WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/AG/W/42/Rev.14 
21 October 2011 
 (11-5258) 
Committee on Agriculture  
 
 
 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION ON MEASURES CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE 
NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE REFORM PROGRAMME ON LEAST DEVELOPED 
AND NET FOOD-IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
 
Revision 
 
 
 The present note updates the information in the Secretariat note G/AG/W/42/Rev.13 dated 
15 October 2010 on implementation of the Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Devel oped and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries 
(NFIDC Decision).  Following a brief introduction on the follow-up process to the NFIDC Decision 
as a whole (Part I), this paper sets out the subs tantive provisions of the Decision and provides 
information regarding their implementation (Part II). 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared  under the Secretariat's own respon sibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/AG/W/42/Rev.14 
Page 2 
 
 
  Table of Contents 
 
 
I.  MONITORING OF THE FOLLOW-UP TO THE NFIDC DECISION ............................. 3  
II.  PROVISIONS OF THE NFIDC DECISION AND IMPLEMENTATION ......................... 4  
A.  FOOD AID  .............................................................................................................................. ...... 5 
1.  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:  2001-2010  ........................................... 7  
Chart 2:  Composition of global food aid deliveries (per cent)  .............................. 8  
Chart 3:  Delivery modes of global food aid:  2001-2010  ........................................ 9  
(b)  Initiation of food aid negotiations ........................................................................................... .... 9 
2.  Concessionality of Food Aid ...................................................................................................  11 
B.  TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE  ................................................................................. 11  
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 IGC Grains and Oilseeds Index (GOI)* (2000-2011)  ................... 16  
2.  Access to the Facilities of the IMF and the World Bank ..................................................... 17  
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 deliveries of cereals and non-cereals, 2001-
2010 ............................................................................................................................ 21  
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.14 
 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 notifica tion requirements 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.2  The 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 Tabl e NF:1 notification requirements in the 1995 
to 2010 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 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  
The list is regularly reviewed at March meetings of the Committee.  Since the annual monitoring 
exercise in November 2010, three developing country Members namely Grenada, Maldives and 
Swaziland have been added to the list.  The list currently contains 29 developing country 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 commer cial 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 example, for Brazil, Burkina Faso, Fiji, Indonesia, Malta, Morocco, Philippines, 
United Arab Emirates and Uruguay. 
5 See G/AG/3.  The decision to establish this list was taken on the understanding that " being listed 
would not as such confer automatic benefits since, unde r the mechanisms covered by the Marrakesh Ministerial 
Decision, donors and the institutions concerned would have a role to play " (G/AG/R/4, paragraph 17). 
6 See G/AG/5/Rev.9. 
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.14 
Page 4 
 
 
  6. Between 2003 and 2006, the Committee on Agriculture also considered, at each of its regular 
meetings, a proposal by the African Group calling for developed-country Members to, inter alia , 
contribute to a revolving fund for normal levels of food imports.11  In September 2004, the Committee 
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 compendium 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 Council 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 policies,  and international food 
markets" which explored the linkages betwee n food security and international trade. 
8. 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  On the occasion of the November  2010 annual monitoring exercise, an 
information session was organized inviting Mr. Davi d Nabarro, the Coordinator of the UN High Level 
Task Force (HLTF) on the Global Food Security Crisis to address WTO Members and observer 
governments, as well as interested Secretariat staff,  about the role and activities of the HLTF, with 
particular reference to the UCFA. 
II. PROVISIONS OF THE NFIDC DECISION AND IMPLEMENTATION 
9. 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). 
                                                      
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 the documents in the G/AG/W/70 series. 
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.14 
 Page 5 
 
 
  10. The remaining paragraphs of the NFIDC Decision 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. FOOD AID  
11. 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 
12. To the end enunciated in the chapeau of pa ragraph 3 of the NFIDC Decision, Ministers 
agreed: 
" … to review the level of food aid established periodically by the Committee on 
Food Aid under the Food Aid Convention 198 6 and to initiate negotiations in the 
appropriate forum to establish a level of f ood aid commitments sufficient to meet the 
legitimate needs of developing countr ies during the reform programme ... " 
(paragraph 3(i) of the NFIDC Decision). 
(a) Review of food aid levels 
13. 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.  In this respect, the Inte r-agency panel referred to  in paragraph 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 fo r cereals, as it provides assurances of 
minimum supplies of food aid irrespective of world food price and supply 
fluctuations."
17 
14. The value of FAC commitments in volume terms was demonstrated during sharply rising 
food prices in 2007-08 and subsequently when sever al donors took major budgetary initiatives to meet 
their food aid obligations. 
                                                      
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.14 
Page 6 
 
 
  15. 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 2001/02 - 2009/10.  
It shows that annual shipments exceeded, often significantly, FAC members' combined minimum 
annual commitments.  Food aid shipments in 2009/ 10 totalled 6.9 million tonnes in wheat equivalent, 
representing a 13 per cent decrease from the previous year.  Shipments were, however, significantly in 
excess of members' combined annual minimum commitment of 5.4 million tonnes.  The bulk of food 
aid provided in 2009/10 under the FAC was supplie d in response to emergency situations and 
protracted relief operations.  Sub- Saharan Africa was the recipient of  about two-thirds of the total 
food aid.18 
16. There are a number of other sources of food aid data, particularly the Food and Agriculture 
Organization (FAO) and the World Food Programme (WFP).  Data from these sources are not directly comparable with the data of the Food Aid Co mmittee 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  
17. 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 monitored by the WFP include deliveries by FAC members, 
other countries, and non-governmental organizations.  
20 See G/AG/GEN/49, pp. 10-11.   G/AG/W/42/Rev.14 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Chart 1:  Evolution of food aid deliveries:  2001-2010 
 
2001 2005 2010
OTHER 4.5 2.4 0.5
NFIDC 1.6 0.6 1.2
LDC 4.5 4.9 3.8024681012million tonnes10.5
5.57.9
 
 
 
Notes: Includes cereals in grain equivalent and non-cereals in product weight;   "NFIDC" refers to the 
29 Members listed in para (b) of G/AG/5/Rev.9.  Data fo r 2010 are provisional and may be subject to revisions. 
 
Source : Food Aid Information System (FAIS) at http://www.wfp.org/fais/reports/ . 
18. Chart 1 shows that, overall, total food aid deliveries as monitored by WFP are generally 
following a declining trend.  In 2010, global food aid deliveries were 5.5 million tonnes, which 
according to the WFP, is the lowest level since 1961.  In 2010, while the amount of total food aid 
declined compared to 2009 levels, the share of LD Cs and NFIDCs in the total food aid increased to 
91 per cent, compared to 80 per cent in the previ ous year.  Attachment 3 gives a detailed breakdown 
of food aid deliveries by recipient during the period 2001-2010 as monitored by WFP.  In absolute 
terms, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Sudan, Haiti, Kenya, Ba ngladesh, Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger, 
Afghanistan and Chad were the major recipients of food aid in 2010. 
19. According to WFP, several NFIDCs on the WTO list were, occasionally or regularly, 
recipients of food aid during the period 2001-20 10, except the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 
Botswana, Gabon, Dominica, Mauritius, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the 
Grenadines, Tunisia and Trinidad and Tobago.  Tota l food aid deliveries to NFIDCs in 2010 increased 
sharply (65 per cent increase over the amount recorded in 2009), which was predominantly 
attributable to increased food deliveries to Pakistan. 
20. While LDCs continue to be the major recipients  of global food aid, a declining trend in food 
aid deliveries is noticeable.  The amount of food aid to LDCs in 2010 decreased by about 6 per cent 
compared to 2009 deliveries.  The downward trend noted in 2010 reflects decreased food aid 
deliveries to Somalia, Mozambique, Uganda and Af ghanistan.  Among LDCs, Ethiopia, Sudan, Haiti 
and Bangladesh were the major recipients of food aid in 2010. G/AG/W/42/Rev.14 
Page 8 
 
 
  21. 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. 
(b) Project  food aid aims at supporting specific poverty-alleviation and disaster-
prevention activities.  It is usually freely distributed to targeted beneficiary groups, 
but may also be sold on the open market a nd is then referred to as "monetized" food 
aid.  It is provided on a grant basis and is channelled multilaterally, through NGOs, or 
bilaterally. 
(c) Programme  food aid is usually supplied as a resource transfer for balance of 
payments or budgetary support activities on a government-to-government basis.  
Unlike most of the food aid provided for project or emergency purposes, it is not 
targeted to specific beneficiary groups.  It is sold on the open market, and provided 
either as a grant, or as a loan. 
22. WFP statistics compiled in Chart 2 below indicate that emergency food aid provided in the 
form of relief in response to man-made emergenc ies or natural disasters remained the predominant 
category in 2010 accounting for 73 per cent of tota l food aid deliveries.  On the other hand, 
programme food aid, which accounted for 30 per cent in 2000, has been declining with its share 
standing at 4 per cent in 2010. 
Chart 2:  Composition of global food aid deliveries (per cent) 
 
 
 
Source : Food Aid Information System (FAIS) at http://www.wfp.org/fais/reports/ .  Data for 2010 are 
provisional. 
 
 G/AG/W/42/Rev.14 
 Page 9 
 
 
  23. 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 . 
24. Chart 3 below indicates that over the last 10 years (i.e. 2001 to 2010), the share of global food 
aid deliveries in the form of direct transfers h as declined (from 83 per cent to 33 per cent), while the 
share of local purchases and triangular transactions in global food deliveries has increased (from 8 to 24 per cent; and from 10 to 44 per cent, respectively). 
Chart 3:  Delivery modes of global food aid:  2001-2010 
 
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Triangular Purchase 1.0 1.0 1.9 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.8 2.4
Local Purchase 0.8 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.3
Direct Transfer 8.7 7.6 7.1 4.7 5.3 4.2 3.3 3.8 3.1 1.8
Total 10.5 9.1 9.8 7.0 7.9 6.7 5.8 6.2 5.8 5.510.5
9.19.8
7.07.9
6.7
5.86.25.85.5
0.02.04.06.08.010.012.0million tonnes
 
 
 
 
 Source :  Food Aid Information System (FAIS) at http://www.wfp.org/fais/reports/ .  Data for 2010 are 
provisional. 
(b) Initiation of food aid negotiations 
25. 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, action 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 G/AG/W/42/Rev.14 
Page 10 
 
 
  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 
26. 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 Decemb er 1997 the Food Aid Committee decided to open 
the Convention for renegotiation taking into account, amongst other things, " the food security and 
trade liberalization objectives under the WTO and the World Food Summit Action Plan ".22  In early 
1998, the Food Aid Committee confirmed its inten tion to bring a new Food Aid Convention into 
effect on 1 July 1999.  In November 1998, the Fo od Aid Committee held a further dialogue meeting 
with representatives of food aid recipient count ries regarding the main elements of the new 
Convention.23 
27. 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). 
28. 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. 
29. At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Mini sters approved the recommendation of the 
Committee: 
"that early action be taken within the fr amework of the Food Aid Convention 1999 
(which unless extended, with or without a decision regarding its renegotiation, 
would expire on 30 June 2002)  and of the UN World Food Programme by donors of 
food aid to review their food aid contributi ons with a view to better identifying and 
meeting the food aid needs of least- developed and WTO net food-importing 
developing countries".  (G/AG/11, Part B paragraph 3 I(a) refers) 
30. 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 br inging into effect a Convention which is a " more 
effective instrument to provide food to those id entified needs when food aid is the most appropriate 
response ."  At its December 2004 session, the Food Ai d Committee concluded that the relationship 
between the review process in the Food Aid Co mmittee and negotiations underway in the WTO was 
such that conclusive recommendations should await the outcome of the WTO negotiations.  In these 
circumstances, the Food Aid Convention 1999 was extended on an annual basis. 
31. The FAC members, in informal discussions, reviewed the effectiveness of the current 
Convention and reflected on the possible guiding objectives of a new convention.  These discussions 
                                                      
21 See G/L/125, paragraph 18(i) refers.  
22 See IGC statement in G/AG/GEN/20.  
23 See G/AG/GEN/31, page 4.  
24 See G/AG/GEN/35 for a description of major changes introduced in the Convention.   G/AG/W/42/Rev.14 
 Page 11 
 
 
  intensified in 2010 and a Working Group on the futu re of the Convention was established.  Following 
such deliberations, the Food Aid Committee at its 103rd Session on 14 December 2010 agreed to begin 
the formal process of renegotiating the Food Aid Conve ntion, 1999 with immediate effect.  The Food 
Aid Convention 1999 was further extended un til 30 June 2012 pending a final outcome. 
2. Concessionality of Food Aid 
32. 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). 
33. 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. 
34. At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Ministers approved the recommendation that: 
"WTO Members which are donors of food aid shall, within the framework of their 
food aid policies, statutes, programmes and commitments, take a ppropriate measures 
aimed at ensuring: … (ii) that all food aid to least developed countries is provided in 
fully grant form and, to the maximum extent possible, to WTO net food-importing 
developing countries as well".  (G/AG/11,  Part B paragraph 3 I(b) refers) 
35. Members' Table NF:1 notifications25 include information on the level of concessionality of 
their food aid deliveries to to LDCs and NFIDCs.  Most notifying Members provided food aid to the 
countries concerned in fully grant form.  In the case of the United States, the proportion of food aid in fully grant form ranged between 83 to 100 per cent during 1995/96-2002/03, with the remainder being 
provided in accordance with the relevant FAC gui delines.  As from 2003/04 and until 2007/08, the 
United States has indicated in its notification
26 that: 
"Title I aid is provided in fully grant fo rm or on long-term concessional terms in 
accordance with Food Aid Convention guide lines.  Aid under Food for Education, 
Title II, Title III, Food for Progress and Section 416(b) Programs is provided in fully 
grant form". 
B. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE  
36. 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). 
37. 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 
                                                      
25 See Attachment 1 for the relevant notification symbols. 
26  See G/AG/N/USA/65 and 76.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.14 
Page 12 
 
 
  financial assistance by least-developed and net f ood-importing developing countries to improve their 
agricultural productivity and infrastructure.  This recommendation reflects the f act that technical and 
financial assistance is essentially a bilateral ma tter between donors and recipients based on requests 
made by recipient countries.  Technical and fina ncial assistance by Members under paragraph 3(iii) of 
the NFIDC Decision is reported in their Table NF :1 notifications.  During the November 2010 annual 
monitoring exercise, the European Union and Swit zerland reported on their respective food assistance 
policy frameworks as well as specific actions to ass ist developing countries in meeting food security 
challenges.27 
38. Furthermore, the Doha Ministerial Conference approved the recommendation: 
" ... that, in support of the priority accorded by least-developed and net food-
importing developing countries to the devel opment of their agricultural productivity 
and infrastructure, the WTO General Council call upon releva nt international 
development organisations, including the World Bank, the FAO, IFAD, the UNDP 
and the Regional Development Banks to e nhance their provision of, and access to, 
technical and financial assistance to least-developed and net food-importing 
developing countries, on terms and conditions  conducive to the better use of such 
facilities and resources, in order to improve agricultural productivity and infrastructure in these countries under existing facilities and programmes, as well as 
under such facilities and programmes as may be introduced".  (G/AG/11, Part B 
paragraph 3 II(b) refers). 
39. The responses from the African Development Bank,  the European Investment Bank, FAO and 
the World Bank were circulated in 2002.
28 
40. The IMF renewed its commitment to providing assistance to developing countries in capacity 
building and in coping with balance-of-payme nt shortfalls resulting from multilateral trade 
liberalization.29  During the global food and financial cris is in 2007/08, the IMF undertook a number 
of internal reform measures which, inter alia , boosted its capacity to provide financial assistance to 
low-income developing countries with a more flexib le framework for structural conditionality, while 
lending facilities were revamped.  The reform meas ures included higher concessionality in financial 
support and zero interest payments through end-20 11 on new and outstanding concessional loans.  
The IMF also stepped up its technical assistance (TA) programme predominantly through the network 
of regional technical assistance centres, thus c ontributing to effective surveillance and building 
capacity for policymaking.30  In November 2010, the IMF reporte d to the Committee to have provided 
about US$189 billion in financial support to emer ging and developing countries since the beginning 
of the crisis.  Furthermore, the regional technical  assistance network in Africa and Central Asia was 
strengthened.31 
41. 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 
                                                      
27 See G/AG/GEN/94. 
28 See G/AG/W/57 and Add.1.  
29 See G/AG/GEN/71, G/AG/GEN/76 and G/AG/GEN/78.  
30 See IMF's statement in G/AG/GEN/90.  
31 See G/AG/GEN/94.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.14 
 Page 13 
 
 
  and investments and to enhance the role of agri culture in providing environmental services.  The 
World Bank also emphasized that access to global ma rkets was critical to achieving long-term food 
security.  In that context, the role of Aid-for-T rade 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 countri es in need of trade finance and technical 
expertise.32 
42. The WFP, through its Purchase for Progress (P4P) initiative, purchases food directly from 
farmers and provides technical expertise to farmers in the field of agricultural and market development.  The WFP informed the Committee in  November 2010 to have trained more than 
17,300 farmers and warehouse operators under the P4 P programme.  The WFP also reported on the 
innovative insurance schemes that it developed to  manage risks resulting from climate change.  
Stating the importance of such ex ante  measures to build resilience ag ainst extreme weather events, 
the WFP mentioned that farmers in China and Ethiopia already benefitted from these WFP products.
33 
43. During the November 2010 annual monitoring, th e Inter-American Institute for Cooperation 
on Agriculture (IICA) reported on its efforts to wards improving agricultural productivity and food 
security in Latin America and the Caribbean.  In  this context the IICA described its 2010-2014 
Medium Term Plan and Food Security strategy.34 
C. DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN THE FRAMEW ORK OF AN AGREEMENT ON EXPORT CREDITS  
44. 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). 
45. 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 regul ar meetings of the Committee on Agriculture and 
in the Special Session negotiations on the basis, inter alia , of the proposals that have been tabled and 
other inputs, including with respect to special and differential treatment in favour of developing 
countries.35  
46. 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). 
                                                      
32 See the statement of the World Bank in G/AG/GEN/90.  
33 See the statement of th e WFP in G/AG/GEN/94. 
34 See the Statement of the IICA in G/AG/GEN/93. 
35 See also G/AG/16 and Add.1  G/AG/W/42/Rev.14 
Page 14 
 
 
  47. The above objective was reaffirmed during the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.36  As part 
of the on-going agriculture negotia tions, draft provisions specifically addressing these matters have 
been considered by Members.37 
48. 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 th e Aid-for-Trade initiative. 
D. ACCESS TO THE RESOURCES OF THE IN TERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS  
49. In the NFIDC Decision, Ministers furthermore recognized that: 
" … as a result of the Uruguay Round certa in 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 GA TT 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 
50. In 2002, the Inter-agency panel report provide d a detailed examination of the question of 
financing food imports by NFIDCs and LDCs.38  The LDC Group organized a Conference on WTO 
rules and the food crisis in Geneva on 17 July 2008  in partnership with a research and development 
organization focusing on global issues.39 
51. In the aftermath of the global food crisis in  2007/08, the reforms of the Committee on World 
Food Security (CFS) were approved at its 35th Session in October 2009.  These envisage that the CFS 
becomes the foremost inclusive international and inte rgovernmental platform dealing with global food 
security and nutrition.40 At its 36th Session, the CFS, inter alia , mandated its newly constituted High 
Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nu trition (HLPE) to undertake a study on food price 
volatility and its causes and consequences.  The repor t on price volatility and food security by the 
HLPE was finalized in July 2011.41  Global actions to address food insecurity in general, and food 
price volatility in particular, were also adopted w ithin the G-20 framework.  The WTO Secretariat in 
collaboration with other multilateral agencies cont ributed to the preparation of an inter-agency 
                                                      
36 See paragraph 6 of WT/MIN(05)/DEC.  
37 See, for example, Annex J of TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4.  
38 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. 
39 The full report is contained in document G/AG/GEN/77 dated 11 November 2008. See also  
WT/COMTD/LDC/W/43 on the impact of price rises on LDCs.  
40 See http://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-home/en/  for details on the reforms of the CFS.  
41 The final report of the Panel is accessible at http://www.fao.org/c fs/cfs-hlpe/en/ .  G/AG/W/42/Rev.14 
 Page 15 
 
 
  report42 on "Price Volatility in Food and Agricultural Mark ets: Policy Responses" at the request of the 
G-20. 
52. Cereals remain among the most important food  commodities in the import basket of the 
NFIDCs and LDCs.  Chart 4 below shows the Grains  and Oilseeds Index (GOI) of the IGC during the 
period 2000-2011.  The GOI has been developed by the IGC in January 2011.  It is considered as a 
good indicator for measuring global price movements.  Cereals contribute to more than 65 per cent of 
the GOI composition.  The chart depicts strengthening of world grain prices in the course of 2006, 
reaching a peak in February 2008.  Subsequently, at the outset of the global financial and economic 
downturn, these prices declined, whilst still remaining above 2006 levels.  The global grain prices 
again experienced a surge from July 2010 onwards a nd fears were raised concerning a possible repeat 
of the 2007/08 food crisis.  Prices started to recede in early September 2011. 
53. In response to the second price rise in 2010, the FAO convened an extraordinary meeting of 
the Intergovernmental Groups (IGG) of Grains and Rice on 24 September 2010 to discuss the 
situation.  At the IGG session, it was noted that  unexpected crop failure in some major exporting 
countries followed by national responses and specula tive behaviour were amongst the main factors 
behind the recent escalation of world prices and the prevailing high price volatility.  However, market 
fundamentals in terms of global cereal supply a nd demand were found to be  in balance and the 
situation was not indicative of an impending food crisis .  An enhanced role of market information and 
transparency was also emphasized.43 
54. The same point was made in the G-20 Action Plan on Food Price Volatility and Agriculture 
adopted in June 2011.44  To this effect, and accepting one of the recommendations contained in the 
inter-agency report on price volatility, the G-20 Ag riculture Ministers agreed to launch the 
Agriculture Market Information System (AMIS) under their Action Plan.  The AMIS will be housed 
in the FAO and other internationa l organizations including the WTO would contribute to the System 
with a view to promoting a greater shared understa nding of food price devel opments and to further 
policy co-operation among countries. 
                                                      
42 The report is accessible at http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/n ews11_e/igo_10jun11_report_e.pdf .  
43 For more details, see http://www.fao.org/economic/est/en/ . 
44 The Action Plan is accessible at http://un-foodsecurity.org/ . G/AG/W/42/Rev.14 
Page 16 
 
 
  Chart 4:  The IGC Grains and Oilseeds Index (GOI) * (2000-2011) 
 
 
* IGC Grains and Oilseeds Index composition:  wheat (30%), maize (22%), barley (4%), sorghum (2%), rice 
(8%), soybeans (31%), rapeseed/canola (2%).  See www.igc.int  for more details.  January 2000=100 
 
Source :  International Grains Council (IGC). 
 
55. 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.  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.45 
56. At the November 2009 session of the Committee on Agriculture, the WFP reported on its 
activities and initiatives to address global food insecu rity and malnutrition.  The WFP allocated 
72 per cent of development and relief resources 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, moth er-and-child health and nutrition, targeted cash 
transfers and food vouchers, and local food purchases.  The newly-created Forward Purchase Facility, where food was purchased on the basis of aggregated  projected needs for a region, enabled the WFP 
to save resources by making food purchases when pri ces were favourable.  The WFP underlined that 
its vulnerability analysis and mapping was particular ly important to develop an effective response in 
the event of food crisis and natural disasters.  The 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. During the 2010 annual monitoring, the WFP 
emphasized that hunger remained a critical issue for countries around the world and reported that the 
WFP procured 2.6 million tonnes of food in 2009 towards its operations.
46 
                                                      
45 See, for example, the observations by the FAO, IGC, WFP, IMF, UNCTAD and World Bank on 
rising food prices and possible impacts on LDCs and NFIDCs. The statements and contributions by international 
observer organizations can be found in the G/AG/GEN/- - document series, the latest of which is G/AG/GEN/94 
(dated 20 December 2010). 
46 See the statements by the WFP co ntained in G/AG/GEN/90 and 94.   G/AG/W/42/Rev.14 
 Page 17 
 
 
  2. Access to the Facilities of the IMF and the World Bank 
57. 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 
2002.47 
58. 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 Fund is in a position to 
meet any balance of payments needs of our members that may arise from higher world food prices ."48 
59. At the November 2009 session of the Committee, the IMF reported on its reformed lending 
framework49 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:  (i) the Extended Credit 
Facility (ECF), which helps to a ddress medium-term balance of paym ents needs;  (ii) the Standby 
Credit Facility (SCF), which can help the low-in come countries that do not face protracted BoP 
problems but need occasional assistance;  and (iii) the Rapid Credit Facility (RCF), which provides 
assistance during urgent financing needs with limited conditionality. 
60. In November 2010, the IMF informed the Committ ee that IMF members agreed to raise loan 
and subsidy contributions for the PRGT up to US$ 17 billion to assist the low-income countries.  
Towards its continuing efforts for crisis preventi on in emerging economies, the IMF also introduced a 
new Precautionary Credit Line (PCL) for countries  with sound economic policies and moderate 
vulnerabilities.  Simultaneously, the existing Flexib le Credit Line (FCL) facility was reformed to 
allow for a more flexible access for a longer period of time.50 
61. The position of the World Bank regarding the i ssue 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 sm all size of the shocks resulting from the 
Round and the Bank's substantial headroom  above current IBRD loans outstanding, 
it seems clear that the Bank will be in a position to meet any additional demands 
generated by the Round for loans on IBRD terms.  
"In response to the Ministerial Decision, a Working Group involving the World Bank, 
the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Food Programme and the IMF met 
in 1995 to address the special needs of least-developed and net food-importing 
countries.  The Working Group reviewed the range of facilities available for additional financing needs for developing countries in the event of world price shocks 
and production shortfalls a nd provided a report to the WTO in late 1995.  Given the 
wide range of facilities and the small pr ice impacts expected to arise as a 
consequence of the Round, and the difficulty involved in distinguishing Uruguay 
                                                      
47 See WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13.  
48 See G/AG/GEN/49, page 8.  
49 See G/AG/GEN/90.  
50 See the statement of the IM F contained in G/AG/GEN/94 G/AG/W/42/Rev.14 
Page 18 
 
 
  Round impacts from other shocks, it did not seem appropriate to establish a special 
Uruguay Round adjustment facility." (G/AG/GEN/15, page 3). 
62. 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 consider s that food insecurity is best addressed through 
programmes designed to raise the purchasing power of the poor;  reduce their exposure to negative 
income shocks; and improve the functioning of th e global food distribution and food aid systems.51 
63. 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).52  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 October 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 
smallholder supply response, social protection and nu trition 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 m echanisms.  The Bank did not participate in the 
2010 annual monitoring exercise. 
 
                                                      
51 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. 
52  See the contribution of the World Bank (November 2009) in G/AG/GEN/90.   
   G/AG/W/42/Rev.14
 Page 19Attachment 1:  Compliance with notification requirements (Table NF:1) 
 
Reporting 
         period1 
 
Member 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Notifi cation circulated  in G/AG/N-series 
Food Aid Convention donors  
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 X     CAN/11, 18, 25, 34, 42, 52, 57, 67, 72, 81  
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 X   JPN/15, 27, 33 , 46, 68, 78, 87, 107, 125 & Corr.1, 144, 145, 160 
Norway X 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 & Rev.1, 60 
Switzerland X X X X X X X X X X X X X X   CHE/23, 30, 39 and Corr.1, 53 
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  
Argentina2 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 X  NZL/6, 13, 17, 25, 26, 30, 39, 40, 45 & Rev.1, 56 & Corr.1, 60, 68 
Korea, Rep. of X X               KOR/9, 17 
South Africa X X X X X X X X X X X X X X   ZAF/7, 9, 17, 24, 32, 39, 42, 50, 56, 60, 67, 69, 72 
Compliance 
calculated as 
number of 
notifications 
received from FAC donors 
(per cent) 86 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 86 71 71 14 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.14 
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  2009/10  
        
        
ARGENTINA 35.0 0.03 - - - - - - -   
        
AUSTRALIA 150.0 245.8 203.8 177.9 168.1 180.7 114.5 216.7 163.8 165.1 
        
CANADA (a) 420.0 412.1 499.4 351.2 437.3 448.5 474.4 520.9 551.5 524.1 
        
EU (c) tonnage 1,320.0 1,836.7 1,980.8 2,218.1 2,151.9 2,853.1 2,488.1 2,178.3 2,263.5 1,691.80 
 value ('000) €130,000.0     
        
JAPAN (a) 300.0 531.8 666.9 581.0 578.3 354.3 318.9 428.3 556.1 691.3 
        
NORWAY (a) 30.0 74.3 144.9 165.5 145.6 196.0 179.4 102.9 89.4 62.8 
        
SWITZERLAND 40.0 58.0 67.9 69.7 71.9 61.6 71.1 69.9 59.4 47.9 
        
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 3,745.50 
                      
TOTAL (a) (b)
 tonnage 4,795.0 10,283.1 9,617.9 9,365.1 8,916.3 8,924.9 7,515.6 7,147.3 7,940.5 6,928.5 
 value ('000) €130,000.0                   
 
Notes: 
* These figures refer to the wheat equivalent of ac tual 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 the basis of the "prevailing international market price".  These f igures 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.  Shipments include es timated tonnage under FAC "value" contributions. 
 
Source :  Food Aid Committee, International Grains Council.  http://foodaidconvention.org .  
   G/AG/W/42/Rev.14
 Page 21Attachment 3:  Food aid deliveries of cereals and non-cereals, 2001-2010 
 
(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 LDC NFIDC MEM 
TOTAL 10,511.4 9,041.5 9,790.0 6,955.1 7,895.3 6,650.1 5,773.3 6,218.0 5,817.2 5,462.9       
of which                           
Least Developed Countries  4,500.6 3,561.2 5,285.7 3,791.1 4,864.5 3,950.5 3,320.9 4,419.6 3,985.8 3,752.4 
Net food-importing countries  1,557.3 1,303.4 644.1 584.2 612.5 976.0 542.1 525.3 708.8 1,172.9    
                            
                            
Sub-Saharan Africa 3,554.9 2, 761.0 5,097.8 3,488. 2 4,445.0 3,824.5 3,095.5 4,006.3 3,796.4 3,373.8       
Angola 180.3 257.7 272.6 126.7 55.5 26.4 10.4 0.0 0.0 3.6 #   M 
Benin 16.4 21.9 20.1 21.8 14.9 14.6 7.1 11.4 18.4 18.8 #   M 
Burkina Faso 43.1 35.2 29.1 38.9 38.1 40.1 42.1 44.2 27.9 40.2 #   M 
Burundi 61.9 35.3 68.0 79.1 72.0 82.5 66.8 38.5 62.5 32.3 #   M 
Cameroon 8.8 2.9 10.3 31.2 13.6 11.2 5.5 15.1 10.2 14.1     M 
Cape Verde 37.5 48.2 40.7 35.4 28.5 28.1 4.9 11.7 18.1 16.0     M 
Central African Republic 0.8 6.9 5.1 5.4 4.4 10.3 28.3 14.9 22.9 8.6 #   M 
Chad 33.3 9.8 16.0 41.5 72.1 59.2 67.6 82.0 109.9 108.4 #   M 
Comoros 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 #     
Congo, Democratic Republic of 42.8 83.0 79.6 79.9 93.8 100.9 103.0 117.4 190.2 166.5 #   M 
Congo 41.3 18.3 10.2 8.2 8.4 8.5 16.2 3.6 7.0 7.3     M 
Côte d'Ivoire 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 14.7 34.1 21.1   N M 
Djibouti 10.0 17.5 7.2 9.3 18.8 11.8 8.5 10.9 23.1 8.4 #   M 
Equatorial Guinea 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #     
Eritrea 313.3 158.1 347.8 268.2 227.0 32.0 14.8 17.2 0.0 0.0 #     
Ethiopia 1,128.1 333.4 1,963.9 743.8 1,112.4 736.9 624.6 1,030.4 1,120.7 1,405.1 #     
The Gambia 3.1 4.1 18.3 6.1 11.2 13.4 8.2 4.0 4.8 23.4 #   M 
Ghana 55.0 70.5 81.7 70.4 62.1 50.7 38.7 42.6 39.1 6.5     M 
Guinea 39.5 45.5 38.7 26.5 37.8 27.2 18.8 42.8 15.5 3.9 #   M 
Guinea Bissau 6.2 6.2 12.8 4.4 10.5 6.7 15.4 8.2 2.5 6.7 #   M 
Kenya 351.5 119.6 144.2 136.3 148.2 370.5 261.1 245.2 269.5 241.6   N M 
Lesotho 3.1 55.9 25.4 40.4 38.6 22.4 36.9 16.9 7.6 6.2 #   M 
Liberia 19.2 32.2 51.5 73.5 94.8 63.3 43.5 40.5 26.1 27.8 #     
Madagascar 57.5 44.3 57.2 39.8 46.8 44.1 51.9 32.8 22.2 26.1 #   M 
Malawi 40.8 194.5 113.5 74.5 145.4 238.4 91.6 68.5 97.0 37.5 #   M 
Mali 19.9 4.8 28.6 13.7 39.0 37.7 46.0 22.2 29.9 25.2 #   M 
Mauritania 36.9 42.7 86.9 45.3 91.3 41.2 43.2 55.4 30.5 38.7 #   M 
Mozambique 263.3 200.5 238.9 150.5 116.3 148.6 86.2 141.8 169.3 78.0 #   M  
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.14 
Page 22 
(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 LDC NFIDC MEM 
Namibia 4.4 23.6 23.1 5.5 1.6 6.5 9.8 4.4 0.4 0.8   N M 
Niger 62.9 36.3 22.0 38.5 138.3 91.3 77.0 60.6 48.0 155.2 #   M 
Nigeria 2.2 12.5 13.3 0.0 19.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Rwanda 63.7 69.1 42.7 44.6 40.4 49.3 25.7 24.9 29.0 7.3 #   M 
Sao Tome and Principe 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 7.2 5.2 3.3 #     
Senegal 30.1 9.1 36.6 20.8 29.9 15.0 27.9 29.5 18.2 40.8 # N M 
Sierra Leone 57.2 77.0 49.9 35.3 36.0 31.0 30.1 30.4 17.1 22.1 #   M 
Somalia 9.3 33.9 33.1 43.7 39.3 203.2 109.6 366.9 361.9 72.3 #     
South Africa 0.1 15.1 19.9 58.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Sudan 198.8 147.5 253.7 376.4 913.2 590.8 492.6 672.8 511.7 475.3 #     
Swaziland 0.0 15.2 23.8 11.1 11.5 15.8 16.1 17.9 2.5 17.2   N M 
Tanzania 172.3 87.3 129.5 110.7 115.0 93.8 78.1 84.5 29.1 37.3 #   M 
Togo 6.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 2.1 6.2 25.2 2.2 #   M 
Uganda 77.7 80.3 188.1 235.4 281.8 257.2 261.5 190.1 136.9 78.1 #   M 
Zambia 43.9 67.7 147.8 88.1 143.4 108.4 40.1 32.1 15.8 6.4 #   M 
Zimbabwe 0.0 237.6 337.8 249.1 73.1 134.5 155.7 342.2 228.8 83.5     M 
Seychelles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0       
              
Asia 4,037.5 3,604.3 2,353.5 1,994.8 2,372.0 1,346.5 1,708.8 1,464.2 1,347.0 1,422.8       
Afghanistan 275.4 558.5 228.4 231.2 207.3 160.5 224.7 314.6 202.6 131.4 #     
Bangladesh 813.8 244.3 462.3 225.6 293.5 228.0 221.1 333.2 164.9 193.8 #   M 
Bhutan 4.6 7.5 6.5 6.4 2.2 1.3 3.3 4.1 2.0 3.4 #     
Cambodia 49.7 68.8 25.2 31.3 23.8 27.5 31.9 43.8 35.2 16.8 #   M 
China 42.0 109.2 53.5 35.1 49.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.1     M 
India 200.3 267.4 68.3 138.3 96.0 147.0 115.9 50.7 53.7 14.1     M 
Indonesia 297.9 163.3 222.2 159.2 173.9 91.0 33.9 8.9 8.3 0.4     M 
Korea, Democratic  Republic 1,508.0 1,178.1 944.4 844.8 1,097.3 307.5 720.5 325.2 297.9 79.2     M 
Laos 18.7 28.9 19.8 25.3 19.2 12.7 19.5 15.4 18.0 20.5 #     
Maldives 5.8 0.0 10.6 5.4 8.7 6.2 6.6 4.7 17.4 9.0 N M 
Mongolia 59.7 27.7 28.2 28.4 54.8 9.3 33.4 27.3 25.0 0.0   N M 
Myanmar 3.8 9.2 6.2 18.1 16.5 27.4 25.9 106.1 76.9 31.5 #   M 
Nepal 48.7 49.8 36.5 54.8 56.4 65.8 50.0 74.6 56.1 52.9 #   M 
Pakistan 274.4 468.7 47.7 59.3 30.1 170.9 21.5 56.9 245.2 732.5   N M 
Philippines 196.0 272.7 90.5 29.6 120.6 18.9 109.0 15.3 63.1 82.2     M 
Sri Lanka 125.3 86.9 26.7 38.2 120.4 61.7 77.4 73.5 73.1 54.1   N M 
Thailand 0.1 1.5 1.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Timor-Leste 3.2 0.0 0.3 7.5 1.3 10.9 14.3 8.5 7.7 0.8 #     
Viet Nam 110.0 61.8 75.0 56.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M  
   G/AG/W/42/Rev.14
 Page 23(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 LDC NFIDC MEM 
                            
Eastern Europe & CIS  1,132.3 852.3 649.8 397.0 270.8 378.0  303.1 108.6 81.4 62.1       
Albania  13.0 50.8 9.5 31.2 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Armenia 31.6 40.6 33.1 8.8 16.2 9.0 84.5 8.4 6.2 4.8     M 
Azerbaijan 17.1 15.2 25.0 44.4 9.2 90.6 41.2 1.9 0.0 0.0       
Bosnia and Herzegovina 82.5 96.2 24.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0       
Bulgaria 15.0 10.4 17.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 10. 1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Georgia 76.1 69.8 66.8 91.9 15.3 30.7 77.7 12.7 14.6 0.9     M 
Kazakhstan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0       
Kyrgyz Republic 30.4 70.7 4.6 2.1 139.3 26.2 58.1 0.3 16.5 37.4     M 
Moldova 39.5 17.0 17.5 18.3 8.2 28.0 9.4 45.9 0.0 0.0     M 
Romania 0.0 4.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Russian Federation 228.6 92.5 65.7 31.8 20.5 17.5 13.5 8.8 0.2 0.0       
Serbia & Montenegro 277.4 38.8 75.2 23.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0       
Tajikistan 192.5 141.4 79.8 62.3 57.8 171.6 17.8 30.6 43.7 19.0       
Turkmenistan 14.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0       
Ukraine 0.0 5.1 209.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Uzbekistan 104.4 198.2 20.8 82.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0       
              
Middle East & North Africa  830.4 643.2 1,263.3 536.2 185.2 477.3 328.3 315.9 282.7 201.2       
Algeria  31.6 49.8 9.0 38.9 32.0 20.5 22.9 32.0 20.1 18.8       
Cyprus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Egypt 28.5 9.1 16.3 10.6 11.6 29.4 2.3 5.6 1.7 2.8   N M 
Iran 15.7 7.4 30.3 3.3 2.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 3.1 4.0       
Iraq 9.0 11.1 936.7 10.4 32.8 58.4 47.3 46.3 11.6 5.2       
Jordan 225.6 226.2 162.3 126.9 3.3 110.5 4.4 6.7 4.2 0.0   N M 
Lebanon 118.2 94.1 10.0 0.0 12.0 35.7 1.9 4.2 1.6 0.0       
Morocco 62.0 6.8 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   N M 
Palestinian Territory 164.6 68.1 53.5 152.5 64.0 117.5 185.3 148.8 174.4 73.0       
Syria 13.2 7.6 9.4 13.2 7.6 4.3 7.8 44.6 25.8 28.0       
Yemen 162.1 163.0 34.2 180.2 19.5 100.2 55.1 26.4 39.6 69.4 #     
Israel  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0     M 
                            
Latin America & the Caribbean  956.4 1,180.8 425.4 539.0 622.3 623.8 337.7 323.0 309.7 403.1       
Barbados  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   N M 
Belize 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Bolivia, Plurinational State of  40.3 89.6 109.6 82.7 59.2 110.9 54.6 10.9 20.7 6.2     M  
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.14 
Page 24 
(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 LDC NFIDC MEM 
Brazil 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Chile 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Colombia 35.3 8.7 8.7 12.3 14.0 17.5 18.1 19.8 14.7 10.6     M 
Cuba 22.6 7.2 3.3 5.0 7.0 4.4 2.9 1.4 5.2 0.0   N M 
Dominican Republic 69.6 12.8 2.5 12.9 0.3 12.0 0.0 2.8 2.8 50.2   N M  
Ecuador 151.3 83.8 5.8 21.1 43.2 31.3 0.8 2.7 0.4 2.3     M 
El Salvador 60.0 91.3 11.5 12.0 66.2 18.7 3.8 1.1 0.8 3.5     M 
Guatemala 100.0 236.9 61.9 66.9 67.5 107.6 42.4 31.2 68.1 68.4     M  
Guyana 38.5 62.5 0.0 23.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     M 
Haiti 66.8 233.6 62.8 122.4 137.4 111.3 107.4 182.7 178.7 257.4 #   M 
Honduras 71.7 55.3 50.6 42.8 96.7 95.8 40.7 26.2 8.8 2.5   N M 
Jamaica 19.7 0.0 0.0 11.0 11.0 3.6 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0   N M 
Mexico 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0     M 
Nicaragua 79.1 63.1 41.4 56.8 42.4 46.3 55.1 35.6 8.8 2.0     M 
Peru 200.3 235.2 66.6 69.8 77.5 64.3 10.4 8.5 0.6 0.0   N M 
 
Notes: LDC:  Least-developed country (#). 
 NFIDC:  Net food-importing developing country, as  listed in G/AG/5/Rev.9 dated 6 April 2011 (N). 
 MEM:  WTO Member (M).  
Source :  Food Aid Information System (FAIS) at http://www.wfp.org/fais/reports/ .  Data for 2010 are provisional. 
 
 
__________