WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
ORGANISATION MONDIALE DU COMMERCE  
ORGANIZACIÓN MUNDIAL DEL COMERCIO  G/AG/GEN/71 
23 February 2006 
 (06-0766) 
Committee on Agriculture Original:   English/ 
 anglais/  inglés 
 
ANNUAL MONITORING EXERCISE IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOW-UP TO 
THE MINISTERIAL DECISION ON MEASURES CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE 
NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE REFORM PROGRAMME ON LEAST-DEVELOPED 
AND NET FOOD-IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 
 
 Attached are copies of contributions* made by  the representatives of the Food and Agriculture 
Organization (FAO), the International Grains Coun cil (IGC), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), 
the World Bank and the World Food Programme (WFP) at the meeting of the Committee on Agriculture 
on 27 January 2006 (Agenda Item  Part II.B refers). 
 
 
Comité de l'agriculture  
 
EXERCICE ANNUEL DE SURVEILLANCE DE LA SUITE DONNÉE À LA DÉCISION 
MINISTÉRIELLE SUR LES MESURES CO NCERNANT LES EFFETS NÉGATIFS 
POSSIBLES DU PROGRAMME DE RÉFORME SUR LES PAYS LES MOINS 
AVANCÉS ET LES PAYS EN DÉVELOPPEMENT IMPORTATEURS 
NETS DE PRODUITS ALIMENTAIRES 
  On trouvera ci-joint la copie des contributions* faites par les représenta nts de l'Organisation des 
Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture (FAO ), du Conseil internationa l des céréales (CIC), du 
Fonds monétaire international (FMI), de la Ba nque mondiale et du Program me alimentaire mondial 
(PAM) à la réunion du Comité de l'agriculture du 27 ja nvier 2006 (voir point B de la deuxième partie de 
l'ordre du jour). 
 
 Comité de Agricultura  
 
EJERCICIO ANUAL DE VIGILANCIA DEL SEGUIMIENTO DE LA DECISIÓN 
MINISTERIAL SOBRE MEDIDAS RELATIVAS A LOS POSIBLES 
EFECTOS NEGATIVOS DEL PROGRAMA DE REFORMA EN 
LOS PAÍSES MENOS ADELANTADOS Y EN LOS PAÍSES 
EN DESARROLLO IMPORTADORES NETOS 
DE PRODUCTOS ALIMENTICIOS 
  A continuación se adjuntan copias de las cont ribuciones* formuladas por los representantes 
de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación (FAO), el Consejo Internacional de los Cereales (CIC), el Fondo Mone tario Internacional (FMI), el Banco Mundial y el 
Programa Mundial de Alimentos (PMA) en la reuni ón del Comité de Agricultura celebrada el día 
27 de enero de 2006 (véase el punto B de la Parte II del orden del día). 
                                                     
 
* In English only/En anglais seulement/En inglés solamente. G/AG/GEN/71 
Page 2  
 
  STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FOOD 
AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO) 
 
  I will report briefly on recent developments in  world cereal markets and on trends in cereal 
import bills of the LDCs and the NFIDCs.  I will also report on an FAO initiative in relation to the 
Marrakesh Decision.   
 
World supply/demand situation for cereals 
 
FAO's estimate for 2005 world cereal output is 2.4% lower  than the record crop of 2004.  
Cereal crops have been satisfactory in most re gions, except parts of Africa and South America. 
 
 For 2006 crops , early prospects for the winter wheat crop are generally favourable .  
However, prospects are uncertain for cereal crops in  Southern Africa and in parts of South America 
mainly reflecting inadequate rains. 
 
Global cereal utilization is forecast to rise in 2005/06 .  The expected increase in food 
consumption would lead to some gains in the aver age per capita consumption in developing countries. 
 
End-of-season cereal stocks a re forecast to decrease in 2006 .  The 4% decrease in end-of-
season cereal stocks is mainly due to smaller coarse  grain inventories as a result of lower production 
in 2005.   International prices of cereals are generally higher than a year ago .  Argentine wheat  
prices are sharply higher as a result of the large e xpected decline in domestic production.  World 
maize  prices have also strengthened this season due  to reduced exportable supplies in China and 
Brazil, coupled with strong demand in several southe rn African countries.  Prices of white and yellow 
maize from South Africa have increased significan tly due to strong regional demand and a weaker 
Rand against the US dollar.  Regarding rice, world prices have remained relatively stable in recent 
months, but better 2005 crops could depress prices in the near term.  
 Cereal trade is expected to contract in 2005/06 by some 2% .  Significant declines in wheat  
imports are anticipated in China and Pakistan driven by higher domestic production.  Bangladesh, 
Indonesia and the Philippines account for most of the anticipated decline in rice trade, following 
bumper crops in 2005.  For coarse grains , higher imports are expected in the EU and in a number of 
countries in Southern Africa which experienced redu ced harvests.  In these latter countries, imports 
are mostly expected to be in the form of food aid. 
  
Cereal import bills of LDCs and the NFIDCs 
 
 The combined cereal import bill of the LDCs and the NFIDCs for 2004/05  is estimated by 
FAO at US$10.5 billion, up from US$9.2 billion in 2003/04.   This is the highest cereal import bill of 
these countries during the last 12 years.  Apart from in ternational cereal prices and freight rates, this 
increase is mostly driven by higher import volumes.   At about 57.7 million tonnes in 2004/05, cereal 
imports by the LDCs and NFIDCs increased by ove r 7 million tonnes over the level of the previous 
season (see Table). 
 
 Looking ahead to the 2005/06  season, the cereal import bill of the LDCs and NFIDCs is 
forecast by FAO at US$9.9 billion, slightly less than the 2004/05 level.  G/AG/GEN/71 
 Page 3 
 
 
   Food aid continues to be a very important s ource of supply for LDCs for which it accounts for 
almost 20% of their total cereal imports.  In the case of the NFIDCs, food aid is less important, accounting for just 1% of their total cereal imports, considerably less from earlier years.   As has been the case in earlier years, a large number of countries face acute food shortages  
and require immediate food assistance.  According to FAO, as many as 45 countries are presently in 
that situation.  Most countries facing food emergencies are among the LDCs and NFIDCs. 
  
The Marrakesh Decision 
 
FAO has been exploring various ways and means for implementing the provision in the 
Marrakesh decision on possible facilities to assist countries experiencing short-term difficulties in financing normal levels of co mmercial imports.  In this connection, in early 2005, FAO in 
collaboration with UNCTAD, and at the request of the African Group, elaborated a proposal for the 
creation of a multilateral food import financing facility  (FIFF). 
 The proposal was presented to WTO delegates by FAO and UNCTAD in May 2005. The 
facility would function similarly to bilateral e xport credit guarantee schemes, to provide credit 
insurance and guarantees to LDCs and NFIDCs to finance commercial food imports in periods of 
excess import bills. 
 
FAO is available and willing to collaborate w ith all concerned to elaborate further the 
operational modalities of the proposed facility if  interest is expressed by WTO members.   
  G/AG/GEN/71 
Page 4 
Cereal imports of LDCs and NFIDCs (1993/94 to 2005/06) - Information as of December 2005 
  
 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/ 00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 
            e s t i m a t e  f ' c a s t  
Import Bill (US $ million)              
LDCs 1452 2310 2532 2185 2641 2296 1962 1964 2331 3096 3335 3918 3441 
NFIDCs 3637 4431 6262 5639 5271 4619 3950 4376 4552 5168 5815 6534 6446 
LDCs & NFIDCs 5089 6742 8793 7823 7912 6915 5912 6339 6884 8263 9150 10453 9887 
% change over 1993/94-1994/95 -14. 0 14.0 48.6 32.3 33.8 16.9 -0.1  7.2 16.4 39.7 54.7 76.7 67.1 
              
              
Total volume imported (000 tonnes)              
LDCs 11855 14610 13450 12535 15951 16980 16789 16029 17192 20945 18656 21096 19715 
NFIDCs 27807 28135 28971 30363 34260 35900 32106 34074 34602 32652 31923 36602 36588 
LDCs & NFIDCs 39662 42745 42421 42898 50211 52880 48895 50103 51794 53597 50579 57698 56303 
% change over 1993/94-1994/95 -3.7 3.7 3.0 4. 1 21.9 28.3 18.7 21.6 25. 7 30.1 22.8 40.0 36.6 
              
              
Food aid (000 tonnes)              LDCs 3427 4222 3214 2534 2501 3550 3709 4007 2934 3948 3642 3642 3642 
% of total imports 28.9 28.9 23.9 20.2 15.7 20.9 22.1 25.0 17. 1 18.8 19.5 17.3 18.5 
NFIDCs 2321 1431 846 590 610 1050 944 1198 949 624 407 407 407 
% of total imports 8.3 5.1 2.9 1.9 1.8 2.9 2.9 3.5 2. 7 1.9 1.3 1.1 1.1 
LDCs & NFIDCs 5748 5653 4059 3123 3111 4600 4654 5205 3883 4572 4050 4050 4050 
% of total imports 14.5 13.2 9.6 7.3 6.2 8.7 9.5 10.4 7. 5 8.5 8.0 7.0 7.2 
              
              
Commercial imports (000 tonnes)              
LDCs 8428 10388 10237 10001 13451 13429 13080 12022 14258 16997 15014 17453 16073 
NFIDCs 25486 26704 28125 29774 33650 34851 31162 32875 33653 32028 31516 36195 36181 
LDCs & NFIDCs 33914 37092 38362 39775 47101 48280 44241 44898 47910 49026 46530 53648 52254 
% change over 1993/94-1994/95 -4.5 4.5 8.1 12. 0 32.7 36.0 24.6 26.5 34. 9 38.1 31.1 51.1 47.2 
               
   G/AG/GEN/71
 Page 5 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/ 00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 
            e s t i m a t e  f ' c a s t  
Per unit import cost  (US $/tonne) 1/              
LDCs 122.5 158.1 188.2 174. 3 165.5 135.2 116.8 122.5 135. 6 147.8 178.8 185.7 174.5 
NFIDCs 130.8 157.5 216.1 185.7 153.9 128. 7 123.0 128.4 131.6 158. 3 182.2 178.5 176.2 
LDCs & NFIDCs 128.3 157.7 207.3 182.4 157. 6 130.8 120.9 126.5 132.9 154.2 180.9 181.2 175.6 
% change over 1993/94-1994/95 -10.3 10.3 44.9 27.5 10.2 -8.6 -15.5 -11.5 -7.1 7.8 26.5 26.7 22.8 
              
              
Wheat export price (US $/tonne)              
US no.2 hard winter 143 157 216 181 142 120 112 128 127 161 161 154 1642/ 
% change over 1993/94-1994/95 -4.7 4.7 43.6 20.6 -5.4  -20.3 -25.3 -14.6 - 15.6 6.8 7.0 2.3 8.8 
              
              
Wheat ocean freight rates (US 
$/tonne)              
From U.S. Gulf ports to:              
Egypt 15.1 18.7 16.8 12.8 11.7 9.3 13.7 15.0 15.0 16.7 37.0 46.5 33.63/ 
Bangadesh 21.5 23.8 21.7 20.0 20.2 18. 8 18.5 18.3 18.5 22.5 48.5 65.4 47.63/ 
Rotterdam 10.4 15.3 13.0 11.0 9.6 9. 4 12.6 13.1 11.0 12.5 28.3 34.5 22.43/ 
 
 
Totals computed from unrounded data 
 
1/  Based on per unit cost of total imports 
2/  Average July-December 
3/  Average July-November 
 
 
Source:  FAO 
 G/AG/GEN/71 
Page 6  
 
  CONTRIBUTION BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 
INTERNATIONAL GRAINS COUNCIL FUND (IGC) 
 
 
 At their recent Session on 16 January 2006, members of the International Grains Council, 
reviewed the current world grain market situation and the outlook for 2006/07.  The Council noted 
that 2005/06 supplies of wheat and maize (corn) w ould be ample again, although below the records 
set in the previous year.  Demand remained str ong, especially in the feed and ethanol sectors and 
world grain ending stocks would show a modest fall.   To date, the outbreaks of avian influenza have 
had a relatively minor impact on global feed use.  The Council's forecast of world trade in grains in 2005/06 showed little overall change from the year be fore, standing at 108 million tons for wheat and 
102 million tons for coarse grains.  
 
 With regard to global market price developm ents, ample grain supplies, including a second 
bumper US maize crop, large wheat harvests in Russi a and Ukraine and recent arrivals of southern 
hemisphere supplies had resulted in strong compe tition.  Apart from several spells of intense 
speculative activity by commodity fund s in US futures, markets had rema ined relatively stable.  In the 
rice sector, prices have remained firm, but new cr op supplies in Asia appeared sufficient to cover 
2006 import needs.  The recent decline in ocean freight rates, as capacity on the major routes 
increased, was noteworthy as this development would help reduce import costs for developing 
countries. 
 
 The outlook for wheat in 2006/07 currently remained mostly favorable,  although production 
was expected to fall in Russia and the Ukraine.  Gl obal demand was forecast to dip, mainly because of 
likely lower feed use of wheat and closing stocks in 2006/07 are projected to be trimmed further.  
 
 For their part, members of the Food Aid Co mmittee reviewed food aid shipments at their 
meeting on 17 January 2006.  Estimated 2004/05 fo od aid contributions by FAC donors were around 
6% down on the previous year, but still amounted to  some 8.7 million tons (wheat equivalent).  
Nearly 60% of the aid was sent to least-develope d countries, with an additional 20% to other low-
income countries. 
 
 About 55% of the food aid was sent to Africa, including 1.0 million tons to Ethiopia (the largest recipient) and 0.8 million tons to Sudan.  Eritrea, Uganda and Kenya also received substantial 
amounts.  Elsewhere, major recipients included coun tries in Southern and West Africa as well as 
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Korea DR and Haiti.  Donors provided aid predominantly in the form of 
wheat and flour (2.9 million tons), rice (0.8 million tons) and maize (0.6 million tons).  A variety of 
other eligible food products were also shipped, including pulses, edible oils, powdered milk, root 
crops, sugar and fish. 
 
 Nearly all of the food aid (97%) was provi ded as grants, while approximately $800 million 
were also provided by donors to cover transportatio n and other costs.  About 56% of members' food 
aid shipments were channelled multilaterally, chie fly through the World Food Programme (WFP).  
Some 2.2 million tons of food products, comprisi ng 25% of all aid under the Convention, were 
purchased locally in recipient countries, or were bought from other developing countries for supply to 
them.  With regard to the current year (2005/ 06), donors' forecast shipments under the Food Aid 
Convention, 1999 are expected to be broadly similar to the last year. 
 
 Following the Food Aid Committee's decision in December 2004 to await the outcome of the 
Doha negotiations on agriculture before proceedi ng with a renegotiation of the 1999 Convention, the 
Committee agreed to extend the existing cooperation instrument for a further two-year period after 
1 July 2005.  At their January 2006 meeting, FAC members received a written report on the outcome 
of the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference from the WTO Secretariat as it bears on food aid matters.  
Members also considered the latest food aid requireme nts and turned their attention to the question of 
improving food aid needs assessments.  G/AG/GEN/71 
 Page 7 
 
 
  STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (IMF) 
 
  The IMF welcomes this new opportunity to up date the Committee on initiatives taken by the 
IMF at both the global and country level in favour of least-developed countries (LDCs) and net food-
importing developing countries (NFIDCs).  As befo re, I would like to briefly place these initiatives in 
the context of the NFIDCs' recen t economic performance and also of developments in primary 
commodity markets. 
I. R
ECENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS IN NFIDC S AND PRIMARY COMMODITY MARKETS  
 
 According to the September 2005 World Economic Outlook  (WEO), recent economic 
data and market indicators su ggest that the global economic recovery remains solid, and 
encompasses all regions.  Among industrial countries, the pick-up in growth that began in mid-2003 
continues to be led by the United States, supported by increasingly encouraging signs of a pick-up in 
activity in Europe and strengthening domestic demand  in Japan.  Overall growth in emerging markets 
and developing countries is expected to continue to be led by China, but supported by higher growth 
compared with historical averages across all major regions.  The rise in energy prices does not appear 
to have had a major impact on global growth and inflation so far, with central banks in most countries 
successfully limiting second-round effects of higher oil prices.  With continuing strong growth in the United States and Asian emerging markets, including  China in particular, global growth in 2006 is 
expected to remain strong (see Table 1 of the Attachment) and without any significant upward 
inflationary pressures.  In the ab sence of further oil price rises, ri sks appear more evenly balanced 
than at the time of our previous meeting.  In light of this strong global environment, economic 
prospects for NFIDCs in 2006 also continue to be favourable, resulting from a strong supportive 
environment over the last two years. 
 
 In 2005, GDP growth in NFIDCs is projected to rise to 5.5 percent compared to overall 
GDP growth of 6.4 percent for emerging markets and developing countries as a whole, reflecting an 
increase of 8.2 percent in volume terms in NFIDCs' exports of goods and services.   
 In 2006, GDP growth in NFIDCs is expected to rise further to 6.2 percent, reflecting 
some strengthening in exports, s upported by rising domestic demand .  NFIDCs' trade is projected 
to grow, albeit at a rate somewhat below that  of emerging markets and developing countries as a 
whole, as in previous years.  The volume of NFIDCs ' imports is projected to increase by 8.2 percent, 
and export volume by 8.8 percent.  Inflation is expected to decrease in 2005 from 8.3 percent to 
7.7 percent, reflecting developments in oil mark ets and some relaxation in food price trends. 
 
 Turning to food prices, they are s lightly above their long-term average.  In 2005, the IMF 
index of non-fuel commodities hit its highest nominal  value ever--though only the highest point since 
1997 in real terms--owing mainly to the price of metals.  As of December 2005, the non-fuel 
commodities index is 18 percent above its Decembe r 2004 value.  Food prices, although stable since 
April, have increased by nearly 6 percent, and cer eal prices, which have showed consistent growth 
during the period, by almost 6 percent since 2004. 
  In terms of specific items in 2005:  
• The most significant growth in food prices came from world sugar prices , which have 
seen year-on-year growth of 58 percent to reach ten-year highs.  The dismantling of the 
European sugar regime, coupled with strong demand for ethanol, has helped boost sugar 
prices from 9 cents at the beginning of 2005 to almost 15 cents per pound. G/AG/GEN/71 
Page 8  
 
  • Robusta coffee prices  have increased 51 percent to leve ls last seen in 1999.  A severe 
drought in Vietnam, the world's second largest  producer of robusta, substantially reduced 
output. 
• Prices of natural rubber  reached ten-year highs, rising 41 percent year-on-year.  High 
energy prices increased the demand for natura l rubber, away from synthetic rubber, which 
uses petroleum as an input.  The higher dema nd intensified weather-related supply issues. 
• Cereal prices  peaked in October and remained strong through December, particularly 
those for wheat, maize, and barley.  Dry w eather and high prices for inputs (energy and 
fertilizers) are expected to reduce yields.  Ri ce prices were relatively unchanged over the 
year from December 2004. 
 For 2006, non-fuel commodity prices  are projected to increase by 3.2 percent relative to 
average 2005 levels. Within this category, food pric es are expected to remain relatively unchanged, 
while cereal prices are expected to increase by one percent. 
II. IMF
 INITIATIVES IN FAVOR OF LDC S AND NFIDC S AT THE GLOBAL POLICY LEVEL  
 
The September 2005 UN Summit on implementing th e Millennium Declaration drew global 
attention to the need for bold action to achieve  the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).  The 
Fund is one of many agencies - national and interna tional - working collectively to bring the MDGs to 
fruition.  The Fund's main contribution is in pr omoting macroeconomic and financial stability - a 
crucial prerequisite for poverty  reduction and economic growth. 
 
 Against this background, the IMF has been a firm and consistent advocate of open trade  
as an engine for economic growth and a higher standard of living .  For developing countries, 
especially LDCs, closer integration into the world trading system can bring immense benefits. 
 
 The IMF remains committed to supportin g the work of the Doha Round, and to 
encouraging its members to bring the Round to a successful conclusion .  Fund Managing Director 
de Rato welcomed the conclusion of the WTO Ministerial in Hong Kong, noting the Round's achievements, albeit modest, especially the end-da te for use of export subsidies and equivalent 
measures in agriculture, and the structure of tariff and subsidy reduction formulae that will apply to 
agriculture and manufacturing trade, as well as the am bitious timetable for settling the details of these 
formulae.  These achievements must now be built up on by drawing on the political momentum arising 
from Hong Kong to settle key disagreements in the fi rst months of 2006.  In the Managing Director's 
view, an ambitious agreement would boost the lo ng-term growth potential of the world economy 
in developed and developing countries alike.  It would help keep the protectionists at bay and lessen 
incentives to negotiate bilateral trade agreements , which risk jeopardizing the non-discrimination 
principle at the heart of the multilateral system.   In the IMF's view, trade liberalization must be embraced by all countries .  The Fund has 
actively sought to demonstrate the distortionary effect s of agricultural subsidies, for example, among 
OECD countries, with particular emphasis on the la rgest markets.  Quotas and other non-tariff barriers 
on such key commodities as rice, sugar, wheat, beef and dairy products imply millions of dollars in 
lost annual income for developing countries.  The Fund will continue to highlight such costs, but 
equal emphasis should also be placed on devel oping countries.  As illustrated during the WTO 
Ministerial meeting in Hong Kong, development inter ests seem to be equated too often with the right 
to exclude oneself from global markets.  This does not accord with experience, which suggests that 
active trade integration offers the best hope for spurring economic growth.  The empirical work to 
date clearly illustrates that the bulk of gains fro m trade liberalization would accrue to developing 
countries, given that barriers to trade by and among these countries are often higher than in their more 
developed counterparts.  G/AG/GEN/71 
 Page 9 
 
 
   The IMF remains committed to providing a ssistance in order to help countries build 
capacity to implement trade agreements, create ca pacity to take advantage of the opportunities 
of open trade, and help them cope with adjustment costs.   As noted below, the IMF has 
established a specific mechanism to cope with the tr ansitory impact on the balance of payments of 
trade liberalization agreed in the context of  the WTO, or implemented unilaterally on a non-
discriminatory basis.  The IMF also actively partic ipates with other multilateral organizations in the 
Aid for Trade initiative.  There were encouragin g signs during the WTO Ministerial meeting in 
Hong Kong that bilateral donors were also willing to scale up aid for trade considerably in the period 
ahead.  In the IMF's view, however, aid for trade s hould be an important complement to an eventual 
WTO agreement in the Doha Round, rather than a  substitute for an ambitious round, nor should it be 
made subject to the negotiations themselves. 
III. IMF  INITIATIVES IN FAVOUR OF NFIDC S AND LDCS  AT THE COUNTRY LEVEL  
 
The IMF also works to address country-specifi c issues in areas of concern to the LDCs 
and NFIDCs by providing assistance to its member countries through three key channels:  
surveillance, technical assistance, and financial support. 
 In 2005,  the IMF undertook a thorough reassessment  of its engagement with low-income 
countries , focusing on how to make its lending and a dvisory facilities more responsive to their 
particular needs, and on better defining how it engages with country authorities, civil society, and other development partners. 
 
As a result of this reassessment, the IMF has decided that, in addition to member country 
surveillance and the provision of technical assistance, its support to low-income countries will rely 
in future on the following specific instruments :
1 
 
• the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility  (PRGF).  The PRGF will remain the main 
instrument for assisting low-income members.  Established in September 1999, its aim is to make poverty reduction and growth central to the Fund's lending operations in its poorest 
member countries.  PRGFs are framed around country-owned Poverty Reduction Strategy 
Papers (PRSP).  Loans under the PRGF have an interest rate of 0.5 percent.  At the end 
of 2005, 21 NFIDCs and 18 LDCs were dr awing on Fund financial resources under the 
PRGF. 
• a new window in the PRGF Trust to help  low-income members facing exogenous 
shocks .  Low-income countries have a higher incidence of shocks than other developing 
countries and tend to suffer larger damages wh en they occur.  At the same time, these 
countries have limited capacity to build up cushions of foreign currency reserves and 
government revenues to protect against shoc ks, and market insurance tends to be 
inordinately expensive or unavailable.  Th e new facility provides concessional support to 
low-income members without a PRGF arrangeme nt.  It complements the current available 
facilities to assist low-income countries facing shocks, such as increased PRGF access; the 
Compensatory Financing Facility; and subs idized emergency assistance for natural 
disasters and post-conflict cases.  Furthermore, in the case of balance of payments 
shortfalls resulting from multilateral trade liber alization, low-income countries can also 
benefit from the Trade Integration Mechanism .  To-date, two NFIDCs (Bangladesh and 
the Dominican Republic) have used the TIM to address balance of payments pressures 
stemming from the end of textile quotas at end-2004 under the WTO's Agreement on 
Textiles and Clothing.  Other countries have indicated an interest in the TIM. 
                                                      
1 Low income countries are also eligible for Stand- by Arrangements (SBA), but these arrangements are 
based on non-concessional loans and specifically designed to address short-term balance-of-payments problems.  
At end-2005, three NFIDCs had an SBA in place. G/AG/GEN/71 
Page 10  
 
  • a new non-financial mechanism, the Policy Support Instrument  (PSI), the aim of which 
is to improve how the Fund supports and signa ls sound policies.  The PSI is an important 
addition to the range of facilities from which low-income countries can choose their desired 
form of engagement with the IMF.  This facility is available on a purely voluntary basis to PRGF-eligible members that d esire an IMF endorsement of their policies, but which do not 
necessarily want or need Fund financial assist ance.  Countries will be eligible, however, 
only if they have appropriate and effec tive poverty reduction strategies and policy 
frameworks in place.  In addition to supporting countries in their design of policies, the PSI 
would provide a "signal" about the quality of those policies to donors, the business 
community, and others. 
 In addition, the IMF will continue to work closel y with other development partners to 
ensure that the PRS framework provides an eff ective tool for expanding  country efforts to 
foster growth, poverty reduction, and progress towards the MDGs .  A key priority is to embed the 
PRS process in existing decision-making processes and systems, including the annual budget, and to align PRSs with programs supported under the faci lities/mechanism mentione d above.  In the same 
vein, the IMF intends to help low-income countri es manage the macroeconomic impact of scaled-up 
aid so as to address institutional constraints to the effective use of donor support. 
 Finally, in late 2005, the IMF's Executive Board approved the G-8 proposal for further 
debt relief for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) .  As a result, the IMF will cancel 
100 percent of its debt claims on countries that have  reached, or will eventually reach, the completion 
point under the HIPC Initiative.  This new initiativ e is known as the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative 
(MDRI).  To remain consistent with the principl e of uniformity of treatment in the use of Fund's 
resources, all countries with per capita income of US$380 a year or less (HIPCs and non-HIPCs) will 
receive MDRI debt relief.  Such relief helps alleviate the external debt burden of a number of the world's poorest countries, thereby freeing resources fo r achieving faster progress towards the MDGs.  
On 21 December 2005, the IMF's Executive Board de termined that a first group of 19 countries 
already qualified for debt relief, including 15 NFIDCs and 13 LDCs. 
 Let me conclude by indicating that, with th ese additional instruments and initiatives now in 
place, the Fund looks forward to working, and furt her building up its engagement, with low-income 
member countries in the period ahead.   G/AG/GEN/71 
 Page 11 
 
 
    
2004 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006
 
World out put 5.1 4.3 4.3 4.4 -- -0.1
Advance d econom ies 3.3 2.5 2.7 3.0 -0.1 -0.3
Other emerg ing mar ket an d developing countr ies 7.3 6.4 6.1 6.0 0.1 0.1
  Net Food Importing Countries 1/ 6.5 5.5 6.2 5.5 0.4 0.4
  Purely Net Food Importing Countries 2/ 6.4 5.3 5.3 4.8 0.5 0.3
  Africa 5.3 4.5 5. 9 4.9 -0.4 0.5
  Deve loping Asia 8.2 7.8 7.2 7.2 0.3 --
    China 9.5 9.0 8.2 8.0 0.5 0.2
    India 7.3 7.1 6.3 6.5 0.5 - 0.1
    ASEAN -4 3/ 5.8 4.9 5.4 5.8 -0.5 - 0.4
  Middle East 5.5 5. 4 5.0 4.8 0.3 0.1
  Western Hemisphere 5.6 4.1 3.8 3.6 -- 0.1
    Braz il 4.9 3.3 3.5 3.5 - 0.4 --
  Centra l and eastern Europe 6.5 4.3 4.6 4.6 -0.2 0.1
  Commonwea lth of Independent 
    States 4/ 8.4 6.0 5.7 5.5 - 0.5 - 0.2
    Russia 7.2 5.5 5. 3 5.0 -0.5 - 0.3
    Exc luding Russ ia 11.0 7.1 6.8 6.7 - 0.6 -0.2
Memoran dum
World growt h based on mar ket
    exc hange rates 4.0 3.1 3.2 3.4 -- - 0.2
World trade volume (goods and serv ices) 10.3 7.0 7.4 7.0 -0.4 -0.1
Imports
  Advance d econom ies 8.8 5.4 5.8 5.7 - 1.1 -0.5
Other emerg ing mar ket an d developing countr ies 16.4 13.5 11.9 10.6 1.5 0.9
    Net Food Importing Countries 12.3 12.1 8.2 6.6 2.6 1.4
    Purely Net Food Importing Countries 14.2 12.5 7.3 5.7 3.0 1.2
Exports
  Advance d econom ies 8.3 5.0 6.3 6.0 -0.9 -0.5
Other emerg ing mar ket an d developing countr ies 14.5 10.4 10.3 9.3 0.4 0.6
    Net Food Importing  Countries 11.3 8.2 8.8 6.4 1.0 1.6
    Purely Net Food Importing  Countries 10.8 6.4 5.4 4.7 1.0 0.6
Commo dity prices (U.S. dollars)
Oil 5/ 30.7 43.6 13.9 -2.8 20.5 19.8
Nonfuel (average based on wor ld 
   commo dity export we ights) 18.5 8.6 -2.1 -4.3 4.7 3.0
Consumer prices
Advance d econom ies 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.0 0.2 0.2
Other emerg ing mar ket an d developing countr ies 5.8 5.9 5.7 5. 2 0.4 1.1
  Net Food Importing Countries 8.7 8.3 7.7 7.1 0.6 0.7
  Purely Net Food Importing Countries 8.9 7.8 7.6 7.1 0.2 0.6
Six-mont h London interbank 
  offered rate (LIBOR , percent )
On U.S. dollar deposits 1.8 3.6 4.5 4.6 0.3 0.4
On Japanese yen deposits 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 - 0.1 -0.2
On euro deposits 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.7 - 0.2 -0.5
 
  Note: Real effective exchange rates are assumed to remain constant at the levels prevailing during July 8-August 5, 2005. 
   2/  Comprises of 25 NFIDCs. Cuba is not included in the aggregation. 
   3/  Includes Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand.
   4/  Mongo lia, which is not a mem ber of the Commonwea lth of Indepen dent States, is included in this group for reasons o f geograp hy and similarities in 
economic  structure.
   5/  Simple average o f spot pr ices o f U.K. Brent, Du bai, and West Texas Interme diate cru de oil. The average pr ice of oil in U.S. dollars a barrel was 
$37.76 in 2004;  the assumed price is $54.23 in 2005, and $61.75 in 2006.    1/  Afghanistan, Cuba, Er itrea, L iberia, Somalia, Timor-Leste, an d Tuva lu are not included in the aggregat ion due to insufficient data. Compr ises o f 43 
LDCs + 25 NFIDCs.(Annual percent change unless otherwise noted)Table 1. Overview of the World Economic Outlook Projections
Current ProjectionsDifference from April
2005 Projections 
 
  
  G/AG/GEN/71 
Page 12 
Chart 1.  Indices of Non-Fuel Commodities, Cereals, Wheat and Maize, January 1998 - December 2005
020406080100120140
Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05Index of Non-Fuel Primary Commodities (1995=100)
Index of Wheat
Index of Maize
Cereals price index of Wheat, Maize, Rice, and Barley1997 = 100
  
   G/AG/GEN/71
 Page 13Chart 2.  Indices of Non-Fuel Commodities, Cocoa, Coffee and Cotton, January 1998 - December 2005
020406080100120140
Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05Index of Non-Fuel Primary Commodities (1995=100)
Index of Sugar; International Sugar Agreement price
Index of Coffee, Robusta
Index of Natural Rubber; Malaysian1997 = 100G/AG/GEN/71 
Page 14  
 
  Chart 3.  Year-on-Year Percent Changes of Select Commodities, December 2005
-26%-20%-19%-19%-16%-16%-12%11%14%19%21%29%37%41%43%46%54%55%60%73%
-27%-23%10%
10%12%15%16%21%22%24%31%51%58%72%98%
-40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%Australian CoalSouth African CoalGroundnutsTinFine WoolLambCoconut OilPork (swine meat)Coarse WoolLogs, HardwoodOlive OilSawn, HardwoodBarleyBananasLeadCottonSoybean MealLogs, SoftwoodAluminumNatural Gas, JapanFish MealSunflower OilSawn, SoftwoodWest Texas Intermediate Crude OilNatural RubberBrent Crude OilCopperRobusta CoffeeZincDubai Crude OilSugar, WorldNatural Gas, JapanIron OreUraniumNatural Gas, United States
Note: Commodities selected by month based on an absolute percent change of 10%.
Source: IMF Staff G/AG/GEN/71 
 Page 15 
 
 
  CONTRIBUTION BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE  
WORLD BANK1 
 
  In last year's monitoring exercise, the Worl d Bank's submission highlighted strategies to 
strengthen the food security of developing countr ies.  These included policies focused on raising 
incomes of the poor to enhance their food purchasing  power, rather than targeting food production per 
se through protection of local production, as well as investments to improve countries' capacity to 
anticipate food crises and quickly distribute food in cases of emergency.  
 Food security of course remains a concern for the World Bank and many of its client 
countries.  Since last year's exercise, the Bank h as continued to evaluate both options for countries' 
own strategies to strengthen their food security, and the Bank's strategies to support them in this 
effort.  Three recent documents that discuss th ese strategies are a pa per on exogenous shocks 
presented to the Bank's Board of Directors,
2 a paper examining the lessons from experience to suggest 
best practices in dealing with food price instability,3 and a paper discussing the use of risk 
management instruments to deal with both price a nd weather-related agricultural risk at the level of 
individual farmers and at the level of government.4 
  The Commodity Risk Management Group (CRMG) in the Bank's Agriculture and Rural Development Department has also worked with other development partners to carry out two 
innovative pilot projects in risk management of f ood crops:  one dealt with weather risk in Ethiopia 
and the other with price risk in Malawi.   The objective of the first pilot project jointly prepared by CRMG and World Food Program (WFP), and executed by WFP, was to contribute to an ex-ante risk-management system to protect the 
livelihoods of Ethiopians vulnerable to severe a nd catastrophic weather risks.  The pilot used a 
weather derivative to demonstrate the feasibility of  establishing contingency funding for an effective 
aid response in the event of contr actually specified severe and catastr ophic shortfalls in precipitation.  
The WFP in effect bought weather insurance from an international provider.   The contract provides contingency funding in case of an extreme drought during 
Ethiopia's 2006 agricultural season from March to October 2006.  This demonstrates the possibility of 
transferring the weather risks of least-developed coun tries to international markets and also facilitates 
price discovery of insurance for Ethiopian drought risk in these markets in the future.  The price 
discovery for Ethiopian weather risk in the internat ional risk markets will enable Ethiopia to manage 
weather risk more effectively, especially with regard to future climate change. 
 
 More generally, this pilot project is the firs t step in a process leading towards ex-ante risk 
management in developing countries involving gove rnments, donors and private-sector international 
risk markets.  The greater timeliness of event- specific contingency funding will make aid more 
efficient in saving livelihoods by protecting vul nerable populations against productive asset depletion 
under distress in response to severe and catastrophic weather shocks.  From the perspective of food 
aid donors, it would obviate the need for fund-ra ising in response to crises, thereby making the 
                                                     
 
1 For further details, contact John D. Nash, Adviser, Agriculture and Rural Development or Carlos 
Braga, Senior Adviser, International Trade Department, The World Bank. 
2 "Managing the Debt Risk of Exogenous Shocks in Low Income Countries", 9 March 2005.  This 
paper examined the impact and possible responses to all kinds of external shocks, including inter alia  import 
price shocks. 
3 World Bank, 2006. Managing Food Price Risks and Instab ility in an Environment of Market 
Liberalization, Agriculture and Rural Development Department. 
4 World Bank, 2006, "Managing Agricultural Production Risks:  Innovations in Developing 
Countries",  Report 32727 – GLB, Agriculture and Rural Development Department, June, 2005. G/AG/GEN/71 
Page 16  
 
  response more efficient and more timely.  If desi gned to deliver purchasing power to local markets 
(either directly to the hungry or to safety net syst ems), it would also be less disruptive of local markets 
than traditional food aid delivery mechanisms.   The second pilot was launched in response to the severe food shortage in Southern Africa this 
year.  Affected countries included Malawi, Za mbia, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe and it was 
estimated that the volumes of imports needed to supply these countries would range from 1.5 – 2 million MT.   During a food shortage, local maize prices typica lly increase, exacerbating the risk of hunger.  
In the past, Governments have attempted to manage th is problem by subsidizing the price of maize, or 
using other market interventions, but such responses ha ve a large cost, both financially and in terms of 
negative impact on local and regional trade.   The Government of Malawi took an innovative a pproach to the risks associated with import 
operations.  First, the Malawi Vulnerability a nd Assessment Committee created two scenarios for 
humanitarian need, based on two potential ranges fo r local prices.  This clear linking of the 
relationship between local prices and vulnerable popul ations led the Government to take a strong 
interest in price volatility.  In September, the Mini stry of Finance purchased a call option based on the 
South African SAFEX commodity exchange  to help cap the cost of imports. 
 
 The option contract was originally designed to be a contingent import strategy used in the 
following way:  if local prices were rising to an unaffordable level in the commercial markets, and 
maize imports were not moving in quickly enough to meet the needs, the Government could quickly 
trigger additional imports.  When the option was ex ercised, or "called," the maize that was imported 
could then be resold directly to local traders or  through commercial markets.   Alternatively, maize 
purchased through this mechanism could also  be used to meet humanitarian needs. 
  In practice, Government exercised the cont ract as prices were increasing and allocated the 
majority of the maize to the humanitarian pipeline,  where there were severe shortages.  The maize 
purchased through the option contract had the best  delivery performance, and during the delivery 
period, spot prices rose USD $50-90/mt above the ceili ng price of the contract, due to increases in the 
SAFEX white maize price and transport costs over th e period October – January.  The option structure 
was supplied to the government by a South African  bank, based on a process of competitive bidding.  
The structure, which was customized to meet th e needs of the Government, is an innovative one 
which combines price protection on the SAFEX white maize market, and locks in transport costs to Malawi.  This way, the problem of basis risk was removed, and the Government of Malawi was able 
to obtain price protection in local, delivered te rms.  The World Bank's CRMG provided technical 
assistance to the Government and the premium for the option contract was supported by the UK's Department for International Development (DFID).   Within the region, traders and banks are supportive of greater use of this strategy in the future, and believe it has a number of advantages in addition to the value of hedging prices for 
imports.  Contingent import strategies based on ca ll option structures help in planning because they 
can be put in place well ahead of eventual crises, then  triggered or "called" on an as-needed basis.  
Call options can be used as "back-up" strategies for Government and may help replace traditional 
market interventions, which often have been disr uptive of normal commercial trading channels as 
well as fiscally expensive.  Strategic Grain Reserv es can be restructured so that management of 
physical stocks and storage is done by private sect or banks and traders, who then write call option 
contracts for sale to Government if needed in the future.  Finally, donors and the World Food 
Programme are also interested in this type of approach from the perspective of reducing costs and 
maximizing the value of every food aid dollar.   G/AG/GEN/71 
 Page 17 
 
 
   Malawi is taking the lead in Southern Africa in looking at new ways to actively manage food 
security risk in an ex-ante fashion.  A key priori ty for the Government is to examine ways that 
market-based tools and risk management thinking  could replace traditional ex post reactions, which 
can be costly, inefficient, and difficult to mana ge when the country is already in crisis.  
 
 These examples illustrate new ways in which the World Bank, in partnership with other 
development agencies and governments, is approa ching the theme of food security.  The lessons 
learned in these pilots, implemented in least devel oped countries, will be helpful in further advancing 
our understanding of how best to impl ement risk management of food crops. 
 G/AG/GEN/71 
Page 18  
 
  CONTRIBUTION BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 
WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME 
 
 
Background 
 The key elements in the Marrakech Minister ial Decision related to WFP's operations are 
embodied in two areas of the agreement outlined und er paragraph 3 of the Decision.  The paragraph 
refers to the establishment of a mechanism to ensu re minimum impact by the reform programme with 
the availability of sufficient fo od aid to least-developed countries (LDCs) and net food-importing 
developing countries (NFIDCs).  The two key elements are the need to:  
• review the level of food aid commitments su fficient to meet the legitimate needs of the 
developing countries during the reform programme; and 
• ensure that basic food stuffs are provided to LDCs and NFIDCs in fully grant form and/or 
on appropriate concessional terms. 
Hunger continues to affect over 800 million pe ople worldwide.  Although there has been 
some progress in poverty reduction over the last decade , the results are unevenly distributed.  In spite 
of the international community's pledge to halve world hunger by 2015, in many of the poorest 
countries of the world, hunger is increasing.  The HIV/AIDS pandemic is worsening the situation with 
its devastating effect on the economic prospects for many countries, particularly in Africa. 
 
Global and WFP Food Aid Deliveries 1990-2004 
 
 Global food aid deliveries between 1990 and 2004 followed a declining trend, interrupted by 
two peaks in 1992/93 and 1999.  The peaks corr esponded to the emergency food deliveries in 
response to Southern Africa drought and the high programme food aid deliveries to Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS ) in both periods.  Since 1999, global food aid 
deliveries have decreased, reaching 7.5 million tonnes in 2004.  WFP's food aid has generally increased, reaching a high in 2003 as a result of the Iraq operation when it shipped almost 6 million tonnes corresponding to 58% of global food aid deliveries (Chart 1). 
Chart 1: Global and WFP Food Aid Flows, 1990-2004
02468101214161820
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004Global Food Aid Deliveries WFP Food Aid ShipmentsMillion Tons
Source: WFP/INTERFAIS, 2004
  G/AG/GEN/71 
 Page 19 
 
 
  Overview of WFP's Assistance 
 WFP food aid is targeted to vulnerable groups b ased on verified need assessments.  There are 
three types of WFP food-based operations:  emer gency operations, PRROs (Protracted Relief and 
Recovery Operations) and development programs.  Emergency food aid is distributed to victims of 
natural or human-induced crises.  PRROs are medium-term interventions aimed at meeting protracted 
humanitarian needs with a view to supporting rec overy and establishing the basis for long-term 
development assistance.  Development programs are designed to support social and economic development.  Since 2000, total WFP food aid has fluc tuated, due mainly to year-to-year variations in 
the emergency operations category, while PRROs and development programs have showed more 
stability (Chart 2).  WFP's food aid is provided to co untries on a full grant basis, consistent with the 
Marrakech Ministerial Decision. 
 
0100020003000400050006000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004Chart 2: WFP Food Aid Shipments by Category (Thousand Tons)
Emergency
OperationsProtracted Relief & 
Recovery OperationsDevelopment
Source: WFP Statistics, 2004
 
 Policies governing resource allocation of WFP fo od aid in development activities require that 
WFP will allocate at least 50% of its development re sources to LDCs and at least 90% to low-income 
food-deficit countries (LIFDCs).5  Up to 10% of resources will remain available to meet either 
additional needs of these countries or the special needs of non-LIFDCs. 
                                                      
5 According to FAO, there are cu rrently 84 Low-income food-defic it countries (LIFDCs), including 
most LDCs, and only 6 NFIDCs.  The LIFDC classification is based on countries exhibiting a per capita income 
below a certain ceiling and with a negative food trade bala nce.  Yet, a self-exclusion criterion can also apply, 
when countries that meet the above two criteria specifically request to be  excluded from the LIFDC category. G/AG/GEN/71 
Page 20  
 
  Table 1:  WFP's Development Resource Allocation, 2003-2004 
 2003 2004 
Total Beneficiaries 16 Million 24 Million 
Women & Children 86% n.a. 
Expenditures:  LDCs 66% 65% 
 LIFDCs 92% 92% 
 Others 1% 8% 
    Source:  WFP, 2004 
  The majority of WFP's food aid is in respon se to humanitarian needs.  Table 2 presents the 
top ten emergency assistance recipients in 2004.  
 
Table 2:  The Top Ten WFP Emerge ncy Assistance Recipients in 2004. 
Country or region Expenditures (m illion US$) Type of emergency 
Iraq 800.8 Conflict 
Sudan  389.3 Conflict 
Tsunami-affected countries 310.0* Tsunami 
Ethiopia 161.1 Drought 
Afghanistan 130.7 Post-conflict drought 
DPRK 121.4 Economic 
Uganda 87.7 Conflict/Drought 
Angola 79.4 Post-conflict 
Zimbabwe 73.0 Economic/Drought 
Kenya 72 Drought 
*  The tsunami occurred in late 2004 but expenditures were incurred largely in 2005 
During 2005, the number and gravity of emergency cri ses in the world has been exceptional, 
requiring an extraordinary response in terms of f ood aid and other forms of humanitarian assistance 
on the part of WFP and other international orga nizations and NGOs.  Major disasters – such as the 
Indian Ocean Tsunami, drought and locusts in Niger,  the continuing conflict in Darfur, the hurricane 
Stan, and finally the devastating earthquake in Pa kistan - affected millions of people across the 
developing world.  Many of these challenges are far from over with implications for food aid needs 
in 2006.  Six million people are in need of f ood assistance across Sudan – WFP's Sudan operation will 
amount to almost 25 percent of its global emergenc y workload.  In addition, nearly 10 million people 
in southern Africa and 11 million in the Horn of A frica are severely affected by drought and will 
require assistance.  In Pakistan, more than one million people are suffering from the aftermath of the 
recent earthquake and 1.5 million victims of the tsunami will still need support to rebuild their 
livelihoods. 
  G/AG/GEN/71 
 Page 21 
 
 
  WFP Food Aid Purchases  
 In its effort to support developing country ma rkets, WFP has, for many years, encouraged 
local and regional procurement of food aid.  In re cent years, WFP has significantly increased its level 
of food procurement from de veloping countries.  In 2000, WFP purchased food worth 
USD330 million, of which USD149 million (45%) was from developing countries and economies in 
transition.  By 2004, WFP's food purchases had cl imbed to USD 1,051 million (including purchases 
for Iraq), out of which almost 70% from deve loping and transition countries (Chart 3). 
Chart 3: WFP  Food Purchases 
020040060080010001200
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004Total WFP Food Purchases
Purchases in Developing Countries (Including economies in transition and emerging markets)Million US$
45.2%67.6%71.4%69.9%
Source: WFP Statistics, 2004
  
 Aggregate food purchases broken down by DAC  Category for 2001-2004 were as follows:  
Low income, 20 percent;  middle income, 37 percent;  in transition, 2 percent;  and developed, 
32 percent.  Of the top 15 countries where WFP pur chased food, four were low-income developing 
countries.  Table 3 presents the fifteen countries w ith the highest level of aggregate food purchases 
during this period (including procurement for the Iraq operation in 2004). 
Table 3: 2001–2004 Aggregate food purchases – top 15 countries 
 
Country Quantity (mt) Value (US$) Rank 
South Africa  738 015 143 278 478 1 
*Canada  618 057 133 444 438 2 
**Australia  547 044 96 743 319 3 
India  472 819 83 817 455 4 
**USA  442 897 81 381 290 5 
Pakistan  430 491 70 901 171 6 
*Japan  404 868 99 899 552 7 G/AG/GEN/71 
Page 22  
 
  Country Quantity (mt) Value (US$) Rank 
Ethio pia  352 963 68 976 547 8 
Turke y  335 480 113 364 335 9 
Thailand  325 329 72 641 995 10 
Uganda  313 041 69 255 181 11 
Kazakhstan  311 009 43 310 735 12 
China  299 486 63 520 723 13 
Argentina  266 768 79 887 003 14 
Sudan  200 717 34 882 898 15 
*  Cash contributions from Canada and Japan incl ude a partial component for food procurement from 
the donor country. **  Large purchases for the Iraq operation were unde rtaken from Australia and the United States 
during 2003/04. 
 
Concluding Remarks 
 Along with long-term productivity-enhancing investments, fighting hunger requires ensuring 
adequate and timely global assistance based on verifi able needs for targeted food insecure households, 
according to the spirit of the Marrakech Decision.  
 The World Food Programme is committed to  fighting hunger and poverty along with its 
partners, beneficiary countries and donors.   
__________