WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/W/42/Rev.9 
27 October 2006 
 (06-5168) 
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 Secretariat
1 
 
Revision  
  
1. The present note updates the information in the Secretariat note G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 dated 
10 January 2006 on implementation of the Deci sion 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.9 
Page 2  
 
  Table of Contents 
  
I. MONITORING OF THE FOLLOW-U P TO THE NFIDC DECISION .............................3  
II. PROVISIONS OF THE NFIDC DECISION AND IMPLEMENTATION.........................4 
A. FOOD AID....................................................................................................................... ......4  
1. Review of Food Aid Levels and Initiation of Food Aid Negotiations ....................................4 
(a) Review of food aid levels................................................................................................5 
Chart 1:  Food aid deliveries to LDCs and NFIDCs, 1995-2005............................................6 Table 1:  Evolution of food aid deliveries, 1995-2005 ...........................................................7 
Table 2:  Composition of gl obal food aid deliveries...............................................................7 
(b) Initiation of food aid negotiations...................................................................................8 
2. Concessionality of Food Aid................................................................................................. 9 
Table 3:   Proportion of food aid provided in fully grant form to LDCs and NFIDCs .........10 
B. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ...........................................................10  
C. DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN THE FRAMEWORK OF AN AGREEMENT ON 
EXPORT CREDITS ..............................................................................................................11  
D. ACCESS TO THE RESOURCES OF THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL 
INSTITUTIONS..................................................................................................................1 2 
1. Ability to finance commercial imports..............................................................................12 
Chart 2 – The International Grains C ouncil Wheat Price Index (1987- 2006) .....................12 
2. Access to the facilities of the IMF and the World Bank ..................................................13 
Attachment 1 - Compliance with notification requirements (Table NF:1) ...........................15 
Attachment 2:   Minimum Annual Contributions and Shipments under the Food Aid 
Convention..................................................................................................................... .......16 
Attachment 3 - Food aid deliveries of cereals and non-cereals, 1996-2005 .........................18 
 
 
    G/AG/W/42/Rev.9 
 Page 3 
 
 
  I. MONITORING OF THE FOLLOW-UP TO THE NFIDC DECISION 
2. The follow-up to the NFIDC Decision has re presented an important element in the 
Committee's work.  This subject has been on th e agenda at each regular Committee meeting. 
3. In 1995, the Committee established notification requirements2 under which donor Members 
are required to submit data on food aid donati ons (quantity and concessionality) as well as 
information on technical and financial assistance and other relevant info rmation on actions taken 
within the framework of the NFIDC Decision.  Th e annual monitoring of the follow-up to the NFIDC 
Decision in accordance with Artic le 16 of the Agreement on Agricu lture and under paragraph 18 of 
the Working Procedures of the Committee on Agriculture is undertaken on the basis, inter alia , of 
these Table NF:1 notifications. 
4. Attachment 1 summarizes compliance with Table NF:1 notification requirements in the 1995 
to 2005 implementation years.  For the purposes of this Attachment, "compliance" refers to any 
Table NF:1 notification received by the seven Members3  that are donors under the Food Aid 
Convention and other Members that have in the past  identified themselves as food aid donors in their 
notifications or provided food aid to least-develope d and net food-importing developing countries in 
the period 1995-2005 according to data of the World Food Programme (WFP).4  A number of other 
Members have also submitted Table NF:1 notifications  stating that no food aid or technical/financial 
assistance was provided or that the Table NF:1 notification requirement was not applicable.5   
5. In 1996, the Committee established a WTO list of net food-importing developing countries.6  
This list currently contains 26 developing country  Members (NFIDCs) plus the 50 least-developed 
countries (LDCs) as defined by the United Nations.7   
6. In December 2000, the Committee on Agriculture  was instructed by the General Council8 to 
examine possible means of improving the effec tiveness of the implementation of the NFIDC 
Decision.9  The Committee's report on this question10, which was approved by the Doha Ministerial 
Conference, included, inter alia , a recommendation for the establishment of an Inter-agency panel of 
financial and commodity experts to examine the issue of  short-term difficulties by NFIDCs and LDCs in 
financing normal levels of commercial imports of  basic foodstuffs.  The panel report, which was 
submitted in June 2002, included  an examination of specific proposals submitted by a group of 
seventeen WTO NFIDCs.11 
                                                      
2  See G/AG/2, pages 33-34. 
3  Counting the EC and its member States as one. 
4  See WFP data on http://www.wfp.org/interfais/ . 
5 This is the case for Brazil, Burkina Faso, Fiji, Indonesia, Malta, Morocco, Philippines, United Arab 
Emirates and Uruguay. 
6  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). 
7   See G/AG/5/Rev.8. 
8   See WT/L/384. 
9   See progress reports to the General Counc il on such consultations in G/AG/7 and G/AG/10. 
10  See G/AG/11. 
11 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.9 
Page 4  
 
  7. Since July 2003, the Committee on Agriculture h as 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.
12  In September 2004, the Committee 
on Agriculture decided to revert to this matter on the basis of the recommendation contained in its 
report to the General Council on Implementation-Related Issues.13  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.   
II. PROVISIONS OF THE NFIDC DECISION AND IMPLEMENTATION 
8. 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 bene fit of all participants" (paragraph 1). 
"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). 
9. The remaining 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  
10. 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). 
1. Review of Food Aid Levels and Initiation of Food Aid Negotiations 
11. To the end enunciated in the chapeau of pa ragraph 3 of the NFIDC Decision, Ministers 
agreed: 
                                                     
 
12  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). 
13 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.   See also G/AG/16/Add.1, paragraphs 11-12 of the 
Committee's follow-up report on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns to the General Council (dated 
13 June 2006).  G/AG/W/42/Rev.9 
 Page 5 
 
 
  " … to review the level of food aid es tablished 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 countries during the reform programme ... " (paragraph 3(i) of the NFIDC Decision).  
(a) Review of food aid levels
 
12. The Food Aid Convention (FAC) 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 
contributions by its members.  Attachment 2 summarizes the annual food aid commitments under the 1999 Food Aid Convention as well as the food aid shipments by FAC members, during the period 
1999/00-2005/06.  The aggregate annual 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).
14  Under the Food Aid Convention 1999, the combined minimum 
annual volume and value commitments of FAC me mbers are established at 4.8 million tonnes and 
€130 million (as of June 2005).   In this respect, th e Inter-agency panel referred to in paragraph 6 
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."
15 
13. Attachment 2 also shows that annual shipment s exceeded, often signifi cantly, FAC members' 
combined minimum annual commitments.16  Food aid shipments in wheat equivalent under the 
Convention are estimated at close to 8.4 million t onnes in 2005/06 compared to 8.9 million tonnes in 
2004/05.  At its meeting in January 2006, the F ood Aid Committee of the International Grains 
Council observed that more than half of the food ai d in 2004/05 was sent to Africa, with the largest 
recipients being respectively Ethiopia, Sudan, Eritrea, Uganda and Kenya.17 
14. 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 the data of the Food Aid Comm ittee of the International Grains Council (IGC) 
mainly due to differences in country and product coverage, reporting period, and the use of delivery 
rather than shipment data.  
15. WFP data show that global food aid deliveries present a cyclical pattern, with a record of 
17.3 million tonnes reached in 1993.
18  As shown in Chart 1 below, another peak was reached in 1999 
when food aid totalled 15.1 million tonnes.19  In this context, the Doha Ministerial Conference 
approved the following recommendation made by the Committee on Agriculture: 
                                                      
14 See G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 for data relating to donor commitments and shipments under the 1986 and 
1995 Food Aid Conventions, respectively. 
15  See WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13, paragraph 44. 
16 The exception was 1994/95 when shipments fell short of the aggregate commitment 
(G/AG/W/42/Rev.8, paragraph 12 refers). 
17 See G/AG/GEN/71, page 6. 
18 See also G/AG/GEN/49, pp. 10-11. 
19 Food aid deliveries as monitored by the WFP include deliveries by FAC members, other countries, 
and non-governmental organizations.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.9 
Page 6  
 
  "WTO Members which are donors of food aid shall, within the framework of their 
food aid policies, statutes, programmes a nd 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; … " (G/AG/11, Part B 
paragraph 3 I(b) refers). 
Chart 1:  Food aid deliveries to LDCs and NFIDCs, 1995-2005 
0246810121416million tonnes
OTHER 4.9 3.0 3.0 3.9 9.1 5.4 4.7 4.4 4.2 2.8 2.5
NFIDC 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.8
LDC 4.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 3.7 5.5 4.0 4.91995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 200510.2
7.2 7.38.415.1
11.411.0
9.410.3
7.58.2
 
 
Notes : Includes cereals in grain equivalent and non-cereals in product weight;  "NFIDC" refers to the 26 
Members listed in G/AG/5/Rev.8.  Data for 2005 are provisional. 
Source : Food Aid Monitor: 2005 Food Aid Flows , June 2006, WFP. 
 
16. Except for Barbados, and Trinidad and T obago, all NFIDCs on the WTO list were, 
occasionally or regularly, recipients of food aid duri ng 1995-2005.  Table 1 shows that, in 2005, total 
food aid deliveries to NFIDCs were 21 per cent lo wer than average deliver ies recorded during the 
previous 10-year period (i.e., 19 95-2004), but increased by 18 per cent with respect to LDCs.    
17. Attachment 3 gives a detailed breakdown of food aid deliveries by recipient during the period 
1995-2005 as monitored by WFP.   No, or very little, food aid deliveries have taken place in at least 
10 NFIDCs during that period.20  With respect to a second group of NFIDCs, 21 sharp declines in 2005 
(i.e., more than 70 per cent) are also observed when  compared to average deliveries recorded in 1995-
2004.  Finally, food aid deliveries to Kenya, Côte d'Ivoire, Mongolia, Honduras, Morocco, and Sri 
Lanka increased by more than 30 per cent comp ared to their long-term 1995-2004 average.   
                                                      
20 This is the case for Botswana, Dominica, Gabon, Mauritius, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, 
St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Tunisia and Venezuela. 
21 For example, Cuba, Jordan, Peru, Egypt, Namibia, Dominican Republic.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.9 
 Page 7 
 
 
  18. As far as LDCs are concerned, preliminary WF P data indicate that food aid deliveries to 
Sudan, Niger, Uganda, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Myanmar, Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, 
Zambia and Maldives more than doubled in 2005 co mpared to their 1995-2004 average, and increased 
between 17 and 80 per cent for another 12 LDCs.22    
Table 1:  Evolution of food aid deliveries, 1995-2005 
 1995-2004 average 2005 
(million tonnes ) 2005 as per cent of 
1995-2004 average 
LDC 4.2 4.9 118 
NFIDC 1.1 0.8 79 
OTHER  4.5 2.5 55 
TOTAL 9.8 8.2 84 
 
 Notes : Includes cereals in grain equivalent and non-cereals in product weight;  "NFIDC" refers to the 
26 Members listed in G/AG/5/Rev.8.  Data for 2005 are provisional. 
 Source : Food Aid Monitor: 2005 Food Aid Flows , June 2006, WFP. 
19. WFP statistics are compiled based on the following three food aid categories.   Emergency  
food aid is defined by WFP as being destined to vi ctims of natural or man-ma de disasters, is freely 
distributed to targeted beneficiary groups, and is usually provided on a grant basis.  It is channelled multilaterally, through NGOs, or, sometimes, bilaterally.  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 op en market and is then referred to as "monetized" 
food aid.  It is provided on a grant basis and is channelled multilaterally, through NGOs, or bilaterally.  
Programme  food aid is usually supplied as a resource tran sfer for balance of payments or budgetary 
support activities.  Unlike most of the food aid provided for project or emergency purposes, it is not targeted to specific beneficiary groups.  It is so ld on the open market, and provided either as a grant, 
or as a loan.
 
20. WFP statistics compiled in Table 2 below indicate that a rising share of global food aid 
deliveries (excluding Eastern Europe and the CIS) is provided in the form of emergency relief in 
response to man-made or natural disasters while th e share of programme food aid has been declining 
since 1995.   
Table 2:  Composition of global food aid deliveries 
FOOD AID CATEGORY 1995 2000 2005 
             per cent 
TOTAL 100 100 100 
EMERGENCY  41 51 65 
PROJECT  32 25 24 
PROGRAMME  27 24 12 
 
 Notes : Includes cereals in grain equivalent and non-cereals in product weight;  data exclude food aid 
deliveries to Eastern Europe and the CIS; data for 2005 are provisional. 
 Source : Food Aid Monitor: 2005 Food Aid Flows , June 2006, WFP. 
                                                      
22 Lesotho, Djibouti, Guinea, Eritrea, The Gambia, Tanzania, Malawi, Sao Tome and Principe, Malawi, 
Senegal, Ethiopia, Guinea Bissau, and Liberia. G/AG/W/42/Rev.9 
Page 8  
 
  (b) Initiation of food aid negotiations
 
21. In 1996 the Singapore Ministerial Conference adopted the recommendation by the Committee 
on Agriculture that, in anticipation of the expiry of the Food Aid Convention 1995, and in preparation for the re-negotiation of the Food Aid Convention, ac tion be initiated in 1997 within the framework of 
the Convention, under arrangements for participati on by all interested countries and by relevant 
organizations, to develop recommendations with a view towards establishing a level of food aid 
commitments, covering as wide a range of donors  and eligible products as possible, which is 
sufficient to meet the legitimate needs of de veloping countries during the reform programme.
23 
22. 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 December 1997 the FAC Food Aid Committee decided to 
extend the FAC for one year (until June 1999) and to open the Convention fo r renegotiation taking 
into account, amongst other things, " the food security and trade liberalization objectives under the 
WTO and the World Food Summit Action Plan ".24  In early 1998, the Food Aid Committee confirmed 
its intention to bring a new Food Aid Convention into effect on 1 July 1999 and requested the 
Working Group which was undertaking the re-nego tiation of the FAC to aim to conclude the 
substantive negotiations by the end of 1998.  In November 1998, the Food Aid Committee held a 
further dialogue meeting with representatives of  food aid recipient countries regarding the main 
elements of the new Convention.25 
23. The negotiations on the Food Aid Convention 1999 were completed on 24 March 1999 and 
the new Convention provisionally entered into for ce on 1 July 1999 for an initial duration of three 
years.  Its members, including provisional members,  were the same as the members of the Food Aid 
Convention 1995 (Argentina, Australia, Canada, EC and its member States, Japan, Norway, 
Switzerland and the United States).  On 30 July 2003,  Argentina advised the WTO Secretariat that it 
no longer was a food aid donor under the Food Aid Convention. 
24. The Food Aid Convention 1999 contains a number of new features.26  The list of eligible 
products which may be supplied has been broadened significantly beyond cereals.  There are also new 
provisions designed to improve the effectiveness and the impact of food aid.  When allocating their 
food aid, FAC members undertake to give priority to the LDCs and Low-Income Countries, many of 
which are on the present WTO list of net food-impor ting developing countries.  Other eligible food 
aid recipients include Lower Middle-Income Countries and all other countries included in the WTO list of net food-importing developing countries at the time of negotiation of the new Convention. 
25. 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 contributions with a view to better identifying and 
meeting the food aid needs of least- developed and WTO net food-importing 
developing countries".  (G/AG/11, Part B paragraph 3 I(a) refers) 
 
                                                     
 
23 See G/L/125, paragraph 18(i) refers. 
24 See IGC statement in G/AG/GEN/20. 
25 See G/AG/GEN/31, page 4. 
26 See G/AG/GEN/35 for a description of major changes introduced in the Convention.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.9 
 Page 9 
 
 
  26. The Food Aid Convention 1999, which was to e xpire on 30 June 2002, was not renegotiated 
at that stage but, as agreed by the Food Aid Committee, initially extended by one year and 
subsequently further extended to  30 June 2005.  In June 2004, the Food Aid Committee decided to 
undertake a renegotiation of the FAC 1999 with the ai m of bringing into effect a Convention which is 
a "more effective instrument to provide food to those identified needs when food aid is the most 
appropriate response."   FAC Working Group meetings  were held in October and November 2004.  At 
its December 2004 session, the Food Aid Committee concluded that the relationship between the 
review process in the Food Aid Committee and ne gotiations underway in the WTO was such that 
conclusive recommendations should await the outco me of the WTO negotiations.   The Committee 
agreed that the FAC renegotiations would be more ef fectively carried out in the light of developments 
in the WTO.  In these circumst ances, the Committee decided that the 1999 Food Aid Convention, 
which had been due to expire on 30 June 2005, s hould be extended for a further two years, until 
30 June 2007.    
2. Concessionality of Food Aid 
27. To the end stated in the chap eau of paragraph 3 of the NFIDC Decision, Ministers also 
agreed: 
" … 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). 
28. Under the Food Aid Convention 1999, all food aid provided to LDCs will be in the form of 
grants.  Overall, food aid in the form of grants is to represent, at a minimum, 80 per cent of FAC 
members' contributions and donors are to seek  to progressively exceed this share.   
29. At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Ministers approved the recommendation that: 
"WTO Members which are donors of food aid shall, within the framework of their 
food aid policies, statutes, programmes and commitments, take appropriate measures 
aimed at ensuring: … (ii) that all food aid to least developed countries is provided in 
fully grant form and, to the maximum extent possible, to WTO net food-importing developing countries as well".  (G/AG/ 11, Part B paragraph 3 I(b) refers) 
 
30. Table 3 below shows the proportion of food aid pr ovided to LDCs and NFIDCs in the form of 
donations as notified by Members.  All notifying Members, except the United States, provided the 
food aid to the countries concerned in fully grant form.  In the case of the United States, in the 
implementation years 1995/96 to 2001/02, between 83 and 95 per cent of food aid was donated, with 
the remainder being provided in accordance with th e relevant FAC guidelines.   According to the 
Food Aid Committee of the International Grains Council, nearly all food aid (97 per cent) was 
provided in grant form during 2004/2005, while a pproximately US$800 million were also provided by 
FAC donors to cover transportation and other costs.
 27 
                                                      
27 See G/AG/GEN/71, page 6. G/AG/W/42/Rev.9 
Page 10  
 
  Table 3:   Proportion of food aid provided in fully grant form to LDCs and NFIDCs  
Member Concessionality of food aid 
FAC DONORS  
Australia 100% grant terms 
Canada 100% grant terms 
EC  100% grant terms 
Japan 100% grant terms 
Norway 100% grant terms 
Switzerland 100% grant terms 
United States Proportion of food aid to LDCs and NFIDCs on 
100% grant terms: 
1995/96 -   84% 
1996/97 -   93% 1997/98 -   83% 
1998/99 and 1999/00 -   93% 
2000/01 -   95% 2001/02 -   91%                                            
2002/03 -   100% 
The remainder is provid ed in accordance with 
Food Aid Convention guidelines. 
OTHER DONORS  
Cuba 100% grant terms 
New Zealand 100% grants of cash 
South Africa 100% grant terms 
 
 Source : Members' Table NF:1 notifications. 
B. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE  
31. To the end stated in the chapeau of paragr aph 3 of the NFIDC Decision Ministers agreed: 
" … 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). 
32. The Doha Ministerial Conference called on develo ped 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 matte r between donors and recipients based on requests 
made by recipient countries. 
33. 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  G/AG/W/42/Rev.9 
 Page 11 
 
 
  and the Regional Development Banks to enhance their provision of, and access to, 
technical and financial assistance to least-developed and net food-importing developing countries, on terms and conditions  conducive to the better use of such 
facilities and resources, in order to improve agricultural productivity and infrastructure in these countries under existing facilities and programmes, as well as 
under such facilities and programmes as may be introduced".  (G/AG/11, Part B 
paragraph 3 II(b) refers) 
34. The responses from the African Development Ba nk, the European Investment Bank, FAO and 
the World Bank were circulated.
28 The IMF renewed its commitmen t to providing assistance to 
developing countries in capacity building and in copi ng with balance-of-payment shortfalls resulting 
from multilateral trade liberalization.29   
C. DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN THE FRAMEW ORK OF AN AGREEMENT ON EXPORT CREDITS  
35. In light of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the NFIDC Decision quoted above, Ministers agreed: 
" … to ensure that any agreement relati ng 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). 
36. 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 in both the re gular 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.30  
37. Moreover, the Agreed Framework for establishi ng modalities in agriculture provides that:   
 "Members will ensure that the disciplines on export credits, export credit guarantees or 
insurance programs to be agreed will make appr opriate provision for differential treatment in 
favour of least-developed and net food-impor ting developing countries as provided for in 
paragraph 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 surve illance of all new disciplines as foreshadowed 
in paragraph 48 will be critically important in th is regard.  Provisions to be agreed in this 
respect must not undermine th e commitments undertaken by Members under the obligations 
in paragraph 18 above." (paragraph 24 of Annex A of WT/L/579 refers)   
38. The above objective was reaffirmed during the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.
31   
 
                                                      
28 See G/AG/W/57 and Add.1. 
29 See G/AG/GEN/71, page 9. 
30 See also G/AG/16 and Add.1 
31 See paragraph 6 of WT/MIN(05)/DEC.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.9 
Page 12  
 
  D. A
CCESS TO THE RESOURCES OF THE IN TERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS  
39. In the NFIDC Decision, Ministers furthermore recognized that: 
" … as a result of the Uruguay Round certain 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 orde r to address such financing difficulties. In 
this regard, Ministers take note of paragra ph 37 of the report of the Director-General 
to the CONTRACTING PARTIES to GATT 1947 on his consultations with the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund and the President of the 
World Bank (MTN.GNG/NG14/W/35)".  (Paragraph 5 of the NFIDC Decision.) 
 
1. Ability to finance commercial imports 
40. As noted above, the NFIDC Decision recognizes that as a result of the Uruguay Round certain 
developing countries may experience short-term diffi culties in financing normal levels of commercial 
imports of basic foodstuffs.   In this context, at  various stages of the Committee's annual monitoring 
exercise, several of the international observer or ganizations have commented on the development of 
international food prices.
32  As regards wheat, the most important food commodity in the import 
basket of the NFIDCs and LDCs, Chart 2 below shows world market prices for wheat between January 1987 and September 2006.     
Chart 2 – The International Grains Co uncil Wheat Price Index (1987- 2006) 
900120015001800210024002700
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
 
 
*Average wheat prices of seven widely traded varieties of bread wheat: July/Dec 1986=1000 
                                                      
32 The statements and contributions by international observer organizations can be found in the 
G/AG/GEN/--  document series, the latest of which is  G/AG/GEN/71 (dated 23 February 2006).  See, for 
example, the observations by the IMF on the recent evolu tion of food prices, includin g with respect to specific 
items such as sugar and cereals (pp. 7-8).  G/AG/W/42/Rev.9 
 Page 13 
 
 
  41. Overall, international wheat prices have dr opped from their 1996 peak.  Price spikes can be 
observed between 2002 and 2003.  The graph also show s prices strengthening again in the course of 
2006, partly due to expected tightened supplies as a result of reduced harvests in major wheat 
producing countries (adverse weather conditions), lo wer grain stocks, as well as rising input prices 
and freight costs. 
42. The Inter-agency panel report provides a detailed  examination of the question of financing 
food imports by NFIDCs and LDCs.33  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.34  In January 2006, the FAO also reported on its collaboration with UNCTAD in 
elaborating a proposal for the creation of a mu ltilateral Food Import Financing Facility (FIFF) 
designed to assist LDCs and NFIDCs to finance commercial imports in times of excessive food 
import bills.35  The World Bank has also explored ways to strengthen the food security of developing 
countries and strategies to deal with food price instability and negative impacts on food security.  Among the solutions proposed, the World Bank, in  cooperation with development partners, focuses 
on using commodity price insurance mechanisms as a tool to anticipate food crises, both at farm and 
at government level.
36  
2. Access to the facilities of the IMF and the World Bank 
43. The question of access to the resources of the inte rnational financial institutions has also been 
the subject of examination by the Inter-agency pa nel of financial and commodity experts.  The 
relevant short-term lending facilities of the IMF and the World Bank are set out in the report, with the 
focus on the operation of the Compensatory  Financing Facility (CFF) of the IMF.37   
44. In the context of the Committee's annual m onitoring exercise of the NFIDC Decision in 
December 2001, the IMF representative reiterated th e position of the IMF regarding the question of 
access to its resources by stating: 
"With existing facilities and resources, the F und is in a position to meet any balance 
of payments needs of our members that may arise from higher world food prices."38 
45. An overview of concrete initiatives in favour of  LDCs and NFIDCs is regularly presented by 
the IMF at the meetings of the Committee on Agriculture.  The Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) remains, since 1999,  the main instrument for assi sting low-income countries. The 
IMF noted that, by the end of 2005, 21 NFIDCs  and 18 LDCs were drawing on the PRGF.  A non-
financial mechanism, the Policy Support Instrument (PSI) has been recently made available to those 
low-income countries without a PRGF arrangeme nt which are facing exogenous shocks.  In 
supporting the trade-related adjustment needs of de veloping countries in the context of the Doha 
Development Agenda, the IMF also developed a Tr ade Integration Mechanism (TIM) specifically 
addressing vulnerabilities stemming from, inter alia , food terms-of-trade shocks.  The IMF reported 
that, by the end of 2004, the TIM had been used by one LDC and one NFIDC.
 39 
                                                      
33  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 to the 2004 monito ring exercise of the NFID C Decision (G/AG/GEN/68, 
pp. 16-18). 
34  See G/AG/GEN/64. 
35  See G/AG/GEN/71, page 3. 
36  See, for example, G/AG/GEN/71 (pp. 15-17) for a detailed description of ex ante  risk management 
systems (price- and weather-related) and recently -launched joint WFP-World Bank pilot projects. 
37   See WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13.  A review of the CFF concluded that the facility should be retained (see 
G/AG/GEN/68, page 11). 
38  See G/AG/GEN/49, page 8. 
39  See, for example, G/AG/GEN/68, pp . 10-11; and G/AG/GEN/71, pp. 8-10.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.9 
Page 14  
 
  46. The position of the World Bank regarding the issue of access to short-term multilateral 
financing was outlined in November 1997 as follows: 
"The World Bank continues to monitor the progress of liberalization resulting from 
the implementation of commitments made under the Uruguay Round Agreement.  A number of recent studies using different methodologies and assumptions confirm 
that the long run impacts of the Uruguay Round agreement on agricultural prices 
will be relatively small - certainly far sma ller than the price increases that have been 
experienced in recent years.  Given the small size of the shocks resulting from the Round and the Bank's substantial headroom  above current IBRD loans outstanding, 
it seems clear that the Bank will be in a position to meet any additional demands 
generated by the Round for loans on IBRD terms.  
"In response to the Ministerial Decision, a Working Group involving the World Bank, 
the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Food Programme and the IMF met in 1995 to address the special needs of least-developed and net food-importing countries.  The Working Group reviewed the range of facilities available for 
additional financing needs for developing c ountries 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 price 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 appropria te to establish a special Uruguay Round 
adjustment facility."  (G/AG/GEN/15, page 3.)  
   G/AG/W/42/Rev.9
 Page 15Attachment 1 - Compliance with notifi cation requirements (Table NF:1)  
 
Member 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 20051 Notification circulated in G/AG/N-series 
Food Aid Convention donor  
Australia 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 
Canada X X X X X X X X X   CAN/11, 18, 25, 34, 42, 52, 57  
EC  X X X X X X X X X   EEC/9, 21  & Add.1., 25, 35, 46 & Add.1, 50 
Japan X X X X X X X X    JPN/15, 27, 33, 46, 68, 78, 87, 107 
Norway X X X X X X X X X   NOR/6, 19 & Corr.1, 20 and Corr.1, 26, 33, 34 & Corr.1, 37, 42 
Switzerland X X X X X X X X    CHE/23, 30 
United States  X X X X X X X X   USA/7, 20, 21, 31, 46, 52, 56 
Other donors 
Argentina2 X X X X X X X     ARG/10, 15, 21 
China (11/12/2001) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.      
Cuba X X X X X X X X    CUB/4, 5, 14, 18, 22, 24 
New Zealand X X X X X X X X X X  N ZL/6, 13, 17, 25, 26, 30, 39, 40, 45 
Korea, Rep. of X X          KOR/9, 17 
South Africa X X X X X X X X X   ZAF/7, 9, 17, 24, 32, 39, 42, 50, 56 
Compliance calculated as 
number of notifications 
received by FAC donors 
(%) 86 100 100 100 100 100 100 100  71 14 0  
 
Notes :  
 
"X" means that a notification was received.  A blank means that no notification was received. 
"n.a." denotes not applicable. 
 
1 Annual reporting periods differ among Members. 
2 Argentina informed the WTO Secretariat on 30 July 2003 that  it no longer is a food aid donor under the Food Aid Convention.  
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.9 
Page 16 Attachment 2:   Minimu m Annual Contributions and Shipments  under the Food Aid Convention 
(thousand tonnes, wheat equivalent)
DONOR MINIMUM 
ANNUAL 
CONTRI-
BUTION  
(1999 Conv.) 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 p) 
ARGENTINA 35.0 2.7  -  0.03 - -- -
   
AUSTRALIA 250.0
150.0 d)296.7  251.9 245.8  203.8  178.0  168.1  200.0 
         
CANADA 420.0 470.6  293.5  408.2  451.5  310.4  396.4 o) 420.0 
         
EC 1,320.0
and  €130 million 1,970.8 e) 2,357.8 f) g) 1,836.7 h) i) 1,980.8 j) k) 2,218.1 l) 2,152.0 m) n) o) 2,000.0 
         
JAPAN a) 300.0 337.4  637.7  531.8  666.9  581.0  578.3  320.0 
         
NORWAY a) b) 30.0 76.0  85.9  74.3  144.9  165.5  145.6  140.0 
         
SWITZERLAND 40.0 61.3  54.2  58.0  67.9  69.7  71.9  70.0 
         
USA 2,500.0 5,692.1  6,798.3  7,124.4  6,054.2  5,801.7  5,363.2  5,225.0 
         
TOTAL   c) 4,760.0
and  €130 million8,907.6  10,479.2 c) 10,279.3  9,570.1  9,324.4  8,875.3  8,375.0 
 
Notes : 
* Unless otherwise specified, all shipments were  in respect of the Food Aid Convention, 1999. 
 These figures refer to the wheat equivalent  of actual shipments completed during the years shown.  They are not adjusted for p roduct limits under Article IV of the Food Aid Convention 1999 
and do not necessarily represent the performance of members in relation to their annual commitments. 
a) Wheat equivalent of cash contributions as calculated on th e basis of the "prevailing international market price". These figu res therefore do not correspond to  quantities actually shipped. 
b) Norway made its entire FAC commitment available to WFP in the form of cash during each of the years shown, but actual shipme nts, as reported by WFP, may not  have been completed in the 
corresponding period. 
c) Includes contributions under IEFR - Immediat e Response Account (IRA), as reported by WFP. 
d) As revised with e ffect from 1 July 2003. 
e) Includes FAC "value" contributions totalling 156,504,384 Euro, reported as notional wheat equivalent of 531,749 tonnes. 
f) Includes FAC "value" contributions totalling 181,049,943 Euro, reported as notional wheat equivalent of 628,659 tonnes. 
g) Includes total estimated whea t equivalents of incomplete records of 14,385 tonnes (tonnage commitment) and 5,885 tonnes (val ue commitment) as reported by the EC. 
h) Includes FAC "value" contributions totalling 137,338,267 Euro, reported as notional wheat equivalent of 599,462 tonnes.  
   G/AG/W/42/Rev.9
 Page 17i) Includes total estimated wheat equivalents of incomplete re cords of 212,193 tonnes (tonnage commitment) as reported by the E C.  Excludes incomplete records of 71,705 (actual) tonnes 
(Value Commitment) as reported by the EC.  
j) Includes FAC "value" contributions totalling 205,134,151 Euro, reported as notional wheat equivalent of 849,140 tonnes. 
k) Includes total estimated wheat equivale nts of incomplete records of 22,533 tonnes (Tonnage Commitment) as reported by the EC .  Excludes incomplete records of 148,120 (actual) tonnes 
(Value Commitment) as reported by the EC. 
l) Reported contributions do not distinguish  between tonnage and value commitments. 
m) Includes FAC "value" contributions totalling 199,296,625 Euro reported as notional wheat equivalent of 984,541 tonnes. 
n) Excludes incomplete records of 5,350 (actual) tonnes (Tonnage  Commitment), and 10,561 tonnes (V alue Commitment) as reported by the EC.  
o) Provisional. 
p) IGC Secretariat estim ates, as at July 2006. 
 
Source :  Food Aid Committee, International Grains Council.  
 
  
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.9 
Page 18 
Attachment 3 - Food aid deliveries of cereals and non-cereals, 1996-2005 
(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 LDC NFIDC MEM 
TOTAL 7,228.3 7,327.7 8,404.8 15,051.0 11,355.2 10,980.5 9,448.2 10,308.6 7,533.5 8,249.6    
Least Developed Countries 3,342.5 3,523.7 3,694.1 4,605.6 4,520.2 4,665.0 3,709.6 5,451.2 4,034.1 4,915.2    
Low-Income, Food-Deficit Countries 5,782.8 6,101.5 7,082.8 8,960.3 8,199.7 8,717.1 7,337.7 8,965.6 6,330.7 7,505.1    
              
Sub-Saharan Africa 2,570.1 2, 429.0 2,776.7 2,795. 8 4,011.6 3,693.4 2,921.6 5,361.1 3,780.1 4,611.8    
Angola 250.6 181.4 202.5 147.6 296.1 193.8 262.4 275.1 127.7 70.3 #  M 
Benin 10.2 21.8 25.5 11.3 12.4 15.9 21.5 19.6 21.4 14.9 #  M 
Botswana 3.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  N M 
Burkina Faso 26.9 45.7 27.8 62.2 33.2 42.8 36.3 30.1 39.4 38.7 #  M 
Burundi 7.8 3.0 0.7 6.8 11.3 66.4 36.9 70.5 81.5 73.7 #  M 
Cameroon 24.1 1.4 10.2 6.5 4.2 8.8 2.9 10.3 33.2 13.6   M 
Cape Verde 44.5 65.3 59.9 57.0 53.2 37.5 48.5 45.7 30.6 23.7 #   
Central African Republic 2.1 1.4 11.5 1.3 3.2 1.0 7.3 5.7 5.9 4.8 #  M 
Chad 19.7 49.5 18.2 13.4 23.4 38.4 13.1 19.5 46.3 73.9 #  M 
Comoros 0.6 1.0 8.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #   
Congo, Democratic Republic of  32.5 29.5 9.6 24.7 73.5 47.0 90.8 89.1 86.5 127.2 #  M 
Congo  18.0 0.3 14.1 12.3 17.7 41.4 18.3 10.3 8.3 7.6   M 
Côte d' Ivoire 54.8 11.4 26.3 37.4 16.9 6.2 14.8 24.7 33.3 33.7  N M 
Djibouti 10.8 13.8 11.0 10.7 12.0 11.1 21.4 7.7 10.5 21.1 #  M 
Equatorial Guinea 0.6 0.7 1.9 0.0 1.7 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #   
Eritrea 40.4 53.5 110.1 35.0 256.9 319.1 162.3 350.2 272.0 272.0 #   
Ethiopia 457.0 434.2 593.8 876.6 1,527.1 1,154.8 338.4 2,006.6 777.4 1,097.2 #   
Gabon 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.0 0 0 0 0  N M 
The Gambia 4.3 9.2 7.7 6.5 8.4 3.4 4.3 18.5 6.0 11.3 #  M 
Ghana 33.7 86.5 58.4 25.8 101.2 57.5 74.3 84.1 70.8 59.7   M 
Guinea 12.9 9.8 1.7 35.0 5.2 42.9 48.3 41.4 27.4 41.1 #  M 
Guinea Bissau 7.8 5.9 3.6 17.1 27.1 6.3 7.2 13.2 4.8 12.1 #  M  
   G/AG/W/42/Rev.9
 Page 19(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 LDC NFIDC MEM 
Kenya 31.8 117.0 142.3 71.7 301.3 387.1 164.6 224.3 207.2 231.5  N M 
Lesotho 40.2 8.9 15.5 6.1 6.3 3.4 57.5 28.4 46.1 42.8 #  M 
Liberia 169.3 117.5 85.6 99.2 115.9 21.9 37.0 57.3 83.1 102.3 #   
Madagascar 22.1 36.5 30.4 26.6 43.5 59.6 46.8 59.5 44.3 43.1 #  M 
Malawi 122.9 45.4 64.8 73.3 36.3 41.6 198.0 118.2 113.7 120.1 #  M 
Mali 19.1 23.0 23.9 14.1 12.3 21.1 4.8 29.0 13.7 46.2 #  M 
Mauritania 17.3 44.0 18.6 30.7 16.6 38.2 42.5 88.9 44.3 93.5 #  M 
Mauritius 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  N M 
Mozambique 151.3 172.8 188.8 161.1 185.2 263.3 200.8 244.3 153.3 114.3 #  M 
Namibia 10.4 0.4 0.0 2.0 2.0 4.5 23.7 23.2 6.0 1.7  N M 
Niger 32.4 62.0 53.7 37.9 20.4 62.7 37.1 21.7 38.2 126.9 #  M 
Nigeria 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.2 12.5 13.3 0.0 19.5   M 
Rwanda 507.6 420.3 303.8 275.2 232.4 65.6 73.4 44.0 45.7 41.7 #  M 
Sao Tome and Principe 4.9 4.0 3.7 1.2 4.8 4.9 5.6 1.5 3.0 4.8 #   
Senegal 8.6 13.0 12.0 31.8 53.9 30.3 9.4 36.6 20.9 29.9 # N M 
Sierra Leone 55.0 88.5 79.6 31.5 28.3 62.7 85.2 56.2 38.0 38.9 #  M 
Somalia 31.7 5.0 68.5 40.2 60.8 9.5 34.0 33.2 43.7 39.8 #   
South Africa 0.0 0.0 18.0 8.8 3.0 0.1 15.1 21.3 58.3 0   M 
Sudan 108.3 114.4 201.0 293.5 182.4 202.8 149.4 256.1 384.1 877.6 #   
Swaziland 9.5 0.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 24.2 12.9 12.1   M 
Tanzania 29.8 42.3 81.2 32.3 62.9 184.5 93.0 131.9 112.3 116.4 #  M 
Togo 5.1 3.0 9.9 4.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.6 #  M 
Uganda 42.6 72.6 87.7 99.3 87.0 80.0 82.1 198.5 246.5 309.1 #  M 
Zambia 73.8 11.4 22.4 34.5 49.5 45.3 69.3 152.3 108.3 128.5 #  M 
Zimbabwe 12.2 0.1 56.7 28.3 16.0 0.0 255.4 366.8 273.6 73.9   M 
              
Asia 2,012.3 2,815.2 3,398.8 5,096.8 3,173.1 4,088.2 3,678.7 2,379.9 2,088.3 2,385.8    
Afghanistan 121.0 233.1 73.2 134.3 210.0 276.8 561.9 226.5 233.9 204.1 #   
Bangladesh 578.0 708.7 877.5 1,443.0 268.9 813.4 244.7 461.3 264.4 271.8 #  M 
Bhutan 4.8 5.2 4.1 4.3 3.6 4.7 7.7 6.6 6.7 1.4 #    
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.9 
Page 20 
(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 LDC NFIDC MEM 
Cambodia 48.5 44.6 36.9 28.7 61.8 50.4 69.3 25.4 31.7 24.1 #  M 
China 133.6 132.2 89.2 355.1 90.5 42.0 109.2 53.5 35.1 49.0   M 
East Timor 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 32.7 3.2 0.0 0.3 7.5 1.3 #   
India 357.8 300.3 310.8 359.1 321.2 229.1 306.9 73.5 146.3 98.4   M 
Indonesia 0.0 0.0 885.8 822.6 429.1 296.4 162.9 221.6 158.7 197.1   M 
Korea, Democratic Republic 510.1 914.6 812.4 1,026.8 1,263.6 1,525.6 1,209.0 963.8 877.1 1,079.6    
Laos 16.9 54.9 19.1 17.3 4.7 18.7 29.3 20.1 25.5 19.2 #   
Maldives 3.5 2.7 3.0 4.9 2.7 8.0 0.0 14.6 7.5 10.6 #  M 
Mongolia 8.5 22.3 21.3 39.0 45.8 60.0 27.8 29.5 38.5 54.8  N M 
Myanmar 3.6 5.3 2.9 6.9 9.7 3.8 9.2 6.2 18.1 17.8 #  M 
Nepal 35.4 31.9 37.6 55.2 53.1 46.5 47.2 35.3 51.0 46.5 #  M 
Pakistan 53.6 185.0 59.6 444.7 19.6 275.0 470.6 47.8 59.2 30.3  N M 
Papua New Guinea 0.0 0.0 4.3 8.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0   M 
Philippines 34.0 12.8 73.7 140.4 218.4 196.0 272.7 90.5 29.6 120.6   M 
Solomon Islands 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 0 27.3 0 0 #  M 
Sri Lanka 72.8 91.2 31.6 119.8 55.5 125.5 87.2 1.2 39.8 158.3  N M 
Thailand 0.1 1.1 8.3 2.3 1.0 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.8   M 
Viet Nam 30.0 69.3 47.5 75.0 81.5 113.0 61.8 75.0 57.8 0.0    
              
Eastern Europe & CIS 1,311.7 1,062.8 866.9 5,453.8 2,272.1 1,311.1 948.3 712.5 453.8 319.4    
Albania 22.9 17.3 29.4 17.3 18.2 13.1 57.9 11.8 33.9 5.8   M 
Armenia 168.8 144.8 117.8 18.9 95.5 37.2 47.3 42.8 11.8 21.7   M 
Azerbaijan 115.7 28.7 69.8 34.5 28.1 21.4 18.4 28.8 47.4 12.5    
Belarus 39.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0    
Bosnia and Herzegovina 8.4 79.1 89.7 90.8 84.3 82.7 96.2 24.4 0.0 0    
Bulgaria 0.0 14.7 10.7 5.0 0.6 15.0 12.3 17.0 0.0 0.1   M 
Croatia 28.8 30.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0   M 
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 0.0 0.0 0.0 98.3 62.8 13.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   M 
Georgia 265.8 173.4 121.3 106.5 70.7 96.5 78.0 72.1 97.4 19.7   M 
Kazakhstan 0.7 5.0 7.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0     
   G/AG/W/42/Rev.9
 Page 21(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 LDC NFIDC MEM 
Kyrgyz Republic 67.7 88.2 38.4 81.9 60.0 33.0 73.1 5 2.265 147.3   M 
Lithuania 36.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0   M 
Moldova 48.4 7.2 59.4 27.5 13.8 49.7 22.5 20.4 29.8 10.5   M 
Poland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0   M 
Romania 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 1.2 0.0 0.0   M 
Russian Federation 79.4 54.5 16.9 4,539.4 1,403.0 248.7 104.4 76.4 39.5 28.6    
Serbia & Montenegro 232.0 231.3 117.7 357.4 300.1 327.4 46.9 79.9 26.1 0.1    
Tajikistan 121.8 134.9 117.1 68.4 60.2 251.5 180.8 102.8 83.0 73.1    
Turkmenistan 39.7 0.0 0.0 8.1 6.5 17.2 0.0 0 0 0    
Ukraine 36.3 53.3 39.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 209.1 0.0 0.011    
Uzbekistan 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 68.4 104.4 199.2 20.8 82.1 0.0    
              
Middle East & North Africa 567.5 372.6 370.0 489.6 1,070.3 898.2 695.5 1,412.3 621.7 293.7    
Algeria 27.1 42.0 15.8 36.6 32.8 39.5 63.1 20.3 52.5 40.9    
Egypt 154.9 74.4 66.5 61.2 40.8 37.7 12.7 22.5 13.9 14.3  N M 
Iran 4.9 19.7 12.9 7.8 3.2 15.7 7.5 31.5 3.3 2.4    
Iraq 113.8 90.9 47.8 23.1 18.4 8.5 10.9 1,049.6 10.4 57.0    
Jordan 167.5 27.4 119.5 108.7 400.7 227.4 228.7 164.8 126.9 53.3  N M 
Lebanon 7.5 1.7 1.1 1.0 42.4 118.2 94.1 10.0 0.0 12    
Morocco 0.1 15.9 0.2 10.5 240.9 62.0 6.8 1.8 0.1 76.9  N M 
Palestinian Territory 11.7 15.0 40.7 43.1 56.5 184.5 81.9 66.4 202.6 15.2    
Syria 14.6 21.0 26.5 30.0 35.4 17.4 9.0 11.8 20.6 0.0    
Tunisia 23.3 12.4 3.1 0.0 3.8 0.0 0 0 0 0  N M 
Turkey 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0   M 
Yemen 41.0 52.3 35.8 167.7 195.3 187.4 180.7 33.5 191.4 21.6 #   
              
Latin America & the Caribbean 766.8 648.1 992.4 1,214.9 828.2 989.7 1,204.1 442.7 589.6 639.0    
Antigua and Barbuda  3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   M 
Argentina  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   M 
Belize 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0 0.0   M  
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.9 
Page 22 
(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 LDC NFIDC MEM 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  N M 
Bolivia 157.1 96.8 217.0 75.2 80.0 48.6 102.7 120.0 93.9 64.7   M 
Brazil 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0   M 
Chile 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0   M 
Colombia 8.6 1.6 7.0 13.1 12.0 35.3 8.7 9.0 13.1 19.3   M 
Costa Rica 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0   M 
Cuba 12.7 27.5 19.2 59.2 23.9 29.8 8.8 2.4 5.0 7.1  N M 
Dominica 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0  N M 
Dominican Republic 8.2 3.5 7.6 120.0 1.6 77.8 13.0 2.5 13.0 0.3  N M 
Ecuador 1.8 12.1 20.4 41.3 42.1 151.3 83.8 5.8 21.1 43.2   M 
El Salvador 26.8 24.3 20.4 69.6 2.8 60.4 91.8 11.5 38.2 40.5   M 
French Guyana 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0    
Grenada 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0   M 
Guatemala 36.1 53.8 72.0 116.4 136.9 102.1 238.1 62.9 69.8 95.0   M 
Guyana 42.3 33.5 61.2 37.3 26.3 38.8 62.7 0.0 23 0.1   M 
Haiti 118.9 174.6 158.3 145. 1 163.6 67.5 235.1 62. 8 120.4 138.1 #  M 
Honduras 33.7 28.5 31.6 179.2 68.2 72.3 56.5 53.2 50.2 128.1  N M 
Jamaica 58.4 17.3 0.0 13.2 46.5 20.5 0.0 0 11.5 11.5  N M 
Mexico 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.8 1.6 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.0 0   M 
Nicaragua 45.1 33.5 89.1 226.7 62.1 81.6 64.1 43.0 58.7 46.3   M 
Panama 1.3 0.9 1.5 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0   M 
Paraguay 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   M 
Peru 171.4 139.6 265.2 115.5 148.7 202.2 237.9 68.6 71.6 44.9  N M 
Saint Lucia 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  N M 
Saint Kitts and Nevis 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  N M 
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines  8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  N M 
Suriname 12.0 0.0 21.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   M 
Notes : LDC: Least-developed country (#). 
NFIDC: Net food-importing developi ng country, as listed in G/AG/5/Rev.8 dated 22 March 2005 (N). 
MEM: WTO Member (M). 
Source:   Food Aid Monitor:  2005 Food Aid Flows,  June 2006 at:  http://www.wfp.org/interf ais/.  Data for 2005 are provisional. 
__________