RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/W/42/Rev.3
31 October 2000
(00-4608)
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
Revision
1. The present note further updates the information in the Secretariat note on implementation of
the Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on
Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing De veloping Countries (G/AG/W/42/Rev.2).
2. Following a brief introduction on the follow-up process to the 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 details are presented in Attachments 2 to 8.
I. MONITORING OF THE FOLLOW-UP TO THE DECISION
3. The follow-up to the 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 takenwithin the framework of the Decision (G/AG/2, pa ges 33-34 refer).  The annual monitoring of the
follow-up to the 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
2000 implementation years.  For the purposes of Attachment 2, "compliance" refers to any NF:1
notification 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 of
30 October 2000.G/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 2
6. In 1996, the Committee established a WTO list of net food-importing developing countries.1
This list currently contains 19 developing country Members plus the 48 least-developed countries as
defined by the United Nations.2
7. In the same year, the Singapore Ministerial Conference ("SMC") adopted the Committee's
specific recommendations regarding the Decision (G/L/125 refers).
II. PROVISIONS OF THE DECISION AND IMPLEMENTATION
8. The 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-importingdeveloping countries may experience negative effects in terms of the availability of
adequate 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 Decision contain a number of specific agreements in the
areas of food aid, technical and financial assistance, 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 following, these paragraphs are taken up one by one and
supplemented by information available to the Secretariat regarding implementation.
Food aid and technical and financial assistance
10. In light of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the 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 not
adversely affect the availability of food aid at a level which is sufficient to continue toprovide assistance in meeting the food needs of developing countries, especially
least-developed and net food-importing developing countries" (chapeau to
paragraph 3).
                                                     
1 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).
2 The WTO list of net food-importing developing countries as it currently stands:  Barbados, Botswana,
Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Hond uras, Jamaica, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco, Pakistan,
Peru, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia and Venezuela (G/AG/5/Rev.3, dated
28 June 1999, refers).G/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 3
(i) Review of Food Aid Levels and Initiation of Food Aid Negotiations
11. To the end enunciated in the chapeau of paragraph 3 of the 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 theappropriate 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 Decision).
Review of food aid levels
12. The international food aid commitments under the Food Aid Convention are specified in
terms of minimum annual contributions by its members (Table 1).  The aggregate annualcommitments 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 (see
Attachment 3).
13. Table 1 summarizes the annual food aid shipments by FAC members in respect of their
commitments under the 1986 and 1995 Food Aid Conventions since 1992/93.   Although food aid
shipments of grain fell from 10.4 million tonnes  in 1992/93 to 5.8 million tonnes in 1996/97,
shipments exceeded, except in 1994/95, FAC me mbers' combined minimum annual commitments in
this period.  In 1998/99, food aid shipments by FA C donors reached an estimated 8.1 million tonnes,
2 million tonnes more than in 1997/98 and 2.8 million tonnes more than the aggregate annual
minimum commitment.  Preliminary data for 1999/2000 indicate that Food Aid Convention donors
collectively supplied 8.3 million tonnes (wheat equivalent) to eligible recipients, with a further  €150
million supplied against commitments expressed in value terms.
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 reached a record of
17.3 million tonnes in 1993 and thereafter declined for three consecutive years to 7.2 million tonnes in
1996.   Since 1997, global food aid deliveries have increased (Table 2).  In 1999, food aid deliveries
surged by 75 per cent to 14.5 million tonnes.  This was mainly due to a sharp increase of deliveries to"other countries" although deliveries to least-developed and net food-importing developing countries
also increased.  It should be noted that food deliveries as monitored by the World Food Programme
include deliveries by the FAC members, othe r countries, and non-governmental organizations.G/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 4Table 1 - Food Aid Convention - Annual Shipmen ts Of Grain - 1992/93-1998/ 99*  (July/June years)
metric tons: 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 (prov.)
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) 1,973,357
FINLAND 25,000 25,000 19,610 g) h) 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 R 19,306 61,293
SWEDEN 40,000 62,560 b) 48,736 b) 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 R 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 R 6,110,647 8,139,647
ContinuedG/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 5Table 1 - continued
Notes:
* Unless otherwise specified, all shipments were in respect of the Food Aid Convention, 1986 and the Food Aid Convention, 1995.
These figures refer to actual shipments completed during the years shown and do not necessarily represent the performance of me mbers in relation to their
minimum obligations.
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 and detailed in Annex 2.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 tons of wheat, to be 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 8,200Individual 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 respect of its obligations for the previous year.
l) Australia's minimum contribution was reduced to 250,000 tons 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 tons (taking into account th e revised minimum contribution f or Australia).
R Revised
Source:  Food Aid Committee / International Grains Council.G/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 6
Table 2: Food aid deliveries to least-developed and net food-importing developing
countries, 1990-99  (million tonnes)
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Least-developed
countries3.9 4.8 6.3 4.5 5.4 4.0 3.3 3.5 3.7 4.3
Net food-importing
developing countries4.1 3.9 2.9 2.4 1.8 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.2
Other countries5.2 4.1 6.1 10.4 5.7 5.2 3.2 3.2 3.9 9.0
Global total 13.2 12.8 15.3 17.3 12.9 10.2 7.2 7.4 8.3 14.5
Notes: Includes cereals in grain equivalent and non-cereals in product weight (see also Table 5).
Net food-importing developing countries refers to Members listed in G/AG/5/Rev.3, dated 28 June 1999.
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 1999 Food Aid Flows, special issue, May 2000 from the Internet (www.wfp.org).
16. Except for Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela, all net food-importing developing
countries on the WTO list were, occasionally or re gularly, recipients of food aid during 1990-99.   In
1999, aggregate deliveries to these countries were 37 per cent lower than average deliveries in the
period 1990-99 (Table 3).  In some countries, in particular Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia, food aid
deliveries have declined even more sharply during the past decade.  Deliveries to the least-developedcountries in 1999 were roughly equal to their ten-year average (1990-99), while global deliveries were
22 per cent above the long-run average.  In Attachment 4, data are provided of food aid deliveries to
all recipient countries during 1990-99, while Attachment 5 gives a break-down of deliveries as
between Members and non-Members.
3
Table 3: Food aid deliveries to least-developed and net food-importing developing
countries in 1990 compared to long-term average (million tonnes)
1990-99 average 19991999 in per cent of
1990-99 average
Least-developed countries         4,381       4,336 99
Net food-importing developingcountries       1,947       1,234 63
Other countries         5,578        8,931 160
Global total       11,906     14,501 122
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.3, dated 28 June 1999.
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 1999 Food Aid Flows, special issue, May 2000 from the Internet (www.wfp.org).
17. As Table 4 indicates, the share of global food aid deliveries (excluding Europe and the CIS)
that was provided in the form of emergency relief in response to man-made or natural disasters
increased since 1990 while the share of programme food aid fell.
                                                     
3Further detailed information on food aid deliveries provided to least-developed and net food-importing
developing countries is contained in the NF:1 notifications of Argentina, Australia, Canada, EC, Japan, Norway,Switzerland and the United States.G/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 7
Table 4: Composition of global food aid deliveries, excluding Europe and the CIS
(per cent)
1990 1993 1996 1999
Emergency relief food aid           19           37           36           43
Programme food aid           57           38           36           31
Project food aid           24           25           29           26
Total         100         100         100         100
Notes: All figures include cereal (in grain equivalent) and non-cereal food aid (in product weight).
Emergency relief food aid: Targeted and freely distributed to victims of natural or man-made disasters.
Programme food aid: Usually supplied as a resource transfer for balance-of-payments and/or budgetary
support objectives.  Provided as a grant or loan on a bilateral basis.  Not targeted atspecific beneficiary groups but sold on the market of the recipient country.
Project food aid: Provided to targeted beneficiary groups to support specific development objectives.
Always supplied on a grant basis.
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 1999 Food Aid Flows, special issue, May 2000 from the Internet (www.wfp.org).
18. 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 composition of global food aid deliver ies (excluding Europe and the CIS) since 1990.
Table 5: Commodity composition of global food aid deliveries,
excluding Europe and the CIS (million tonnes)
1990 1993 1996 1999
Cereals 9,901 8,938 5,148 8,501
Blended/fortified 398 411 352 481
Coarse grains 2,087 2,964 1,308 1,361
Rice 726 900 742 896
Wheat & wheat flour 6,690 4,663 2,746 5,762
Non-cereals 1,001 1,178 787 711
Dairy products 119 104 24 24
Meat & fish 37 26 28 13
Oils & fats 521 463 266 255
Other non-cereals 53 75 64 53
Pulses 271 509 406 367
Cereals (per cent) 91 88 87 92
Non-cereals (per cent) 91 21 3 8
Note: Cereals in grain equivalent, non-cereals in product weight.
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 1999 Food Aid Flows, special issue, May 2000 from the Internet (www.wfp.org).G/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 8
Initiation of food aid negotiations
19. In anticipation of the expiry of the Food Aid Convention, 1995 ("FAC") the SMC agreed that,
in preparation for the re-negotiation of the Food Aid Convention, action be initiated in 1997 within
the framework of the Convention, under arrangements for 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).
20. 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 takinginto account, amongst other things, "the food security and trade liberalization objectives under the
WTO and the World Food Summit Action Plan" (IGC statement in G/AG/GEN/20).
21. In early 1998 the Food Aid Committee confirmed its intention to bring a new Food Aid
Convention into effect on 1 July 1999 and  requested the Working Group which was undertaking the
re-negotiation of the FAC to aim to conclude the substantive negotiations by the end of 1998.
22. 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).
23. 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).
24. 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 andLow-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 other
countries 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.
(ii) Concessionality of Food Aid
25. To the end stated in the chapeau of paragraph 3 of the 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 fullygrant form and/or on appropriate concessional terms in line with Article IV of the
Food Aid Convention 1986 …" (paragraph 3(ii) of the Decision).
26. The SMC agreed that the recommendations to be developed by the FAC referred to in
paragraph 19 above should include guidelines in accordance with paragraph 3(ii) of the Decision, as
well as means to improve the effectiveness and positive impact of food aid.  Under the Food Aid
Convention 1999, all food aid provided to least-developed countries will be in the form of grants.G/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 9
Overall, food aid in the form of grants is to re present, at a minimum, 80 per cent of FAC members'
contributions and donors will seek to progressively exceed this share.
27. Table 6 shows the proportion of food aid provided 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 wasdonated, with the remainder being provided in accordance with the relevant FAC guidelines.
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)
(iii) Technical and Financial Assistance
28. To the end stated in the chapeau of paragraph 3 of the 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 Decision).
29. The SMC 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.
This recommendation reflects the fact that technical and financial assistance is essentially a bilateral
matter between donors and recipients based on requests made 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 Decision.  However,
Attachment 6 provides an overview of spending  on bilateral technical and financial assistanceG/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 10
programmes as notified by Members, including in a number of cases funding given to multilateral
organizations 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.  In addition, in their contributions to the Committee's
annual monitoring exercise of the Decision several of the international observer organizations have
provided information on their respective activities in the area of technical assistance.4
Differential treatment within the framework of an agreement on agricultural export credits
31. In light of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the 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 net
food-importing developing countries"   (paragraph  4 of the Decision).
32. Ministers reaffirmed this commitment at the SMC.  In the ongoing negotiations on an
understanding regarding agricultural export credit s undertaken within the framework of the OECD,
consideration is being given to this matter (OEC D statement in G/AG/GEN/15, page 8 refers).  The
further negotiations which have taken place this year, most recently in September, have advanced the
discussions in a number of areas but the negotiations have not yet been concluded.
Access to the resources of the international financial institutions33. In the 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 Decision).
34. At the SMC it was agreed that WTO Members, in their individual capacity as members of
relevant international financial institutions, take appropriate steps to encourage the institutions
concerned, through their respective governing bodies, to further consider the scope for establishing
new facilities or enhancing existing facilities for developing countries experiencing Uruguay Round-
related difficulties in financing normal levels of commercial imports of basic foodstuffs.
(i) Ability to finance commercial imports
35. As noted above, the 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
                                                     
4 See G/AG/GEN/40, pages 12-21, for a recent listing by the World Bank of its agricultural projects in
LDCs and net-food-importing developing countries; see G/AG/R/9, paragraph 33 for FAO's Special Programmeon Food Production in Support of Food Security in LIFDCs.G/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 11
exercise of the Decision, several of the international observer organizations have commented on the
development of international food prices.5
36. Chart 1 below shows the trend of the IMF price index for non-fuel primary commodities
which covers food, beverages, agricultural raw materials, as well as metals and fertilizers.6  T h e
broken line in Chart 1 which tracks the price development in real terms indicates that non-fuel
primary commodity prices, following a period of strengthening prices in 1999 and the beginning of
this year, have again declined in recent months.   Attachment 7 provides IMF data with respect to the
movement of various commodity price indices since 1990, including for food (column 4 of
Attachment 7).  It may be noted that in 1999 and 2000 food prices (in US dollars) were lower than at
any other time in the past decade.  Attachment 8 provides price data compiled by the World Bank for
a range of agricultural commodities.
37. Chart 2 below shows world market prices for wheat since 1987, as measured by the wheat
price index (in nominal terms) of the International Grains Council.  From its peak in 1996, the wheatprice index has dropped by approximately 50 per cent and this year international wheat prices have
reached their lowest level since 1990 – the year of the highest world crop ever except for 1996/97.
The index numbers of the IGC wheat price index as from April 2000 are as follows:
07-Apr-00         1,117
14-Apr-00         1,10521-Apr-00         1,103
28-Apr-00         1,087
05-May-00         1,14912-May-00         1,14919-May-00         1,12126-May-00         1,146
02-Jun-00         1,126
09-Jun-00         1,120
16-Jun-00         1,11123-Jun-00         1,14730-Jun-00         1,134
07-Jul-00         1,10014-Jul-00         1,091
21-Jul-00         1,072
28-Jul-00         1,061
04-Aug-00         1,03411-Aug-00         1,03718-Aug-00         1,055
25-Aug-00         1,078
01-Sep-00         1,10808-Sep-00         1,10515-Sep-00         1,10022-Sep-00         1,09629-Sep-00         1,147
06-Oct-00         1,161
13-Oct-00         1,183
                                                     
5See FAO in G/AG/GEN/31, page 2 and G/AG/GEN/36, page 1; IMF in G/AG/GEN/15, page 2;
G/AG/GEN/31, page 6 and G/AG/GEN/40, page 5; 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; seealso the points raised by Members in G/AG/R/3, page 6.
6In this index, metals and fertilizers carry a weight of 26.7 per cent and 1.3 per cent, respectively.G/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 12CHART 1
INDICES OF NON-FUEL PRIMARY COMMODITY PRICES
(1990 = 100) 1/
7080901001101201301401501601982
19831984
1985
1986
1987
19881989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
19951996
1997
1998
1999
2000708090100110120130140150160
U.S. DollarsReal  2/
1/  Indices comprise 39 price series for 33 non-fuel primary commodities.  Weights are based on the 1987-89 average of world ex port earnings.
2/  Deflated by the export unit value index for manufactures of industrial countries.
Source: International Monetary Fund (www.imf.org/external/np/res/commod/index.htm).G/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 13CHART 2 – THE INTERNATIONAL GRAINS COUNCIL WHEAT PRICE INDEX, JANUARY 1987 – MARCH 2000
050010001500200025003000
IGC 04/00* Average wheat prices of seven widely traded varieties of bread wheat: July/Dec 1986=1000 88 89 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90 87 00G/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 14
38. At the November 1997 meeting of the Committee, the FAO presented the main findings of a
study on the food situation in the least-devel oped and net food-importing countries (G/AG/GEN/15,
pages 5-6 refer).  The study provides quantitative results on a number of variables affecting the ability
to finance commercial imports, including export earnings, the balance-of-payments situation and thedebt service ratio.  FAO emphasized the fact that as a result of declining levels of food aid and export
subsidies "a much greater volume of cereals is now imported under commercial terms."  In conclusion
FAO noted that "all the relevant statistics differentiate clearly the LDCs and the NFIDCs from the rest
of the developing countries as regards food availability and capacity to import.  The food security
situation in both the LDCs and the NFIDCs remains precarious and FAO will continue to monitor thissituation as it evolves."
7  An update on the food security situation in the countries covered by the
Decision was presented in Nove mber 1998 (G/AG/GEN/31, pages 2- 3 refer) and in March 1999. At
the March meeting, the FAO representative concluded that "overall, despite the fall in the [cereal]import bill of the LDCs and the NFIDCs during the current season, their food security situation
remains precarious in a large number of these countries as it is regularly reported by the Global
Information and Early Warning Sy stem" (G/AG/GEN/36, page 2).
39. According to data provided by FAO at th e November 1999 meeting of the Committee, the
aggregate cereal import bill (not including food aid) of the least-developed and net food-importing
developing countries has declined year after year since 1995/96, the year when cereal prices increased
sharply (see Chart 2).   By 1998/99 total expenditures for cereal imports were slightly lower than in
1994/95 while the volume of commercial imports  was 14 per cent higher (G/AG/GEN/40, page 4
refers).
(ii) Access to the facilities of the IMF and the World Bank
40. At the November 1995 meeting the IMF informed the Committee of the IMF's two principal
facilities to assist net food-importing developing countries, i.e. the Enhanced Structural AdjustmentFacility (ESAF) and the Compensatory and Cont ingency Financing Facility (CCFF).  Under ESAF
arrangements, funds may be provided on concessional terms in the event of  persistently higher import
prices for food, regardless of whether or not these are caused by the Uruguay Round.  The CCFF,
particularly its cereal element, was established to deal with financing needs in the event of
temporarily higher food prices (for further detail s of the CCFF see page 6 of document G/AG/W/12).
At the September 1996 Committee meeting, the IMF gave a detailed account of how these facilities
had been used by the least-developed and net food-importing developing countries in the wake of
rising world food prices.  The general conclusion of the IMF was that, under existing facilities and
with anticipated resources, the IMF was in a position to meet any additional balance-of-payments
related needs that may arise from higher world food prices.
41. At the November 1998 and 1999 meetings of Committee, the IMF provided updated
information with regard to the scope of its lending programmes to least-developed and net food-
importing developing countries to support adjustment programmes or to deal with emergency
situations.  In conclusion the representative of the IMF reiterated that "the Fund has the resources
under existing facilities and has shown its willingness to use these resources in the last year, to meet
the balance of payments needs of net f ood-importers" (G/AG/GEN/40, page 5 refers).
42. The position of the World Bank on the issue of access to its resources was outlined in
November 1997 as follows:
                                                     
7 See also "Food Security Assessment" by the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, December 1999, at www.ers.usda.gov/epubs/pdf/gfa11/index.htm.G/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 15
"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.
"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-importingcountries.  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 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 impactsfrom other shocks, it did not seem appropriate to establish a special Uruguay Round
adjustment facility" (G/AG/GEN/15, page 3).
43. Furthermore, at the Committee's November 1998 monitoring exercise in respect of the
Decision, the World Bank provided an overview of the World Bank's lending programmes in terms of
agricultural development projects (see above), st ructural adjustment lending and emergency lending
(G/AG/GEN/31, pages 25-27 refer).G/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 16
Attachment 1
List of documents related to the implementation of the Decision
G/L/125 Report by the Committee on Agriculture on the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision
on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the ReformProgramme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries(COA report for the SMC)
G/AG/3 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 DevelopingCountries for the Purposes of the Marrakesh Ministerial Decision on MeasuresConcerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on the LeastDeveloped and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries ("The Decision")
G/AG/5/Rev.3 WTO list of net food-importing developing countries for the purposes of the
Marrakesh Ministerial Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible NegativeEffects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-ImportingDeveloping Countries
G/AG/GEN/15 Annual monitoring exercise in respect of the follow-up to the Ministerial
Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the ReformProgramme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries(statements by the international observer organizations)
G/AG/GEN/20 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/31 Annual monitoring exercise in respect of the follow-up to the Ministerial
Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the ReformProgramme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries(statements by the international observer organizations)
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
G/AG/GEN/36 Statement by the Observer from the FAO presented to the 25-26 March 1999
meeting of the Committee on Agriculture
G/AG/GEN/40 Annual monitoring exercise in respect of the follow-up to the Ministerial
Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the ReformProgramme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries(statements by the international observer organizations).
G/AG/W/12 and Add.1 Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform
Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries:the Director-General's consultations with the IMF and the World Bank
G/AG/W/20 Preparatory work programme in respect of paragraph 3(i) and (ii) of the
Marrakesh Ministerial Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible NegativeEffects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-ImportingDeveloping Countries (n ote by the Secretariat)
G/AG/W/36 Review of food aid levels (note by the Secretariat)G/AG/R- series Reports of COA meetingsG/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 17
Attachment 2
Compliance with notification requireme nts in respect of actions taken within
the framework of the Decision, 1995-2000 (Table NF:1)
Member 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Notification circulated
in G/AG/N-series
Food Aid Convention
donor
Argentina X X X X X ARG/10
Australia X X X X AUS/5, 13, 21, 25
Canada X X X X CAN/11, 18, 25, 34
EC X X X X EEC/9, 21 and Add.1.,
25
Japan X X X X JPN/15, 27, 33, 46
Norway X X X X NOR/6, 19 and Corr.1,
20 and Corr.1, 26
Switzerland X X X X CHE/23
United States X X X X USA/7, 20, 21, 31
Other donors
Cuba X X CUB/4, 5
New Zealand X X X X NZL/6, 13, 17, 25
South Africa X X X X ZAF/7, 9, 17,
"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 Emirates X ARE/1
Uruguay X URY/6
Compliance calculated as:
… number of notifications  
received by FAC donors (%)100 100 100 100 n.a. n.a.
… number of notifications
received by FAC & other
donors (%)100 100 91 91 n.a. 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 wasprovided 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 1999 implementation year (the relevant fiscal/marketing year);  as regards 2000,the implementation year is still underway for all donor Members.G/AG/W/42/Rev.3
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-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 needsof 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 toleast-developed countries and in emergencies.
FAC donors may now express their commitments in to nnage, 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 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 supplyto 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 theirG/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 19
opinion that food aid provided under credit terms shoul d no longer be included in the list of food aid
operations.
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 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 tothe 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 involume 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.3
Page 20
Attachment 4
Food aid deliveries of cereals and non-cereals, 1990-1999 ('000 tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent)
Country/Region 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 LDC NFI MEM
Sub-Sahara Africa 2,986.6 4,033.1 6,176.0 4,870.1 4,482.0 3,300.2 2,596.2 2,469.9 2,824.6 2,841.2  
Angola 123.6 135.6 113.7 173.5 343.9 219.7 250.6 181.4 202.8 133.6 #M
Benin 14.8 8.3 12.6 33.7 14.9 20.6 10.2 21.8 25.5 11.3 #M
Botswana 15.4 2.9 8.9 13.4 9.1 10.3 3.7 0.4 NM
Burkina Faso 33.6 91.2 58.8 36.4 49.1 41.5 26.9 39.6 34.9 66.1 #M
Burundi 2.9 6.1 2.5 7.6 78.8 103.2 7.8 3.0 0.7 6.4 #M
Cameroon 3.2 10.3 7.2 1.7 2.7 7.3 24.1 1.4 10.2 7.5 M
Cape Verde 58.7 64.2 59.2 27.8 73.4 73.4 44.5 65.3 59.9 70.3
C. African Rep. 3.4 3.9 5.2 4.3 5.1 1.5 2.1 1.4 11.5 1.4 #M
Chad 26.0 77.6 8.2 4.2 22.6 21.2 19.7 49.4 18.2 16.0 #M
Comoros 3.8 5.5 7.3 4.4 6.7 5.8 0.6 1.0 8.9 0.2 #
Congo 8.0 10.0 17.1 2.0 16.7 12.6 18.0 0.3 14.1 16.0 M
Congo, Dem. Rep. 97.5 99.2 35.8 23.0 82.3 109.3 54.9 29.5 11.1 22.0 #M
Côte d'Ivoire 66.3 40.0 39.9 52.7 56.3 23.9 54.8 11.4 26.3 37.4 NM
Djibouti 8.6 10.4 10.2 26.3 12.6 20.2 10.8 13.8 11.2 10.5 #M
Equatorial Guinea 4.6 3.6 3.7 5.5 3.3 3.9 0.6 0.7 1.9 #
Eritrea 42.6 117.1 329.8 104.3 40.4 53.5 110.1 34.7 #
Ethiopia 863.8 943.8 1,209.7 533.6 948.6 635.7 457.0 434.1 594.7 914.1 #
Gabon 0.1 M
Gambia 4.1 16.3 10.7 8.5 9.7 3.8 4.3 9.2 7.7 14.0 #M
Ghana 66.1 169.0 142.8 123.6 90.8 96.9 33.7 86.5 58.4 26.8 M
Guinea Bissau 5.2 15.9 7.5 10.8 4.5 3.2 7.8 5.9 3.9 21.5 #M
Guinea 11.2 28.7 29.5 42.8 40.2 7.5 12.9 9.8 6.9 24.8 #M
Kenya 89.8 73.9 274.3 353.1 230.1 79.6 31.8 117.0 142.7 72.4 NM
Lesotho 41.8 27.6 35.1 54.2 34.5 33.7 40.2 8.9 16.5 4.4 #M
Liberia 34.9 171.8 169.3 175.2 179.3 160.8 169.4 117.5 96.2 88.9 #
Madagascar 53.6 30.2 69.5 37.4 26.2 38.2 22.1 43.5 30.6 19.8 #M
Malawi 219.3 232.5 369.6 541.0 166.9 235.9 122.9 50.2 58.4 72.4 #MG/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 21Country/Region 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 LDC NFI MEM
Mali 38.6 47.0 38.5 27.8 27.1 20.0 19.1 25.7 26.6 20.3 #M
Mauritania 45.2 90.0 29.9 82.5 25.6 44.9 17.3 44.0 13.8 28.7 #M
Mauritius 11.3 6.3 14.0 2.2 0.8 1.0 NM
Mozambique 422.6 542.7 1,045.9 457.9 378.9 385.7 151.3 175.5 201.2 119.0 #M
Namibia 11.6 9.5 20.4 24.6 0.6 2.7 10.4 0.4 2.0 M
Niger 40.1 91.9 46.2 26.4 46.9 24.6 32.4 62.0 45.7 46.2 #M
Nigeria 0.6 1.1 M
Rwanda 9.0 20.0 25.0 157.0 273.2 274.2 509.0 449.1 307.0 274.0 #M
Sao Tome / Principe 8.6 9.6 9.2 7.1 8.0 7.9 4.9 4.0 3.7 0.7
Senegal 63.5 42.2 80.9 52.2 25.7 21.3 8.6 13.0 6.5 32.9 NM
Seychelles 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.1
Sierra Leone 11.0 61.4 46.5 28.7 33.6 33.5 55.0 90.3 86.8 30.7 #M
Somalia 98.3 82.4 275.2 209.6 149.0 55.9 31.7 5.0 65.5 49.1 #
South Africa 6.7 9.2 4.8 0.1 14.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 18.0 8.8 M
Sudan 230.0 549.6 705.7 340.0 431.6 81.7 108.3 115.3 205.8 331.5 #
Swaziland 10.2 4.9 16.5 31.8 11.3 6.3 9.5 5.0 5.0 M
Tanzania 35.5 21.7 22.7 39.8 85.0 144.5 29.8 42.6 91.2 36.7 #M
Togo 12.3 20.1 14.4 9.3 9.3 5.9 5.1 3.0 9.9 4.0 #M
Uganda 46.7 65.4 48.4 68.7 81.8 76.9 44.8 70.8 96.1 90.9 #M
Zambia 10.9 63.3 467.5 355.7 19.6 26.1 73.8 11.3 21.9 39.8 #M
Zimbabwe 13.7 17.6 513.1 534.7 22.4 13.0 12.2 0.1 56.7 28.3 M
North Africa and
Middle East2,813.8 3,078.6 1,525.5 956.2 869.1 625.3 567.5 372.5 353.0 465.0 
Algeria 9.6 43.7 18.0 26.2 26.3 27.2 27.1 42.0 15.8 36.2
Egypt 1,605.6 1,823.6 616.6 220.8 295.2 208.9 154.9 74.4 66.5 61.2 NM
Gaza/W.Bank 25.9 67.7 19.6 25.8 49.3 48.3 11.7 14.8 24.3 26.7
Iran 26.3 117.3 82.0 38.5 26.0 13.2 4.9 19.7 12.9 7.8
Iraq 46.5 99.8 93.5 73.3 101.9 113.8 90.9 47.8 18.1
Israel 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 M
Jordan 261.1 416.5 262.5 174.6 166.2 122.2 167.5 27.4 119.5 108.7 M
Lebanon 42.8 35.8 27.8 10.8 10.0 11.5 7.5 1.7 1.1 1.0
Morocco 270.6 250.8 258.8 158.6 104.0 2.0 0.1 15.9 0.2 10.5 NMG/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 22
Country/Region 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 LDC NFI MEM
Syria 37.6 39.2 20.1 28.3 40.3 45.0 14.6 21.0 25.9 27.4
Tunisia 382.6 194.9 62.4 79.0 30.8 26.6 23.3 12.4 3.1 NM
Turkey 14.3 2.9 5.2 3.0 1.8 0.6 1.0 M
Yemen 14.6 19.3 17.3 13.7 0.9 2.2 1.3 #
Yemen, Rep. of 121.7 20.4 34.4 82.4 43.0 15.7 39.7 52.3 35.8 167.5 #
Latin America &
the Caribbean2,306.4 2,006.3 1,845.7 2,101.3 1,318.4 931.8 761.6 650.8 994.6 1,003.0 
Antigua 1.0 3.1 M
Belize 0.0 M
Bolivia 261.5 214.3 114.3 417.3 170.9 85.6 157.1 96.8 217.0 72.4 M
Brazil 28.6 20.0 6.1 38.1 35.3 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 M
Chile 7.8 15.1 6.4 6.0 2.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 M
Colombia 4.8 8.4 19.0 3.5 27.7 15.3 8.6 1.6 7.0 11.1 M
Costa Rica 7.2 84.3 4.0 92.7 6.0 2.7 1.1 M
Cuba 2.6 6.8 2.9 23.6 7.0 6.1 12.7 30.1 19.1 58.8 NM
Dominican Rep. 40.5 11.8 19.9 11.0 13.8 6.4 8.2 3.5 7.3 120.3 NM
Dominica 0.3 2.1 1.2 0.1 0.1 7.0 2.7 M
Ecuador 76.6 46.9 46.7 11.9 27.0 19.3 1.9 12.1 20.5 21.5 M
El Salvador 202.8 175.3 117.0 169.9 23.7 25.0 26.8 24.3 20.4 66.8 M
French Guiana 0.5
Grenada 2.0 2.6 0.1 4.5 M
Guatemala 184.8 231.5 146.6 130.3 176.4 64.8 30.7 53.0 71.7 62.2 M
Guyana 45.5 34.0 58.0 44.6 34.0 33.0 42.3 33.5 59.4 37.3 M
Haiti 108.1 70.2 109.5 119.0 94.5 168.1 118.9 174.6 166.6 69.1 #M
Honduras 145.5 128.2 110.5 123.7 115.4 53.2 33.7 28.5 31.1 168.2 NM
Jamaica 293.3 274.5 247.0 239.8 70.1 56.4 58.4 17.3 13.2 NM
Mexico 280.0 95.6 87.7 93.5 31.7 46.0 0.9 M
Nicaragua 232.5 161.4 130.0 94.4 60.6 60.4 45.1 34.5 88.8 210.7 M
Panama 0.9 17.2 9.6 3.4 0.2 2.2 1.3 0.9 1.5 M
Paraguay 3.7 0.3 2.9 2.9 0.3 1.4 1.0 0.3 M
Peru 359.4 406.3 563.3 453.6 391.2 254.7 171.4 139.6 262.2 90.9 NM
Saint Lucia 3.0 6.0 NM
St. Vincent 8.6 MG/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 23Country/Region 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 LDC NFI MEM
St. Kitts and Nevis 3.4 3.7 0.0 M
Suriname 36.2 22.0 29.8 20.0 12.0 21.8 M
Uruguay 20.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 M
Europe and CIS 2,249.1 999.7 3,066.3 7,203.9 3,705.9 2,955.1 1,311.7 1,062.8 871.8 5,289.0 
Albania 238.4 710.0 657.8 40.3 10.5 22.9 17.3 29.1 11.8 M
Armenia 82.9 87.7 356.9 475.7 168.8 144.8 117.8 13.3
Azerbaijan 1.4 9.4 229.2 391.2 115.7 28.7 68.1 34.7
Belarus 156.6 336.6 138.6 98.3 39.1 0.0
Bosnia 1.1 22.7 8.4 79.1 89.7 87.2
Bulgaria 323.5 0.0 110.2 49.3 0.0 14.7 10.7 4.9 M
Croatia 11.9 13.7 28.8 30.2 1.4
Estonia 0.5 363.6 55.0 M
FYROM 46.0 95.5
Georgia 100.1 353.4 856.8 598.1 265.8 173.4 120.9 73.6 M
Kazakhstan 7.8 60.8 2.4 1.0 0.7 5.0 7.0
Kyrgyz Rep. 56.3 118.1 91.6 150.4 67.7 88.2 38.4 81.9 M
Latvia 417.5 207.1 M
Lithuania 379.3 446.2 64.0 40.3 36.0 30.0
Moldova 72.1 58.6 111.9 244.2 48.4 7.2 59.4 27.5
Poland 1,606.4 11.6 216.0 0.0 M
Romania 642.8 308.1 119.2 225.6 3.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 M
Russia 368.6 3,407.0 913.9 124.8 79.4 54.5 16.9 4,426.3
Slovenia 3.0 M
Tajikistan 58.6 83.5 99.2 226.1 121.8 134.9 117.1 60.5
Turkmenistan 6.5 45.7 51.0 53.3 39.7 2.8
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 33.4
Ex-Yugoslavia 0.2 165.4 372.1 537.4 383.7 232.0 231.3 125.1 335.5
Asia 2,794.9 2,700.5 2,663.8 2,187.9 2,515.9 2,388.7 2,010.6 2,821.9 3,234.2 4,903.1 
Afghanistan 42.7 29.2 81.4 134.3 93.6 133.2 121.0 238.5 68.0 125.8 #
Bangladesh 1,050.2 1,083.0 976.2 395.6 1,095.4 590.3 575.0 712.8 879.7 1,324.6 #MG/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 24
Country/Region 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 LDC NFI MEM
Bhutan 5.1 5.8 4.6 4.1 3.2 6.4 4.8 5.2 4.8 4.6 #
Cambodia 25.0 18.0 76.3 99.3 67.7 91.5 48.5 44.6 36.9 27.0 #
China 78.2 137.6 143.5 180.1 147.1 127.8 133.6 132.2 89.2 351.8
East Timor 7.5
Hong Kong, China 12.4 M
India 382.2 250.1 325.9 390.4 360.0 398.3 359.1 300.3 330.9 348.4 M
Indonesia 56.2 59.1 44.2 42.5 36.9 18.6 0.0 0.0 730.0 792.7 M
Korea, Dpr 544.5 510.1 914.5 785.6 993.9
Laos 12.5 3.0 14.3 26.9 16.9 54.9 19.1 9.5 #
Malaysia 0.4 5.1 4.1 0.3 M
Maldives 2.4 3.2 3.1 2.2 1.4 2.6 3.5 2.7 3.0 4.9 #M
Mongolia 13.6 15.7 38.8 3.9 11.7 8.5 22.3 21.3 39.0 M
Myanmar 0.1 1.8 4.0 3.6 5.3 2.9 8.4 #M
Nepal 7.8 5.9 18.1 42.4 31.1 38.5 35.4 32.1 41.9 61.8 #M
Pakistan 461.9 358.3 324.6 210.8 140.2 118.8 53.6 182.0 57.6 449.1 NM
Papua New Guinea 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 3.4 8.0 M
Philippines 160.5 165.7 157.3 136.8 129.4 55.0 34.0 12.8 72.2 128.0 M
Samoa 2.8 5.6 #
Solomon Islands 0.0 #M
Sri Lanka 309.5 304.5 266.1 412.3 306.5 148.2 72.8 91.2 31.6 118.6 NM
Thailand 147.7 190.6 92.6 33.6 8.1 2.4 0.1 1.1 8.3 2.3 M
Vanuatu 0.0 #
Vietnam 61.8 70.8 99.4 61.6 74.9 69.8 30.0 69.3 47.8 97.2
Global total 13,150.8 12,818.2 15,277.3 17,319.3 12,891.3 10,201.1 7,247.5 7,377.8 8,278.2 14,501.3
Notes:
LDC least-developed country (#)
NFI net food-importing developing country, as listed in G/AG/5/Rev.3 dated 28 June 1999 (N).
MEM WTO Member (M).
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 1999 Food Aid Flows, special issue, May 2000 from the Internet (www.wfp.org).G/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 25
Attachment 5
Food aid deliveries to WTO Members and non-Members, 1996-99
(million tonnes, cereals in grain equivalent)
1996 1997 1998 1999
Members 4.3 4.1 5.2 6.0
Non-Members
    of which:2.9 3.3 3.0 8.5
    Least-developed countries 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.8
    Others 1.9 2.2 1.8 6.7
Global total 7.2 7.4 8.2 14.5
Notes: Includes cereals in grain equivalent and non-cereals in product weight (see Table 5).
Source: WFP Food Aid Monitor: 1999 Food Aid Flows, special issue, May 2000 from the Internet (www.wfp.org).G/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 26
Attachment 6
Technical and financial assistance under paragraph 3(iii) of the Decision, 1995-99
Notifying
MemberProgramme Currency 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Argentina Total technical assistance           0  n.a.  n.a  n.a. n.a.
Australia Total A$ mill. 351.8 400.4 263.0 147.4* NNR
AusAID multilateral core funding 227.0 230.5 161.9 67.6
AusAID regional funding 11.4 9.7 8.1
AusAID bilateral 24.2 48.1 44.533.8
AusAID scholarships 42.0 18.1 30.4 1.3
AusAID humanitarian relief 13.4 81.5 7.2 11.0
ACIAR multilateral programmes 24.0 9.4 8.9
ACIAR bilateral programmes 9.8 3.2 2.124.9
NGOs 4.4
Other government departments 4.4
Canada Total C$ mill. 299.3 271.3 290.9    275.2 NNR
CIDA multilateral core funding 253.4 215.8 243.3    228.9
CIDA bilateral programmes 25.2 25.3 16.9      18.9
CIDA Canadian Partnership Branch 8.3 5.8 5.4        4.0
IDRC bilateral programming 4.5 3.6 3.2        2.7
DFAIT multilateral core funding 7.9 20.8 22.1      20.6
EC Total ECU mill.  n.a.  n.a.  n.a.  n.a. NNR
EDF- ACP countries    465.9    180.0    156.0    238.0
Development projects with other
countries**   651.1    679.4 1,161.4
Japan Total US$ mill. 434.3 688.2 395.8    327.1 NNR
Grant aid 268.1 202.1 158.0    177.9
Technical cooperation 107.1 129.7 114.4      94.6
ODA loans 59.1 356.5 123.4      54.7
New Zealand Total NZ$ mill. 3.3 4.2 5.9        5.4 NNR
Multilateral core funding/other
multilateral1.5 2.4 3.8        2.4
Regional 0.7 0.5 0.3        0.1
Bilateral 1.1 1.4 1.8        2.4
Emergency food aid  n.a.  n.a.  n.a.        0.5
Norway Total NOK mill. 648.6 718.9 818.5    990.5 NNR
WFP contribution 213.0 219.0 208.2    210.0
Bilateral programmes 285.8 297.7 338.1 459.1
Emergency relief aid 149.8 202.2 272.2    321.4
South Africa Total bilateral aid '000 Rand 705.6 355.0 865.0 1,063.2 NNR
Switzerland Global total international cooperation SFr mill. 1,356.9 1,373.3 1,334.9 1,403.6 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
USA Total US$ mill. 1,080.1 889.1 1,256.6 1,025.3 NNR
USAID global assistance to agriculture 88.0 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        4.4G/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 27
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.
* Australia's aid figures in 1995-97 are for all recipient countries; in 1998 the entry is for LDCs and net food-
importing  developing countries only.   The global total in 1998 is A$264.3 million.
** EC aid does not include aid provided by member States. The data on "development projects with other
countries" 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.G/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 28
Attachment 7
Indices of primary commodity prices, 1990-2000 (1990=100) 1
Non-Fuel Primary Commodities 3/
Non-fuel Agricultural
Primary Food Beverages Raw Metals FertilizersAll
Primary
Commodities
2/
Commodities Materials 4/Petroleum
5/
(weights) (100.0) (32.9) (6.8) (32.3) (26.7) (1.3)
---------------------------------------------------------------- in terms of U.S. dollars-------------------------------------- ------------------------
1990 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1991 90.1 94.3 99.1 93.5 96.4 85.7 103.2 84.3
1992 89.5 94.4 101.3 80.5 99.0 83.7 98.0 82.8
1993 86.4 96.1 99.9 85.6 115.0 71.9 83.0 73.0
1994 92.2 109.0 105.1 149.7 125.9 83.8 89.6 69.4
1995 99.8 118.1 113.6 151.1 131.3 100.2 99.1 74.8
1996 104.9 116.7 127.5 124.9 127.7 88.2 112.7 88.6
1997 100.7 113.0 114.0 165.5 119.0 91.5 113.9 83.9
1998 79.7 96.4 99.7 140.3 99.5 76.6 117.1 56.9
1999 84.8 89.6 84.1 110.5 101.8 75.5 112.4 78.3
97 Q4 96.2 106.6 110.6 157.8 108.6 86.0 113.3 82.0
98 Q1 85.2 102.4 106.7 165.1 102.7 80.2 117.1 61.6
98 Q2 81.3 98.6 102.2 141.8 101.9 78.2 117.9 57.8
98 Q3 77.3 92.4 93.4 129.1 96.7 75.4 117.9 56.6
98 Q4 75.1 92.4 96.3 125.4 96.8 72.8 115.5 51.6
99 Q1 73.1 89.5 89.5 119.3 99.4 68.6 115.4 50.7
99 Q2 80.3 88.0 83.4 110.9 99.8 72.4 115.1 69.8
99 Q3 88.9 88.8 81.4 98.6 101.7 78.8 111.2 89.1
99 Q4 97.1 92.3 82.1 113.2 106.1 82.1 107.8 103.6
00 Q1 103.0 93.7 84.5 102.8 106.1 87.4 106.6 115.6
00 Q2 102.4 92.0 84.1 95.5 106.5 82.7 106.9 116.7
00 Q3 105.9 88.3 80.2 88.6 98.1 85.6 108.0 129.9
Oct-98 77.6 92.1 95.8 123.3 96.4 73.5 116.6 57.7
Nov-98 75.6 93.2 97.8 126.4 96.9 73.5 115.3 51.7
Dec-98 72.1 91.7 95.3 126.3 96.9 71.3 114.7 45.3
Jan-99 73.5 91.3 94.2 124.2 99.3 68.6 115.9 49.3
Feb-99 71.0 88.8 88.5 118.1 98.7 68.6 115.2 46.8
Mar-99 74.6 88.3 86.0 115.6 100.3 68.5 115.2 56.0
Apr-99 79.6 87.7 84.8 110.9 98.0 71.6 115.2 68.5
May-99 81.0 88.9 83.3 112.3 101.3 73.8 115.2 70.3
Jun-99 80.3 87.4 81.9 109.7 100.2 71.9 114.8 70.7
Jul-99 84.4 86.4 77.6 100.7 99.6 76.7 112.2 81.7
Aug-99 88.4 88.7 82.5 98.0 100.9 78.2 111.4 88.0
Sep-99 93.9 91.3 84.2 97.2 104.6 81.7 110.1 97.6
Oct-99 93.8 91.7 82.5 105.5 106.7 80.9 109.6 96.6
Nov-99 97.9 92.2 82.4 116.4 105.7 81.5 106.9 105.5
Dec-99 99.5 92.8 81.5 117.6 105.8 84.0 106.9 108.7
Jan-00 100.1 93.3 84.4 106.4 103.1 88.4 106.9 109.4
Feb-00 104.2 94.3 85.2 101.0 106.9 88.1 105.9 117.9
Mar-00 104.7 93.7 84.0 101.1 108.2 85.6 106.9 119.7
Apr-00 96.7 92.1 84.9 97.2 106.4 81.9 106.9 102.9
May-00 103.6 92.8 84.6 97.0 107.6 83.4 106.9 118.2
Jun-00 107.1 91.0 82.7 92.2 105.6 82.7 106.9 129.0
Jul-00 103.2 89.6 79.3 92.9 103.2 84.5 107.3 121.6
Aug-00 105.1 88.4 79.6 86.6 100.4 84.4 108.4 127.9
Sep-00 109.5 87.0 81.8 86.5 90.8 88.0 108.4 140.2
 Notes :1Weights are based on 1987-89 average world export earnings.
2Petroleum and non-fuel primary commodities index. The weights are 57 per cent for the index of non-fuel primary commodities
prices and 43 per cent for the index of petroleum prices.
3Indices comprise 39 price series for 33 non-fuel primary commodities.
4Includes forestry products.
5Spot crude. Average of UK Brent, Dubai, and West Texas Intermediate, equally weighted.
Source: International Monetary Fund (www.imf.org/external/np/res/commod/index.htm).G/AG/W/42/Rev.3
Page 29
Attachment 8
Commodity price data, 1998-2000
Annual averages Quarterly averages Monthly averages
Commodity Unit Jan-
DecJan-
DecJul-
SepOct-
DecJan-
MarApr-
JunJul-
SepJul Aug Sep
  1998 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
Beverages            
Cocoa ¢/kg 167.6 113.5 105.7 95.4 90.0 92.7 91.2 96.7 88.7 88.3
Coffee, arabica ¢/kg 298.1 229.1 198.8 244.0 231.7 202.2 176.4 192.6 169.6 167.1
Coffee, robusta ¢/kg 182.3 148.9 135.4 138.4 109.0 96.6 86.6 90.0 84.3 85.6
Tea, average 3 auctions ¢/kg 204.6 183.9 190.8 195.8 180.6 187.7 198.0 204.8 195.1 194.1
Tea, Calcutta auctions ¢/kg 216.5 206.8 224.9 216.6 158.4 189.8 208.6 236.0 199.7 190.0
Tea, Colombo auctions ¢/kg 207.5 164.9 170.7 182.9 182.0 169.9 174.9 167.5 175.6 181.5
Tea, Mombasa auctions ¢/kg 189.9 180.0 176.9 187.8 201.5 202.9 210.6 211.0 210.0 210.8
Fats and Oils            
Coconut oil $/mt 657.9 737.1 681.3 698.7 599.0 489.3 367.7 400.0 371.0 332.0
Copra $/mt 411.1 461.5 433.7 433.3 410.0 324.0 260.0 284.0 274.0 222.0
Groundnut oil $/mt 909.4 787.7 781.7 805.3 773.0 728.7 668.0 681.0 667.0 656.0
Palm oil $/mt 671.1 436.0 353.7 368.3 343.0 337.0 302.0 312.0 306.0 288.0
Palmkernel oil $/mt 686.7 694.1 656.7 686.0 588.0 492.0 364.3 401.0 366.0 326.0
Soybean meal $/mt 170.3 152.2 152.3 170.7 182.3 186.3 181.3 175.0 176.0 193.0
Soybean oil $/mt 625.9 427.3 406.3 384.0 363.3 345.3 327.0 340.0 329.0 312.0
Soybeans $/mt 243.3 201.7 196.3 200.0 214.3 223.0 201.3 197.0 198.0 209.0
Grains            
Maize $/mt 102.0 90.2 85.4 86.1 94.5 92.0 77.1 75.3 75.6 80.4
Rice, Thai, 5% $/mt 304.2 248.4 244.3 226.3 236.1 203.1 184.8 189.0 186.5 179.0
Rice, Thai, 25% $/mt 259.9 216.3 217.9 196.1 196.0 171.8 163.6 165.6 164.3 161.0
Rice, Thai, 35% $/mt 249.7 210.5 212.7 190.6 188.7 166.1 159.5 161.2 160.0 157.3
Rice,Thai, A1.Special $/mt 213.0 192.6 201.1 165.7 155.5 143.7 143.4 142.8 143.8 143.7
Sorghum $/mt 98.0 84.4 79.5 79.6 90.3 88.5 77.7 73.7 76.8 82.7
Wheat, Canada $/mt 162.9 151.3 148.2 148.0 149.2 148.0 138.9 140.1 136.4 140.3
Wheat, US, HRW $/mt 126.1 112.0 109.2 106.4 106.5 110.3 111.6 109.0 108.4 117.5
Wheat, US, SRW $/mt 111.5 96.3 93.4 95.9 98.6 99.6 93.3 91.2 90.9 97.9
Other Food            
Bananas, EU $/mt 1,005.0 850.4 745.8 739.0 889.8 720.7 611.0 635.4 621.4 576.2
Bananas, US $/mt 489.5 373.8 351.6 336.4 514.4 428.1 354.1 306.6 334.1 421.6
Beef ¢/kg 172.6 184.3 192.5 192.1 196.8 197.7 188.2 191.6 190.7 182.3
Fishmeal $/mt 661.9 392.5 369.3 404.0 405.7 396.7 419.7 423.0 417.0 419.0
Lamb ¢/kg 275.0 261.0 267.1 266.7 270.8 261.4 254.6 257.7 258.1 248.2
Oranges $/mt 442.4 438.2 474.8 399.1 323.9 391.7 385.9 401.8 392.3 363.6
Shrimp ¢/kg 1,579 1,461 1,485 1,473 1,493 1,510 1,508 1,510 1,510 1,503
Sugar, EU, domestic ¢/kg 59.75 59.17 58.55 59.65 58.77 56.18 54.22 55.15 55.07 52.45
Sugar, US, domestic ¢/kg 48.64 46.60 47.01 40.05 39.06 42.32 42.09 41.51 41.63 43.14
Sugar, world ¢/kg 19.67 13.81 13.06 14.14 11.80 15.63 22.04 21.25 23.02 21.85
Other Raw Materials            
Cotton, "A Index" ¢/kg 144.5 117.1 113.8 101.3 116.5 131.3 133.0 128.7 134.2 135.9
Cotton, Memphis ¢/kg 165.8 123.0 n.q. 120.5 135.5 150.5 148.9 n.q. 149.3 148.5
Jute $/mt 258.0 276.3 295.0 300.3 299.3 286.7 261.3 268.8 255.0 260.0
Rubber, Malaysia ¢/kg 72.2 62.9 55.6 68.1 70.1 71.4 68.3 66.8 70.2 67.9
Rubber, US ¢/kg 89.5 80.9 74.6 87.7 85.8 82.8 82.2 80.8 83.4 82.3
Rubber, Singapore ¢/kg 70.9 62.0 55.9 66.9 68.8 68.7 65.5 64.8 66.1 65.7
Sisal $/mt 820.8 691.5 647.5 607.7 558.3 638.9 650.0 650.0 650.0 650.0
Wool ¢/kg 429.0 398.8 414.2 412.5 410.8 437.3 451.7 455.0 450.0 450.0
Note: In US$ or US cent per unit. For detailed commodity notes, see  www.worldbank.org/prospects/pinksheets/pink0400.htm.
Source: World Bank.
__________