WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/W/42/Rev.12 
4 November 2009 
 (09-5490) 
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.11 dated 
18 November 2008 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.12 
Page 2  
 
  Table of Contents 
  
I. Monitoring of the follow-up to the NFIDC Decision..............................................................3  
II. Provisions of the NFIDC Deci sion and Implementation .......................................................4  
A. F
OOD AID ............................................................................................................................... .4 
1. Review of Food Aid Levels and Initiation of Food Aid Negotiations ...............................5  
(a) Review of food aid levels................................................................................................5 
Chart 1:  Food aid deliveries to LDCs and NFIDCs:  1995, 2002-2008.................................6 
Table 1:  Evolution of food aid deliveries, 2002-2008 ...........................................................7 
Table 2:  Composition of gl obal food aid deliveries...............................................................8 
Chart 2:  Delivery modes of global food aid...........................................................................9 
(b) Initiation of food aid negotiations...................................................................................9 
2. Concessionality of Food Aid...............................................................................................10  
B. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ..........................................................................12  
C. DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN THE FRAM EWORK OF AN AGREEMENT ON EXPORT 
CREDITS ............................................................................................................................... .............12  
D. ACCESS TO THE RESOURCES OF THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ..........13  
1. Ability to finance commercial imports..............................................................................13  
Chart 3 – The International Grains C ouncil Wheat Price Index (1995- 2009) .....................14 
2. Access to the facilities of the IMF and the World Bank ..................................................14  
Attachment 1 - Compliance with notification requirements (Table NF:1) ...........................17 Attachment 2:   Minimum Annual Contributions and Shipments under the Food Aid 
Convention 1999................................................................................................................ ...18 
Attachment 3 - Food aid deliveries of cereals and non-cereals, 1999-2008 .........................19 
 
 
 
   G/AG/W/42/Rev.12 
 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 2008 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 list 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 
6. Since July 2003, the Committee on Agriculture h as also considered, at each of its regular 
meetings, a proposal by the African Group calling for developed-country Members to, inter alia ,   
                                                      
2  See G/AG/2, pages 33-34. 
3  Counting the EC 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 Counc il 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.12 
Page 4  
 
  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 documents14 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.   
7. In July 2009, the Agricultur e and Commodities Division of the Secretariat organized an 
information session for WTO Members inviting the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food to 
present  his work on the linkages between tr ade in agriculture and the right to food. 
II. PROVISIONS OF THE NFIDC DECISION AND IMPLEMENTATION 
8. The NFIDC Decision states: 
"Ministers recognize  that the progressive implementation of the results of the 
Uruguay Round as a whole will generate increasing opportunities for trade 
expansion and economic growth to the bene fit of all participants" (paragraph 1). 
"Ministers recognize  that during the reform programme leading to greater 
liberalization of trade in agriculture least-developed and net food-importing developing countries may experience negative ef fects in terms of the availability of 
adequate supplies of basic foodstuffs from  external sources on reasonable terms and 
conditions, including short-term difficulti es in financing normal levels of 
commercial imports of basic foodstuffs" (paragraph 2). 
9. The remaining paragraphs of the NFIDC Decisi on contain a number of specific agreements in 
the areas of food aid, technical and financial assist ance, differential treatment within the framework of 
any agreement on agricultural export credits, and a provision regarding access to the resources of the 
international financial institutions.  In the followi ng sections, these paragra phs are taken up one by 
one and supplemented by information available to  the Secretariat regarding their implementation. 
A. F
OOD AID  
10. In light of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the NFIDC Decision quoted above,  
"Ministers  accordingly agree  to establish appropriate mech anisms to ensure that the 
implementation of the results of the Ur uguay Round on trade in agriculture does not 
adversely affect the availability of food aid at a level which is sufficient to continue 
to provide assistance in meeting the food needs of developing countries, especially least-developed and net food-importing de veloping countries".  (chapeau to 
paragraph 3). 
                                                     
 
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, G/AG/W/70/Add.1, G/AG/W/70/Add.1/Corr.1 and G/AG/W/70/Add.2  
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.12 
 Page 5 
 
 
  1. Review of Food Aid Levels and Initiation of Food Aid Negotiations 
11. To the end enunciated in the chapeau of pa ragraph 3 of the NFIDC Decision, Ministers 
agreed: 
" … to review the level of food aid es tablished periodically by the Committee on 
Food Aid under the Food Aid Convention 198 6 and to initiate negotiations in the 
appropriate forum to establish a level of f ood aid commitments sufficient to meet the 
legitimate needs of developing countries during the reform programme ... " (paragraph 3(i) of the NFIDC Decision).  
(a) Review of food aid levels
 
12. The Food Aid Convention (FAC) provides a safety net in terms of food aid availability.  The 
international food aid commitments under the FA C are specified in terms of minimum annual 
contributions by its members.  Attachment 2 summarizes the annual food aid commitments under the 1999 Food Aid Convention as well as the food aid shipments by FAC members, during the period 2001/02-2008/09.
15  The aggregate annual commitments, e xpressed 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).  Under the Food Aid Convention 1999, the combined minimum 
annual volume and value commitments of FAC me mbers are established at 4.8 million tonnes and 
€130 million (as of June 2005).  In th is respect, the Inter-agency pa nel referred to in paragraph 5 
above noted that: 
"the fact that these commitments are expressed  mainly in volume terms is significant 
in times of high world market prices for cereals, as it provides assurances of 
minimum supplies of food aid irrespective of world food price and supply 
fluctuations."16 
13. At the June 2009 Session of the Food Aid Conve ntion, this point was again underlined.  The 
minimum annual aid commitments in quantity terms under the Food Aid  Convention are particularly 
important at a time of sharply rising prices like, as in 2007-08 when several donors took major 
budgetary initiatives to help meet their food aid obligations. 
14. Attachment 2 also shows that annual shipment s exceeded, often signifi cantly, FAC members' 
combined minimum annual commitments.17 Food aid shipments in wheat equivalent under the 
Convention were close to 7.1 million tonnes in 200 7/08 compared to 7.5 million tonnes in 2006/07.  
Food aid shipments for 2008/09 are estimated at clos e to 6.1 million tonnes in wheat equivalent.   
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.18  
                                                      
15 See G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 for data relating to donor commitments and shipments under the 1986 and 
1995 Food Aid Conventions, respectively. 
16  See WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13, paragraph 44. 
17 The exception was 1994/95 when shipments fell short of the aggregate commitment 
(G/AG/W/42/Rev.8, paragraph 12 refers). 
18 For example, food aid deliveries as monitore d by the WFP include deliv eries by FAC members, 
other countries, and non-governmental organizations.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.12 
Page 6  
 
  16. WFP data show that global food aid deliveries present a cyclical pattern, with a record of 
17.3 million tonnes reached in 1993.
19  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 a nd commitments, take appropriate measures 
aimed at ensuring:  (i) that to the maximum extent possible their levels of food aid to 
developing countries are maintained during pe riods in which trends in world market 
prices of basic foodstuffs have been increasing; … " (G/AG/11, Part B paragraph 3 I(b) refers). 
Chart 1:  Food aid deliveries to LDCs and NFIDCs:  1995, 2002-2008 
024681012million tonnes
OTHER 4 . 6 4 . 23 . 92 . 62 . 41 . 72 . 01 . 3
NFIDC 1 . 1 1 . 30 . 60 . 60 . 61 . 00 . 50 . 5
LDC 4 3 . 65 . 33 . 84 . 94 . 03 . 34 . 31995 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20089.7
6.0 5.86.77.9
7.09.8
9.1
 
 
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 2008 are provisional and may be subject to revisions. 
Source : Food Aid Information System (FAIS) at  http://www.wfp.org/fais/reports/. 
 
17. Chart 1 and Table 1 show that, overall, tota l food aid deliveries as monitored by WFP are 
generally following a declining trend.  In 2007, global food aid deliveries were 5.8 million tonnes, 
which according to the WFP, is the lowest level since 1961.  In 2008, while the amount of total food 
aid did not substantially change compared to the figure in 2007, the share of LDCs in the total food aid increased by about 30 per cent.  Attachment 3 gives a detailed breakdown of food aid deliveries by recipient during the period 1999-2008 as monitored by WFP.  In absolute terms, Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and Afghanistan were  the major recipients of food aid in 2008. 
                                                     
 
19 See G/AG/GEN/49, pp. 10-11.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.12 
 Page 7 
 
 
  18. According to WFP, several NFIDCs on th e WTO list were, occasionally or regularly, 
recipients of food aid during the period 1999-2008, 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 2008 were approximately  40 per cent lower than the respective average 
deliveries recorded during the period 2002-2007.   In 2008, there were no food aid deliveries to 
Barbados, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Gabon, Jamaica, Morocco, and Tunisia, confirming 
the downward trend observed in relation to average 2002-2007 deliveries.  With respect to a group of NFIDCs,
 comprising Honduras, Jordan, Pakistan and Peru, sharp declines are observed in 2008 
compared to the average deliveri es recorded in 2002-2007.  Only in the case of  Kenya did food aid 
deliveries in 2008 show a noticeable increase of 25 per cent compared to their 2002-2007 average. 
19. As far as LDCs are concerned, preliminary WF P data indicate that food aid deliveries to 
Myanmar, Somalia, Chad and Togo increased sharply in 2008 compared to their 2002-2007 average.  
By contrast, food aid deliveries have substantia lly declined in 2008 in Angola, Eritrea and Yemen 
compared to their respective average levels during the same reference period (2002-2007). 
Table 1:  Evolution of food aid deliveries, 2002-2008 
 2002-2007               
average  2008 2008 as per cent of 
2002-07 average 
 ( million tonnes )  
LDC 4.2  4.3 104 
NFIDC 0.8  0.5 60 
OTHER  2.8  1.3 45 
TOTAL 7.7  6.0 78 
 
 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 2008 are provisional. 
 Source : Food Aid Information System (FAIS) at  http://www.wfp.org/fais/reports/. 
 
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. 
(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.
 G/AG/W/42/Rev.12 
Page 8  
 
  21. WFP statistics compiled in Table 2 below indicate that an ever rising share of global food aid 
deliveries is provided in the form of emergency re lief in response to man-made or natural disasters, 
while the share of programme food aid has been declining since 1995.  
 
Table 2:  Composition of global food aid deliveries 
FOOD AID CATEGORY 1995 2000 2007 2008 
             per cent 
TOTAL 100 100 100 100 
EMERGENCY  36 46 61 76 
PROJECT  23 24 24 19 
PROGRAMME  41 30 16 5 
 Source : Food Aid Information System (FAIS) at  http ://www.wfp.org/fais/reports/. Data for 2008 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 . 
23. Chart 2 below indicates that the share of globa l food aid deliveries in the form of direct 
transfers has declined between 1995 and 2008 (from 78%  to 59%), while the share of  local purchases 
and triangular transactions in global food deliveri es has increased (from 5 per cent to 17 per cent; and 
from 17 per cent to 24 per cent, respectively).   G/AG/W/42/Rev.12 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Chart 2:  Delivery modes of global food aid  
024681012million tonnes
Triangular purchases 1.6 1.0 1.9 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.4
Local purchases 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0
Direct transfers 7.6 7.6 7.1 4.7 5.3 4.2 3.2 3.61995 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20089.7
6.0 5.86.77.9
7.09.8
9.1
 
 Source : Food Aid Information System (FAIS) at  http://www.wfp.org/fais/reports/.   Data for 2008 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.20 
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 ".
21  In early 1998, the Food Aid Committee confirmed 
its intention to bring a new Food Aid Convention into effect on 1 July 1999 and requested the 
Working Group which was undertaking the re-nego tiation of the FAC to aim to conclude the 
substantive negotiations by the end of 1998.  In November 1998, the Food Aid Committee held a 
further dialogue meeting with representatives of  food aid recipient countries regarding the main 
elements of the new Convention.22 
                                                      
20 See G/L/125, paragraph 18(i) refers. 
21 See IGC statement in G/AG/GEN/20. 
22 See G/AG/GEN/31, page 4. G/AG/W/42/Rev.12 
Page 10  
 
  26. The negotiations on the Food Aid Convention 1999 were completed on 24 March 1999 and 
the new Convention provisionally entered into for ce on 1 July 1999 for an initial duration of three 
years.  Its members, including provisional members,  were the same as the members of the Food Aid 
Convention 1995 (Argentina, Australia, Canada, EC and its member States, Japan, Norway, 
Switzerland and the United States). 
27. Under the Food Aid Convention 1999
23, 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 Countries, many of which are on the present WTO list of net food-importing developing count ries.  Other eligible food aid recipients include Lower Middle-
Income Countries and all other countries included in  the WTO list of net food-importing developing 
countries at the time of negotiation of the new Convention. 
28. At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Mini sters approved the recommendation of the 
Committee: 
"that early action be taken within the framework of the Food Aid Convention 1999 
(which unless extended, with or without a decision regarding its renegotiation, 
would expire on 30 June 2002)  and of the UN World Food Programme by donors of 
food aid to review their food aid 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 held 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 Aid Convention 1999 was extended four times, the latest being at the 
100
th session of the Food Aid Committee on 5 June 200 9, extending the Convention until  30 June 
2010. 
2. Concessionality of Food Aid 
30. To the end stated in the chap eau of paragraph 3 of the NFIDC Decision, Ministers also 
agreed: 
" … to adopt guidelines to ensure that an  increasing proportion of basic foodstuffs is 
provided to least-developed and net food- importing developing countries in fully 
grant form and/or on appropriate concessional terms in line with Article IV of the Food Aid Convention 1986 … " (paragraph 3(ii) of the NFIDC Decision). 
31. Under the Food Aid Convention 1999, all food aid provided to LDCs will be in the form of 
grants.  Overall, food aid in the form of grants is to represent, at a minimum, 80 per cent of FAC 
members' contributions and donors are to seek  to progressively exceed this share.   
                                                     
 
23 See G/AG/GEN/35 for a description of major changes introduced in the Convention.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.12 
 Page 11 
 
 
  32. 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) 
 
33. 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 to 2005/06, the United States has notified
24:  
"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". 
 
Table 3:   Proportion of food aid provided in fully grant form to LDCs and NFIDCs 
Member Concessionality of food aid 
FAC DONORS  
Australia 100% grant terms 
Canada 100% grant terms 
EC  100% grant terms 
Japan 100% grant terms 
Norway 100% grant terms 
Switzerland 100% grant terms 
United States 1995/96 -   84% 
1996/97 -   93% 1997/98 -   83% 
1998/99 and 1999/00 -   93% 
2000/01 -   95% 2001/02 -   91% 
2002/03 -   100% 
2003/04  to 2005/06:  See para 33 above 
OTHER DONORS  
Cuba 100% grant terms 
New Zealand 100% grants of cash 
South Africa 100% grant terms 
 
 Source : Members' Table NF:1 notifications. 
                                                      
24  See G/AG/N/USA/65 G/AG/W/42/Rev.12 
Page 12  
 
  B. T
ECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE  
34. 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). 
35. The Doha Ministerial Conference called on develo ped country Members to continue to give 
full consideration in the context of their aid progra mmes to requests for the provision of technical and 
financial assistance by least-developed and net f ood-importing developing countries to improve their 
agricultural productivity and infrastructure.  This recommendation reflects the f act that technical and 
financial assistance is essentially a bilateral matte r between donors and recipients based on requests 
made by recipient countries. 
36. 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) 
37. The responses from the African Development Ba nk, the European Investment Bank, FAO and 
the World Bank were circulated.
25  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.26   
C. DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN THE FRAMEW ORK OF AN AGREEMENT ON EXPORT CREDITS  
38. 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). 
39. 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 
                                                      
25 See G/AG/W/57 and Add.1. 
26 See G/AG/GEN/71, G/AG/GEN/76 and G/AG/GEN/78.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.12 
 Page 13 
 
 
  other inputs, including with respect to special and differential treatment in favour of developing 
countries.27  
40. 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)   
41. The above objective was reaffirmed during the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.
28  As part 
of the on-going agriculture negotia tions, draft provisions specifically addressing these matters have 
been considered by Members.29 
D. ACCESS TO THE RESOURCES OF THE IN TERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS  
42. 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 
43. Wheat remains the most important food commodity in the import basket of the NFIDCs and 
LDCs.  Chart 3 below shows that world market pric es have continued to strengthen in the course of 
2006, reaching a peak in February 2008.  Since then , there has been a downward slide in world market 
prices of wheat, whilst still keeping above their 2006 level. 
44. 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.
30  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.
31  The Inter-agency panel report provides a deta iled examination of the question of financing 
                                                      
27 See also G/AG/16 and Add.1 
28 See paragraph 6 of WT/MIN(05)/DEC. 
29 See, for example, Annex J of TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4. 
30 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/78 (dated 15 December 2008).  See, for 
example, the observations by the FAO, IGC, IMF and UNCTAD on rising food prices and its impact on LDCs and NFIDCs. 
31  See G/AG/GEN/64, G/AG/GEN/71, G/AG/GEN/73, G/AG/GEN/76  and G/AG/GEN/78. G/AG/W/42/Rev.12 
Page 14  
 
  food imports by NFIDCs and LDCs.
32  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 
organization focusing on global issues33.  A note by the Secretariat (WT/COMTD/LDC/W/43 dated 
14 October 2008) also dwells upon the issue of rise in prices of agricultural products, including its 
impact on LDCs. 
Chart 3 – The International Grai ns Council Wheat Price Index34 (1995- 2009) 
90014001900240029003400390044004900
95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
 
 
*Average wheat prices of seven widely trad ed varieties of bread wheat: July/Dec 1986=1000 
Source :  International Grains Council. 
 
2. Access to the facilities of the IMF and the World Bank 
45. The question of access to the resources of the inte rnational financial institutions has also been 
the subject of examination by the Inter-agency pa nel of financial and commodity experts.  The 
relevant short-term lending facilities of the IMF and the World Bank are set out in the report, with the 
focus on the operation of the Compensatory  Financing Facility (CFF) of the IMF.35   
                                                      
32  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. 
33 The full report is contained in document G/AG/GEN/77 dated 11 November 2008. 
34 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%, fob St. Lawrence;  Canadian No.1 CWRS 13.5%, fob Vancouver;  US 
No.2 HRW (Ordinary), fob Gulf;  US No.2 SRW, fob Gulf;  US No.2 DNS 14%, fob Pacific;  US No.2 Soft White, fob Pacific;  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). 
35   See WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13.  A review of the CFF concluded that the facility should be retained (see 
G/AG/GEN/68, page 11).  G/AG/W/42/Rev.12 
 Page 15 
 
 
  46. In the context of the Committee's annual m onitoring exercise of the NFIDC Decision in 
December 2001, the IMF representative reiterated th e position of the IMF regarding the question of 
access to its resources by stating: 
"With existing facilities and resources, the F und is in a position to meet any balance 
of payments needs of our members that may arise from higher world food prices."36 
47. An overview of concrete initiatives in favour of  LDCs and NFIDCs is regularly presented by 
the IMF at the meetings of the Committee on Agriculture.  The Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) remains, since 1999, the main inst rument for assisting low-income countries.  The 
IMF noted that, by the end of 2007, 21 low-income countries including 15 NFIDCs were drawing on the PRGF.  A non-financial mechanism, the Policy Support Instrument (PSI) has been recently made 
available to those low-income countries without a PRGF arrangement which are facing exogenous 
shocks.  In supporting the trade-related adjustment n eeds of developing countries in the context of the 
Doha Development Agenda, the IMF also deve loped a Trade Integration Mechanism (TIM) 
specifically addressing 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.   
48. In November 2007, the IMF reported on its ne w Exogenous Shocks Facility (ESF) for low-
income countries without a PRGF arrangement .  The ESF complements the existing facilities 
available to low-income countries facing external shocks.
37  In December 2008, the IMF noted that 
modifications to the ESF in September 2008 provided  for a more rapid financing and streamlined 
requirements and that several countries had alread y expressed interest in assistance under the ESF38. 
49. 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.) 
                                                     
 
36  See G/AG/GEN/49, page 8. 
37  See, for example, G/AG/GEN/68, G/AG/GEN/71 and G/AG/GEN/76.  
38 See G/AG/GEN/78. G/AG/W/42/Rev.12 
Page 16  
 
  50. The World Bank focuses on the strengthening of  the food security of developing countries 
and has developed strategies to deal with food pr ice instability and its negative impacts.  Among the 
solutions proposed, the World Bank, in cooperati on with development partners, focuses on using 
commodity price insurance mechan isms as a tool to anticipate food crises, both at farm and at 
government level. The World Bank also addresses food insecurity through programmes designed to 
raise the purchasing power of the poor; to reduce th eir exposure to negative income shocks; and to 
improve the functioning of the global food distribution and food aid systems.
 39 
 
                                                      
39  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.  
   G/AG/W/42/Rev.12
 Page 17Attachment 1 - Compliance with notifi cation requirements (Table NF:1)  
 
                   Reporting period1 
Member 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Notifica tion circulated in G/AG/N-series 
Food Aid Convention donor  
Australia 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 
Canada X X X X X X X X X X X    CAN/11, 18, 25, 34, 42, 52, 57, 67, 72  
EC  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   NOR/6, 19 & Corr.1, 20 and Corr.1, 26, 33, 34 & Corr.1, 
37, 42, 44 
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   USA/7, 20, 21, 31, 46, 52, 56, 65 
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 CU B/4, 5, 14, 18, 22, 24, 34, 36, 38 
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 (%) 86 100 100 100 100 100 100 100  100 100 100 57 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.12 
Page 18 Attachment 2:   Minimum Annual Contributions and Shipments u nder 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 d) 
                     
                     
ARGENTINA 35.0 0.03   -  -  -  -  -  - - 
                     
AUSTRALIA 150.0 245.8  203.8  178.0  168.1  180.7  114.5  216.7 165.0 e) 
                     
CANADA a) 420.0 408.2  499.4  351.2  437.3  421.5  474.4  520.9 420.0 
                     
EC 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 1,320.0 f) 
                     value  € 130,000.0                  
                     
JAPAN a) 300.0 531.8  666.9  581.0  578.3  354.3  319.0  428.3 566.0 e) 
                     
NORWAY a) 30.0 74.3  144.9  165.5  145.6  196.0  179.4  103.0 89.0 e) 
                     
SWITZERLAND 40.0 58.0  67.9  69.7  71.9  61.6  71.1  69.9 59.0 e) 
                     
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 3,500 
                     
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 6,119.0 d) 
                       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 members in relation to their annual commitments. 
a) Wheat equivalent of cash contributions as calculated on th e basis of the "prevailing international market price". These figu res therefore do not correspond to  quantities actually shipped. 
b) Includes contributions under IEFR – Immediate Response Account (IRA), as reported by WFP. 
c) Includes FAC "value" contributions. 
d)  Preliminary IGC Secretariat estimates.  Includes nominal estimates when no data has been received 
e) Estimated, based on provisional shipment figures. 
f) Represents minimum commitments (no data available). 
 
Source :  Food Aid Committee, International Grains Council.  
 
  
   G/AG/W/42/Rev.12
 Page 19Attachment 3 - Food aid deliveries of cereals and non-cereals, 1999-2008 
(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008   LDC NFIDC MEM 
TOTAL  14,615.1 10,934.1 10,509.9 9,061.8 9,814.7 6,989.7 7,932.7 6,674.6 5,772.8 6,029.8      
                 
Least Developed Countries  4,480.1 4,429.2 4,537.5 3, 614.9 5,327.8 3,829.5 4,897.7 3,979.9 3,326.1 4,318.9     
Net food-importing developing countries 1,346.1 1,382. 9 1,521.4 1,294.0 596.5 578.5 595.0 962.2 491.5 451.9     
                             
                 
Sub-Saharan Africa   2,704.4 3,900.2 3,554.3 2,781.3 5,122.6 3,522.8 4,482.4 3,849.0 3,095.9 3,879.2     
Angola   137.8 279.4 180.3 257.7 272.6 126.7 55.5 26.4 10.4 0.0  #  M 
Benin   11.9 12.7 16.4 21.9 20.1 21.8 14.9 14.6 7.1 11.4  #  M 
Burkina Faso   57.9 33.8 43.1 35.2 29.1 38.9 38.1 40.1 42.1 44.2  #  M 
Burundi   6.6 11.0 61.9 35.3 68.0 79.1 72.0 82.5 66.8 38.3  #  M 
Cameroon   6.2 4.0 8.8 2.9 10.3 31.2 13.6 11.2 5.5 15.6    M 
Cape Verde   56.8 53.0 37.5 48.2 40.7 35.4 28.5 28.1 4.9 12.2  #  M 
Central African Republic   1.2 2.9 0.8 6.9 5.1 5.4 4.4 10.3 28.3 14.9  #  M 
Chad   11.6 19.0 33.3 9.8 16.0 41.5 72.1 59.2 67.6 83.0  #  M 
Comoros   0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0  #   
Congo, Democratic Republic of   22.5 66.8 42.2 83.0 79.6 79.9 93.8 100.9 103.0 112.3  #  M 
Congo   11.5 16.7 41.3 18.3 10.2 8.2 8.4 8.5 16.2 3.1    M 
Côte d'Ivoire   37.1 16.9 6.2 14.8 23.3 31.6 32.7 23.2 26.3 14.7   N M 
Djibouti   9.6 11.9 10.0 17.5 7.2 9.3 18.8 11.8 8.5 10.6  #  M 
Equatorial Guinea   0.0 1.6 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  #   
Eritrea   34.3 251.7 313.3 158.1 347.8 268.2 227.0 32.0 14.8 17.2  #   
Ethiopia   873.7 1,511.6 1,128.1 333.4 1,963.9 743.8 1,112.4 736.9 624.6 975.3  #   
Gabon   0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   N M 
The Gambia   6.0 7.7 3.1 4.1 18.3 6.1 11.2 13.4 8.2 4.0  #  M 
Ghana   26.0 102.0 55.0 70.5 81.7 70.4 62.1 50.7 38.7 42.1    M  
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.12 
Page 20 
(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008   LDC NFIDC MEM 
Guinea   31.6 5.2 39.5 45.5 38.7 26.5 37.8 27.2 18.8 38.8  #  M 
Guinea-Bissau   15.6 26.4 6.2 6.2 12.8 4.4 10.5 6.7 15.4 6.0  #  M 
Kenya   66.0 283.2 351.5 119.6 144.2 136.3 148.2 370.5 261.1 245.3   N M 
Lesotho   5.5 6.0 3.1 55.9 25.4 40.4 38.6 22.4 36.9 16.3  #  M 
Liberia   86.7 102.6 19.2 32.2 51.5 73.5 94.8 63.3 43.5 40.3  #   
Madagascar   25.4 42.6 57.5 44.3 57.2 39.8 46.8 44.1 51.9 29.4  #  M 
Malawi   72.6 36.1 40.8 194.5 113.5 74.5 145.4 238.4 91.6 68.1  #  M 
Mali   13.8 11.0 19.9 4.8 28.6 13.7 39.0 37.7 46.0 22.2  #  M 
Mauritania   30.1 16.1 36.9 42.7 86.9 45.3 91.3 41.2 43.2 55.3  #  M 
Mozambique   161.1 184.2 263.3 200.5 238.9 150.5 116.3 148.6 86.2 125.7  #  M 
Namibia   1.8 1.8 4.4 23.6 23.1 5.5 1.6 6.5 9.8 4.4   N M 
Niger   34.4 20.3 62.9 36.3 22.0 38.5 138.3 91.3 77.0 58.3  #  M 
Nigeria   0.0 1.1 2.2 12.5 13.3 0.0 19.5 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Rwanda   260.2 222.1 63.7 69.1 42.7 44.6 40.4 49.3 25.7 24.8  #  M 
Sao Tome and Principe   1.0 4.7 4.8 5.5 1.4 3.0 4.7 1.3 1.6 7.2  #   
Senegal   30.0 50.9 30.1 9.1 36.6 20.8 29.9 15.0 27.9 29.5  # N M 
Sierra Leone   28.6 25.8 57.2 77.0 49.9 35.3 36.0 31.0 30.1 25.9  #  M 
Somalia   38.9 58.2 9.3 33.9 33.1 43.7 39.3 203.2 109.6 364.0  #   
South Africa   8.8 3.0 0.1 15.1 19.9 58.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Sudan   280.8 180.8 198.8 147.5 253.7 376.4 913.2 590.8 492.6 673.2  #   
Swaziland   5.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 23.8 11.1 11.5 15.8 16.1 17.9    M 
Tanzania   32.3 62.5 172.3 87.3 129.5 110.7 115.0 93.8 78.1 71.5  #  M 
Togo   4.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 2.1 6.2  #  M 
Uganda   97.3 84.9 77.7 80.3 188.1 235.4 281.8 257.2 261.9 190.9  #  M 
Zambia   33.2 47.2 43.9 67.7 147.8 88.1 143.4 108.4 40.1 31.6  #  M 
Zimbabwe   28.3 15.8 0.0 237.6 337.8 249.1 73.1 134.5 155.7 327.3    M 
                  
   G/AG/W/42/Rev.12
 Page 21(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008   LDC NFIDC MEM 
Asia   5,004.1 3,089.6 4,037.5 3,604.3 2,353.5 1,994.8 2,372.0 1,346.5 1,708.8 1,427.1     
Afghanistan   130.7 209.9 275.4 558.5 228.4 231.2 207.3 160.5 224.7 316.7  #   
Bangladesh   1,443.1 270.5 813.8 244.3 462.3 225.6 293.5 228.0 221.1 334.0  #  M 
Bhutan   4.3 3.6 4.6 7.5 6.5 6.4 2.2 1.3 3.3 4.1  #   
Cambodia   28.7 60.9 49.7 68.8 25.2 31.3 23.8 27.5 31.9 43.8  #  M 
China   355.1 90.5 42.0 109.2 53.5 35.1 49.0 0.0 0.0 0.6    M 
India   307.2 280.1 200.3 267.4 68.3 138.3 96.0 147.0 115.9 50.5    M 
Indonesia   825.9 430.2 297.9 163.3 222.2 159.2 173.9 91.0 33.9 8.9    M 
Korea, Democratic Republic   1,000.1 1,231.4 1,508.0 1,178.1 944.4 844.8 1,097.3 307.5 720.5 299.9     
Laos   17.3 4.7 18.7 28.9 19.8 25.3 19.2 12.7 19.5 16.4  #   
Maldives   3.6 2.7 5.8 0.0 10.6 5.4 8.7 6.2 6.6 4.7  #  M 
Mongolia   39.0 45.8 59.7 27.7 28.2 28.4 54.8 9.3 33.4 16.9   N M 
Myanmar   6.9 9.7 3.8 9.2 6.2 18.1 16.5 27.4 25.9 109.7  #  M 
Nepal   55.7 55.3 48.7 49.8 36.5 54.8 56.4 65.8 50.0 65.4  #  M 
Pakistan   444.6 18.1 274.4 468.7 47.7 59.3 30.1 170.9 21.5 57.6   N M 
Papua New Guinea   8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Philippines   140.4 218.4 196.0 272.7 90.5 29.6 120.6 18.9 109.0 16.0    M 
Solomon Islands   0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0  #  M 
Sri Lanka   119.6 55.4 125.3 86.9 26.7 38.2 120.4 61.7 77.4 73.5   N M 
Thailand   2.3 1.0 0.1 1.5 1.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Timor-Leste   9.1 32.4 3.2 0.0 0.3 7.5 1.3 10.9 14.3 8.5  #   
Vietnam   62.3 69.1 110.0 61.8 75.0 56.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
                 
Eastern Europe & CIS   5,314.7 2,140.8 1,132.2 852.3 649.8 397.0 270.8 378.0 302.5 104.8     
Albania   14.5 15.5 13.0 50.8 9.5 31.2 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Armenia   16.3 89.2 31.6 40.6 33.1 8.8 16.2 9.0 84.5 8.4    M 
Azerbaijan   30.0 23.0 17.1 15.2 25.0 44.4 9.2 90.6 41.2 1.9     
Bosnia and Herzegovina   90.3 84.1 82.5 96.2 24.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     
Bulgaria   3.6 0.6 15.0 10.4 17.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0    M  
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.12 
Page 22 
(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008   LDC NFIDC MEM 
Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia  81.0 48.2 10.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Georgia  98.7 63.1 76.1 69.8 66.8 91.9 15.3 30.7 77.1 11.2    M 
Kazakhstan  0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.5 1.0 0.0     
Kyrgyz Republic  81.7 60.0 30.4 70.7 4.6 2.1 139.3 26.2 58.1 0.0    M 
Moldova  22.0 10.6 39.5 17.0 17.5 18.3 8.2 28.0 9.4 45.9    M 
Romania  0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Russian Federation  4,529.4 1,385.4 228.6 92.5 65.7 31.8 20.5 17.5 13.5 7.4     
Serbia & Montenegro  287.2 240.9 277.4 38.8 75.2 23.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     
Tajikistan  53.3 46.7 192.5 141.4 79.8 62.3 57.8 171.6 17.8 30.0     
Turkmenistan  6.6 5.1 14.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     
Ukraine  0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 209.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Uzbekistan  0.0 68.4 104.4 198.2 20.8 82.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0     
                 
Middle East & North Africa   416.3 1,006.2 830.4 643.2 1,263.3 536.2 185.2 477.3 327.9 309.8     
Algeria   30.0 25.9 31.6 49.8 9.0 38.9 32.0 20.5 22.9 32.0     
Cyprus   0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0     
Egypt   46.5 30.5 28.5 9.1 16.3 10.6 11.6 29.4 2.3 5.6   N M 
Iran   7.8 3.2 15.7 7.4 30.3 3.3 2.4 0.7 1.0 1.4     
Iraq   22.7 19.5 9.0 11.1 936.7 10.4 32.8 58.4 47.3 46.2     
Jordan   108.7 400.7 225.6 226.2 162.3 126.9 3.3 110.5 4.4 5.1   N M 
Lebanon   1.0 42.4 118.2 94.1 10.0 0.0 12.0 35.7 1.9 3.2     
Morocco   10.5 240.9 62.0 6.8 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   N M 
Palestinian Territory   38.4 51.4 164.6 68.1 53.5 152.5 64.0 117.5 185.0 146.2     
Syria   22.4 26.9 13.2 7.6 9.4 13.2 7.6 4.3 7.8 43.8     
Tunisia   0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   N M 
Yemen   128.2 161.0 162.1 163.0 34.2 180.2 19.5 100.2 55.1 26.4  #   
                  
   G/AG/W/42/Rev.12
 Page 23(thousand tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008   LDC NFIDC MEM 
Latin America & the Caribbean 1,175.6 797.3 955.6 1,180.8 425.4 539.0 622.3 623.8 337.7 308.8     
Barbados   0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0   N M 
Belize   0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0    M 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela   0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0   N M 
Bolivia   61.5 66.0 40.3 89.6 109.6 82.7 59.2 110.9 54.6 10.4    M 
Brazil   0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Chile   0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Colombia   13.1 12.0 35.3 8.7 8.7 12.3 14.0 17.5 18.1 19.6    M 
Cuba   53.0 18.2 22.6 7.2 3.3 5.0 7.0 4.4 2.9 1.4   N M 
Dominican Republic   119.3 1.6 69.6 12.8 2.5 12.9 0.3 12.0 0.0 2.8   N M 
Ecuador   41.1 42.1 151.3 83.8 5.8 21.1 43.2 31.3 0.8 2.7    M 
El Salvador   69.6 2.8 60.0 91.3 11.5 12.0 66.2 18.7 3.8 1.1    M 
Guatemala   116.0 135.9 100.0 236.9 61.9 66.9 67.5 107.6 42.4 30.3    M 
Guyana   37.0 26.3 38.5 62.5 0.0 23.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0    M 
Haiti   138.8 164.0 66.8 233.6 62.8 122.4 137.4 111.3 107.4 180.4  #  M 
Honduras   177.1 67.9 71.7 55.3 50.6 42.8 96.7 95.8 40.7 17.0   N M 
Jamaica   13.2 46.5 19.7 0.0 0.0 11.0 11.0 3.6 1.3 0.0   N M 
Mexico   2.2 1.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2    M 
Nicaragua   223.9 61.6 78.4 63.1 41.4 56.8 42.4 46.3 55.1 35.3    M 
Peru   109.5 145.9 200.3 235.2 66.6 69.8 77.5 64.3 10.4 7.7   N M 
 
Notes : LDC:  Least-developed country (#). 
 NFIDC:  Net food-importing deve loping 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/. Da ta for 2008 are provisional. 
__________