WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/W/42/Rev.13 
15 October 2010 
  (10-5307) 
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  
  
 The present note updates the information in the Secretariat note G/AG/W/42/Rev.12 dated 
4 November 2009 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.13 
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 ............................................................................................................................... .....5 
2. Review of Food Aid Levels and Initiation of Food Aid Negotiations ...................................5  
(a) Review of food aid levels ...................................................................................................... .....5 
Chart 1:  Evolution of food aid deliveries:  2000-2009 ...............................................7  
Chart 2:  Composition of global food aid deliveries (per cent)....................................8  
Chart 3:  Delivery modes of global food aid:  2000-2009 ...........................................9  
(b) Initiation of food aid negotiations............................................................................................ ...9 
3. Concessionality of Food Aid...................................................................................................1 1 
B. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE .................................................................................12  
C. DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN THE FR AMEWORK OF AN AGREEMENT ON EXPORT 
CREDITS ............................................................................................................................... ......13  
D. ACCESS TO THE RESOURCES OF THE IN TERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS .....................14  
1. Ability to Finance Commercial Imports ...............................................................................14  
Chart 4:  The International Grains Council Wheat Price Index (1995- 2010) ...........15  
2. Access to the Facilities of the IMF and the World Bank.....................................................16  
Attachment 1:  Compliance with notification requirements (Table NF:1) ................19  
Attachment 2:  Minimum Annual Contributions and Shipments under the 
Food Aid Convention 1999........................................................................................20  
Attachment 3:  Food aid deliveri es of cereals and non-cereals, 2000-2009...............21  
 
 
 
   G/AG/W/42/Rev.13 
 Page 3 
 
 
  I. MONITORING OF THE FOLLOW-UP TO THE NFIDC DECISION 
1. 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. 
2. 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. 
3. Attachment 1 summarizes compliance with Table NF:1 notification requirements in the 1995 
to 2009 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 
Table NF:1 notifications.  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.4 
4. In 1996, the Committee established a WTO lis t of net food-importing developing countries.5  
This list currently contains 26 developing coun try Members (NFIDCs) plus the least-developed 
countries (LDCs) as defined by the United Nations.6 
5. In December 2000, the Committee on Agriculture  was instructed by the General Council7 to 
examine possible means of improving the effec tiveness of the implementation of the NFIDC 
Decision.8  The Committee's report on this question9, 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.10 
                                                      
2 See G/AG/2, pages 33-34. 
3 Counting the EU and its member States as one. 
4 This is the case for Brazil, Burkina Faso, Fiji, Indonesia, Malta, Morocco, Philippines, United Arab 
Emirates and Uruguay. 
5 See G/AG/3.  The decision to establish this list was taken on the understanding that " being listed 
would not as such confer automatic benefits since, unde r the mechanisms covered by the Marrakesh Ministerial 
Decision, donors and the institutions concerned would have a role to play " (G/AG/R/4, paragraph 17). 
6 See G/AG/5/Rev.8. 
7 See WT/L/384. 
8 See progress reports to the General Council on such consultations in G/AG/7 and G/AG/10. 
9 See G/AG/11. 
10 See proposals (G/AG/W/49 and 49/Add.1 and Corr .1) and Inter-agency panel report (WT/GC/62 - 
G/AG/13). G/AG/W/42/Rev.13 
Page 4  
 
  6. Between 2003 and 2006, the Comm ittee on Agriculture also consid ered, at each of its regular 
meetings, a proposal by the African Group calling for developed-country Members to, inter alia , 
contribute to a revolving fund for normal levels of food imports.
11  In September 2004, the Committee 
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.12  Informal consultations specifically 
dedicated to that proposal were also held in May 2005 and again in February 2006, as part of the 
discussions on implementation-related issues.  The outc ome of such consultations is reflected in the 
Committee's follow-up report to the General Council.13  Further to a request by the Committee on 
Agriculture in 2008, the Secretariat prepared a co mpendium of documents that are directly or 
indirectly relevant to the implementation-rela ted issues under its purview, and that have been 
circulated since the last report to the General C ouncil in June 2006.  The Compendium is regularly 
updated and circulated to Members.14 
7. The WTO is represented on the UN High Level Task Force for the Global Food Security 
Crisis (HLTF) established in 2008 and has participated in its deliberations since its inception.  In the 
context of the update of the HLTF's Compre hensive Framework for Action (CFA), the WTO 
Secretariat participated in the Dublin dialogue he ld in May 2010.  The WTO Secretariat contributed, 
in particular, to the discussions in the working grou p on "trade and tax polici es, and international food 
markets" which explored the linkages between food security and international trade.  After intensive 
collaboration and consultations with various stakeholders, including at the Dublin meeting, the 
HLTF finalized the Updated Comprehensive Framework for Action (UCFA)  in September 2010.15 
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 Decision contain a number of spec ific 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. 
                                                     
 
11 The proposal itself is contained in paragraph 52 of  TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2 (dated 17 July 2002).  It was 
referred to the Committee on Agriculture in 2003 by the Chairman of the General Council in the context of the 
WTO's Work Programme on Special and Differentia l Treatment under the Doha Development Agenda 
(Decision adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004, paragraph 1.d of  WT/L/579 refers). 
12 See G/AG/16, paragraph 19(c). Progress reports relating to the African Group proposal are contained 
in G/AG/17 and Corr.1; G/AG/20; and G/AG/22. 
13 See paragraphs 11-12 of G/AG/16/Add.1dated 13 June 2006. 
14 See G/AG/W/70/Rev.1, G/AG/W/70/Rev.1/Add.1 and G/AG/W/70/Rev.1/Add.2. 
15 The original version of the Comprehensive Framework for Action of the HLTF was developed in 
July 2008.  Please refer to http://un-foodsecurity.org/   for more details.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.13 
 Page 5 
 
 
  A. FOOD 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). 
2. 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: 
" … 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.  The aggregate a nnual 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).16  Under the Food Aid Convention 1999, the combined 
minimum annual volume and value commitments of FAC members are established at 4.8 million tonnes and €130 million (as of June 2009).  In this respect, the Inter-agency panel referred to in 
paragraph I.5 above noted that: 
"the fact that these commitments are expr essed 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."
17 
13. As observed by the Food Aid Committee at its June 2009 Session, the value of FAC 
commitments in volume terms was again demonstrated during sharply rising food prices in 2007-08 when several donors took major budgetary initiatives to meet their food aid obligations. 
14. 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 2002/03-2008/09.  It also shows that annual shipments exceeded, of ten significantly, FAC memb ers' combined minimum 
annual commitments.  Food aid shipments in 2008/09  totalled 7.9 million tonnes in wheat equivalent, 
representing an 11 per cent increase from the previous year, the first since 2005/06.  The bulk of food 
aid provided in 2008/09 under the FAC was supplie d in response to emergency situations and 
protracted relief operations, especially in Africa.  Food aid operations in Africa, mainly in Sub-
                                                     
 
16 See G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 for data relating to donor commitments and shipments under the 1986 and 
1995 Food Aid Conventions, respectively. 
17 See WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13, paragraph 44. G/AG/W/42/Rev.13 
Page 6  
 
  Saharan countries, totalled 5.3 million tonnes, i.e. about  two-thirds of the total food aid in that year 
under the FAC.  FAC donors also used cash contributions to purchase food from other developing countries (i.e. triangular transactions) or within a recipient country for supply to a deficit area 
(i.e. local purchases).  In 2008/09, such transactions  totalled about 2 million tonnes, predominantly in 
the form of local purchases.
18 
15. 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.
19  
16. WFP data show that global food aid deliveries present a cyclical pattern, with a record of 
17.3 million tonnes reached in 1993.20  Another peak was reached in 1999 when food aid totalled 
14.6 million tonnes.  In this context, the D oha Ministerial Conference approved the following 
recommendation made by the Committee on Agriculture: 
"WTO Members which are donors of food aid shall, within the framework of their 
food aid policies, statutes, programmes and commitments, take appropriate measures 
aimed at ensuring:  (i) that to the maximum extent possible their levels of food aid to 
developing countries are maintained during pe riods in which trends in world market 
prices of basic foodstuffs have been increasing; … " (G/AG/11, Part B paragraph 3 I(b) refers). 
                                                     
 
18 Please refer to http://www.foodaidconvention.org /en/index/Summarylatest.aspx  for more details. 
19 For example, food aid deliveries as monitore d by the WFP include deliv eries by FAC members, 
other countries, and non-governmental organizations. 
20 See G/AG/GEN/49, pp. 10-11.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.13 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Chart 1:  Evolution of food aid deliveries:  2000-2009   
024681012million tonnes
OTHER 5 . 23 . 91 . 81 . 1
NFIDC 1 . 40 . 61 . 00 . 7
LDC 4 . 45 . 34 . 03 . 72000 2003 2006 200910.9
6.79.8
5.5
Notes : Includes cereals in grain equivalent and non-cereals in product weight;  "NFIDC" refers to the 26 
Members listed in para (b) of G/AG/5/Rev.8.  Data for 2009 are provisional and may be subject to revisions. Source : Food Aid Information System (FAIS) at http://www.wfp.org/fais/reports/
. 
17. Chart 1 shows that, overall, total food aid deliveries as monitored by WFP are generally 
following a declining trend.  In 2009, global food aid deliveries were 5.5 million tonnes, which 
according to the WFP, is the lowest level since 1961.  In 2009, while the amount of total food aid did decline compared to 2008 levels, the share of LD Cs and NFIDCs in the total food aid increased 
slightly to around 80 per cent.  Attachment 3 gives a detailed breakdown of food aid deliveries by 
recipient during the period 2000-2009 as monitored by WFP.  In absolute terms, Ethiopia, Sudan, 
Somalia, Democratic Republic of Korea, Kenya, Paki stan and Zimbabwe were the major recipients of 
food aid in 2009. 
18. According to WFP, several NFIDCs on the WTO list were, occasionally or regularly, 
recipients of food aid during the period 2000-2009 , except Botswana, Dominica, Mauritius, St. Kitts 
and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenad ines, and Trinidad and Tobago.  Total food aid 
deliveries to NFIDCs in 2009 were approximately 40 per cent higher than those recorded in 2008, 
which was predominantly attributable to increased food deliveries to Pakistan. 
19. While LDCs continue to be the major recipien ts of global food aid, food aid deliveries in 
2009 decreased by about 17 per cent compared to 2008 deliveries.  The downward trend noted in 
2009 reflects decreased food aid deliveries to Bangladesh, Sudan and Afghanistan.  Among LDCs, 
Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan were the major recipients of food aid in 2009.  
20. WFP statistics are compiled based on the following three food aid categories: 
(a) Emergency  food aid is defined by WFP as being destined to victims of natural or 
man-made disasters, is freely distributed to  targeted beneficiary groups, and is usually 
provided on a grant basis.  It is channelled multilaterally, through NGOs, or, 
sometimes, bilaterally. G/AG/W/42/Rev.13 
Page 8  
 
  (b) Project  food aid aims at supporting specific poverty-alleviation and disaster-
prevention activities.  It is usually freely distributed to targeted beneficiary groups, but may also be sold on the open market a nd is then referred to as "monetized" food 
aid.  It is provided on a grant basis and is channelled multilaterally, through NGOs, or 
bilaterally. 
(c) Programme  food aid is usually supplied as a resource transfer for balance of 
payments or budgetary support activities on a government-to-government basis.  
Unlike most of the food aid provided for project or emergency purposes, it is not targeted to specific beneficiary groups.  It is sold on the open market, and provided either as a grant, or as a loan. 
21. WFP statistics compiled in Chart 2 below indicate that emergency food aid  provided in the 
form of relief in response to man-made emergencies or natural disasters remained the predominant  category in 2009 accounting for 76 per cent of tota l food aid deliveries.  On the other hand, 
programme food aid, which accounted for 41 per cent in 1995, has been declining with its share 
standing at 4 per cent in 2009.  
 
Chart 2:  Composition of global food aid deliveries (per cent) 
 
1995
4123
362009
76420
 
 
 
Source : Food Aid Information System (FAIS) at http://www.wfp.org/fais/reports/ .  Data for 2009 are provisional. 
 
 
22. WFP also categorizes food aid deliveries according to the origin of the food aid commodities: 
(a) Local purchases are the transactions by which food aid is purchased and 
distributed/utilized in the recipient country .  
(b) Triangular purchases are the transactions by which a donor provides commodities 
purchased in a third country as food aid to a final recipient country . 
(c) Direct  transfers are the transactions by which food aid is directly delivered from 
donor to recipient countries. Such operations do not involve either local or triangular purchases . Emergency  Programme Project   G/AG/W/42/Rev.13 
 Page 9 
 
 
  23. Chart 3 below indicates that over the last 10 years (i.e. 2000 to 2009), the share of global food 
aid deliveries in the form of direct transfers h as declined (from 83 per cent to 50 per cent), while the 
share of local purchases and triangular transactions in global food deliveries has increased (from 6 to 16 per cent; and from 12 to 34 per cent, respectively).  
Chart 3:  Delivery modes of global food aid:  2000-2009 
 
024681012million tonnes
Triangular purchases 1 . 31 . 51 . 01 . 91 . 41 . 51 . 31 . 51 . 41 . 8
Local purchases 0 . 60 . 80 . 50 . 91 . 01 . 21 . 21 . 01 . 00 . 9
Direct transfers 9 . 08 . 27 . 67 . 14 . 75 . 34 . 23 . 23 . 82 . 72000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 200910.9
5.86.77.9
7.09.8
9.110.5
5.56.2
 
 Source : Food Aid Information System (FAIS) at http://www.wfp.org/fais/reports/ .  Data for 2009 are 
provisional. 
(b) Initiation of food aid negotiations 
24. 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.21 
25. 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 ".
22  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 
                                                      
21 See G/L/125, paragraph 18(i) refers. 
22 See IGC statement in G/AG/GEN/20. G/AG/W/42/Rev.13 
Page 10  
 
  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.
23 
26. The negotiations on the Food Aid Conventi on 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, EU and its member States, Japan, Norway, 
Switzerland and the United States). 
27. Under the Food Aid Convention 199924, the list of eligible products which may be supplied 
was broadened significantly beyond cereals; ne w provisions were included 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 count ries, many of which are on the present WTO list of 
NFIDCs.  Other eligible food aid recipients in clude low middle-income countries and all other 
countries included in the WTO list of NFIDCs at the time of negotiation of the new Convention. 
28. At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Ministers approved the recommendation of the 
Committee: 
"that early action be taken within the framework of the Food Aid Convention 1999 
(which unless extended, with or without a decision regarding its renegotiation, 
would expire on 30 June 2002)  and of the UN World Food Programme by donors of 
food aid to review their food aid contributions with a view to better identifying and meeting the food aid needs of least- developed and WTO net food-importing 
developing countries".  (G/AG/11, Part B paragraph 3 I(a) refers) 
29. The Food Aid Convention 1999, which was to e xpire on 30 June 2002, was not renegotiated 
but, as agreed by the Food Aid Committee, initially  extended by one year a nd 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 aim of brin ging into effect a Convention which is a "more 
effective instrument to provide food to those iden tified needs when food aid is the most appropriate 
response."  FAC Working Group meetings were he ld in October and November 2004.  At its 
December 2004 session, the Food Aid Committee conclude d that the relationship between the review 
process in the Food Aid Committee and negotiations underway in the WTO was such that conclusive 
recommendations should await the outcome of the WT O negotiations.  The Committee agreed that the 
FAC renegotiations would be more e ffectively carried out in the light of developments in the WTO.  
In these circumstances, the Food Ai d Convention 1999 was extended five times, the latest being at the 
102
nd session of the Food Aid Committee on 4 J une 2010, extending the Convention until 
30 June 2011.  
30. Until the formal launch of renegotiations, th e FAC members have, over the recent period, 
been engaged in informal discussions on the stre ngths and weaknesses of the current Convention and 
how to make this type of treaty an even more e ffective instrument to help ease the plight of the 
world’s hungry.25   
                                                      
23 See G/AG/GEN/31, page 4. 
24 See G/AG/GEN/35 for a description of major changes introduced in the Convention. 
25 See the contribution by the International Grains Council at the November 2009 meeting of the 
Committee on Agriculture in G/AG/GEN/90.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.13 
 Page 11 
 
 
  3. Concessionality of Food Aid 
31. To the end stated in the chapeau of paragr aph 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). 
32. Under the Food Aid Convention 1999, all food aid provided to LDCs should 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.   
33. At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Ministers approved the recommendation that: 
"WTO Members which are donors of food aid shall, within the framework of their 
food aid policies, statutes, programmes and commitments, take 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) 
34. Table 3 below shows the proportion of food aid pr ovided to LDCs and NFIDCs in the form of 
donations as notified by Members.  Most notifying  Members 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 w as donated, with the remainder being provided in 
accordance with the relevant FAC guidelines.  In 2002/03, the United States provided all food aid in 
fully grant form.  As from 2003/04, the United States has notified
26:  
"Title I aid is provided in fully grant fo rm or on long-term concessional terms in 
accordance with Food Aid Convention guide lines.  Aid under Food for Education, 
Title II, Title III, Food for Progress and Section 416(b) Programs is provided in fully grant form". 
                                                     
 
26  See G/AG/N/USA/65 & 76. G/AG/W/42/Rev.13 
Page 12  
 
  Table 3:  Proportion of food aid provided in fully grant form to LDCs and NFIDCs 
 
Member Concessionality of food aid 
FAC DONORS  
Australia, Canada, EU,  
Japan, Norway, Switzerland 100 per cent grant terms 
  
United States 1995/96 -    84 per cent 
1996/97 -   93 per cent 1997/98 -   83 per cent  
1998/99 and 1999/00 -   93 per cent 
2000/01 -   95 per cent 2001/02 -   91 per cent 
2002/03 -   100 per cent 
2003/04  to 2007/08:  See para. 34 above 
  
OTHER DONORS  
Cuba, South Africa 100 per cent grant terms 
New Zealand 100 per cent grants of cash 
 Source : Members' Table NF:1 notifications. 
B. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE  
35. 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). 
36. The Doha Ministerial Conference called on devel oped country Members to continue to give 
full consideration in the context of their aid progra mmes to requests for the provision of technical and 
financial assistance by least-developed and net f ood-importing developing countries to improve their 
agricultural productivity and infrastructure.  This recommendation reflects the f act that technical and 
financial assistance is essentially a bilateral matte r between donors and recipients based on requests 
made by recipient countries. 
37. Furthermore, the Doha Ministerial Conference approved the recommendation: 
" ... that, in support of the priority accorded by least-developed and net food-
importing developing countries to the devel opment of their agricultural productivity 
and infrastructure, the WTO General Council call upon releva nt international 
development organisations, including the World Bank, the FAO, IFAD, the UNDP 
and the Regional Development Banks to 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)  G/AG/W/42/Rev.13 
 Page 13 
 
 
  38. The responses from the African Development Bank,  the European Investment Bank, FAO and 
the World Bank were circulated.27  The IMF renewed its commitment to providing assistance to 
developing countries in capacity building and in copi ng with balance-of-payment shortfalls resulting 
from multilateral trade liberalization.28 
39. During the global food and financial crisis in  2007/08, the IMF also undertook a number of 
internal reform measures which, inter alia , boosted its capacity to provide  financial assistance to low-
income developing countries with a more flexible  framework for structural conditionality, while 
lending facilities were revamped.  The reform meas ures included higher concessionality in financial 
support and zero interest payments through end-20 11 on new and outstanding concessional loans.  
The IMF stepped up its technical assistance (T A) programme, thus contributing to effective 
surveillance and building capacity for policymaki ng.  Since 1993, the IMF has established seven 
regional TA centres, located in Tanzania, Mali, Gabon, Fiji, Barbados, Lebanon, and Guatemala.  
Two more centres were to be established in Africa by end-2010.29 
40. The World Bank launched its Global Food Crisis  Response Programme (GFRP) in 2008 to 
assist low-income and NFIDCs in mitigating the chal lenges of high and volatile food prices during the 
global food crisis.  The Bank also provided assist ance through better technology, trade, and aid to 
address the long-term challenges of food security.  With a view to increasing long-term agricultural 
productivity in low-income countries, the World Ba nk observed that it intended to double its lending 
for agriculture to more than US$8 billion in the pe riod 2010-2012.  In this context, the World Bank's 
Action Plan on Agriculture for Development em phasized the need to increase agricultural 
productivity, particularly of smallholder farmers, to scale up good practices in food security policies 
and investments and to enhance the role of ag riculture in providing environmental services. 
41. The World Bank also emphasized that access to global markets was critical to achieving long-
term food security.  In that context, the role of Aid-for-Trade in promoting agricultural exports and 
thus improving import-capacity was underlined.  As  one of the largest donors of Aid-for-Trade, the 
World Bank recalled its commitment to supporting count ries in need of trade finance and technical 
expertise.30 
C. DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN THE FRAMEW ORK OF AN AGREEMENT ON EXPORT CREDITS  
42. 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). 
43. 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 
                                                      
27 See G/AG/W/57 and Add.1. 
28 See G/AG/GEN/71, G/AG/GEN/76 and G/AG/GEN/78. 
29 See IMF's statement in G/AG/GEN/90. 
30 See the statement of  the Wo rld Bank in G/AG/GEN/90. G/AG/W/42/Rev.13 
Page 14  
 
  other inputs, including with respect to special and differential treatment in favour of developing 
countries.
31  
44. 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) 
45. The above objective was reaffirmed during the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.
32  As part 
of the on-going agriculture negotia tions, draft provisions specifically addressing these matters have 
been considered by Members.33 
46. During the global financial crisis beginning in 2008 which resulted, inter alia , in serious 
shortage of trade finance, the WTO worked with  other multilateral and regional organizations to 
mobilize various actors to shoulder some of the ri sk arising from private sector financing (which 
accounts for close to 80 per cent of the market) and reduce the gap between demand and supply of trade finance.  In this context, it was observed that the scarcity of trade finance could lead to a slow-
down of trade as well as production and could cons train the developing and low-income countries 
from participating fully in international trade.  Th e development of trade financing infrastructure has 
also been pursued under the Aid-for-Trade initiative.  
D. A
CCESS TO THE RESOURCES OF THE IN TERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS  
47. 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 
48. The Inter-agency panel report provides a detaile d examination of the question of financing 
food imports by NFIDCs and LDCs.34  The LDC Group organized a Conference on WTO rules and 
the food crisis in Geneva on 17 July 2008 in partnership with a res earch and development 
                                                      
31 See also G/AG/16 and Add.1 
32 See paragraph 6 of WT/MIN(05)/DEC. 
33 See, for example, Annex J of TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4. 
34  See WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13, in particular, Chapter II, Section A and the Conclusions in Chapter III.  
See also the contribution by UNCTAD in G/AG/GEN/68, pp. 16-18.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.13 
 Page 15 
 
 
  organization focusing on global issues.35  A note by the Secretariat (WT/COMTD/LDC/W/43 dated 
14 October 2008) also dwells upon the issue of the ri se in prices of agricultural products, including its 
impact on LDCs. 
49. Wheat remains the most important food commodity  in the import basket of the NFIDCs and 
LDCs.  Chart 4 below shows that world market pri ces continued to strengthen in the course of 2006, 
reaching a peak in February 2008.  Subsequently, world market prices of wheat receded, whilst still 
remaining above 2006 levels.  The global wheat prices again experienced a surge from July 2010 
onwards and fears were raised concerning a possi ble repeat of the 2007/08 food crisis.  The FAO 
convened an extraordinary meeting of the Inter governmental Groups (IGG) of Grains and Rice on 
24 September 2010 to discuss the situation.  At th e IGG session, it was noted that unexpected crop 
failure in some major exporting countries followe d by national responses and speculative behaviour 
were amongst the main factors behind the recent es calation of world prices and the prevailing high 
price volatility.  However, market fundamentals in terms of global cereal supply and demand were 
found to be in balance and the situation was not i ndicative of an impending food crisis.  An enhanced 
role of market information and transparency was also emphasized.36  
Chart 4:  The International Grains Council Wheat Price Index37 (1995- 2010) 
90014001900240029003400390044004900
95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
 
*Average wheat prices of seven widely trad ed varieties of bread wheat: July/Dec 1986=1000. 
Source :  International Grains Council. 
 
                                                      
35 The full report is contained in document G/AG/GEN/77 dated 11 November 2008. 
36  For more details, see http://www.fao.org/economic/est/en/  
37 IGC Wheat Price Index Composition:  Simple average of following price quotations, converted to an 
index, with base July/December 1986 = 1000:  Australian Standard White, fob Eastern States – second position 
quoted;  Canadian No.1 CWRS 13.5 per cent, fob St. Lawrence;  Canadian No.1 CWRS 13.5 per cent, fob 
Vancouver;  US No.2 HRW (Ordinary), fob Gulf;  US No.2 SRW, fob Gulf;  US No.2 DNS 14 per cent, fob Pacific;  US No.2 Soft White, fob Paci fic;  Argentina Trigo Pan, fob Up River*;  EU (France) Standard Grade, 
fob Rouen*. (Items marked with * have been included in the index from July 2006, and the IGC Wheat Price 
Index was revised back to July 1997). G/AG/W/42/Rev.13 
Page 16  
 
  50. At various stages of the Committee's annual monitoring exercise, international observer 
organizations have commented on the development of  international food prices and their impacts on 
the LDCs and NFIDCs.
38  The food security situation in LDCs  and NFIDCs is being monitored by 
FAO on a regular basis, notably with regard to overall trends in cereal imports and cereal import bills.
39  In the aftermath of the global food crisis in 2007/08, the reforms of the Committee on World 
Food Security (CFS) of the FAO were approved at its 35th Session in October 2009.  The reforms 
envisage the CFS to be the foremo st inclusive international and in tergovernmental platform dealing 
with global food security and nutrition.40 
51. At the November 2009 session of the Committee on Agriculture, the WFP reported on its 
various activities and initiatives to address globa l food insecurity and malnutrition.  The WFP 
allocated 72 per cent of development and relief reso urces to LDCs and 93 per cent to low-income net 
food-deficit countries in 2008.  The WFP also deployed innovative, targeted food safety-net programmes in some beneficiary countries like school  feeding, mother-and-child health and nutrition, 
targeted cash transfers and food vouchers, and local food purchases.  The newly-created Forward 
Purchase Facility, where food was purchased on the b asis of aggregated projected needs for a region, 
enabled the WFP to save resources by making food  purchases when prices were favourable.  The 
WFP underlined that its vulnerability analysis and mapping was particularly important to develop an 
effective response in the event of food crisis and natural disasters. In 2009,  WFP also developed an 
'Economic Shock and Hunger Index' (ESHI) to assess which countries were more likely to be 
vulnerable to food insecurity as a result of the global financial and economic crisis.
41 
2. Access to the Facilities of the IMF and the World Bank 
52. The question of access to the resources of the in ternational financial institutions has been the 
subject of a detailed examination by an Inter-age ncy panel of financial and commodity experts in 
2002.42 
53. In the context of the Committee's annual monitoring 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."43 
54. At the November 2009 session of the Committee, the IMF reported on its reformed lending 
framework44 for LDCs and NFIDCs, under which suppor t is to be channeled through a new 
instrument under the Poverty Reduction and Growth  Trust (PRGT).  The Contingent Financing 
Facility (CFF) was eliminated.  The PRGT has three lending windows: 
(a) the Extended Credit Facility (ECF), which replaces the PRGF and helps to address 
medium-term balance of payments needs; 
                                                      
38 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/90 (dated 27 November 2009).  See, for 
example, the observations by the  IGC, WFP, IMF and World Bank on rising food prices and possible impacts 
on LDCs and NFIDCs. 
39  See G/AG/GEN/64, G/AG/GEN/71, G/AG/GEN/73, G/AG/GEN/76 and G/AG/GEN/78. 
40 See http://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-home/en/  for details on the reforms of the CFS. 
41 See the statement by the WFP contained in G/AG/GEN/90. 
42   See WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13.   
43  See G/AG/GEN/49, page 8. 
44  See G/AG/GEN/90.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.13 
 Page 17 
 
 
  (b) the Standby Credit Facility (SCF), which can  help the low-income countries that do 
not face protracted BoP problems but need occasional assistance; and 
(c) the Rapid Credit Facility (RCF), which pr ovides assistance during urgent financing 
needs with  limited conditionality. 
55. The IMF has also been a firm and consistent supporter of open trade as an engine of economic 
growth and poverty reduction. In supporting the tr ade-related adjustment needs of developing 
countries in the context of the Doha Developmen t Agenda, the IMF developed a Trade Integration 
Mechanism (TIM) specifically addr essing vulnerabilities stemming from, inter alia , food terms-of-
trade shocks.  The IMF reported that, the TIM had so far been used by three LDCs and one NFIDC.   
56. 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.) 
57. In recent years, the World Bank has focused on the strengthening of the food security of 
developing countries and has developed strategies to deal with food price instability and its negative 
impacts.  In cooperation with development part ners, the World Bank has studied ways to use 
commodity price insurance mechan isms as a tool to anticipate food crises, both at farm and at 
government level.  The World Bank also has a ddressed food insecurity through programmes designed 
to raise the purchasing power of the poor;  reduce their exposure to negative income shocks; and 
improve the functioning of the global food distribution and food aid systems.
45 
58. At the November 2009 session of the Committee on Agriculture, the World Bank reported on 
the functioning of its Global Food Crisis Response Programme (GFRP).46  The GFRP was launched in 
2008 to mitigate the effects of soaring costs and to  help countries adapt to higher and more volatile 
food prices.  The Bank reported that, as of 8 Oc tober 2009, GFRP support of around US$1.2 billion 
had been distributed for operations in 35 countri es.  The focus had been on improving short-term 
                                                      
45 See, for example, G/AG/GEN/71 (pp. 15-17) for a detailed description of ex ante risk management 
systems (price- and weather-relate d) and recently-launched joint WF P-World Bank pilot projects; and 
G/AG/GEN/73. 
46  See the contribution of the World Bank (November 2009) in G/AG/GEN/90. G/AG/W/42/Rev.13 
Page 18  
 
  smallholder supply response, social protection and nutrition intervention, price stabilization, including 
support to reduce import duties and the creation of food taxes, and additional fiscal space to strengthen supply response and social protection mechanisms. 
 
  
   G/AG/W/42/Rev.13
 Page 19Attachment 1:  Compliance with notification requirements (Table NF:1)  
 
          Reporting    
period 1 
 
Member 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Notifi cation circulated  in G/AG/N-series 
Food Aid Convention donor  
Australia X X X X X X X X X X X X X X  AUS/5, 13, 21, 25, 32/ Rev.1, 39, 48, 51 & Corr.1, 57, 60, 68, 71,75 & Corr.1, 81 
Canada X X X X X X X X X X X     CAN/11, 18, 25, 34,  42, 52, 57, 67, 72  
EU  X X X X X X X X X X X     EEC/9, 21  & Add.1., 25, 35, 46 & Add.1, 50, 56 
Japan X X X X X X X X X X X X X   JPN/15, 27, 33, 46, 68, 78, 87, 107, 125 & Corr.1, 144, 145 
Norway X X X X X 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, 44, 54 
Switzerland X X X X X X X X X X X     CHE/23, 30, 39 and Corr.1 
United States  X X X X X X X X X X X X X  USA/7, 20, 21, 31, 46, 52, 56, 65,76 
Other donors  
Argentina 2 X X X X X X X         ARG/10, 15, 21 
Cuba X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X CU B/4, 5, 14, 18, 22, 24, 34, 36, 38,41 
New Zealand X X X X X X X X X X X X X X  NZL/6, 13,  17, 25, 26, 30, 39, 40, 45 & Rev.1, 56 & Corr.1, 60 
Korea, Rep. of X X              KOR/9, 17 
South Africa X X X X X X X X X X X X    ZAF/7, 9, 17, 24, 32, 39, 42, 50, 56, 60, 67, 69 
Compliance 
calculated as 
number of 
notifications 
received from 
FAC donors (per 
cent) 86 100 100 100 100 100 100 100  100 100 100 57 57 43  
 0  
 
Notes :  
 
"X" means that a notification was received.  A blank means that no notification was received. 
 
1 Annual reporting periods differ among Members. 
2 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.13 
Page 20 Attachment 2:  Minimum Annual Contributions and Shipments under the Food Aid Convention 1999 
(thousand tonnes, wheat equivalent)  
DONOR ANNUAL 
COMMITMENT 2001/02  2002/03  2003/04  2004/05  2005/06   2006/07  2007/08  2008/09  
                     
                     
ARGENTINA 35.0 0.03   -  -  -  -  -  - - 
                     
AUSTRALIA 150.0 245.8  203.8  178.0  168.1  180.7  114.5  216.7 163.9 
                     
CANADA a) 420.0 408.2  499.4  351.2  437.3  421.5  474.4  520.9 551.5 
                     
EU (c)          tonnage 1,320.0 1,836.7  1,980.8  2,218.1  2,152.0  2,853.1  2,488.1  2,178.3 2,263.6 
                     value  € 130,000.0                  
                     
JAPAN (a) 300.0 531.8  666.9  581.0  578.3  354.3  319.0  428.3 556.1 
                     
NORWAY (a) 30.0 74.3  144.9  165.5  145.6  196.0  179.4  103.0 89.4 
                     
SWITZERLAND 40.0 58.0  67.9  69.7  71.9  61.6  71.1  69.9 59.4 
                     
USA 2,500.0 7,124.4  6,054.2  5,801.7  5,363.2  4,830.7  3,869.2  3,630.3 4,256.8 
                     
TOTAL (b)  tonnage 4,795.0 10,279.3  9,617.9  9,65.1  8,875.3  8,916.3  7,515.6  7,147.4 7,940.6 
                       value € 130,000.0                            
 
Notes : 
* These figures refer to the wheat equivale nt of actual shipments completed during the years shown.  They are not adjusted for product limits under Article IV of the Food Aid Convention 
1999 and do not necessarily represent the performance of FAC 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 fi gures therefore do not correspond to quantities actually shipped. 
(b) Includes contributions under IEFR (Intern ational Emergency Food Reserve) – Immedi ate Response Account (IRA), as reported by  WFP. 
(c) EU and member States.  Also includes FAC "value" contributions. 
 
Source :  Food Aid Committee, International Grains Council.  
 
  
   G/AG/W/42/Rev.13
 Page 21Attachment 3:  Food aid deliveri es of cereals and non-cereals, 2000-2009 
(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009   LDC NFIDC MEM 
TOTAL  10,934.1 10,509.9 9,061.8 9,814.7 6,989.7 7,932.7 6,674.6 5,772.8 6,225.8 5,481.8      
of which                 
Least Developed Countries  4,376.2 4,500.0 3,566.7 5,287.1 3,794.1 4,869.2 3,951.8 3,321.2 4,427.5 3,687.1     
Net food-importing developing countries 1,382.9 1,521.4 1,294.0 596.5 578.5 595.0 962.2 491.5 473.2 659.9     
                             
                 
Sub-Saharan Africa   3,900.2 3,554.3 2,781.3 5,122.6 3,522.8 4,482.4 3,849.0 3,095.9 4,014.2 3,532.2     
Angola   279.4 180.3 257.7 272.6 126.7 55.5 26.4 10.4 0.0 0.0  #  M 
Benin   12.7 16.4 21.9 20.1 21.8 14.9 14.6 7.1 11.4 18.4  #  M 
Burkina Faso   33.8 43.1 35.2 29.1 38.9 38.1 40.1 42.1 44.2 28.2  #  M 
Burundi   11.0 61.9 35.3 68.0 79.1 72.0 82.5 66.8 38.5 62.1  #  M 
Cameroon   4.0 8.8 2.9 10.3 31.2 13.6 11.2 5.5 15.1 10.0    M 
Cape Verde   53.0 37.5 48.2 40.7 35.4 28.5 28.1 4.9 11.7 18.1    M 
Central African Republic   2.9 0.8 6.9 5.1 5.4 4.4 10.3 28.3 14.9 22.8  #  M 
Chad   19.0 33.3 9.8 16.0 41.5 72.1 59.2 67.6 82.0 109.8  #  M 
Comoros   0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 7.5  #   
Congo, Democratic Republic of   66.8 42.2 83.0 79.6 79.9 93.8 100.9 103.0 117.4 179.6  #  M 
Congo   16.7 41.3 18.3 10.2 8.2 8.4 8.5 16.2 3.6 7.0    M 
Côte d'Ivoire   16.9 6.2 14.8 23.3 31.6 32.7 23.2 26.3 14.7 25.6   N M 
Djibouti   11.9 10.0 17.5 7.2 9.3 18.8 11.8 8.5 10.9 23.1  #  M 
Equatorial Guinea   1.6 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  #   
Eritrea   251.7 313.3 158.1 347.8 268.2 227.0 32.0 14.8 17.2 0.0  #   
Ethiopia   1511.6 1128.1 333.4 1963.9 743.8 1112.4 736.9 624.6 1038.6 978.5  #   
Gabon   1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   N M 
The Gambia   7.7 3.1 4.1 18.3 6.1 11.2 13.4 8.2 4.0 12.7  #  M 
Ghana   102.0 55.0 70.5 81.7 70.4 62.1 50.7 38.7 42.6 30.5    M 
Guinea   5.2 39.5 45.5 38.7 26.5 37.8 27.2 18.8 42.8 15.5  #  M  
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.13 
Page 22 
(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009   LDC NFIDC MEM 
Guinea-Bissau   26.4 6.2 6.2 12.8 4.4 10.5 6.7 15.4 8.2 2.4  #  M 
Kenya   283.2 351.5 119.6 144.2 136.3 148.2 370.5 261.1 245.2 269.4   N M 
Lesotho   6.0 3.1 55.9 25.4 40.4 38.6 22.4 36.9 16.9 7.6  #  M 
Liberia   102.6 19.2 32.2 51.5 73.5 94.8 63.3 43.5 40.5 26.1  #   
Madagascar   42.6 57.5 44.3 57.2 39.8 46.8 44.1 51.9 32.8 22.2  #  M 
Malawi   36.1 40.8 194.5 113.5 74.5 145.4 238.4 91.6 68.5 96.9  #  M 
Mali   11.0 19.9 4.8 28.6 13.7 39.0 37.7 46.0 22.2 30.2  #  M 
Mauritania   16.1 36.9 42.7 86.9 45.3 91.3 41.2 43.2 55.4 26.9  #  M 
Mozambique   184.2 263.3 200.5 238.9 150.5 116.3 148.6 86.2 141.8 160.4  #  M 
Namibia   1.8 4.4 23.6 23.1 5.5 1.6 6.5 9.8 4.4 0.4   N M 
Niger   20.3 62.9 36.3 22.0 38.5 138.3 91.3 77.0 60.6 47.5  #  M 
Nigeria   1.1 2.2 12.5 13.3 0.0 19.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Rwanda   222.1 63.7 69.1 42.7 44.6 40.4 49.3 25.7 24.9 29.0  #  M 
Sao Tome and Principe   4.7 4.8 5.5 1.4 3.0 4.7 1.3 1.6 7.2 6.1  #   
Senegal   50.9 30.1 9.1 36.6 20.8 29.9 15.0 27.9 29.5 15.7  # N M 
Seychelles  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0     
Sierra Leone   25.8 57.2 77.0 49.9 35.3 36.0 31.0 30.1 30.4 17.1  #  M 
Somalia   58.2 9.3 33.9 33.1 43.7 39.3 203.2 109.6 366.9 320.2  #   
South Africa   3.0 0.1 15.1 19.9 58.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Sudan   180.8 198.8 147.5 253.7 376.4 913.2 590.8 492.6 673.3 500.3  #   
Swaziland   0.0 0.0 15.2 23.8 11.1 11.5 15.8 16.1 17.9 2.5    M 
Tanzania   62.5 172.3 87.3 129.5 110.7 115.0 93.8 78.1 84.5 29.3  #  M 
Togo   4.0 6.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 2.1 6.2 25.2  #  M 
Uganda   84.9 77.7 80.3 188.1 235.4 281.8 257.2 261.9 189.8 111.7  #  M 
Zambia   47.2 43.9 67.7 147.8 88.1 143.4 108.4 40.1 31.5 15.2  #  M 
Zimbabwe   15.8 0.0 237.6 337.8 249.1 73.1 134.5 155.7 342.2 220.4    M 
                  
   G/AG/W/42/Rev.13
 Page 23(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009   LDC NFIDC MEM 
Asia   3,089.6 4,037.5 3,604.3 2,353.5 1,994.8 2,372.0 1,346.5 1,708.8 1,464.2 1,324.7     
Afghanistan   209.9 275.4 558.5 228.4 231.2 207.3 160.5 224.7 314.6 200.3  #   
Bangladesh   270.5 813.8 244.3 462.3 225.6 293.5 228.0 221.1 333.2 148.4  #  M 
Bhutan   3.6 4.6 7.5 6.5 6.4 2.2 1.3 3.3 4.1 2.0  #   
Cambodia   60.9 49.7 68.8 25.2 31.3 23.8 27.5 31.9 43.8 35.1  #  M 
China   90.5 42.0 109.2 53.5 35.1 49.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0    M 
India   280.1 200.3 267.4 68.3 138.3 96.0 147.0 115.9 50.7 53.7    M 
Indonesia   430.2 297.9 163.3 222.2 159.2 173.9 91.0 33.9 8.9 7.7    M 
Korea, Democratic Republic   1,231.4 1,508.0 1,178.1 944.4 844.8 1,097.3 307.5 720.5 325.2 306.0     
Laos   4.7 18.7 28.9 19.8 25.3 19.2 12.7 19.5 15.4 18.0  #   
Maldives   2.7 5.8 0.0 10.6 5.4 8.7 6.2 6.6 4.7 17.4  #  M 
Mongolia   45.8 59.7 27.7 28.2 28.4 54.8 9.3 33.4 27.3 25.0   N M 
Myanmar   9.7 3.8 9.2 6.2 18.1 16.5 27.4 25.9 106.1 76.2  #  M 
Nepal   55.3 48.7 49.8 36.5 54.8 56.4 65.8 50.0 74.6 56.1  #  M 
Pakistan   18.1 274.4 468.7 47.7 59.3 30.1 170.9 21.5 56.9 244.8   N M 
Papua New Guinea   0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Philippines   218.4 196.0 272.7 90.5 29.6 120.6 18.9 109.0 15.3 53.3    M 
Solomon Islands   0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  #  M 
Sri Lanka   55.4 125.3 86.9 26.7 38.2 120.4 61.7 77.4 73.5 73.1   N M 
Thailand   1.0 0.1 1.5 1.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Timor-Leste   32.4 3.2 0.0 0.3 7.5 1.3 10.9 14.3 8.5 7.7  #   
Vietnam   69.1 110.0 61.8 75.0 56.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
                 
Eastern Europe & CIS   2,140.8 1,132.2 852.3 649.8 397.0 270.8 378.0 302.5 108.6 78.8     
Albania   15.5 13.0 50.8 9.5 31.2 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Armenia   89.2 31.6 40.6 33.1 8.8 16.2 9.0 84.5 8.4 6.3    M 
Azerbaijan   23.0 17.1 15.2 25.0 44.4 9.2 90.6 41.2 1.9 0.0     
Bosnia and Herzegovina   84.1 82.5 96.2 24.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     
Bulgaria   0.6 15.0 10.4 17.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M  
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.13 
Page 24 
(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009   LDC NFIDC MEM 
Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia  
48.2 10.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Georgia  63.1 76.1 69.8 66.8 91.9 15.3 30.7 77.1 12.7 14.6    M 
Kazakhstan  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.5 1.0 0.0 0.0     
Kyrgyz Republic  60.0 30.4 70.7 4.6 2.1 139.3 26.2 58.1 0.3 16.5    M 
Moldova  10.6 39.5 17.0 17.5 18.3 8.2 28.0 9.4 45.9 0.0    M 
Romania  0.0 0.0 4.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Russian Federation  1,385.4 228.6 92.5 65.7 31.8 20.5 17.5 13.5 8.8 0.2     
Serbia & Montenegro  240.9 277.4 38.8 75.2 23.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1     
Tajikistan  46.7 192.5 141.4 79.8 62.3 57.8 171.6 17.8 30.6 41.2     
Turkmenistan  5.1 14.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     
Ukraine  0.0 0.0 5.1 209.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Uzbekistan  68.4 104.4 198.2 20.8 82.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     
                 
Middle East & North Africa   1,006.2 830.4 643.2 1,263.3 536.2 185.2 477.3 327.9 315.9 292.0     
Algeria   25.9 31.6 49.8 9.0 38.9 32.0 20.5 22.9 32.0 20.1     
Cyprus   0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0    M 
Egypt   30.5 28.5 9.1 16.3 10.6 11.6 29.4 2.3 5.6 1.7   N M 
Iran   3.2 15.7 7.4 30.3 3.3 2.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 3.1     
Iraq   19.5 9.0 11.1 936.7 10.4 32.8 58.4 47.3 46.3 11.5     
Israel  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5    M 
Jordan   400.7 225.6 226.2 162.3 126.9 3.3 110.5 4.4 6.7 4.2   N M 
Lebanon   42.4 118.2 94.1 10.0 0.0 12.0 35.7 1.9 4.2 1.6     
Morocco   240.9 62.0 6.8 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   N M 
Palestinian Territory   51.4 164.6 68.1 53.5 152.5 64.0 117.5 185.0 148.8 184.9     
Syria   26.9 13.2 7.6 9.4 13.2 7.6 4.3 7.8 44.6 25.8     
Tunisia   3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   N M 
Yemen   161.0 162.1 163.0 34.2 180.2 19.5 100.2 55.1 26.4 38.9  #   
                  
   G/AG/W/42/Rev.13
 Page 25(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009   LDC NFIDC MEM 
Latin America & the Caribbean 797.3 955.6 1,180.8 425.4 539.0 622.3 623.8 337.7 323.0 254.1     
Barbados    0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0   N M 
Belize   0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0    M 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela   4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   N M 
Bolivia   66.0 40.3 89.6 109.6 82.7 59.2 110.9 54.6 10.9 20.7    M 
Brazil   0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Chile   0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Colombia   12.0 35.3 8.7 8.7 12.3 14.0 17.5 18.1 19.8 14.6    M 
Cuba   18.2 22.6 7.2 3.3 5.0 7.0 4.4 2.9 1.4 5.2   N M 
Dominican Republic   1.6 69.6 12.8 2.5 12.9 0.3 12.0 0.0 2.8 1.5   N M 
Ecuador   42.1 151.3 83.8 5.8 21.1 43.2 31.3 0.8 2.7 0.4    M 
El Salvador   2.8 60.0 91.3 11.5 12.0 66.2 18.7 3.8 1.1 0.8    M 
Guatemala   135.9 100.0 236.9 61.9 66.9 67.5 107.6 42.4 31.2 54.3    M 
Guyana   26.3 38.5 62.5 0.0 23.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Haiti   164.0 66.8 233.6 62.8 122.4 137.4 111.3 107.4 182.7 138.6  #  M 
Honduras   67.9 71.7 55.3 50.6 42.8 96.7 95.8 40.7 26.2 8.6   N M 
Jamaica   46.5 19.7 0.0 0.0 11.0 11.0 3.6 1.3 0.0 0.0   N M 
Mexico   1.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0    M 
Nicaragua   61.6 78.4 63.1 41.4 56.8 42.4 46.3 55.1 35.6 8.8    M 
Peru   145.9 200.3 235.2 66.6 69.8 77.5 64.3 10.4 8.5 0.5   N M 
 
Notes : LDC:  Least-developed country (#). 
 NFIDC:  Net food-importing developing country, as listed in G/AG/5/Rev.8 dated 22 March 2005 (N). 
 MEM:  WTO Member (M). 
Source :  Food Aid Information System (FAIS) at  http://www. wfp.org/fais/reports/. Data  for 2009 are provisional. 
__________