WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/W/42/Rev.5
8 November 2002
(02-6155)
Committee on Agriculture
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION ON MEASURES CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE
NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE REFORM PROGRAMME ON LEAST-DEVELOPED
AND NET FOOD-IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Note by the Secretariat1
Revision
1. The present note further updates the information in the Secretariat note G/AG/W/42/Rev.4
dated 27 November 2001 on implementation of the Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible
Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on L east-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing
Countries (NFIDC Decision).  It has been supplemented by a background note on food aid that
focuses on the type, terms of transaction and distribution channels of global food aid deliveries(Attachment 5).
2. Following a brief introduction 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 implementation (Part II).  A list of related Committee on Agriculture documents is
contained in Attachment 1.  Further deta ils are presented in Attachments 2 to 6.
I. MONITORING OF THE FOLLOW-UP TO THE NFIDC DECISION
3. The follow-up to the NFIDC Decision has represented an important element in the
Committee's work.  This subject has been on the agenda at each regular Committee meeting.
4. In 1995, the Committee established notification requirements under which donor Members
are required to submit data on food aid donations (quantity and concessionality) as well as
information on technical and financial assistance and other relevant information 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.
5. Attachment 2 summarizes compliance with NF :1 notification requirements in the 1995 to
2001 implementation years.  For the purposes of this Attachment, "compliance" refers to any NF:1notification received by the eight Members (counting the EC as one) that are donors under the Food
Aid Convention and three other Members that have  identified themselves as donors in their
notifications (Cuba, New Zealand and South Africa).  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.  Attachment 2 reflects the state of play on notifications as of15 October 2002.
                                                     
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO.G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 2
6. In 1996, the Committee established a WTO list of net food-importing developing countries.2
This list currently contains 23 developing country Members plus the 49 least-developed countries as
defined by the United Nations.3  In the same year, the Singapore Ministerial Conference adopted the
Committee's specific recommendations regard ing the NFIDC Decision (G/L/125 refers).
7. 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).4  The Committee's report on this question, which was approved by the Doha Ministerial
Conference, includes, inter alia , the 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 ba sic foodstuffs (G/AG/11 refers).   The panel report,
which was submitted in June 2002, includes an examination of specific proposals submitted by a group
of seventeen WTO net food-importing developi ng countries (G/AG/W/ 49 and Add.1 and Corr.1;
WT/GC/62 - G/AG/13 refer).  The Committee's follo w-up report regarding its Doha recommendations
as a whole is contained in document G/AG/14.
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 benefit 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 effects in terms of the availability ofadequate supplies of basic foodstuffs from external sources on reasonable terms and
conditions, including short-term difficulties in financing normal levels of
commercial imports of basic foodstuffs" (paragraph 2).
9. The remaining paragraphs of the NFIDC Decision contain a number of specific agreements in
the areas of food aid, technical and financial assistance, differential treatment within the framework ofany agreement on agricultural export credits, and a provision regarding access to the resources of the
international financial institutions.  In the following, these paragraphs 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 mechanisms to ensure that the
implementation of the results of the Uruguay Round on trade in agriculture does notadversely 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
                                                     
2 The decision to establish this list was taken on the understanding that "being listed would not as such
confer automatic benefits since, under the mechanisms covered by the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision, donorsand the institutions concerned would have a role to play" (G/AG/R/4, paragraph 17).
3 The WTO net food-importing developing countries:  Barbados, Botswana, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba,
Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Honduras, Jamaica,  Jordan, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco, Pakistan, Peru,
Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and th e Grenadines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago,
Tunisia and Venezuela (G/AG/5/Rev.5, dated 26 March 2002, refers).
4 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 and G/AG/10.G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 3
least-developed and net food-importing developing countries".  (chapeau to
paragraph 3).
1. Review of Food Aid Levels and In itiation of Food Aid Negotiations
11. To the end enunciated in the chapeau of paragraph 3 of the NFIDC Decision, Ministers
agreed:
" … to review the level of food aid established periodically by the Committee on
Food Aid under the Food Aid Convention 1986 and to initiate negotiations in the
appropriate forum to establish a level of food 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 FAC are specified in terms of minimum annual
contributions by its members (Table 1).  The aggregate annual commitments decreased from a total of
7.517 million tonnes under the Food Aid Convention, 1986 to 5.35 million tonnes (wheat equivalent)
under the Food Aid Convention, 1995.  Under the new Food Aid Convention 1999, the minimum
annual volume and value commitments of FAC members amount to a total of 4.895 million tonnes(wheat equivalent) and  €130 million, respectively.  The Inter-agency panel referred to 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."
5
13.  Table 1 summarizes the annual food aid shipments by FAC members in respect of their
commitments under the 1986, 1995 and 1999 Food Aid Conventions since 1992/93.  Although food
aid shipments of grain decreased from 10.4 milli on tonnes in 1992/93 to 6.1 million tonnes in
1997/98, shipments exceeded, except in 1994/95, FAC members' combined minimum annual
commitments in this period.  Food aid shipments in 2000/01, the second year under the Food Aid
Convention 1999 are estimated to be close to 10.5 mi llion tonnes (wheat equivalent) compared with
nearly 9 million tonnes in 1999/2000, exceeding significantly the FAC members' combined
commitments under the new Convention.  The food aid was almost entirely in the form of donations
to least-developed and other low-income developing countries.  Most of the food aid was in the form
of cereals and cereal products.  In addition, othe r products were provided, including oilseeds and
oilmeals, pulses, sugar, skimmed milk, and various blended products, to meet the specific needs of
recipient countries.
14. 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 directly 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 period, and the use of delivery rather than shipment data.
15. According to World Food Programme data, global food aid deliveries show a cyclical pattern,
with a record of 17.3 million tonnes reached in 1993.6  Another peak was reached in 1999 when food
aid totalled 15.0  million tonnes (Table 2).  This was mainly due to a sharp increase of deliveries to
"other countries" although deliveries to least-developed and the net food-importing developing
countries also increased.7  In this context, the Doha Ministerial Conference approved the
recommendation by the Committee that:
                                                     
5 Inter-agency panel report WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13, paragraph 44 refers.
6 See also WFP statement in G/AG/GEN/49, pp. 10-11.
7 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.5
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 periods in which trends in world market
prices of basic foodstuffs have been increasing; …". (G/AG/11, Part B paragraph 3I(b) refers)
This recommendation will be subject to specific  review at the November 2002 meeting of the
Committee within the framework of its annual monitoring exercise of the NFIDC Decision.
Table 2: Food aid deliveries to least-developed and net food-importing developing
countries, 1992-2001  (million tonnes)
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Least-developed
countries6.3 4.6 5.4 4.0 3.3 3.5 3.7 4.6 4.4 4.5
Net food-importing
developing countries2.9 2.4 1.8 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.6
Other countries 6.1 10.4 5.7 5.2 3.2 3.1 3.9 9.0 5.5 4.9
Global total 15.3 17.3 12.9 10.2 7.2 7.3 8.4 15.0 11.3 11.0
Notes: Includes cereals in grain equivalent and non-cereals in product weight (see also Table 4).
Net food-importing developing countries refers to Members listed in G/AG/5/Rev.5, dated 26 March 2002.
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 2001 Food Aid Flows, May 2002 at http://www.wfp.org/interfais/.
16. Except for Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago, all net food-importing developing countries on
the WTO list were, occasionally or regularly, recipients of food aid during 1992-2001.  In 2001,aggregate deliveries to these countries were 7 per cent higher than average deliveries in the period
1992-2001 (Table 3).  In some countries, in particular Egypt and Tunisia, food aid deliveries declined
sharply during the past decade.  Deliveries to the least-developed countries in 2001 were slightly
higher than their ten-year average (1992-2001), while  global deliveries were 5 per cent below the
long-run average.  In Attachment 4, data are provided of food aid deliveries to all recipient countriesduring 1992-2001.  Attachment 5 provides a background note on global food aid deliveries according
to the type, terms of transaction and distribution channel of food aid.
Table 3: Food aid deliveries to least-developed and net food-importing developing
countries in 2001 compared to long-term average (million tonnes)
1992-2001
average20012001 in per cent of
1992-2001 average
Least-developed countries 4.4 4.5 102
Net food-importing developingcountries1.5 1.6 107
Other countries 5.7 4.9 84
Global total 11.6 11.0 95
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.5, dated 26 March 2002.
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 2001 Food Aid Flows, May 2002 at http://www.wfp.org/interfais/.G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 5Table 1 - Food Aid Convention - Annual Shi pments - 1992/93-2000/01*  (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 f) - - 35,000 13,400 - - 10,135 m)
AUSTRALIA 300,000 309,561 307,874 334,090 300,000 l) 298,146 305,127 293,221 273,064
AUSTRIA 20,000 18,000 7,100 39,400 d) d) d) d) d)
CANADA 600,000 762,766 c) 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 j) 1,969,892 R
FINLAND 25,000 25,000 19,610 208 h) d) d) d) d) d)
JAPAN b) 300,000 390,912 341,293 388,438 300,000 474,870 326,835 302,626 561,643
NORWAY b) i) 30,000 33,646 47,941 33,584 20,000 6,233 32,816 19,306 61,293
SWEDEN 40,000 62,560 b) 48,736 54,761 b) d) d) d) d) d)
SWITZERLAND 27,000 47,265 108,220 44,828 40,000 75,479 38,636 57,915 k) 38,939 k)
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   e) 7,517,000 10,388,033 8,714,178 7,113,428 5,350,000 n) 6,580,267 5,774,719 6,110,647 8,136,182 R
ContinuedG/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 6Table 1 - Food Aid Convention - Annual Shi pments - 1992/93-2000/01*  (July/June years)
metric tonnes: wheat equivalent
DONOR MINIMUM
ANNUAL
CONTRIBUTION
(1999 Conv.)1999/00 2000/01
ARGENTINA 35,000 2,740 -
AUSTRALIA 250,000 296,713 251,865
AUSTRIA d) d) d)
CANADA 420,000 470,657 288,402 q)
EC 1,320,000
and  €130 million1,976,280 o) 2,357,778 p), r)
FINLAND d) d) d)
JAPAN b) 300,000 337,357 637,749
NORWAY b) i) 30,000 75,960 85,876
SWEDEN d) d) d)
SWITZERLAND 40,000 61,295 54,169
USA 2,500,000 5,692,116 6,798,280
TOTAL   e) 4,895,000
and  €130 million8,913,118 10,474,119 e), q)G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 7Table 1 - continued
Notes:
* Unless otherwise specified, all shipments were in respect of the Food Aid Convention, 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 pr oduct 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) 1986 - As listed in Article III, paragraph (3), of the Food Aid Convention, 1986.
1995 - As listed in Article III, paragraph (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 figures therefore do not correspond to quantities actually shipped.
c) Includes quantities shipped by Canada in respect of its obligations for the following year.d) From 1995/96 Austria, Finland and Sweden included under E.C.
e) Includes contributions under IEFR - Immediate Response Account (IRA), as reported by WFP.
f) Obligations under the Convention suspended between 1st July 1991 and 30th June 1993.g) In respect of outstanding 1992/93 contributions.h) Obligations under the Convention suspended between 1st July 1993 and 30th June.
i) 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.
j) Includes EC contributions of cash to recipients totalling Ecu 84.7 m. reported as equivalent to 583,693 tonnes of wheat, to b e used for the purchase of grains by recipients.  The cash
was disbursed as follows (in '000 Ecus):Albania 5,000 Honduras 3,100 Senegal 500
Armenia 13,000 Kirghizstan 8,000 Sierra Leone 200
Bolivia 15,000 Mali 2,000 Tadjikistan 4,000Cape Verde Islands 7,000 Mozambique 5,400 Yemen 5,000Georgia 7,000 Nicaragua 600Haiti 700 Peru 8,200
Individual details of the food aid quantities involved are not available, and are therefore not shown in Table 2.
k) Includes quantities shipped by Switzerland in resp ect of its obligations for the previous year.
l) Australia's minimum contribution was reduced to 250,000 tonnes with effect from 1 July 1998 under the FAC 1995 (as extended).m) Shipped by Argentina in respect of outstanding 1995/96 obligations.
n) With effect from 1 July 1998, the total was reduced to 5,300,000 tonnes (taking into account the revised minimum contribution  for Australia).
o) Includes FAC "value" contributions totalling 156,504,384 Euro, reported as notional wheat equivalent of 531,749 tonnes.p) Includes FAC "value" contributions totalling 181,049,943 Euro, reported as notional wheat equivalent of 628,659 tonnes.q) Provisional data
r) Includes total wheat equivalents of incomplete records of 14,385 tonnes (Tonnage Commitment) and 5,885 tonnes (Value Commitme nt) as reported by the EC.
R Revised
Source:  Food Aid Committee / International Grains Council.G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 8
17. In Tables 1 to 3, as well as in Attachments 4 and 5, the food aid deliveries represent aggregate
quantities which include both cereals, in grain equivalent, and non-cereals in product weight.  Table 4
shows the product composition of global food aid deliveries (excluding Eastern Europe and the CIS)
since 1991.
Table 4: Commodity composition of global f ood aid deliveries, excluding Eastern Europe
and the CIS (thousand tonnes)
1991 1994 1997 2000 2001
Cereals 10,781 8,206 5,596 7,875 8,450
Wheat and wheat flour 7,179 5,006 2,929 4,613 4,796
Rice 940 711 710 1,284 1,189
Coarse grains 2,336 2,005 1,510 1,492 1,986
Blended / fortified 326 484 446 486 478
Non-cereals 938 1,014 755 994 1,186
Dairy products 136 45 14 27 43
Meat and fish 40 26 19 7 28
Oils and fats 328 367 266 387 460
Pulses 366 484 361 498 599
Other non-cereals 69 92 95 75 57
Cereals (per cent) 92 89 88 89 88
Non-cereals (per cent) 81 11 21 11 2
Note: Cereals in grain equivalent, non-cereals in product weight.
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 2001 Food Aid Flows, May 2002 at http://www.wfp.org/interfais/.
(b) Initiation of food aid negotiations
18. In anticipation of the expiry of the Food Aid Convention, 1995 the Singapore Ministerial
Conference agreed that, in preparation for the re-negotiation of the Food Aid Convention, action be
initiated in 1997 within the framework of the Conven tion, under arrangements for participation 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 donable
products as is possible, which is sufficient to meet the legitimate needs of developing countries during
the reform programme (G/L/125, paragraph 18(i) refers).
19. Between January 1997 and March 1999 several meetings took place within the framework of
the FAC, including meetings with least-developed and net food-importing developing 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 for renegotiation taking
into account, amongst other things, "the food security and trade liberalization objectives under theWTO 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 which 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 countriesregarding the main elements of the new Convention (G/AG/GEN/31, page 4 refers).
20. The negotiations on the Food Aid Convention 1999 were completed on 24 March 1999 and
the new Convention provisionally entered into forc e on 1 July 1999 for an initial duration of three
years.  Its members, including provisional members, are 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).G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 9
21. The Food Aid Convention 1999 contains a number of new features.  They include that 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 pr esent WTO list of net food-importing developing
countries.  Other eligible food aid recipients include Lower Middle-Income Countries and all othercountries included in the WTO list of net food-importing developing 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 new Food Aid Convention.
22. At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Ministers approved the Committee's recommendation:
"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 foodaid to review their food aid contributions with a view to better identifying and
meeting the food aid needs of least-developed and WTO net food-importing
developing countries".  (G/AG/11, Part B paragraph 3 I(a) refers)
23. The Food Aid Convention, which was to expire on 30 June 2002, will not be renegotiated at
this stage but, as agreed by the Food Aid Committee in June, would be extended for at least one year.
The period of extension of the Convention (for either one or two years) will be decided by the Food
Aid Committee at its next Session in December this year.
2. Concessionality of Food Aid
24. To the end stated in the chapeau 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).
25. 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.
26. 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 measuresaimed 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)
This recommendation will be subject to specific  review at the November 2002 meeting of the
Committee in the context of its annual monitoring exercise of the NFIDC Decision.
27. 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 four years of implementation between 83 and 93 per cent of food aid was
donated, with the remainder being provided in accordance with the relevant FAC guidelines.G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 10
Table 6: Proportion of food aid provided in fully grant form
Member Concessionality of food aid
FAC donors
Argentina 100 % grant terms
Australia 100 % grant terms
Canada 100 % grant terms
EC 100 % grant terms
Japan 100 % grants of cash
Norway 100 % grant terms
Switzerland 100 % grant terms
USA 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 %
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 not applicable (no food aid provided)
B. TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
28. To the end stated in the chapeau of paragraph 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 improve their agricultural productivity and
infrastructure" (paragraph 3(iii) of the NFIDC Decision).
29. The Doha Ministerial Conference called on developed country Members to continue to give
full consideration in the context of their aid programmes to requests for the provision of technical and
financial assistance by least-developed and net food-importing developing countries to improve their
agricultural productivity and infrastructure.  This recommendation reflects the fact that technical and
financial assistance is essentially a bilateral matter between donors and recipients based on requestsmade by recipient countries.
30. The Secretariat has no information whether least-developed and net food-importing
developing countries made requests pursuant to paragraph 3(iii) of the NFIDC Decision.  However,
Attachment 6 provides an overview of spending  on bilateral technical and financial assistance
programmes as notified by Members, including in a number of cases funding given to multilateralorganizations and other aid.  Some Members noted in their notifications that it had not always been
possible to identify expenditures that were exclusiv ely targeted to agriculture and to least-developed
and net food-importing developing countries.G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 11
31. Furthermore, the Doha Ministerial approved the recommendation:
"that, in support of the priority accorded by least-developed and net food-importing
developing countries to the development of their agricultural productivity and infrastructure,
the WTO General Council call upon relevant 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)
The responses that have been received from the European Investment Bank and the World Bank have
been circulated in document G/AG/W/57.
C. D
IFFERENTIAL TREATMENT WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF AN AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURAL
EXPORT CREDITS
32. In light of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the NFID C Decision quoted above, Ministers agreed:
"… to ensure that any agreement relating to agricultural export credits makes
appropriate provision for differential treatment in favour of least-developed and netfood-importing developing countries"   (paragraph  4 of the NFIDC Decision).
33. At the Doha Ministerial Conference, Ministers reaffirmed the commitment above and
approved a general understanding regarding procedures for the development of disciplines pursuant to
Article 10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and the related provisions of the NFIDC Decision.
(G/AG/11, Part A paragraph 4).  Accordingly, work  within the WTO on the question of agricultural
export credits has been undertaken in both the regular 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.
D. A
CCESS TO THE RESOURCES OF THE INTERNATIONAL 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 commercial imports and that
these countries may be eligible to draw on the resources of international financial
institutions under existing facilities, or such facilities as may be established, in thecontext of adjustment programmes, in order to address such financing difficulties. In
this regard, Ministers take note of paragraph 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 difficulties 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 commentedG/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 12
on the development of international food prices.8  Moreover, the Inter-agency panel report provides a
detailed examination of the question of financing food imports by NFIDCs and LDCs.9
36. As regards wheat, the most import food commodity in the import basket of the NFIDCs and
LDCs, Chart 1 below shows world market prices for wheat since 1987.  From their peak in 1996,
international wheat prices dropped sharply and reached their lowest level since 1990 – the year of the
highest world crop ever except for 1996/97.   In 2002, international wheat prices have begun tostrengthen.
37. The FAO is monitoring the food security situation in the least-developed and net food-
importing developing countries and has regularly presented its assessment to the Committee on
Agriculture.  In its latest update of November 2001, the FAO concluded that:
"Overall, while the situation in the LDCs and NFIDCs, as reflected by recent levels
of cereal import bills, has improved somewhat compared to the mid 1990s, the food
security situation in many of these countries remains precarious.  Of the 31developing countries currently facing serious food shortages and emergency
situations, the majority are in the LDC and NFIDC category."  (G/AG/GEN/49, page
3 refers).
2. Access to the facilities of the IMF and the World Bank
38. The question of access to the resources of the international financial institutions has recently
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 of the IMF.
10
39. In the context of the Committee's annual monitoring exercise of the NFIDC Decision in
December 2001, the IMF representative reiterated the position of the IMF regarding the question ofaccess to its resources by stating:
"With existing facilities and resources, the Fund is in a position to meet any balance
of payments needs of our members that may arise from higher  world food prices."
11
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 smaller than the price increases that have beenexperienced 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.
                                                     
8 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 andG/AG/GEN/49, page 7;  International Grains Council 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;
see also the points raised by Members in G/AG/R/3, page 6.
9 See WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13, in particular, Chapter II, Section A and the Conclusions in Chapter III.
10 WT/GC/62 – G/AG/13 refers.
11 G/AG/GEN/49, page 8 refers.G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 13
"In response to the Ministerial Decision, a Working Group involving the World Bank,
the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Food Programme and the IMF met
in 1995 to address the special needs of least-developed and net food-importing
countries.  The Working Group reviewed the range of facilities available for
additional financing needs for developing countries in the event of world price shocks
and production shortfalls and provided a report to the WTO in late 1995.  Given thewide 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 appropriate to establish a special Uruguay Round
adjustment facility" (G/AG/GEN/15, page 3).G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 14 CHART 1 – THE INTERNATIONAL GRAINS COUNCIL WHEAT PRICE INDEX, JANUARY 1987 – JULY 2002
050010001500200025003000
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02
IGC 2002
* Average wheat prices of seven widely traded varieties of bread wheat: July/Dec 1986=1000G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 15
ATTACHMENT 1
List of documents related to the implementation of the NFIDC Decision
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-antefinancing mechanism (Submission by Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, Jordan,Kenya and Sri Lanka on behalf of the NFIDCs and LDC Group of theWTO)
G/AG/W/57 (23/10/2002) Marrakesh 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 RegionalDevelopment Banks
G/AG/14 (9/10/2002) COA follow-up report 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 2001 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 Improving 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, DominicanRepublic, 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 Improving the Effectiveness of the Implementation of
the NFIDC Decision
G/AG/GEN/46 (28/11/2000) Annual monitoring exercise in 2000 in respect of the follow-up to the
NFIDC Decision (statements by the international observer organizations)
G/AG/GEN/40 (19/11/1999) Annual monitoring exercise in 1999 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 1998 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 1997 in respect of the follow-up to the
NFIDC Decision (statements by the international observer organizations)G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 16
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 Committ ee 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 NFIDCDecision
G/AG/W/12 & Add.1 (07/11/1995
and 20/11/1995) NFIDC  Decision:  the Director-General's consultations with the IMF and
the World Bank
G/AG/R- series Reports of COA meetingsG/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 17
ATTACHMENT 2
Compliance with notification requireme nts in respect of actions taken within
the framework of the NFIDC Decision, 1995-2001 (Table NF:1)
Member 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Notification circulated  in
G/AG/N-series
Food Aid
Convention donor
Argentina X X X X X X ARG/10, 15
Australia X X X X X X AUS/5, 13, 21, 25, 32/Rev.1,
39
Canada X X X X X CAN/11, 18, 25, 34, 42
EC X X X X X X EEC/9, 21 and Add.1., 25, 35
Japan X X X X X X JPN/15, 27, 33, 46, 68, 78
Norway X X X X X X X NOR/6, 19 and Corr.1, 20 and
Corr.1, 26, 33, 34 and Corr.1,40
Switzerland X X X X CHE/23
United States X X X X USA/7, 20, 21, 31
Other donors
Cuba X X X X X X CUB/4, 5, 14, 18
New Zealand X X X X X X NZL/6, 13, 17, 25, 26, 30
South Africa X X X X X X X ZAF/7, 9, 17, 24, 32, 39, 42
"Nil" notifications
Brazil X X X X BRA/2, 7, 17
Burkina Faso X BFA/2
Fiji X X FJI/3, 5
Indonesia X X IDN/6, 7
Korea X X KOR/9, 17
Malta X MLT/3
Morocco X MAR/9
Philippines X PHL/7
United Arab
EmiratesXA R E / 1
Uruguay X URY/6
Compliance
calculated as:
… number of
notifications received
by FAC donors (%)100 100 100 100 75 63 n.a.
… number of
notifications received
by FAC & otherdonors (%)100 100 100 100 82 73 n.a.
Notes: Annual reporting periods differ among Members.
"X" means that a notification was received.  A blank means that no notification was received."Nil" notification means that the notification indicated that no food aid or technical/financial assistance was
provided or that Table NF:1 was not applicable.
"n.a." denotes not applicable since at least one Member  is still within the allowabl e delay for the submission of
Table NF:1 notifications in the 2001 implementation year (the relevant fiscal/marketing year);  as regards 2002,the implementation year is still underway for all donor Members.G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 18
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 their Singapore Conference in respect of Least-
Developed and Net Food-Importing 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 eligible 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 transactions, 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 minimum 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 members 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 aid recipients will include Lower Middle-Income
Countries and all other countries on the present WTO list of NFIDCs, when experiencing food
emergencies or internationally recognized financial 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 donors 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 pr ovided 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 Food Aid Convention, FAC
members will take account of the results of relevant 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 should no longer be included in the list of food aid
operations.G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 19
The new FAC will seek to improve the effectiveness and the impact of food aid transactions,
inter alia , in terms of the assessment of food aid needs, the monitoring of the aid provided, and co-
operation between food aid donors, recipients and others concerned.  In addition, the provision of
food aid under the FAC will not be tied in any way to commercial exports of goods or services torecipient 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 Food Aid Convention is evidence of their desire
to maintain international cooperation 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 the food aid needs of developing countries adequately,
irrespective of fluctuations in world food prices and supplies.G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 20
ATTACHMENT 4
Food aid deliveries of cereals and non-cereals, 1991-2001 ('000 tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent)
Country/Region 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 LDC NFI MEM
Sub-Sahara Africa 4,033.9 6,201.9 4,883.5 4,513.8 3,298.6 2,570.1 2,423.2 2,763.4 2,803.3 3,794.7 3,466.7
Angola 135.6 113.7 173.5 344.0 219.7 250.6 181.4 202.5 147.6 290.5 189.8 M
Benin 8.3 12.6 33.7 14.9 20.6 10.2 21.8 25.5 11.3 12.4 16.0 # M
Botswana 2.9 8.9 13.4 9.1 10.3 3.7 0.4 N M
Burkina Faso 91.2 58.8 36.4 49.1 41.5 26.9 39.9 27.8 62.2 33.2 41.5 # M
Burundi 6.1 2.5 7.6 80.2 103.2 7.8 3.0 0.7 6.8 11.3 61.6 # M
Cameroon 10.3 7.2 1.7 2.7 7.3 24.1 1.4 10.2 6.5 4.2 8.8 M
Cape Verde 64.2 59.2 27.8 73.4 73.4 44.5 65.3 59.9 57.0 53.3 35.6
C. African Rep. 3.9 5.2 4.3 5.1 1.5 2.1 1.4 11.5 1.3 3.2 0.8 # M
Chad 77.6 8.2 4.7 22.2 21.2 19.7 49.5 18.2 13.4 23.4 36.4 # M
Comoros 5.5 7.3 4.4 6.7 5.8 0.6 1.0 8.9 0.2 #
Congo 10.0 17.1 2.0 16.7 12.6 18.0 0.3 14.1 12.3 16.3 40.7 M
Congo, Dem. Rep. 99.2 35.8 23.0 82.3 109.5 32.5 29.5 9.6 24.7 74.2 6.2 # M
Côte d'Ivoire 40.0 39.9 52.7 56.3 23.9 54.8 11.4 26.3 37.4 16.9 39.6 N M
Djibouti 10.4 10.2 26.3 12.6 20.2 10.8 13.8 11.0 10.7 12.4 11.4 # M
Equatorial Guinea 3.6 3.7 5.5 3.3 3.9 0.6 0.7 1.9 1.7 1.9 #
Eritrea 42.6 117.1 331.9 104.3 40.4 53.5 110.1 35.0 235.8 305.5 #
Ethiopia 943.8 1,209.7 533.6 948.6 635.7 457.0 434.2 593.8 876.6 1,529.3 1,125.6 #
Gabon 0.1 1.1 M
Gambia 16.3 10.7 8.5 9.7 3.8 4.3 9.2 7.7 6.5 8.4 5.1 # M
Ghana 169 142.8 123.6 90.8 96.9 33.7 86.5 58.4 25.8 101.3 57.5 M
Guinea Bissau 15.9 7.5 10.8 4.5 3.2 7.8 5.9 3.6 17.1 27.1 9.0 # M
Guinea 28.7 29.5 42.8 40.2 7.5 12.9 9.8 1.7 35.0 5.2 43.9 # M
Kenya 73.9 274.3 353.1 230.1 79.6 31.8 117.0 142.3 71.7 301.8 375.7 N M
Lesotho 27.6 35.1 54.2 34.5 33.7 40.2 8.9 15.5 6.1 6.3 3.5 # M
Liberia 171.8 169.3 176.3 179.3 161.0 169.3 117.5 85.6 99.2 115.9 21.2 #
Madagascar 30.2 69.5 37.4 26.2 38.2 22.1 36.5 30.4 26.6 37.2 59.9 # M
Malawi 232.5 369.6 541.0 166.9 235.9 122.9 45.4 64.8 73.3 36.3 31.9 # M
Mali 47.0 38.5 27.8 27.1 20.0 19.1 23.0 23.9 18.4 11.1 18.5 # MG/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 21Country/Region 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 LDC NFI MEM
Mauritania 90.0 29.9 82.5 25.6 44.9 17.3 44.0 13.8 31.4 16.6 37.3 # M
Mauritius 6.3 14.0 2.2 0.8 1.0 N M
Mozambique 542.7 1,046.9 457.9 400.2 385.7 151.3 172.8 188.8 155.7 180.8 139.8 # M
Namibia 9.5 20.4 24.6 0.6 2.7 10.4 0.4 2.0 2.0 3.5 M
Niger 91.9 46.2 26.4 46.9 24.6 32.4 62.0 45.7 45.9 20.3 52.0 # M
Nigeria 0.6 1.1 1.1 2.2 M
Rwanda 20.0 25.0 157.0 273.2 274.5 507.6 420.3 303.8 275.2 233.6 64.6 # M
Sao Tome / Principe 9.6 9.2 7.1 8.0 7.9 4.9 4.0 3.7 1.2 4.8 4.9
Senegal 42.2 80.9 52.2 25.7 21.3 8.6 13.0 12.0 31.8 53.9 34.7 N M
Seychelles 0.1 0.2 0.1
Sierra Leone 61.4 46.5 28.7 33.6 33.5 55.0 88.5 79.6 31.5 28.3 64.2 # M
Somalia 82.4 275.2 211.3 149.0 52.9 31.7 5.0 68.5 40.2 60.9 17.0 #
South Africa 9.2 4.8 0.1 14.3 0.1 18.0 8.8 3.0 M
Sudan 550.3 730.5 350.2 439.0 82.4 108.3 114.4 200.4 293.5 182.4 201.6 #
Swaziland 4.9 16.5 31.8 11.3 6.6 9.5 5.0 5.0 M
Tanzania 21.7 22.7 39.8 85.0 144.5 29.8 42.3 81.2 32.3 62.9 188.8 # M
Togo 20.1 14.4 9.3 9.3 5.9 5.1 3.0 9.9 4.0 4.0 6.0 # M
Uganda 65.4 48.4 68.7 81.8 76.9 42.6 72.6 87.7 99.3 87.0 76.8 # M
Zambia 63.3 467.5 355.7 19.7 26.1 73.8 11.4 22.4 34.5 48.8 26.0 # M
Zimbabwe 17.6 513.1 534.7 22.4 13.0 12.2 0.1 56.7 28.3 14.8 M
North Africa and
Middle East3,078.6 1,525.3 956.2 869.2 625.3 567.5 372.6 355.5 473.8 1,042.1 910.2
Algeria 43.7 18.0 26.2 26.3 27.2 27.1 42.0 15.8 36.2 32.8 37.9
Egypt 1,823.6 616.6 220.8 295.2 208.9 154.9 74.4 66.5 61.2 40.8 36.0 N M
Gaza/West Bank 67.7 19.6 25.8 49.3 48.3 11.7 15.0 26.2 27.6 28.0 189.2
Iran 117.3 82.0 38.5 26.0 13.2 4.9 19.7 12.9 7.8 3.2 15.7
Iraq 46.5 99.8 93.5 73.3 101.9 113.8 90.9 47.8 23.1 18.4 12.4
Israel 1.0 1.0 2.0 M
Jordan 416.5 262.5 174.6 166.2 122.2 167.5 27.4 119.5 108.7 400.7 223.7 N M
Lebanon 35.8 27.6 10.8 10.0 11.5 7.5 1.7 1.1 1.0 42.4 128.8
Morocco 250.8 258.8 158.6 104.0 2.0 0.1 15.9 0.2 10.5 240.9 62.0 N M
Syria 39.2 20.1 28.3 40.3 45.0 14.6 21.0 26.5 30.0 35.7 16.9G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 22
Country/Region 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 LDC NFI MEM
Tunisia 194.9 62.4 79.0 30.8 26.6 23.3 12.4 3.1 3.8 N M
Turkey 2.9 5.2 3.0 1.8 0.6 1.0 0.0 M
Yemen 39.7 51.7 96.1 44.0 17.9 41.0 52.3 35.8 167.7 195.3 187.6 #
Latin America &
the Caribbean2,006.3 1,844.4 2,101.6 1,320.1 939.5 766.8 648.1 992.4 1,214.1 836.8 1,034.3
Antigua 1.0 M
Belize 3.1 0.1 0.4 M
Bolivia 214.3 114.3 417.6 170.9 85.6 96.8 217.0 75.2 80.0 44.4 M
Brazil 20.0 6.1 38.1 35.3 0.8 157.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 M
Chile 15.1 6.4 6.0 2.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 M
Colombia 8.4 19.0 3.5 27.7 15.3 1.6 7.0 13.1 12.0 35.4 M
Costa Rica 84.3 4.0 92.7 6.0 2.7 8.6 M
Cuba 6.8 2.9 23.6 7.0 6.1 1.1 27.5 19.2 59.2 23.9 9.6 N M
Dominican Rep. 11.8 19.9 11.0 13.8 6.4 12.7 3.5 7.6 120.0 1.6 77.5 N M
Dominica 2.1 1.2 0.1 0.1 7.0 8.2 N M
Ecuador 46.9 46.7 11.9 27.0 19.4 2.7 12.1 20.4 41.3 42.1 153.3 M
El Salvador 175.3 117.0 169.9 23.7 25.0 1.8 24.3 20.4 69.6 2.8 77.7 M
French Guiana 26.8
Grenada 2.0 2.6 0.1 0.5 M
Guatemala 231.5 145.3 130.3 176.4 70.4 4.5 53.8 72.0 116.4 136.9 105.1 M
Guyana 34.0 58.0 44.6 34.0 33.0 36.1 33.5 61.2 37.3 26.3 38.8 M
Haiti 70.2 109.5 119.0 94.5 168.1 42.3 174.6 158.3 144.5 163.6 119.5 # M
Honduras 128.2 110.5 123.7 115.4 53.2 118.9 28.5 31.6 179.2 68.2 73.6 N M
Jamaica 274.5 247.0 239.8 70.1 56.4 33.7 17.3 13.2 46.5 20.5 N M
Mexico 95.6 87.7 93.5 31.7 46.0 58.4 2.8 1.6 0.9 M
Montserrat 0.9 8.7
Nicaragua 161.4 130.0 94.4 62.3 63.0 33.5 89.1 226.5 62.1 82.4 M
Panama 17.2 9.6 3.4 0.2 2.2 45.1 0.9 1.5 M
Paraguay 0.3 2.9 2.9 0.3 1.4 1.3 0.3 M
Peru 406.3 563.3 453.6 391.2 254.1 1 139.6 265.2 115.5 148.7 195.4 N M
Saint Lucia 3.0 171.4 N M
St. Vincent 6N M
St. Kitts and Nevis 3.4 8.6 N MG/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 23Country/Region 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 LDC NFI MEM
Suriname 36.2 22.0 29.8 20.0 3.7 21.8 M
Uruguay 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 12.0 M
Venezuela 11.5 N M
Europe and CIS 999.7 3,066.3 7,204.9 3,705.2 2,955.2 1,311.7 1,062.8 866.9 5,397.8 2,270.5 1,375.4
Albania 238.4 710.0 657.8 40.3 10.5 22.9 17.3 29.4 17.3 18.2 22.1 M
Armenia 82.9 87.7 357.1 475.7 168.8 144.8 117.8 18.9 95.5 34.0
Azerbaijan 1.4 9.4 229.2 391.2 115.7 28.7 69.8 34.5 28.1 21.4
Belarus 156.6 336.6 138.6 98.3 39.1
Bosnia 1.1 22.7 8.4 79.1 89.7 88.0 84.3 107.7
Bulgaria 323.5 110.2 49.3 14.7 10.7 5.0 0.6 15.0 M
Croatia 11.9 13.7 28.8 30.2 1.4 M
Estonia 0.5 363.6 55.0 M
FYROM 46.0 98.3 62.8 13.5
Georgia 100.1 353.4 856.8 598.1 265.8 173.4 121.3 106.0 70.7 104.0 M
Kazakhstan 7.8 60.8 2.4 1.0 0.7 5.0 7.0 0.1
Kyrgyz Rep. 56.3 118.1 91.6 150.4 67.7 88.2 38.4 81.9 60.0 10.2 M
Latvia 417.5 207.1 M
Lithuania 379.3 446.2 64.0 40.3 36.0 30.0 M
Moldova 72.1 58.6 111.9 244.3 48.4 7.2 59.4 27.5 13.8 49.7 M
Poland 11.6 216.0 M
Romania 308.1 119.2 225.6 3.5 0.1 M
Russia 368.6 3,407.0 913.9 124.8 79.4 54.5 16.9 4,537.3 1,403.0 257.6
Slovenia 3.0 M
Tajikistan 58.6 83.5 99.2 226.1 121.8 134.9 117.1 68.3 58.4 275.6
Turkmenistan 6.5 45.7 51.0 53.3 39.7 8.1 6.5 17.2
U.S.S.R 117.5
Ukraine 0.1 352.9 96.0 120.0 36.3 53.3 39.9
Uzbekistan 0.2 0.2 1.8 1.0 0.4 68.4 104.4
Ex-Yugoslavia 0.2 165.4 373.0 536.4 383.7 232.0 231.3 117.7 307.0 300.3 343.1
Asia 2,600.4 2,663.7 2,187.9 2,518.0 2,384.1 2,012.3 2,815.2 3,396.8 5,096.4 3,214.3 4,225.5
Afghanistan 27.9 81.4 134.3 93.6 133.2 121.0 233.1 73.2 134.3 210.0 334.1 #
Bangladesh 1,083.0 976.2 395.6 1,095.4 585.7 578.0 708.7 877.5 1,443.0 268.5 826.4 # M
Bhutan 5.8 4.6 4.1 3.2 6.4 4.8 5.2 4.1 4.3 3.6 5.8 #G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 24
Country/Region 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 LDC NFI MEM
Cambodia 18.0 76.3 99.3 67.7 91.5 48.5 44.6 36.9 28.7 61.8 49.0 #
China 137.6 143.5 180.1 147.1 127.8 133.6 132.2 89.2 355.1 120.7 42.0 M
East Timor 9.1 32.7 3.2
Hong Kong, China 12.4 M
India 250.1 325.9 390.4 360.0 398.3 357.8 300.3 310.8 358.7 321.2 246.3 M
Indonesia 59.1 44.2 42.5 36.9 18.6 885.8 822.6 424.5 294.8 M
Korea, Dpr 544.5 510.1 914.6 812.4 1,026.8 1,263.6 1,524.6
Laos 12.5 3.0 14.3 26.9 16.9 54.9 19.1 17.3 4.7 12.5 #
Malaysia 5.1 4.1 0.3 M
Maldives 3.2 3.1 2.2 1.4 2.6 3.5 2.7 3.0 4.9 2.7 8.0 # M
Mongolia 13.6 15.7 38.8 6.0 11.7 8.5 22.3 21.3 39.0 62.1 1.3 M
Myanmar 1.8 4.0 3.6 5.3 2.9 6.9 9.7 3.8 # M
Nepal 5.9 18.1 42.4 31.1 38.5 35.4 31.9 37.6 55.2 53.1 50.2 # M
Pakistan 358.3 324.6 210.8 140.2 118.8 53.6 185.0 57.6 444.7 19.3 385.5 N M
Papua New Guinea 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 4.3 8.0 M
Philippines 165.7 157.3 136.8 129.4 55.0 34.0 12.8 73.7 140.4 218.4 196.0 M
Samoa 5.6 #
Solomon Islands 0.3 # M
Sri Lanka 304.5 266.1 412.3 306.5 148.2 72.8 91.2 31.6 119.8 55.5 128.9 N M
Thailand 91.8 92.6 33.6 8.1 2.4 0.1 1.1 8.3 2.3 1.0 0.1 M
Vanuatu #
Vietnam 70.8 99.4 61.6 74.9 69.8 30.0 69.3 47.5 75.0 81.5 113.0
Global total 12,718.9 15,301.6 17,334.0 12,926.3 10,203.6 7,229.1 7,321.9 8,375.0 14,985.5 11,338.5 11,012.1
Notes:
LDC least-developed country (#)
NFI net food-importing developing country, as listed in G/AG/5/Rev.5 dated 26 March 2002 (N).
MEM WTO Member (M).
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 2001 Food Aid Flows, May 2002 at http:// www.wfp.org/interfais/.G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 25
ATTACHMENT 5
Food Aid
Background Note by the Secretariat
41. This background note is a summary of global food aid flows and is intended to provide
information on selected aspects of food aid deliveries over the period of 1992-2001, including thetype, terms of transaction and distribution channels.
42.
 Tables 1 to 4 are based on data from the International Food Aid Information System
(INTERFAIS) of the World Food Programme.  Data represent global food aid delivered by
international organizations, donor governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).  Data
refer to the quantities of food aid actually delivered during the year under review.  The quantities ofcereals expressed in grain equivalent and other commodities expressed in product weight quantity
have been totalled.  Due to rounding, the details and percentages do not necessarily sum. More
detailed data for 1992-2001 are provided in the Annex.
Types of Food Aid
43. Food aid is provided in three types:  emergency, project and programme.  Emergency food aid
is distributed to victims of natural or man-made disasters.  It is normally provided in grant form,although 0.4 million tonnes and 0.1 million tonnes were provided on concessional terms in 2000 and
2001, respectively.  Project food aid is distribute d for specific development and disaster prevention
purposes and is supplied on a grant basis.  Programme food aid is provided as a grant or concessional
loan, normally with the objective of balance-of-payments or budgetary support.   In 2001, 70 per cent
of the programme food aid was distributed on a grant basis, representing one of the highest sharesduring the period under review (Table 1).
44.
 During the 1992-2001 period, global food aid deliveries totalled close to 116 million tonnes.
Since the implementation of the Uruguay Round results began in 1995, global food aid deliveries
amounted to 70.4 million tonnes, with a record annual level at 15 million tonnes in 1999.  That year,
global food aid increased by 79 per cent from 8.4 million tonnes in 1998.  Although global food aid
declined in the following years to slightly over 11 million tonnes in both 2000 and 2001, it remained
at higher levels than during the years 1995-1998.
45. The sharp rise in global food aid deliveries in 1999 can be attributed to two factors.  First,
there was a significant increase (by 179 per cent ) in programme food aid from 2.9 million tonnes in
1998 to 8.1 million tonnes a year later, raising the share of programme food aid in global deliveries to54 per cent.  Deliveries to Russia and some Asian countries (e.g., Bangladesh and Indonesia)
accounted for the majority of the increase.  The 1999 level of deliveries was not sustained as
programme food aid decreased sharply in 2000 and declined further in 2001.  In 2001, programme
food aid accounted for one quarter of global food aid deliveries.
46.
  Second, emergency food aid also experienced an increase (by 53 pe r cent) from 3 million
tonnes in 1998 to 4.6 million tonnes in 1999.  Such food aid continued to rise and reached record
levels at 5.5 million tonnes in 2001.  In 2001, emergency food aid accounted for half of global foodaid deliveries.G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 26
Table 1: Global Food Aid by Type (million tonnes), 1992-2001
Global Food Aid 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001* Total
'92-01
Total 15.3 17.3 12.9 10.2 7.2 7.3 8.4 15.0 11.3 11.0 115.9
Emergency 5.0 4.3 4.6 3.7 2.6 3.2 3.0 4.6 5.4 5.5 41.9
Project 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.3 1.7 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.8 24.4
Programme, of which: 7.7 10.5 5.6 4.2 2.9 1.8 2.9 8.1 3.2 2.7 49.6
        Grant 5.5 5.6 2.8 2.8 1.7 1.2 0.9 5.6 1.9 1.9 29.9
        Concessional 2.2 4.9 2.8 1.4 1.2 0.6 2.0 2.5 1.3 0.8 19.7
Grant in % of
Programme Food Aid 71 53 50 67 59 67 32 69 59 70
Notes: Project and emergency food aid (except 0.4 million tonnes in 2000 and 0.1 million tonnes in 2001) was provided
on a grant basis.
* 2001 data are provisional
Source:  Based on data from WFP Food Aid Monitor: 2001 Food Aid Flows, May 2002 at http://www.wfp.org/interfais/.
Terms of Transaction
47. Most food aid is provided on a grant basis.  During the 1992-2001 period, deliveries in grant
form amounted to a total of 96 million tonnes, or 83 per cent of global food aid.  In 1999, food aid in
grant form increased almost two-fold to reach 12.5 million tonnes from 6.4 million tonnes in 1998.  Infollowing years, quantities of food aid in grant form declined but the share of such food aid in global
food aid deliveries continued to rise, reaching a record level of 92 per cent in 2001.
Table 2:  Global Food Aid by Terms of Transaction (million tonnes), 1992-2001
Global Food Aid 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001* Total
'92-01
Total 15.3 17.3 12.9 10.2 7.2 7.3 8.4 15.0 11.3 11.0 115.9
Grant 13.1 12.4 10.1 8.8 6.0 6.7 6.4 12.5 9.7 10.1 95.8
Concessional 2.2 4.9 2.8 1.4 1.2 0.6 2.0 2.5 1.6 0.9 20.1
Grant in % of Global
Food Aid86 72 78 86 83 92 76 83 86 92
Note: * 2001 data are provisional
Source:  Based on data from WFP Food Aid Monitor: 2001 Food Aid Flows, May 2002 at http://www.wfp.org/interfais/.
48. During the period under review, concessional food aid exceeded 20.1 million tonnes.  After a
decline between 1994-1997, it increased in late 1990s, both in absolute terms and as a share of global
food aid.  In absolute terms, concessional food aid increased sharply from 0.6 million tonnes in 1997
to 2.0 million tonnes in 1998.  Deliveries from Japan and the United States to Indonesia represented
one half of this increase.  In 1999, concessional food aid increased further to reach 2.5 million tonnes.
The relatively high quantities that year were a result of large deliveries from the United States to
Russia (1.2 million tonnes) and Bangladesh (0.6 million tonnes).  Since then, concessional food aid
has declined to 0.9 million tonnes in 2001.  In the last four years, concessional food aid as a share ofG/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 27
global food aid decreased from 24 per cent in 1998 to 8 per cent in 2001.  In 2001, 70 per cent of the
programme food aid and less than two per cent of the emergency food aid were provided on
concessional terms.
49. During the 1992-2001 period, developing countries accounted for 44 per cent, or a total of
8.8 million tonnes of c oncessional food aid while economies in transition accounted for a total of
11.3 million tonnes. Among developing countries, deliveries to Asia totalled 4.6 million tonnesfollowed by those to North Africa and the Middle East, Latin America and the Caribbean and Sub-
Saharan Africa.  After a period of relatively low levels of concessional food aid in the mid-1990s,
such flows increased sharply in 1998 with developing countries accounting for four-fifth of deliveries.
A year later, concessional food aid to economies in transition experienced a similar trend, with
deliveries exceeding those to developing countries.  In both cases, the quantities have since declined.
In 2001, economies in transition experienced the lowest food aid deliveries on concessional terms
during the period under review.
Table 3: Recipients of Concessional  Food Aid (million tonnes), 1992-2001
Concessional Food Aid 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001* Total
'92-01
Total 2.2 4.9 2.8 1.4 1.2 0.6 2.0 2.5 1.6 0.9 20.1
Developing countries 0.5 1.5 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.3 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.8 8.8
Economies in transition 1.7 3.4 2.0 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.4 1.3 0.8 0.1 11.3
Note: * 2001 data are provisional
Source:  Based on data from WFP Food Aid Monitor: 2001 Food Aid Flows, May 2002 at http://www.wfp.org/interfais/.
50. The United States has been the sole supplier of food aid on concessional terms in most years,
with Japan and Korea also providing small quantities during the period under review.  Japan’s food
aid deliveries of rice on concessional terms to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea over the
1995-96 period and to Indonesia over the 1998-99 period totalled 0.4 million tonnes and 0.7 million
tonnes, respectively. Korea’s deliveries of emergency food aid (maize and rice) on concessional terms
to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea totalled 0.4 million tonnes over the 2000-01 period.
Food Aid Channels
51. Food aid is provided through multilateral channels, through non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) and bilaterally. During the 1992-2001 period, 55 m illion tonnes or 45 per cent of food aid
was provided bilaterally but in the last two years, the share of bilateral food aid has been in declinefalling to its lowest level at 23 per cent in 2001.  At the same time, the shares of food aid delivered
through multilateral channels and NGOs have risen.  Especially, food aid provided through NGOs
amounted to 3.6 million tonnes, its highest level in the decade in both absolute terms and as a share of
global food aid.  In 2001, food aid prov ided through multilateral channels and NGOs totalled 8.2
million tonnes, representing three qu arters of global food aid flows.G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 28
Table 4:  Global Food Aid by Distribu tion Channel (million tonnes), 1992-2001
Global Food Aid 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001* Total
'92-01
Multilateral 3.7 4.5 3.7 3.1 2.6 3.1 2.7 4.0 4.1 4.6 36.1
in % of Global Food
Aid24 26 29 30 36 42 32 27 36 42
NGOs 2.6 2.1 2.7 2.1 1.4 2.0 2.3 2.8 3.2 3.6 24.8
in % of Global Food
Aid17 12 21 21 19 27 27 19 28 33
Bilateral 9.0 10.7 6.5 5.0 3.2 2.2 3.4 8.2 4.0 2.8 55.0
in % of Global Food
Aid59 62 50 49 44 30 40 55 35 25
Note: * 2001 data are provisional
Source:  Based on data from WFP Food Aid Monitor: 2001 Food Aid Flows, May 2002 at http://www.wfp.org/interfais/.G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 29Annex
Global Food Aid by Type and Term s of Transaction (tonnes), 1992-2001
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001*
Total 15,301,597 17,334,003 12,926,302 10,203,639 7,229 ,135 7,321,903 8,375,000 14,985,497 11,338,516 11,012,141
Emergency, of which: 5,032,678 4,256,644 4,552,732 3,697,3 10 2,662,267 3,265,176 2,984,179 4,556,677 5,483,180 5,509,894
        Concessional 351,087 98,000
Project 2,569,524 2,506,440 2,717,925 2,313,654 1,706,2 90 2,282,370 2,512,899 2,344,944 2,676,936 2,778,781
Programme, of which: 7,699,395 10,570,920 5,655,645 4,191,7 76 2,859,784 1,774,357 2,877,921 8,083,876 3,178,400 2,723,466
        Grant 5,463,534 5,636,472 2,814,013 2,796,014 1,685,245 1,153,079 924,143 5,580,894 1,900,601 1,912,805
        Concessional 2,235,861 4,934,448 2,841,632 1,395,762 1,174,5 39 621,278 1,953,778 2,502,982 1,277,799 810,661
Notes: Project food aid has been provided on a grant basis.
*   2001 data are provisional
Source:  Based on data from WFP Food Aid Monitor: 2001 Food Aid Flows, May 2002 at http://www.wfp.org/interfais/.
Concessional Food Aid by Recipient Region (tonnes), 1992-2001
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001*
Total 2,235,861 4,934,448 2,841,632 1,395,762 1,174 ,539 621,278 1,953,778 2,502,982 1,628,886 908,661
Asia 134,496 239,357 239,262 341,036 224,283 218,096 848,592 1,111,047 608,498 634,677
Eastern Europe & CIS 506,568 3,372,992 2,042,385 798,203 542,044 300,597 374,988 1,296,116 790,857 104,400
North Africa and Middle East 463,309 532,441 239,964 98,571 188,402 102,585 338,287 164,410 35,790
Sub-Saharan Africa 460,196 434,931 103,042 60,952 73,007 280,361 74,420 24,386 82,008
Latin America & Caribbean 671,292 354,727 216,979 97,000 146,803 111,550 21,400 40,735 51,786
Note: *   2001 data are provisional
Source: Based on data from WFP Food Aid Monitor: 2001 Food Aid Flows, May 2002 at http://www.wfp.org/interfais/.G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 30Global Food Aid by Distributi on Channel (tonnes), 1992-2001
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001*
Multilateral 3,673,167 4,478,343 3,681,525 3,095,533 2,569,504 3,063,968 2,685,651 4,019,278 4,074,898 4,589,934
NGOs 2,665,256 2,174,792 2,721,939 2,062,413 1,405,455 2,051,266 2,265,067 2,749,807 3,263,172 3,654,494
Bilateral 8,970,390 10,685,090 6,523,131 5,045,694 3, 254,176 2,206,669 3,424,808 8,218,506 3,999,246 2,767,713
Note: *  2001 data are provisional
Source: Based on data from WFP Food Aid Monitor: 2001 Food Aid Flows, May 2002 at http://www.wfp.org/interfais/.G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 31
ATTACHMENT 6
Technical and financial assistance under paragr aph 3(iii) of the NFIDC Decision, 1995-2001
Notifying
MemberProgramme Currency 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Argentina Total technical assistance 0 n.a. n.a n.a. n.a. n.a.* NNR
Australia Total A$ mill. 351.8 400.4 263.0 147 .4** 116.8 142.9 NNR
AusAID multilateral core funding 227.0 230.5 161.9 67.6 60.6 77.5
AusAID regional funding 11.4 9.7 8.1
AusAID bilateral 24.2 48.1 44.533.8 33.3 37.7
AusAID scholarships 42.0 18.1 30.4 1.3 1.4 1.5
AusAID humanitarian relief 13.4 81.5 7.2 11.0 12.4 16.1
ACIAR multilateral programmes 24.0 9.4 8.9
ACIAR bilateral programmes 9.8 3.2 2.124.9 3.4 3.1
NGOs 4.4 1.8 2.4
Other government departments 4.4 4.0 4.6
Canada Total C$ mill. 299.3 271.3 290.9 275.2 245.2 NNR NNR
CIDA multilateral core funding 253.4 215.8 243.3 228.9 189.6
CIDA bilateral programmes 25.2 25.3 16.9 18.9 24.0
CIDA Canadian Partnership
Branch8.3 5.8 5.4 4.0 9.4
IDRC bilateral programming 4.5 3.6 3.2 2.7 2.9
DFAIT multilateral core funding 7.9 20.8 22.1 20.6 19.3
EC Total ECU mill. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. NNR
EDF- ACP countries 465.9 180.0 156.0 238.0 475.0 458.4
Development projects with other
countries***651.1 679.4 1,161.4 812.5 812.5
Japan Total US$ mill. 434.3 688.2 395.8 327.1 284.0 132.7 NNR
Grant aid 268.1 202.1 158.0 177.9 131.7 84.4
Technical cooperation 107.1 129.7 114.4 94.6 89.2 48.3
ODA loans 59.1 356.5 123.4 54.7 63.1 0
New Zealand Total NZ$ mill. 3.3 4.2 5.9 5.4 6.8 10.2 NNR
Multilateral core funding/other
multilateral1.5 2.4 3.8 2.4 2.7 2.8
Regional 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.3 2.5
Bilateral 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.4 2.0 3.9
Emergency food aid n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.5 0.7 0.2
WFP contribution 0.8
Norway Total NOK mill. 648.6 718.9 818.5 990.5 746.7 810.6 809.2
WFP contribution 213.0 219.0 208.2 210.0 190.0 190.0 215.0
Bilateral programmes 285.8 297.7 338.1 459.1 332.5 467.8 463.5
Emergency relief aid 149.8 202.2 272.2 321.4 224.2 152.8 130.7
South Africa Total bilateral aid '000 Rand 705.6 355.0 865.0 1,063.2 07,118.1 1,000.0G/AG/W/42/Rev.5
Page 32
Notifying
MemberProgramme Currency 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Switzerland Global total international
cooperationSFr mill. 1,356.9 1,373.3 1,334.9 1,403.6 NNR NNR NNR
Bilateral ODA – Africa n.a. 280.9 269.6 253.9
Bilateral ODA – Asia n.a. 249.6 216.5 236.1
Bilateral ODA – Latin America n.a. 118.4 100.4 100.8
United States Total US$ mill. 1,080.1 889.1 1,256.6 1,025.3 NNR NNR NNR
USAID global assistance to
agriculture88.0 37.1 33.6 34.4
USAID bilateral assistance to
agriculture157.7 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Contributions to multilateral
organizations829.5 846.4 1217.5 985.8
Cochran Fellowship Program 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6
Peace Corps 4.7 5.2 5.2 4.4
Abbreviations:
n.a. not applicable
NNR no notification received
AusAID Australian Agency for International Development AgencyACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural ResearchCIDA Canadian International Development Agency
IDRC International Development Research Centre
DFAIT Department of Foreign Affairs & International TradeEDF European Development FundODA Official Development Assistance
Notes: Annual reporting periods differ among Members.
*   Argentina notified its technical and financial assistance projects without related outlays.
** Australia's aid figures in 1995-97 are for all recipient countries; since 1998 entries are LDCs and net food-
importing  developing countries only.
*** EC aid does not include aid provided by member States. The data on "development projects with othercountries" refer to calendar years 1995 and/or 1996 (ECU 651.1 million) and 1996 and/or 1997 (ECU 679.4million).
For further details, see NF:1 notifications.
__________