0 22.4 25.7 37.8 #   M 
Malawi 198.0 118.2 78.5 152.7 242.6 94.5 72.9 100.1 38.4 43.0 #   M 
Mali 4.8 29.0 13.7 41.1 38.6 50.2 23.6 30.6 27.8 34.1 #   M 
Mauritania 42.5 88.9 45.5 92.1 42.4 44.2 56.3 30.0 34.7 11.4 #   M 
Mozambique 200.8 244.1 153.5 117.1 150.6 88.6 143.2 170.6 86.6 169.9 #   M 
Namibia 23.7 23.2 6.0 1.7 7.4 11.0 4.9 0.4 1.0 1.1   N M 
Niger 37.1 21.7 38.2 138.9 97.2 79.7 63.7 49.7 155.5 61.7 #   M  
   G/AG/W/42/Rev.15
 Page 21(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 LDC NFIDC MEM 
Nigeria 12.5 13.3 0.0 19.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2     M 
Rwanda 73.4 44.0 45.7 41.7 52.0 27.2 26.5 30.6 7.3 13.0 #   M 
Sao Tome and Principe 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 7.8 5.2 3.3 0.5 #     
Senegal 9.4 36.6 20.9 29.8 14.7 28.1 30.0 18.4 56.8 12.5 # N M 
Seychelles  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0    
Sierra Leone 85.2 56.2 38.0 38.9 33.7 32.5 32.3 19.9 23.5 22.6 #   M 
Somalia 34.0 33.2 43.7 39.8 205.0 112.0 372.8 309.3 70.2 165.8 #     
South Africa 15.1 21.3 58.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Sudan 149.4 256.1 384.2 931.4 596.3 497.5 679.2 516.1 473.0 203.2 #     
Swaziland 15.5 24.2 11.9 12.1 17.3 17.7 18.6 2.8 3.6 14.1   N M 
Tanzania 93.0 131.9 112.7 116.4 95.2 79.9 88.2 29.8 34.6 68.2 #   M 
Togo 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 2.3 6.5 25.4 0.5 1.5 #   M 
Uganda 82.1 197.3 247.2 292.6 265.2 266.9 194.3 139.1 80.0 71.8 #   M 
Zambia 69.3 152.3 90.8 146.0 111.6 41.2 33.2 17.0 9.4 3.3 #   M 
Zimbabwe 255.4 366.8 273.7 80.2 139.5 167.4 365.9 265.3 64.4 36.8     M 
              
Asia 3,678.6 2,379.6 2,034.4 2,499.1 1,425.7 1,781.3 1,532.0 1,424.8 1,699.6 861.5       
Afghanistan 561.9 226.5 233.9 207.6 162.5 224.9 319.8 217.5 130.0 131.4 #     
Bangladesh 244.7 461.3 224.0 292.7 227.7 221.0 333.1 163.7 205.2 99.0 #   M 
Bhutan 7.7 6.6 6.7 2.2 1.4 3.4 4.1 2.0 3.4 2.8 #     
Cambodia 69.3 25.4 31.7 24.1 28.3 32.3 44.2 33.3 19.6 27.4 #   M 
China 109.2 53.5 35.1 49.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.0     M 
India 306.9 73.5 144.1 101.7 153.2 118.5 52.8 54.8 15.5 17.8     M 
Indonesia 162.9 221.6 158.7 197.0 109.5 43.4 12.4 10.6 0.4 1.9     M 
Korea, Democratic  Republic 1,209.0 963.8 877.2 1,179.8 358.7 773.8 380.4 305.8 97.5 46.8     M 
Laos 29.3 20.1 25.5 19.5 12.9 19.7 15.6 18.1 14.8 3.3 #     
Maldives 0.0 14.6 7.5 10.6 8.4 7.6 6.4 20.4 12.3 12.3  N M 
Mongolia 27.8 29.5 28.4 54.8 9.3 33.4 27.3 25.0 0.1 0.0   N M 
Myanmar 9.2 6.2 18.1 16.5 27.3 25.8 105.6 76.3 31.5 33.3 #   M 
Nepal 47.1 35.0 50.3 54.4 59.8 46.6 72.5 53.3 24.3 13.2 #   M 
Pakistan 470.6 47.8 59.2 30.3 170.9 21.6 56.9 287.4 997.1 401.7   N M 
Philippines 272.7 90.5 29.6 120.6 19.4 110.2 15.5 71.4 82.9 19.4     M 
Sri Lanka 87.2 27.3 39.3 136.1 64.8 84.4 74.7 76.9 64.0 35.6   N M 
Thailand 1.5 1.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1     M 
Timor-Leste 0.0 0.3 7.5 1.3 11.7 14.7 9.0 8.4 0.8 15.4 #     
Viet Nam 61.8 75.0 57.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M  
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.15 
Page 22 (thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 LDC NFIDC MEM 
                            
Eastern Europe & CIS  948.3 712.5 453.8 334.4 423.6 316.7 128.1 101.8 49.5 13.1       
Albania 57.9 11.8 33.9 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Armenia 47.3 42.8 11.8 21.7 11.2 86.2 11.1 6.3 0.5 0.5     M 
Azerbaijan 18.4 28.8 47.4 11.8 92.7 43.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0       
Bosnia and Herzegovina 96.2 24.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0       
Bulgaria 12.3 17.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Former Yugoslav Republic of M acedonia 1.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Georgia 78.0 72.1 97.4 19.7 33.3 80.1 17.6 22.8 1.1 0.1     M 
Kazakhstan 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0       
Kyrgyz Republic 73.1 5.0 2.3 165.9 26.2 58.1 0.4 22.0 39.4 12.5     M 
Moldova 22.5 20.4 29.8 10.5 28.0 9.4 45.9 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Romania 4.8 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Russian Federation 104.4 76.4 39.5 26.1 22.6 16.7 10.9 0.4 0.0 0.0     M 
Serbia & Montenegro 46.9 79.9 26.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0       
Tajikistan 180.8 102.8 83.0 72.7 205.1 22.1 39.7 50.2 8.5 0.0       
Ukraine 5.5 209.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Uzbekistan 199.2 20.8 82.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0       
              
Middle East & North Africa  694.8 1,402.0 617.9 222.3 522.4 385.6 374.6 350.0 245.3 389.1       
Algeria 63.1 10.3 52.5 41.6 26.0 28.6 38.0 24.0 32.0 34.6      
Cyprus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Egypt 12.1 22.5 13.9 13.9 34.5 2.3 6.1 1.8 2.9 10.8   N M 
Iran 7.5 31.1 3.3 2.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 3.8 5.1 5.4       
Iraq 10.9 1,049.6 10.4 35.8 58.9 47.9 52.0 23.7 7.0 0.4       
Israel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.7   M 
Jordan 228.7 164.8 126.9 3.3 110.5 4.4 6.7 4.3 0.0 0.0   N M 
Lebanon 94.1 10.0 0.0 12.0 35.8 1.9 4.2 1.6 0.8 0.0       
Libya 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.4    
Morocco 6.8 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   N M 
Palestinian Territory 81.9 66.4 202.6 82.6 150.8 235.4 187.3 210.8 93.4 165.9       
Syria 9.0 11.8 16.8 9.5 5.5 8.5 52.3 30.9 21.2 2.4       
Tunisia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.5  N M 
Yemen 180.7 33.5 191.4 21.2 99.8 55.4 26.7 48.0 82.8 90.2 #   
                 
Latin America & the Caribbean  1,204.3 441.8 554.7 631.6 641.8 354.6 356.3 331.1 480.5 287.7       
Barbados 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  N M 
Belize 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Bolivia, Plurinational State of  102.7 120.0 93.9 65.2 117.8 67.0 13.0 21.9 7.6 6.7     M  
   G/AG/W/42/Rev.15
 Page 23(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 LDC NFIDC MEM 
Brazil 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Chile 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0     M 
Colombia 8.7 9.0 13.1 14.1 17.6 18.2 20.8 14.1 12.2 14.3     M 
Cuba 8.8 3.3 5.0 7.0 4.7 3.2 1.4 5.4 0.0 0.0   N M 
Dominican Republic 13.0 2.5 13.0 0.3 12.0 0.0 2.9 2.8 25.2 11.9   N M  
Ecuador 83.8 5.8 21.1 43.2 31.3 0.8 2.6 0.4 2.8 1.6     M 
El Salvador 91.8 11.5 12.2 66.7 19.0 3.9 1.1 0.8 3.5 31.1   N M 
Guatemala 239.1 63.3 69.8 68.5 109.9 44.8 32.4 69.5 69.3 66.9     M  
Guyana 62.7 0.0 23.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Haiti 235.1 62.8 120.4 136.5 111.8 107.2 209.8 197.1 355.2 92.4 #   M 
Honduras 55.7 51.1 43.6 97.9 101.8 41.3 26.7 9.2 2.5 27.9   N M 
Jamaica 0.0 0.0 11.5 11.5 3.6 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   N M 
Mexico 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Nicaragua 64.1 43.0 57.9 42.8 47.4 56.1 36.7 9.3 1.8 34.7     M 
Peru 237.9 68.6 70.1 77.9 64.7 10.8 8.5 0.6 0.1 0.1   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 :  Food Aid Information System (FAIS) at http://www.wfp.org/fais/reports/ .  Data for 2011 are provisional. 
 
 
__________