WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/AG/W/42/Rev.8    
10 January 2006  
 (06-0064) 
Committee on Agriculture  
  
 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION ON MEASURES CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE 
NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE REFORM PROGRAMME ON LEAST-DEVELOPED 
AND NET FOOD-IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Revision  
  
1. The present note further updates the information in the Secretariat note G/AG/W/42/Rev.7 
dated 15 November 2004 on implem entation of the Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible 
Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Leas t-Developed and Net Food -Importing Developing 
Countries (NFIDC Decision).  Following a brief in troduction on the follow-up process to the NFIDC 
Decision as a whole (Part I), this paper sets out the substantive provisions of the Decision and provides information regarding their implementa tion (Part II).  A list of related Committee on 
Agriculture documents is contained in Attachment 1.  Further details are presented in Attachments 2 
to 4. 
I. MONITORING OF THE FOLLOW-UP TO THE NFIDC DECISION 
2. The follow-up to the NFIDC Decision has re presented an important element in the 
Committee's work.  This subject has been on th e agenda at each regular Committee meeting. 
3. In 1995, the Committee established 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 (G/AG/ 2, pages 33-34 refer).  The annual monitoring of 
the follow-up to the NFIDC Decision in accordance with Article 16 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
and under paragraph 18 of the Working Procedures of the Committee on Agriculture is undertaken on 
the basis, inter alia , of these Table NF:1 notifications. 
4. Attachment 2 summarizes compliance with Table NF:1 notification requirements in the 1995 
to 2004 implementation years.  For the purposes of this  Attachment, "compliance" refers to any NF:1 
notification received by the seven Members (counting the EC as one) that are donors under the Food Aid Convention and other Members that have in th e past identified themselves as food aid donors in 
their notifications or provided food aid to least-developed and net food-importing developing 
countries in the period 1995-2004 according to data of the World Food Programme.
2  A number of 
other Members have also submitted NF:1 notifications  stating that no food aid or technical/financial 
assistance was provided or that Table NF:1 was not applicable.   
                                                      
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. 
2 World Food Programme, "The Food Aid Monitor:  2004 Food Aid Flows", June 2005 at:  
http://www.wfp.org/interfais/. G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 
Page 2  
 
5. In 1996, the Committee established a WTO list of net food-importing developing countries.
3  
This list currently contains 26 developing country  Members (NFIDCs) plus the 50 least-developed 
countries (LDCs) as defined by the United Nations.4   
6. In December 2000, the Committee on Agriculture  was instructed by the General Council to 
examine possible means of improving the effectiveness of the implementation of the NFIDC Decision 
(WT/L/384).5  The Committee's report on this question, which was approved by the Doha Ministerial 
Conference, includes, inter alia , a recommendation for the establishm ent 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 commerci al imports of basic foodstuffs (G/A G/11 refers).  The panel report, 
which was submitted in June 2002, includes an examination of specif ic proposals submitted by a group 
of seventeen WTO net food-impor ting developing countries (G/A G/W/49 and Add.1 and Corr.1;  
WT/GC/62 - G/AG/13 refer). 
II. PROVISIONS OF THE NFIDC DECISION AND IMPLEMENTATION 
7. 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). 
8. 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 follo wing, these paragraphs are taken up one by one and 
supplemented by information available to the Secretariat regarding their implementation. 
A. F
OOD AID  
9. 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 
                                                      
3 The decision to establish this list was taken on th e understanding that "being listed would not as such 
confer automatic benefits since, under 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). 
4 The WTO net food-importing developing countries:  Barbados, Botswana, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, 
Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Gabon, Hondur as, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Mauritius, Mongolia, 
Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Peru, Sa int Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 
Senegal, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia and Venezuela (G/AG/5/Rev.8, dated 22 March 2005, refers). 
5 Progress reports by the Committee on Agriculture regarding its consultations on improving the 
effectiveness of the implementation of the NFIDC Decision are contained in documents G/AG/7, G/AG/10 and G/AG/20.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 
 Page 3 
 
 
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 
10. 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 
11. 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 (Table 1).  The a ggregate annual commitments decreased from a total of 
7.517 million tonnes under the Food Aid Conventi on, 1986 to 5.35 million tonnes under the Food Aid 
Convention, 1995 (in wheat equivalent).  Unde r the Food Aid Convention 1999, the combined 
minimum annual volume and value commitments of FAC members are established at 4.795 million tonnes (wheat equivalent) and €130 million (as of June 2005).  The Inter-age ncy panel, referred to 
above, noted that "the fact that these commit ments 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."
6 
12. Table 1 summarizes the annual food aid shipme nts by FAC members in respect of their 
commitments under the 1986, 1995 and 1999 Food Aid Conventions since 1992/93.  In the period since 1992/93, annual shipments exceeded, often si gnificantly, FAC members' combined minimum 
annual commitments. The exception was 1994/95 wh en shipments fell short of the aggregate 
commitment.  Food aid shipments under the Convention are estimated at close to 8.5 million tonnes in 
2004/05 compared to 9.3 million tonnes (wheat equivalent) in 2003/04. 
13. There are a number of other sources of food aid data, particularly the FAO and the World 
Food Programme.  Data from these sources are not dir ectly comparable with the data of the Food Aid 
Committee of the International Grains Council (Table  1) for reasons such as differences in country 
and product coverage, reporting pe riod, and the use of delivery ra ther than shipment data.  
14. According to World Food Programme data, globa l food aid deliveries show a cyclical pattern, 
with a record of 17.3 million tonnes reached in 1993.
7  Another peak was reached in 1999 when food 
aid totalled 15.0 million tonnes (Table 2).8  In this context, the Doha Ministerial Conference approved 
the following recommendation made by the Committee: 
                                                      
6 Inter-agency panel report WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13, paragraph 44 refers. 
7 See also WFP statement in G/AG/GEN/49, pp. 10-11. 
8 Food aid deliveries as monitored by the World Food Programme include deliveries by the FAC 
members, other countries, and non-governmental organizations.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 
Page 4  
 
"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.)   G/AG/W/42/Rev.8
 Page 5Table 1 - Food Aid Convention - Annual Shipments - 1992/93-2004/05* (July/June years)  
 
metric tonnes: wheat equivalent 
DONOR MINIMUM 
ANNUAL 
CONTRIBUTION 
(1986 Conv.) 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 MINIMUM 
ANNUAL 
CONTRIBUTION 
(1995 Conv.) 1995/96  1996/97  1997/98  1998/99 
 
 a)       a)         
      
ARGENTINA 35,000 e)  -  -  35,000  13,400 -  -  10,135 k) 
AUSTRALIA 300,000 309,561  307,874  334,090  300,000 g) 298,146 305,127  293,221  273,064  
AUSTRIA 20,000 18,000  7,100  39,400        
CANADA 600,000 762,766 f) 659,103  632,881  400,000  448,764 468,431  417,917  487,095  
EC 1,670,000 2,618,636  2,485,522  2,058,244  1,755,000  2,413,991 2,049,591  2,201,162 i) 1,969,892  
 
FINLAND 25,000 25,000  19,610  208         
 
JAPAN b) 300,000 390,912  341,293  388,438  300,000 474,870 326,835  302,626  561,643  
 
NORWAY b) c) 30,000 33,646  47,941  33,584  20,000 6,233 32,816  19,306  61,293  
 
SWEDEN  40,000 62,560  48,736  54,761          
 
SWITZERLAND 27,000 47,265  108,220  44,828  40,000 75,479 38,636  57,915 j) 38,939 j) 
  
USA 4,470,000 6,119,687  4,688,779  3,526,994  2,500,000 2,849,384 2,553,283  2,818,500  4,734,121  
TOTAL   d) 7,517,000 10,388,033    8,714,178  7,113,428   5,350,000 h) 6,580,267 5,774,719  6,110,647  8,136,182  
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 
Page 6 Continued 
 
Table 1 - Food Aid Convention - Annual Shipments - 1992/93-2004/05* (July/June years)  
 
metric tonnes: wheat equivalent
DONOR MINIMUM 
ANNUAL 
CONTRIBUTION 
(1999 Conv.)  1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 (est.) 
              
ARGENTINA 35,000 2,740 -  26 - --
   
AUSTRALIA 250,000 
150,000 l) 296,713  251,865  245,828  203,820  177,984  168,083  
              
CANADA 420,000 470,640  293,477  408,209  451,537  310,868  -  
              
EC 1,320,000 
and  €130 million 1,970,768 m) 2,357,778 n) o) 1,836,717  p) q) 1,980,781  r) s) 2,205,237  -  
              
JAPAN b) 300,000 337,357  637,749  531,755  666,910  576,961  174,292  
              
NORWAY b) c) 30,000 75,960  85,876  74,318  144,927  159,659  138,171  
              
SWITZERLAND 40,000 61,295  54,169  58,042  67,892  69,487  67,897  
              
USA 2,500,000 5,692,116  6,798,280  7,124,407  6,054,197  5,801,724  5,262,839  
              
TOTAL   d) 4,895,000 
and  €130 million 8,907,589  10,479,194 d) 10,279,302  9,570,064  9,301,920  -  
   G/AG/W/42/Rev.8
 Page 7Table 1 - continued 
 
Notes : 
* Unless otherwise specified, all shipment s were in respect of the Food Aid Conven tion, 1986, the Food Aid Convention, 1995 and  the Food Aid Convention 1999. 
 These figures refer to the wheat equivalent  of actual shipments completed during the years shown.  They are not adjusted for p roduct limits under Article IV of the Food Aid 
Convention 1999 and do not necessarily represent the perform ance of members in relation to their annual commitments. 
a) 1986 - As listed in Article III, paragr aph (3), of the Food Aid Convention, 1986. 
 1995 - As listed in Article III, paragra ph (4), of the Food Aid Convention, 1995. 
b) Wheat equivalent of cash contributions as calculated on the basis of the "prevailing international market price". These figu res therefore do not correspond to quantities actually 
shipped. 
c) Norway made its entire FAC cash contribution available to WFP during each of the years shown, but actual shipments, as repor ted by WFP, may not have been completed. 
d) Includes contributions under IEFR - Immediat e Response Account (IRA), as reported by WFP. 
e) Obligations under the Convention suspended between 1st July 1991 and 30th June 1993. 
f) Includes quantities shipped by Canada in resp ect of its obligations for the following year. 
g) Australia's minimum contribution was re duced to 250,000 tonnes with effect from 1 July 1998 under the FAC 1995 (as extended) . 
h) With effect from 1 July 1998, the total was reduced to 5,300, 000 tonnes (taking into account the revised minimum contributio n for Australia). 
i) Includes EC contributions of cash to recipients totalling Ecu 84.7 m. reported as equivalent  to 583,693 tonnes of wheat, to be used for the purchase of grains by recipients.   
j) Includes quantities shipped by Switzerland in re spect of its obligations for the previous year.  
k) Shipped by Argentina in respect of outstanding 1995/96 obligations. 
l) As revised with e ffect from 1 July 2003. 
m) Includes FAC "value" contributions totalling 156,504,384 Euro, reported as notional wheat equivalent of 531,749 tonnes. 
n) Includes FAC "value" contributions totalling 181,049,943 Euro, reported as notional wheat equivalent of 628,659 tonnes. 
o) Includes total estimated whea t equivalents of incomplete records of 14,385 tonnes (Tonnage Commitment) and 5,885 tonnes (Val ue Commitment) as reported by the EC. 
p) Includes FAC "value" contributions totalling 137,338,267 Euro, reported as notional wheat equivalent of 599,462 tonnes. 
q) Includes total estimated wheat equivalent s of incomplete records of 212,193 tonnes (Tonnage Commitment) as reported by the E C.  Excludes incomplete records of 71,705 (actual) 
tonnes (Value Commitment) as reported by the EC.  
r) Includes FAC "value" contributions totalling 205,134,151 Euro, reported as notional wheat equivalent of 849,140 tonnes. 
s) Includes total estimated wheat equivalent s of incomplete records of 22,533 tonnes (Tonnage Commitment) as reported by the EC .  Excludes incomplete records of 148,120 (actual) 
tonnes (Value Commitment) as reported by the EC. 
 
Source :  Food Aid Committee / International Grains Council.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 
Page 8  
 
Table 2: Food aid deliveries to least-developed and net food-importing developing countries, 
1995-2004 (million tonnes) 
 
 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 
Least-developed 
countries 4.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 4.6 4.5 4.6 3.7 5.5 4.1 
Net food-importing 
developing countries 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.4 0.7 0.8 
Other countries 4.9 3.0 3.0 3.9 9.0 5.3 4.8 4.4 4.1 2.6 
Global total 10.2 7.2 7.3 8.4 15.0 11.3 11.0 9.5 10.3 7.5 
 
Notes : Includes cereals in grain equivalent and non-cereals in product weight. 
 Net food-importing developing countries refers to Members listed in G/AG/5/Rev.8, dated 22 March 
2005. 
Source : WFP Food Aid Monitor: 2004 Food Aid Flows, June 2005 at http://www.wfp.org/interfais/. 
 
15. Except for Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago,  all net food-importing developing countries on 
the WTO list were, occasionally or regularly, reci pients of food aid during 1995-2004.  In 2004, 
aggregate deliveries to the NFIDCs were 28 per cent lower than average deliveries in the period 1995-
2004 (Table 3).  In some countries, in particular Egypt and Tunisia, food aid deliveries declined 
sharply during that period.  Deliveries to the least -developed countries in 2004 were close to their ten-
year average (1995-2004).  In Attachment 4, data are provided on food aid deliveries to all recipient 
countries during 1995-2004.   
Table 3: Food aid deliveries to least-developed and net food-importing developing countries in 
2004 compared to long-term average (million tonnes) 
 
 1995-2004 
average 2004 2004 in per cent of 
1995-2004 average 
Least-developed countries 4.2 4.1 99 
Net food-importing developing countries 1.1 0.8 72 
Other countries 4.5 2.6 58 
Global total 9.8 7.5 77 
 
Notes : Includes cereals in grain equivalent and non-cereals in product weight. 
 Net food-importing developing countries refers to Members listed in G/AG/5/Rev.8, dated 22 March 
2005. 
Source : WFP Food Aid Monitor: 2004 Food Aid Flows, June 2005 at http://www.wfp.org/interfais/.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 
 Page 9 
 
 
Table 4 : Composition of global food aid de liveries, excluding Eastern Europe and the CIS 
  (per cent)  
 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 
Emergency relief food aid 36 34 55 52 59 
Project food aid 29 34 25 28 28 
Programme food aid  35 32 20 20 13 
Total  100 100 100 100 100 
 
Notes : The figures include cereal food aid (in grain equivalent) and non-cereal food aid (in product weight). 
 Emergency  food aid is destined to victims of natural or man-made disasters.  It is freely distributed to 
targeted beneficiary groups, and is usually provided on a grant basis.  It is channelled multilaterally, 
through NGOs, or, sometimes, bilaterally. 
 Project  food aid aims at supporting specific poverty-alle viation and disaster-prevention activities.  It is 
usually freely distributed to targeted beneficiary groups, but may also be sold on the open market and is then referred to as "monetized" food aid.  Project food aid is provided on a grant basis and is 
channelled multilaterally, through NGOs, or bilaterally. 
 Programme  food aid is usually supplied as a resource transfer for balance of payments or budgetary 
support activities.  Unlike most of the food aid provided for project or emergency purposes, it is not targeted to specific beneficiary groups.  It is sold on the open market, and provided either as a grant, or 
as a loan. 
Source
: WFP Food Aid Monitor:  2004 Food Aid Flows,  June 2005 at:  http://www.wfp.org/interfais/. 
 
16. As Table 4 indicates, a rising share of global food aid deliveries (excluding Eastern Europe 
and the CIS) was provided in the form of emerge ncy relief in response to man-made or natural 
disasters while the share of programme food aid declined. 
(b) Initiation of food aid negotiations 
17. 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 dono rs and donable products as possible, which is 
sufficient to meet the legitimate needs of de veloping countries during the reform programme 
(G/L/125, paragraph 18(i) refers). 
18. 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 securi ty and trade liberalization objectives under the 
WTO and the World Food Summit Action Plan" (IGC statement in G/AG/GEN/20).  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 whic h was undertaking the re-negotiation 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 (G/AG/GEN/31, page 4 refers). G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 
Page 10  
 
19. The negotiations on the Food Aid Convention 1999 were completed on 24 March 1999 and 
the new Convention provisionally entered into for ce on 1 July 1999 for an initial duration of three 
years.  Its members, including provisional members,  were the same as the members of the Food Aid 
Convention, 1995 (Argentina, Australia, Canada , EC and its member States, Japan, Norway, 
Switzerland and the United States).  On 30 July 2003,  Argentina advised the WTO Secretariat that it 
no longer was a food aid donor under the Food Aid Convention. 
20. The Food Aid Convention 1999 contains a number of new features.  The list of eligible 
products which may be supplied has been broadened significantly beyond cereals.  There are also new 
provisions designed to improve the effectiveness and the impact of food aid.  When allocating their 
food aid, FAC members undertake to give priority to the least-developed countries and Low-Income 
Countries, many of which are on the present WTO list of net food-importing developing countries.  
Other eligible food aid recipients include Lowe r Middle-Income Countries and all other countries 
included in the WTO list of net food-importing devel oping countries at the time of negotiation of the 
new Convention. Attachment 3 reproduces a summary  by the IGC Executive Director of the outcome 
of the negotiations on the Food Aid Convention. 
21. 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) 
 22. The Food Aid Convention 1999, which was to e xpire on 30 June 2002, was not renegotiated 
at that stage but, as agreed by the Food Aid Committee, initially extended by one year and 
subsequently further extended to  30 June 2005.  In June 2004, the Food Aid Committee decided to 
undertake a renegotiation of the FAC 1999 with the ai m of bringing into effect a Convention which is 
a “more effective instrument to provide food to those identified needs when food aid is the most 
appropriate response.”   FAC Working Group meetings  were held in October and November 2004.  At 
its December 2004 session, the Food Aid Committee concluded that the relationship between the 
review process in the Food Aid Committee and ne gotiations underway in the WTO was such that 
conclusive recommendations should await the outco me of the WTO negotiations.   The Committee 
agreed that the FAC renegotiations would be more ef fectively carried out in the light of developments 
in the WTO.    In these circum stances, the Committee decided th at the 1999 Food Aid Convention, 
which had been due to expire on 30  June 2005, should be extended for a further two years, until 30 
June 2007.  
2. Concessionality of Food Aid 
23. 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). 
24. Under the Food Aid Convention 1999, all food aid provided to least-developed countries 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.    G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 
 Page 11 
 
 
25. 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) 
 26. Table 6 shows the proportion of food aid provid ed to least-developed and net food-importing 
developing countries in the form of donations as notified by Members.  All notifying Members, except the United States, provided the food aid to the countries concerned in fully grant form.  In the 
case of the United States, in the first seven years of implementation between 83 and 95 per cent of 
food aid was donated, with the remainder being provided in accordance with the relevant FAC 
guidelines.  
Table 6: 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% grants terms 
Norway 100% grant terms 
Switzerland 100% grant terms 
United States Proportion of food aid to least-developed and net 
food-importing developing countries on 100% grant terms: 
1995/96 -   84% 
1996/97 -   93% 
1997/98 -   83% 
1998/99 -   93% 1999/00 -   93% 
2000/01 -   95% 
2001/02 -   91% 
The remainder is provided in accordance with Food Aid 
Convention guidelines. 
Other donors  
Cuba 100% grant terms 
New Zealand 100% grants of cash 
South Africa 100% grant terms 
 
B. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE  
27. 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). G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 
Page 12  
 
28. 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. 
29. 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) 
30. The responses from the African Development Ba nk, the European Investment Bank, FAO and 
the World Bank were circulated in documents G/AG/W/57 and Add.1. 
C. D
IFFERENTIAL TREATMENT WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF AN AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURAL 
EXPORT CREDITS  
31. 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). 
32. At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Mini sters reaffirmed the commitment above and 
approved a general understa nding regarding procedures for the development of disciplines pursuant to 
Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture a nd the related provisions of the NFIDC Decision 
(G/AG/11, Part A paragraph 4).  Accordingly, wo rk within the WTO on the question of agricultural 
export credits has been undertaken in both the re gular meetings of the Committee on Agriculture and 
in the Special Session negotiations on the basis, inter alia , of the proposals that have been tabled and 
other inputs, including with respect to special and differential treatment in favour of developing 
countries.  
33. The Framework for establishing modalities in ag riculture (Annex A of the General Council 
Decision of 1 August 2004) provides as follows in re lation to this matter of the NFIDC Decision:   
 "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 a nd net food-importing developing countries as provided for in 
paragraph 4 of the Decision on Measures Con cerning the Possible Negative Effects of the 
Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Ne t Food-Importing Developing Countries.  
Improved obligations for monitoring and surveilla nce 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 the commitments undertaken by Members under the obligations 
in paragraph 18 above." (paragraph 24 of Annex A of WT/L/579 refers)    G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 
 Page 13 
 
 
 D. A
CCESS TO THE RESOURCES OF THE IN TERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS  
34. 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 
35. As noted above, the NFIDC Decision recognizes that as a result of the Uruguay Round certain 
developing countries may experience short-term diffi culties in financing normal levels of commercial 
imports of basic foodstuffs.   In this context, at  various stages of the Committee's annual monitoring 
exercise of the NFIDC Decision, several of the in ternational observer organizations have commented 
on the development of international food prices.9  As regards wheat, the most important food 
commodity in the import basket of the NFIDCs a nd LDCs, Chart 1 below shows world market prices 
for wheat since 1987.  Overall, from their peak in 1996, international wheat prices have dropped 
sharply, although another price spike occurred in 2002.   
36. The Inter-agency panel report provides a detailed  examination of the question of financing 
food imports by NFIDCs and LDCs.10    In a communication to the Committee, the World Bank  
noted that the Commodity Risk Management Group of the World Bank is exploring the possibility of using commodity price insurance mechanisms for importing countries.
11 Furthermore, the food 
security situation in the least-developed and net food-importing devel oping countries is being 
monitored by FAO which has regularly presented its assessment to the Committee on Agriculture.12   
2. Access to the facilities of the IMF and the World Bank 
37. The question of access to the resources of the inte rnational financial institutions has been the 
subject of examination by the Inter-agency panel 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.13  A recent review of the 
CFF concluded that the facility should be retained.14 
                                                      
9 See FAO in G/AG/GEN/31, page 2 and G/AG/GEN/36, page 1 and G/AG/GEN/46, page 2; IMF in 
G/AG/GEN/15, page 2;  G/AG/GEN/31, page 6; G/AG/GEN/40, page 5;  G/AG/GEN/46, page 7 and 
G/AG/GEN/49, page 7;  International Grains Counc il in G/AG/R/4, page 6;  UNCTAD in G/AG/GEN/31, 
page 12;  World Bank in G/AG/GEN/15, page 3 and G/AG/W/12, page 4-6 and G/AG/GEN/46, pages 18-28;  
FAO and the World Bank in G/AG/GEN/56 and G/AG/GEN/6 4;  see also the points raised by Members in 
G/AG/R/3, page 6. 
10  See WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13, in particular, Chapter II, Section A and the Conclusions in Chapter III.  
See also the contribution by UNCTAD to the 2004 monito ring exercise of the NFID C Decision (G/AG/GEN/68, 
pages 16-18). 
11 G/AG/GEN/65. 
12 See G/AG/GEN/64. 
13 WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13 refers. 
14 G/AG/GEN/68, page 11. G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 
Page 14  
 
38. 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."
15 
39.  At the November 2004 annual monitoring exercise of the NFIDC Decision, the IMF 
representative presented an overview of recent IMF initiatives in favour of least-developed and net 
food-importing developing countries, including an in itiative to support trade-related adjustment needs 
of developing countries in the contex t of the Doha Development Agenda: 
"The IMF has also taken concrete actions to  bolster its moral support for greater trade 
liberalization under the Doha Development Age nda.  We hope that the Trade Integration 
Mechanism (TIM), first introduced during the Cancún Ministerial, will help reassure those 
countries concerned about the short-term costs of  trade liberalization.  It was developed as a 
solution for addressing vulnerabilities stemming from, for example, preference erosion or food terms-of-trade shocks, but  without damaging the opportunities afforded by multilateral 
trade liberalization for the membership as a whole.   The mechanism is directed at the possible 
balance of payments impact of liberalization by other  countries, agreed in the context of the 
WTO or implemented unilaterally on a non-discr iminatory basis.  Other actions of note 
include an increased emphasis on the potential impact of preference erosion on member countries – particularly those vulnerable to terms of trade shocks.  The IMF also stands ready 
to work with the WTO and other key institutions  on issues related to trade facilitation, and to 
consult on economies where cotton is of vital importance.  
  ... 
  
The TIM, as described earlier, is applicable in  the context of PRGF and SBA arrangements.  
The TIM allows for augmented IMF lending, w ithin the existing facilities, in the case of 
balance-of-payments shortfalls resulting from ot her countries' trade liberalization measures.  
One NFIDC (Bangladesh) has utilized the TIM thus  far.  In July, the IMF's Executive Board 
approved an augmentation of Bangladesh's PRGF  programme to address balance-of-payments 
pressures stemming from the forthcoming expiry of textiles quotas.  Other countries have 
indicated an interest in the TIM."
16 
 
40. 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.  
                                                     
 
15 G/AG/GEN/49, page 8 refers. 
16 G/AG/GEN/68, pages 10-11.  See also http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2003/pr03140.htm.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 
 Page 15 
 
 
"In response to the Ministerial Decision, a Working Group involving the World Bank, 
the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Food Programme and the IMF met in 1995 to address the special needs of least-developed and net food-importing countries.  The Working Group reviewed the range of facilities available for 
additional financing needs for developing c ountries in the event of world price shocks 
and production shortfalls a nd provided a report to the WTO in late 1995.  Given the 
wide range of facilities and the small price impacts expected to arise as a consequence 
of the Round, and the difficulty involved in distinguishing Uruguay Round impacts from other shocks, it did not seem appropria te to establish a special Uruguay Round 
adjustment facility."  (G/AG/GEN/15, page 3.)  G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 
Page 16 CHART 1 – THE INTERNATIONAL GR AINS COUNCIL WHEAT PRICE INDE X, JANUARY 1987 – DECEMBER 2005 
80010001200140016001800200022002400
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05
IGC 12/05* Average wheat prices of seven widely traded varieties of bread wheat: July/Dec 1986=1000 
 
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 
 Page 17 
 
 
ATTACHMENT 1 
 
List of documents related to the im plementation of th e NFIDC Decision 
 
G/AG/GEN/68 
(24/01/2005) Annual monitoring exercise in 200 4 in respect of the follow-up to 
the NFIDC Decision (statements by the international observer 
organizations) 
G/AG/GEN/65 (2/3/2004) Communication from the World Bank G/AG/GEN/64 
(5/12/2003) Annual monitoring exercise in 200 3 in respect of the follow-up to 
the NFIDC Decision (statements by the international observer 
organizations) 
G/AG/17 and Corr.1 
(14/7/2003)  Proposal by the African Group on Special and Differential 
Treatment referred to the Commi ttee by the Chairman of the 
General Council - Report to the General Council by the Chairman 
G/AG/16 (4/7/2003)  COA follow-up report to the General Council on implementation-
related issues 
G/AG/GEN/56 
(11/12/2002) Annual monitoring exercise in 200 2 in respect of the follow-up to 
the NFIDC Decision (statements by the international observer 
organizations) 
G/AG/W/58 (28/10/2002)  Proposal for follow-up to the recommendation of the Inter-agency 
panel on examining the feasibility of the revolving fund operating as 
an ex-ante financing mechanism (Submission by Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, Jordan, Kenya and Sri Lanka on behalf of the NFIDCs and 
LDC Group of the WTO) 
G/AG/W/57 (21/10/2002) 
and Add. 1 (29/11/2002)  Marrakech Net Food-Importing Developing Countries ("NFIDC") 
Decision − Technical and financial assistance in the context of aid 
programmes to improve agricultural productivity and infrastructure - 
Responses from International Development Organizations and 
Regional Development Banks 
G/AG/14 (9/10/2002)  COA follow-up report to the General Council on implementation-
related issues 
WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13 
(28/06/2002)  Report of the Inter-agency panel on short-term difficulties in 
financing normal levels of commercial imports of basic foodstuffs 
G/AG/5/Rev.5 
(26/3/2002)  WTO list of net food-importing developing countries for the 
purposes of the NFIDC Decision 
G/AG/GEN/49 
(28/02/2002)  Annual monitoring exercise in 200 1 in respect of the follow-up to 
the NFIDC Decision (statements by the international observer 
organizations) 
G/AG/11 (28/09/2001)  Report on implementation-related issues (COA report adopted by 
the Doha Ministerial Conference) 
G/AG/10 (06/07/2001)  Report by the Vice-Chairman to the General Council on Examination 
of Possible Means of Improvi ng the Effectiveness of the 
Implementation of the NFIDC Decision 
G/AG/W/49 & Add.1 & 
Corr.1 (19/03/01, 23/05/01 
& 27/06/01)  Proposal to Implement the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision in favour 
of LDCs and NFIDCs submitted by  Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Dominican 
Republic, Egypt, Honduras, Jama ica, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco, 
Pakistan, Peru, Senegal, Sri Lanka, St. Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, 
Tunisia and Venezuela 
G/AG/7 (25/04/2001)  Report by the Vice-Chairman to the General Council on Examination 
of Possible Means of Improvi ng the Effectiveness of the 
Implementation of the NFIDC Decision 
G/AG/GEN/46 Annual monitoring exercise in 2000 in respect of the follow-up to G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 
Page 18  
 
(28/11/2000)  the NFIDC Decision (statements by the international observer 
organizations) 
G/AG/GEN/40 
(19/11/1999)  Annual monitoring exercise in 199 9 in respect of the follow-up to 
the NFIDC  Decision (statements by the international observer 
organizations) 
G/AG/GEN/35 
(01/04/1999)  Communication from the Executive Director of the International 
Grains Council presented to the 25-26 March 1999 meeting of the 
Committee on Agriculture 
G/AG/GEN/36 
(31/03/1999)  Statement by the Observer from the FAO presented to the 25-26 
March 1999 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture 
G/AG/GEN/31 
(15/12/1998)  Annual monitoring exercise in 199 8 in respect of the follow-up to 
the NFIDC Decision (statements by the international observer 
organizations) 
G/AG/GEN/20 
(24/03/1998)  Communication from the Executive Director of the International 
Grains Council presented to the 19-20 March 1998 meeting of the 
Committee on Agriculture 
G/AG/GEN/15 
(18/12/1997) Annual monitoring exercise in 199 7 in respect of the follow-up to 
the NFIDC Decision (statements by the international observer 
organizations) 
G/L/125 (24/10/1996) Report on the NFIDC Decision (COA report adopted by the 
Singapore Ministerial Conference) 
G/AG/W/20 (14/03/1996) Preparatory work programme in respect of paragraph 3(i) and (ii) of 
the NFIDC Decision (note by the Secretariat) 
G/AG/3 (24/11/1995) Decision by the Committee on Agriculture at its Meeting on 21 
November 1995 Relating to the Establishment of a List of WTO Net 
Food-Importing Developing Countries for the Purposes of the NFIDC 
Decision 
G/AG/W/12 & Add.1 
(07/11/1995 and 
20/11/1995) NFIDC  Decision:  the Director-G eneral's consultations with the 
IMF and the World Bank 
G/AG/R- series Reports of COA meetings 
  G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 
 Page 19 
 
 
ATTACHMENT 2 
 
Compliance with notification requirements in respect of actions taken within 
the framework of the NFIDC Decision, 1995-2004 (Table NF:1)  
 
Member 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Notification circulated in 
G/AG/N-series 
Food Aid Convention donor  
Australia X X X X X X X X X  AUS/5, 13, 21, 25, 32/Rev.1, 
39, 48, 51 & Corr.1, 57 
Canada X X X X X X X    CAN/11, 18, 25, 34, 42, 52  
EC  X X X X X X X X X  EEC/9, 21 and Add.1., 25, 
35, 46 & Add.1 , 50 
Japan X X X X X X X X   JPN/15, 27, 33, 46, 68, 78, 
87, 107 
Norway X X X X X X X X X  NOR/6, 19 and Corr.1, 20 
and Corr.1, 26, 33, 34 and 
Corr.1, 37, 42 
Switzerland X X X X X X X X   CHE/23, 30 
United States X X X X X X X    USA/7, 20, 21, 31, 46, 52 
Other donors 
Argentina X X X X X X X    ARG/10, 15, 21 
China (11/12/2001) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.     
Cuba X X X X X X X X   CUB/4, 5, 14, 18, 22, 24 
New Zealand X X X X X X X X X  NZL/6, 13, 17, 25, 26, 30, 
39, 40 
Korea, Rep. of X X         KOR/9, 17 
South Africa X X X X X X X X X  ZAF/7, 9, 17, 24, 32, 39, 42, 
50, 56 
"Nil" notifications 
Brazil X X X X X X X    BRA/2, 7, 17, 20 
B u r k i n a  F a s o    X         B F A / 2  
Fiji  X X        FJI/3, 5 
Indonesia X X         IDN/6, 7 
M a l t a   X          M L T / 3  
M o r o c c o    X         M A R / 9  
Philippines X          PHL/7 
United Arab Emirates  X         ARE/1 
Uruguay X          URY/6 
Compliance 
calculated as number 
of notifications received by FAC 
donors (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 71  43 0  
 
Notes : (1) Annual reporting periods differ among Members. 
 (2) "X" means that a notification was received.  A blank means that no notification was received. 
 (3) "Nil" notification means that th e notification indicated that no food ai d or technical/financial assistance 
was provided or that Table NF:1 was not applicable. 
 (4) "n.a." denotes not applicable. 
 (5) 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.8 
Page 20  
 
ATTACHMENT 3 
 
G/AG/GEN/35:  Communication from the Executive Director of the International Grains 
Council presented to the 25-26 March 1999 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture 
 
 
 In my letter of 3 December 1997, I informed you that members of the Food Aid Committee had decided to open the Food Aid Convention, 1995 for re-negotiation, thus following up on the Recommendations that WTO Ministers adopted at th eir Singapore Conference in respect of Least-
Developed and Net Food-Impor ting Developing Countries. 
  These negotiations were completed on 24 March.  Under cover, I have pleasure in conveying 
to you the text of a new Food Aid Convention 1999 (FAC) which, subject to the necessary actions by 
member Governments, will come into effect on 1 July 1999.  
 The objectives of the FAC 1999 are "to contribute to world food security and to improve the 
ability of the international community to respond to  emergency food situations  and other food needs 
of developing countries".   Under the new Convention, the list of eligib le products which may be supplied has been 
broadened significantly beyond cereals.  There are also  stronger provisions to cover transportation and 
other operational costs associated with food aid tran sactions, especially when food aid is directed to 
least-developed countries and in emergencies.   FAC donors may now express their commitments in tonnage, or in value, or in a combination 
of tonnage and value.  Accordingly, the mini mum annual tonnage and value commitments of FAC 
members amount in total to 4,895,000 tonnes (wheat equivalent) and
  €130 million, respectively. 
  When allocating their food aid, FAC memb ers will give priority to Least-Developed 
Countries and Low-Income Countries – many of which are on the WTO list of Net Food-Importing Developing Countries (NFIDCs).  Eligible food ai d recipients will include Lower Middle-Income 
Countries and all other countries on the present WT O list of NFIDCs, when experiencing food 
emergencies or internationally recognized financia l crises leading to food shortage emergencies, or 
when food aid operations are targeted on vulnerable groups.   The new FAC contains stronger provisions to  promote local agricultural development in 
recipient countries.  This includes possible "triangular transactions" i.e. donor countries using their 
cash contributions to purchase food in developing countries for supply to a recipient country, and 
"local purchases", i.e. food being purchased by donor s in one part of a developing country for supply 
to a deficit area in that country.   All FAC food aid to least-developed country recipients covered by members' commitments 
will be in the form of grants.  Overall, food aid provided in the form of grants under this Convention 
will represent not less than 80 per cent of a member's  contributions and, to the extent possible, 
members will seek progressively to exceed this percentage.   In determining whether, and the extent to which, food aid provision on long-term 
concessional credit terms should continue to be  covered under any Fo od Aid Convention, FAC 
members will take account of the results of releva nt multilateral negotiations bearing on food aid. 
  All FAC members agreed that the provisions of the new Convention should neither prejudice nor constrain future negotiations, including those in the framework of the WTO,  on the status of food 
aid provisions on concessional credit terms.  The EU and some other members re-affirmed their 
opinion that food aid provided under credit terms s hould no longer be included in the list of food aid 
operations.   G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 
 Page 21 
 
 
 The new FAC will seek to improve the effectiv eness and the impact of food aid transactions, 
inter alia , in terms of the assessment of food aid need s, the monitoring of the aid provided, and co-
operation between food aid donors, recipients and ot hers concerned.  In addition, the provision of 
food aid under the FAC will not be tied in any wa y to commercial exports of goods or services to 
recipient countries. 
 
 During the negotiations, a dialogue was maintained with food aid recipient countries.  Efforts to broaden the list of FAC donors were also made and will continue.  I am also pleased to note that 
close co-operation with the WTO was maintained throughout, regular progress reports being made to 
the Committee on Agriculture. 
 
 FAC members have emphasized that the new F ood Aid Convention is evidence of their desire 
to maintain international coopera tion in support of world food security and to follow up on the WTO 
Singapore Ministerial recommendations.  Whether their specific FAC commitments are expressed in volume or in value, they are all about meeting th e food aid needs of developing countries adequately, 
irrespective of fluctuations in world food prices and supplies.  G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 
Page 22 
ATTACHMENT 4 
 
Food aid deliveries of cereals and non-cereals, 1995-2004 ('000 tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent) 
 
 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 LDC NFIDC MEM 
TOTAL 10,202.7 7,228.3 7,327.7 8,404.8 15,040.8 11,354.0 10,980.9 9,480.0 10,294.3 7,495.2    
Least Developed Countries 4,098.3 3,333.9 3,510.7 3,682.1 4,573.8 4,476.2 4,596.0 3,747.1 5,479.6 4,147.5    
Low-Income, Food-Deficit Countries 8,141.6 5,562.3 6,355.3 7,275.1 9,297.9 8,586.8 9,048.6 8,241.5 7,714.8 6,195.6    
                
Sub-Saharan Africa 3,298.6 2, 570.1 2,429.0 2,776. 7 2,785.6 4,010.3 3,693.4 2,929.1 5,434.4 3,806.0    
                
Angola 219.7 250.6 181.4 202.5 147.6 296.1 193.8 264.0 300.9 120.6 #  M 
Benin 20.6 10.2 21.8 25.5 11.3 12.4 15.9 21.5 19.6 16.9 #  M 
Botswana 10.3 3.7 0.4         N M 
Burkina Faso 41.5 26.9 45.7 27.8 52.0 33.2 42.8 36.3 30.1 39.3 #  M 
Burundi 103.2 7.8 3.0 0.7 6.8 11.3 66.4 36.9 70.5 81.5 #  M 
Cameroon 7.3 24.1 1.4 10.2 6.5 4.2 8.8 2.9 10.3 33.2   M 
Cape Verde 73.4 44.5 65.3 59.9 57.0 53.2 37.5 51.6 45.7 31.5 #   
Central African Republic 1.5 2.1 1.4 11.5 1.3 3.2 1.0 7.3 5.6 5.9 #  M 
Chad 21.2 19.7 49.5 18.2 13.4 23.4 38.4 13.1 19.5 45.9 #  M 
Comoros 5.8 0.6 1.0 8.9 0.2      #   
Congo, Democratic Republic of  109.5 32.5 29.5 9.6 24.7 73.5 47.0 90.8 89.0 99.5 #  M 
Congo  12.6 18.0 0.3 14.1 12.3 17.7 41.4 18.3 10.3 8.3   M 
Côte d' Ivoire 23.9 54.8 11.4 26.3 37.4 16.9 6.2 14.8 24.7 56.3  N M 
Djibouti 20.2 10.8 13.8 11.0 10.7 12.0 11.1 21.4 7.7 13.4 #  M 
Equatorial Guinea 3.9 0.6 0.7 1.9  1.7 1.9    #   
Eritrea 104.3 40.4 53.5 110.1 35.0 256.9 319.1 162.3 347.5 304.3 #   
Ethiopia 635.7 457.0 434.2 593.8 876.6 1,527.1 1,154.8 338.8 1,998.1 790.3 #   
Gabon     0.1 1.1      N M 
Gambia 3.8 4.3 9.2 7.7 6.5 8.4 3.4 4.3 18.5 13.8 #  M 
Ghana 96.9 33.7 86.5 58.4 25.8 101.2 57.5 74.3 84.1 64.7   M 
Guinea 7.5 12.9 9.8 1.7 35.0 5.2 42.9 48.3 41.4 27.9 #  M   G/AG/W/42/Rev.8
 Page 23RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 LDC NFIDC MEM 
Guinea Bissau 3.2 7.8 5.9 3.6 17.1 27.1 6.3 7.2 13.2 4.8 #  M 
Kenya 79.6 31.8 117.0 142.3 71.7 301.3 387.1 166.6 223.9 212.3  N M 
Lesotho 33.7 40.2 8.9 15.5 6.1 6.3 3.4 57.5 28.4 45.8 #  M 
Liberia 161.0 169.3 117.5 85.6 99.2 115.9 21.9 37.0 57.3 82.8 #   
Madagascar 38.2 22.1 36.5 30.4 26.6 43.5 59.6 47.2 52.8 52.6 #  M 
Malawi 235.9 122.9 45.4 64.8 73.3 36.3 41.6 198.1 119.4 52.8 #  M 
Mali 20.0 19.1 23.0 23.9 14.1 12.3 21.1 4.8 39.8 13.7 #  M 
Mauritania 44.9 17.3 44.0 18.6 30.7 16.6 38.2 41.6 98.7 41.7 #  M 
Mauritius 0.8 1.0          N M 
Mozambique 385.7 151.3 172.8 188.8 161.1 185.2 263.3 200.8 243.9 158.4 #  M 
Namibia 2.7 10.4 0.4  2.0 2.0 4.5 23.7 23.2 6.0  N M 
Niger 24.6 32.4 62.0 53.7 37.9 20.4 62.7 37.1 21.7 35.4 #  M 
Nigeria   1.1   1.1 2.2 12.5 13.3 10.5   M 
Rwanda 274.2 507.6 420.3 303.8 275.2 232.4 65.6 74.1 44.8 48.5 #  M 
Sao Tome and Principe 7.9 4.9 4.0 3.7 1.2 4.8 4.9 5.6 1.5 3.0 #   
Senegal 21.3 8.6 13.0 12.0 31.8 53.9 30.3 9.4 36.6 29.0 # N M 
Sierra Leone 33.5 55.0 88.5 79.6 31.5 28.3 62.7 85.2 56.2 38.0 #  M 
Somalia 52.9 31.7 5.0 68.5 40.2 60.8 9.5 34.0 33.2 44.2 #   
South Africa 0.1 0.0 0.0 18.0 8.8 3.0 0.1 15.1 79.5    M 
Sudan 82.4 108.3 114.4 201.0 293.5 182.4 202.8 149.4 256.1 388.8 #   
Swaziland 6.6 9.5  5.0 5.0   15.5 24.2 13.0   M 
Tanzania 144.5 29.8 42.3 81.2 32.3 62.9 184.5 93.0 131.9 125.5 #  M 
Togo 5.9 5.1 3.0 9.9 4.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 8.0  #  M 
Uganda 76.9 42.6 72.6 87.7 99.3 87.0 80.0 82.1 199.5 256.7 #  M 
Zambia 26.1 73.8 11.4 22.4 34.5 49.5 45.3 69.3 150.3 115.3 #  M 
Zimbabwe 13.0 12.2 0.1 56.7 28.3 14.8 0.0 255.4 353.3 273.7   M 
                
Asia 2,384.1 2,012.3 2,815.2 3,398.8 5,096.8 3,173.1 4,088.2 3,678.7 2,299.6 1,977.3    
                
Afghanistan 133.2 121.0 233.1 73.2 134.3 210.0 276.8 561.9 225.7 233.9 #   
Bangladesh 585.7 578.0 708.7 877.5 1,443.0 268.9 813.4 244.7 461.3 315.4 #  M  G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 
Page 24 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 LDC NFIDC MEM 
Bhutan 6.4 4.8 5.2 4.1 4.3 3.6 4.7 7.7 6.6 5.1 #   
Cambodia 91.5 48.5 44.6 36.9 28.7 61.8 50.4 69.3 25.4 32.6 #  M 
China 127.8 133.6 132.2 89.2 355.1 90.5 42.0 109.2 53.5 35.1   M 
East Timor     9.1 32.7 3.2  2.5 5.3 #   
India 398.3 357.8 300.3 310.8 359.1 321.2 229.1 306.9 72.2 139.1   M 
Indonesia 18.6 0.0 0.0 885.8 822.6 429.1 296.4 162.9 221.6 168.1   M 
Korea, Democratic Republic 544.5 510.1 914.6 812.4 1,026.8 1,263.6 1,525.6 1,209.0 863.8 676.3    
Laos 26.9 16.9 54.9 19.1 17.3 4.7 18.7 29.3 20.1 25.5 #   
Maldives 2.6 3.5 2.7 3.0 4.9 2.7 8.0  14.6 7.5 #  M 
Mongolia 11.7 8.5 22.3 21.3 39.0 45.8 60.0 27.8 29.5 48.5  N M 
Myanmar 4.0 3.6 5.3 2.9 6.9 9.7 3.8 9.2 6.2 18.1 #  M 
Nepal 38.5 35.4 31.9 37.6 55.2 53.1 46.5 47.2 35.3 60.5 #  M 
Pakistan 118.8 53.6 185.0 59.6 444.7 19.6 275.0 470.6 47.8 60.5  N M 
Papua New Guinea 0.2 0.0  4.3 8.0        M 
Philippines 55.0 34.0 12.8 73.7 140.4 218.4 196.0 272.7 110.1 48.2   M 
Solomon Islands     0 . 3       #  M 
Sri Lanka 148.2 72.8 91.2 31.6 119.8 55.5 125.5 87.2 27.3 39.7  N M 
Thailand 2.4 0.1 1.1 8.3 2.3 1.0 0.1 1.5 1.2    M 
Viet Nam 69.8 30.0 69.3 47.5 75.0 81.5 113.0 61.8 75.0 57.8    
                
Eastern Europe & CIS 2,955.2 1,311.7 1,062.8 866.9 5,453.8 2,272.1 1,310.8 949.4 705.1 456.3    
                
Albania 10.5 22.9 17.3 29.4 17.3 18.2 13.1 57.9 11.8 33.8   M 
Armenia 475.7 168.8 144.8 117.8 18.9 95.5 37.2 47.3 42.8 11.8   M 
Azerbaijan 391.2 115.7 28.7 69.8 34.5 28.1 21.4 18.4 28.8 47.4    
Belarus 98.3 39.1 0.0           
Bosnia and Herzegovina 22.7 8.4 79.1 89.7 90.8 84.3 82.7 96.2 24.4     
Bulgaria 0.0  14.7 10.7 5.0 0.6 15.0 12.3 17.0    M 
Croatia 13.7 28.8 30.2 1.4         M 
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia     98.3 62.8 13.2 1.0     M 
Georgia 598.1 265.8 173.4 121.3 106.5 70.7 96.5 78.0 64.6 98.2   M   G/AG/W/42/Rev.8
 Page 25RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 LDC NFIDC MEM 
Kazakhstan 1.0 0.7 5.0 7.0 0.1     0.6    
Kyrgyz Republic 150.4 67.7 88.2 38.4 81.9 60.0 33.0 73.1 5.0 2.3   M 
Lithuania 40.3 36.0  30.0         M 
Moldova 244.3 48.4 7.2 59.4 27.5 13.8 49.7 23.6 20.4 29.8   M 
Poland     0 . 0         M 
Romania 0.0 0.1 0.0     4.8 1.2    M 
Russian Federation 124.8 79.4 54.5 16.9 4,539.4 1,403.0 248.7 104.4 76.4 41.0    
Serbia & Montenegro 383.7 232.0 231.3 117.7 357.4 300.1 327.4 46.9 79.9 26.1    
Slovenia        180.8     M 
Tajikistan 226.1 121.8 134.9 117.1 68.4 60.2 251.5  102.8 83.2    
Turkmenistan 53.3 39.7   8.1 6.5 17.2       
Ukraine 120.0 36.3 53.3 39.9  0.0 0.0 5.5 209.1     
Uzbekistan 1.0   0.4  68.4 104.4 199.2 20.8 82.1    
                
Middle East & North Africa 625.3 567.5 372.6 370.0 489.6 1,070.3 898.2 695.5 1,412.3 601.2    
                
Algeria 27.2 27.1 42.0 15.8 36.6 32.8 39.5 63.1 20.3 50.7    
Egypt 208.9 154.9 74.4 66.5 61.2 40.8 37.7 12.7 22.5 13.9  N M 
Iran 13.2 4.9 19.7 12.9 7.8 3.2 15.7 7.5 31.5 3.3    
Iraq 101.9 113.8 90.9 47.8 23.1 18.4 8.5 10.9 1,049.4 10.4    
Jordan 122.2 167.5 27.4 119.5 108.7 400.7 227.4 228.7 165.3 126.9  N M 
Lebanon 11.5 7.5 1.7 1.1 1.0 42.4 118.2 94.1 10.0     
Morocco 2.0 0.1 15.9 0.2 10.5 240.9 62.0 6.8 1.8 0.1  N M 
Palestinian Territory 48.3 11.7 15.0 40.7 43.1 56.5 184.5 81.9 66.2 183.9    
Syria 45.0 14.6 21.0 26.5 30.0 35.4 17.4 9.0 11.8 20.6    
Tunisia 26.6 23.3 12.4 3.1  3.8      N M 
Turkey 0.6 1.0   0.0        M 
Yemen 17.9 41.0 52.3 35.8 167.7 195.3 187.4 180.7 33.5 191.4 #    G/AG/W/42/Rev.8 
Page 26 
RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 LDC NFIDC MEM 
Latin America & the Caribbean 939.5 766.8 648.1 992.4 1,214.9 828.2 990.4 1,227.3 442.9 654.4    
                
Antigua and Barbuda   3.1           M 
Argentina          0 . 0     M 
Belize      0.1 0.4      M 
Bolivia 85.6 157.1 96.8 217.0 75.2 80.0 48.6 102.7 120.0 100.0   M 
Brazil 0.8  0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0    M 
Chile 0.3  0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1     M 
Colombia 15.3 8.6 1.6 7.0 13.1 12.0 35.3 8.7 9.0 13.1   M 
Costa Rica 2.7 1.1           M 
Cuba 6.1 12.7 27.5 19.2 59.2 23.9 29.8 8.8 2.4 5.0  N M 
Dominica 7.0 2.7          N M 
Dominican Republic 6.4 8.2 3.5 7.6 120.0 1.6 77.8 13.0 2.5 13.0  N M 
Ecuador 19.4 1.8 12.1 20.4 41.3 42.1 151.3 83.8 5.8 21.1   M 
El Salvador 25.0 26.8 24.3 20.4 69.6 2.8 60.4 91.8 11.5 44.4   M 
French Guayana  0.5            
Grenada  4.5        0.0   M 
Guatemala 70.4 36.1 53.8 72.0 116.4 136.9 102.5 253.6 63.2 69.1   M 
Guyana 33.0 42.3 33.5 61.2 37.3 26.3 38.8 62.7  23.0   M 
Haiti 168.1 118.9 174.6 158.3 145.1 163.6 67.5 238.5 63.2 138.4 #  M 
Honduras 53.2 33.7 28.5 31.6 179.2 68.2 72.3 56.5 53.2 58.5  N M 
Jamaica 56.4 58.4 17.3  13.2 46.5 20.5   11.5  N M 
Mexico 46.0 0.9   2.8 1.6 0.9 0.6 0.8    M 
Nicaragua 63.0 45.1 33.5 89.1 226.7 62.1 81.8 68.4 42.6 67.8   M 
Panama 2.2 1.3 0.9 1.5         M 
Paraguay 1.4 1.0 0.3   0.0       M 
Peru 254.1 171.4 139.6 265.2 115.5 148.7 202.2 237.9 68.6 89.7  N M 
St. Lucia 3.0 6.0          N M 
St. Kitts and Nevis  3.7   0.0       N M   G/AG/W/42/Rev.8
 Page 27RECIPIENT REGION/COUNTRY 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 LDC NFIDC MEM 
St. Vincent and the Grenadines   8.6          N M 
Suriname 20.0 12.0  21.8         M 
Venezuela      11.5      N M 
Notes : LDC: Least-developed country (#). 
NFIDC: Net food-importing developi ng country, as listed in G/AG/5/Rev.8 dated 22 March 2005 (N). 
MEM: WTO Member (M). 
Source:   Food Aid Monitor:  2004 Food Aid Flows, June 2005 at:  http://www. wfp.org/interfais/. 
__________