## ppea2022042 ## Source details **Canonical URL:** [ppea2022042](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/pp/2022/english/ppea2022042.pdf) ## Other formats - [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/pp/2022/english/ppea2022042.pdf.md) - [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/pp/2022/english/ppea2022042.pdf.json) --- ### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY — Introduction and motivation - Russia’s war in Ukraine has exacerbated global economic pressures, including through a food shock. - Acute food insecurity now affects 345 million people. - Food and fertilizer prices have eased from peak levels but remain significantly higher than in 2020–21. - There is a high likelihood that food availability and access challenges will continue into 2023. - Many members face urgent balance-of-payments (BOP) needs due to record food price inflation, increasing costs for fertilizers, shortages in food supplies (particularly cereals), sharply increased energy costs, and rising interest rates. ### Rationale for a new policy instrument - UCT-quality programs may not be feasible in a timely manner or necessary given the transitory nature of some food shock BOP needs. - Emergency financing under the RFI/RCF is an alternative, but current access limits are not optimally calibrated for a global food shock of this magnitude. - Current emergency financing annual access limits (most members could access up to 50 percent of quota) were calibrated for “typical” shocks and may be insufficient when combined with other shocks. - Examples of constrained borrowing space under current RFI/RCF annual access limits: Dominica (29 percent of quota), Madagascar (39 percent of quota), Mozambique (13 percent of quota), Nepal (36 percent of quota), St. Vincent and the Grenadines (0 percent of quota), Samoa (46 percent of quota), and under the RFI for Ukraine (no remaining borrowing space under the annual access limits after the RFI in March 2022). ### Key features of the proposed food shock window under RFI/RCF - Objective: make emergency lending more focused and agile to address urgent financing needs due to a food shock when UCT-quality programs are not feasible or necessary. - Design: a time-bound food shock window under the RFI and RCF, available for 12 months from Board approval. - Access: - Access under the food shock window would be capped at 50 percent of quota during the 12-month period. - Access would be fully additional to current annual access limits under the RFI and RCF. - Repeated use within the 12-month period would be possible where recurring or ongoing urgent financing needs exist. - Cumulative limits adjustment: - Where a member requests an outright purchase/disbursement under the food shock window, the cumulative limit under the RFI regular window (currently 150 percent of quota) and the RCF exogenous shock window (currently 150 percent of quota) would be increased to 175 percent of quota. - The 25 percent of quota increase in cumulative access would provide additional borrowing space to deal with other exogenous events. - Cumulative access limits under the RFI and RCF Large Natural Disaster (LND) windows remain unchanged at 183.33 percent of quota. - Cumulative access limits under the RCF regular window remain unchanged at 100 percent of quota. - Safeguards and eligibility: - Access under the food shock window would count toward the GRA and PRGT thresholds that trigger exceptional access safeguards, including the high combined GRA and PRGT exposure safeguards. - Financing would be subject to debt sustainability and adequate capacity to repay requirements in line with the adequate safeguards provision under the Articles of Agreement. - The food shock window would be subject to the current safeguards assessment requirements for the RFI and RCF: - An updated safeguards assessment will not be required if a safeguards assessment has been completed within 18 months prior to Board approval of the subsequent arrangement; or if the central bank is considered to have a strong track record and an assessment was completed within four years of Board approval of the new arrangement. - Modality: - A purchase/disbursement under the window would be outright without ex-post conditionality, though prior actions could be specified where warranted under the Guidelines on Conditionality. - As an outright purchase/disbursement does not involve a UCT-quality program, a fully financed program would not be required. - Repayment profiles: RFI window financing should be repaid within 3¼ to 5 years; RCF window financing should be repaid within 5½ to 10 years. ### Implications for PRGT financing and SDR channeling - For low-income countries (LICs), the new food shock window is expected to involve additional channeling of SDRs. - The window would raise PRGT lending above the baseline scenario on which the SDR 2.3 billion target for bilateral subsidy resources is based. - It would bring forward the need to meet the SDR 12.6 billion target for loan resources, including through additional SDR channeling to support the most vulnerable (PRGT-eligible) countries. - The next annual review of PRGT finances in Spring 2023 will provide an opportunity to consider contingency measures and steps to accelerate or expand fundraising to address gaps in subsidy resources. ### Operational and policy considerations - The window would be temporary and targeted to food-related BOP pressures to avoid incentivizing requests for non-food emergency financing that should be handled by UCT-quality programs. - In some cases, the food shock window could act as a bridge for countries intending to seek a UCT-quality arrangement but unable to do so immediately. - Standard ex ante policy undertakings applicable to RFI/RCF would apply, including expectations of transparency and accountability in the spending of emergency resources. - The proposal preserves the distinction between emergency access designed for food shocks and other RFI/RCF windows to maintain calibrated support for large natural disasters and other exogenous shocks. ### Standard qualification criteria for the RFI and RCF (application to food shock) - Emergency financing approval prerequisites: - Fund must be satisfied that the member has an urgent BOP need and that the member either (i) has a BOP need expected to be resolved within one year with no major policy adjustments necessary, or (ii) is unable to design or implement a UCT-quality program, either given the urgent nature of the BOP need or due to the member’s limited implementation capacity. - Availability: - The new window under the RFI would be available to all Fund members that meet the qualification criteria; PRGT-eligible members would also have access to a similar window under the RCF. - Scope limitation: - Emergency economic situation must be related to the global food shock; qualification tightly circumscribed to cover emergency situations related to the global food shock. ### Two alternative qualification limbs - (i) Acute food insecurity or an increase in food/fertilizer costs exceeding a certain threshold: - Members qualify if they have urgent BOP needs associated with acute food insecurity inflicting serious economic disruption warranting a concerted international effort. - Executive Board to take into account FAO-WFP definitions or UNGRFC major food crisis indicators (UNGRFC considers a major food crisis if (i) at least 20 percent of the population is in phase 3 or above of IPC/CH; or (ii) at least 1 million people are in IPC/CH phase 3 or above; or (iii) any geographical area is in IPC/CH phase 4 or above). - Members also qualify if adverse impact of price increases for five categories of cereals and three types of fertilizers on the external current account amounts to at least 0.3 percent of GDP over a 12-month period. - The cereal basket can be modified to reflect a country’s staple import composition if it deviates significantly from the standard cereal basket; modified basket of the top 5 categories of food staples used where other staples outside the five cereals represent at least 2 percent of total unprocessed food import values in 2021. - (ii) Cereal export shortfall exceeding a certain threshold: - For net exporters suffering shocks to export volumes, the shock assessed based on projected U.S. dollar value of annual cereal grain exports. - A member qualifies if projected negative shock to cereals exports benchmarked against the previous year exceeds 0.8 percent of projected GDP for the compensable year. - This 0.8 percent threshold corresponds to shocks above the 95th percentile of the historical distribution of such negative shocks during 1995-2021. - Member would not qualify if drop in export values results from its own bans or restrictions on cereals exports. ### Eligible countries and impact on borrowing space - Preliminary staff identification: about 50 countries currently experience pressures related to the global food shock and would meet at least one qualification criterion (acute food insecurity, a negative import price shock of at least 0.3 percent of GDP, or a qualifying export shock). - Actual qualifiers: Only a subset will ultimately qualify after country-by-country confirmation (including infeasibility of a UCT-quality program, debt sustainability, capacity to repay, adequate macroeconomic policy undertakings). - Specific counts and constraints: - First group of 16 countries would not receive financing under the proposed window at this time because an on-track UCT-quality program is already in place. - Two potentially eligible countries are constrained by the annual RFI/RCF access limit under the regular RFI or RCF exogenous shock window, leaving them with no (Ukraine) or very limited borrowing space (Burundi, 15 percent of quota). - Seven countries would have no borrowing space left and five countries would have less than 50 percent of borrowing space available to address further potential shocks under current cumulative access limits if current borrowing space is used to cope with urgent BOP needs associated with the global food shock. - Proposed food shock window’s effect on borrowing space: - Even after having accessed 50 percent of quota through the food shock window, 26 countries (out of the universe of 34 countries that are (i) suffering pressures related to the global food shock but (ii) do not already have a UCT program in place) would have cumulative borrowing space of at least 50 percent of quota of emergency financing to tackle other shocks. - Notes on figures: The chart analysis focuses on 34 countries severely affected by the food shock and currently not in a UCT arrangement. ### Other operational considerations - Concurrent use with SMP/PMB: - Where a UCT-quality program is not feasible, concurrent use of the food shock window with a Staff Monitored Program (SMP) can be considered to build a track record towards a UCT-quality program. - For members seeking to build or rebuild such track record and where (i) there is an ongoing concerted international effort by creditors or donors to provide substantial new financing or debt relief, or (ii) the member receives new emergency financing resulting in significant outstanding Fund credit under emergency financing instruments, members would be strongly encouraged to request newly proposed SMPs with targeted Board involvement (PMB). - Review timeline: Staff proposes to review the impact of the new food shock window by end-June 2023, potentially in parallel with Board consideration of the exit strategy for temporary modifications to the Fund’s access limits in response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. ### GRA and PRGT financing implications (illustrative estimates and resource needs) - GRA impact illustrative estimate: - If eligible countries (excluding PRGT-eligible which are not required to blend) request emergency financing under the new window up to the maximum available amount of 50 percent of quota, impact on GRA resources would likely be limited to under SDR 10 billion. - This illustrative impact would be smaller excluding members that currently (i) have an on-track UCT arrangement, (ii) are close to the overall GRA access limits (i.e., would need to request exceptional access), and/or (iii) lack adequate capacity to repay. - PRGT / LIC implications: - To support higher access limits adopted in July 2021, Board agreed to seek bilateral contributions of SDR 2.3 billion in subsidy resources (in addition to SDR 0.5 billion the Fund is generating in internal resources) and SDR 12.6 billion in loan resources. - About two-thirds of the loan resources have been pledged; only about 40 percent of the required subsidies have been pledged. - Reserve coverage ratio has recently fallen to 26 percent—well below its 40 percent average historically—and with significant lending envisaged over the medium term this ratio could approach the 20 percent threshold that may complicate mobilizing loan resources for the PRGT. - Preliminary estimates suggest demand under the new window could reach up to SDR 1.3 billion, which would require up to SDR 200 million in additional PRGT subsidy resources. - Channeling these additional resources to the new Subsidy Reserve Account would largely offset the impact of higher lending on the reserve coverage ratio. - The SDR 12.6 billion loan target could remain unchanged though it would bring forward the need to meet this target, including through additional SDR channeling to low-income countries. - The Annual Review of the Adequacy of PRGT Resources scheduled for Spring 2023 will consider contingency measures and possible steps to accelerate or expand fundraising. ### Issues for discussion (posed in the text) - Do Directors agree with the proposed food shock window, including the proposed qualification criteria and access limits? - Do Directors agree that the resource implications of the food shock window for the Fund’s concessional financing should be considered in the context of the next review of PRGT adequacy in Spring 2023? - Do Directors agree that contingency measures, as well as possible steps to accelerate or expand fundraising to accommodate the additional lending, could be considered at that time? ### Box 1 — Methodology for estimating BOP impact of the food Terms of Trade shock of War in Ukraine - Impact estimation approach: Compare net import values using latest price projections (shock scenario) to net import values using pre-war projected prices (baseline scenario) for 2022 and 2023. - Commodities covered: seven commodities — three types of fertilizers (Diammonium Phosphate HS310530, Urea HS310210, Potassium Chloride HS310420) and five types of cereals (Wheat HS1001, Barley HS1003, Maize HS1005, Rice HS1006, Sorghum HS1007). - Volume projections: - Net import volumes for 2022 and 2023 projected using UN Comtrade data for 2021, assuming net import volumes grow proportionately with real GDP. - IMF October 2021 WEO projections used for real GDP for both baseline and shock scenario to keep constant volumes across scenarios. - Price inputs: - Value of net imports calculated using IMF Global Assumptions (GAS) price levels and indices. - Baseline: actual 2021 commodity prices and projected 2022 and 2023 price levels using October 2021 GAS vintage. - Shock scenario: updated (as of Sept. 1, 2022) GAS LIVE forecasted price indices. - Data gaps and imputation: - Where only trade values are reported, volumes imputed using GAS commodity price levels. - Where countries do not report data for all commodities, use trade data reported by other countries as trade partners. - If 2021 data not available, use latest available year since 2015 and project volumes forward assuming proportional growth with real GDP. - For countries with no cereal data since 2015, supplement gaps with USDA trade data. *Source: ppea2022042 — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY and selected sections* ### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ### Introduction and motivation - Russia’s war in Ukraine has exacerbated global economic pressures, including through a food shock. - Acute food insecurity now affects 345 million people. - Food and fertilizer prices have eased from peak levels but remain significantly higher than in 2020–21. - There is a high likelihood that food availability and access challenges will continue into 2023. - Many members are facing urgent balance-of-payments (BOP) needs due to record food price inflation, increasing costs for fertilizers, shortages in food supplies (particularly cereals), sharply increased energy costs, and rising interest rates. ### Rationale for a new policy instrument - The Fund’s first-option response—Upper Credit Tranche (UCT)-quality programs—may not be feasible in a timely manner or necessary given the transitory nature of some food shock BOP needs. - Emergency financing under the RFI/RCF is an alternative, but current access limits are not optimally calibrated for a global food shock of this magnitude. - Current emergency financing annual access limits (most members could access up to 50 percent of quota) were calibrated for “typical” shocks and may be insufficient when combined with other shocks. - Some countries already face constrained borrowing space under the RFI/RCF (available space reported in brackets): Dominica (29 percent of quota), Madagascar (39 percent of quota), Mozambique (13 percent of quota), Nepal (36 percent of quota), St. Vincent and the Grenadines (0 percent of quota), Samoa (46 percent of quota), and under the RFI for Ukraine (no remaining borrowing space under the annual access limits after the RFI in March 2022). ### Key features of the proposed food shock window under RFI/RCF - Objective: make emergency lending more focused and agile to address urgent financing needs due to a food shock when UCT-quality programs are not feasible or necessary. - Design: a time-bound food shock window under the RFI and RCF, available for 12 months from Board approval. - Access: - Access under the food shock window would be capped at 50 percent of quota during the 12-month period. - Access would be fully additional to current annual access limits under the RFI and RCF. - Repeated use within the 12-month period would be possible where recurring or ongoing urgent financing needs exist. - Cumulative limits adjustment: - Where a member requests an outright purchase/disbursement under the food shock window, the cumulative limit under the RFI regular window (currently 150 percent of quota) and the RCF exogenous shock window (currently 150 percent of quota) would be increased to 175 percent of quota. - The 25 percent of quota increase in cumulative access would provide additional borrowing space to deal with other exogenous events. - Cumulative access limits under the RFI and RCF Large Natural Disaster (LND) windows remain unchanged at 183.33 percent of quota. - Cumulative access limits under the RCF regular window remain unchanged at 100 percent of quota. - Safeguards and eligibility: - Access under the food shock window would count toward the GRA and PRGT thresholds that trigger exceptional access safeguards, including the high combined GRA and PRGT exposure safeguards. - Financing would be subject to debt sustainability and adequate capacity to repay requirements in line with the adequate safeguards provision under the Articles of Agreement. - The food shock window would be subject to the current safeguards assessment requirements for the RFI and RCF: - An updated safeguards assessment will not be required if a safeguards assessment has been completed within 18 months prior to Board approval of the subsequent arrangement; or if the central bank is considered to have a strong track record and an assessment was completed within four years of Board approval of the new arrangement. - Modality: - A purchase/disbursement under the window would be outright without ex-post conditionality, though prior actions could be specified where warranted under the Guidelines on Conditionality. - As an outright purchase/disbursement does not involve a UCT-quality program, a fully financed program would not be required. - Repayment profiles: RFI window financing should be repaid within 3¼ to 5 years; RCF window financing should be repaid within 5½ to 10 years. ### Implications for PRGT financing and SDR channeling - For low-income countries (LICs), the new food shock window is expected to involve additional channeling of SDRs. - The window would raise PRGT lending above the baseline scenario on which the SDR 2.3 billion target for bilateral subsidy resources is based. - It would bring forward the need to meet the SDR 12.6 billion target for loan resources, including through additional SDR channeling to support the most vulnerable (PRGT-eligible) countries. - The next annual review of PRGT finances in Spring 2023 will provide an opportunity to consider contingency measures and steps to accelerate or expand fundraising to address gaps in subsidy resources. ### Operational and policy considerations - The window would be temporary and targeted to food-related BOP pressures to avoid incentivizing requests for non-food emergency financing that should be handled by UCT-quality programs. - In some cases, the food shock window could act as a bridge for countries intending to seek a UCT-quality arrangement but unable to do so immediately. - Standard ex ante policy undertakings applicable to RFI/RCF would apply, including expectations of transparency and accountability in the spending of emergency resources. - The proposal preserves the distinction between emergency access designed for food shocks and other RFI/RCF windows to maintain calibrated support for large natural disasters and other exogenous shocks. *Source: ppea2022042 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY* ### 7. Standard qualification criteria for the RFI and RCF would apply to the food shock ### ppea2022042 - 7. Standard qualification criteria for the RFI and RCF would apply to the food shock ### Qualification criteria for the food shock window - Emergency financing approval prerequisites: Fund must be satisfied that the member has an urgent BOP need and that the member either (i) has a BOP need expected to be resolved within one year with no major policy adjustments necessary, or (ii) is unable to design or implement a UCT-quality program, either given the urgent nature of the BOP need or due to the member’s limited implementation capacity. - Availability: The new window under the RFI would be available to all Fund members that meet the qualification criteria; PRGT-eligible members would also have access to a similar window under the RCF. - Scope limitation: Emergency economic situation must be related to the global food shock; qualification tightly circumscribed to cover emergency situations related to the global food shock. - Two alternative qualification limbs: - (i) Acute food insecurity or an increase in food/fertilizer costs exceeding a certain threshold: - Members qualify if they have urgent BOP needs associated with acute food insecurity inflicting serious economic disruption warranting a concerted international effort. - Executive Board to take into account FAO-WFP definitions or UNGRFC major food crisis indicators (UNGRFC considers a major food crisis if (i) at least 20 percent of the population is in phase 3 or above of IPC/CH; or (ii) at least 1 million people are in IPC/CH phase 3 or above; or (iii) any geographical area is in IPC/CH phase 4 or above). - Members also qualify if adverse impact of price increases for five categories of cereals and three types of fertilizers on the external current account amounts to at least 0.3 percent of GDP over a 12-month period. - The cereal basket can be modified to reflect a country’s staple import composition if it deviates significantly from the standard cereal basket; modified basket of the top 5 categories of food staples used where other staples outside the five cereals represent at least 2 percent of total unprocessed food import values in 2021. - (ii) Cereal export shortfall exceeding a certain threshold: - For net exporters suffering shocks to export volumes, the shock assessed based on projected U.S. dollar value of annual cereal grain exports. - A member qualifies if projected negative shock to cereals exports benchmarked against the previous year exceeds 0.8 percent of projected GDP for the compensable year. - This 0.8 percent threshold corresponds to shocks above the 95th percentile of the historical distribution of such negative shocks during 1995-2021. - Member would not qualify if drop in export values results from its own bans or restrictions on cereals exports. ### Eligible countries and impact on borrowing space - Preliminary staff identification: about 50 countries currently experience pressures related to the global food shock and would meet at least one qualification criterion (acute food insecurity, a negative import price shock of at least 0.3 percent of GDP, or a qualifying export shock). - Actual qualifiers: Only a subset will ultimately qualify after country-by-country confirmation (including infeasibility of a UCT-quality program, debt sustainability, capacity to repay, adequate macroeconomic policy undertakings). - Specific counts and constraints: - First group of 16 countries would not receive financing under the proposed window at this time because an on-track UCT-quality program is already in place. - Two potentially eligible countries are constrained by the annual RFI/RCF access limit under the regular RFI or RCF exogenous shock window, leaving them with no (Ukraine) or very limited borrowing space (Burundi, 15 percent of quota). - Seven countries would have no borrowing space left and five countries would have less than 50 percent of borrowing space available to address further potential shocks under current cumulative access limits if current borrowing space is used to cope with urgent BOP needs associated with the global food shock. - Proposed food shock window’s effect on borrowing space: - Even after having accessed 50 percent of quota through the food shock window, 26 countries (out of the universe of 34 countries that are (i) suffering pressures related to the global food shock but (ii) do not already have a UCT program in place) would have cumulative borrowing space of at least 50 percent of quota of emergency financing to tackle other shocks. - Notes on figures: The chart analysis focuses on 34 countries severely affected by the food shock and currently not in a UCT arrangement. ### Other operational considerations - Concurrent use with SMP/PMB: - Where a UCT-quality program is not feasible, concurrent use of the food shock window with a Staff Monitored Program (SMP) can be considered to build a track record towards a UCT-quality program. - For members seeking to build or rebuild such track record and where (i) there is an ongoing concerted international effort by creditors or donors to provide substantial new financing or debt relief, or (ii) the member receives new emergency financing resulting in significant outstanding Fund credit under emergency financing instruments, members would be strongly encouraged to request newly proposed SMPs with targeted Board involvement (PMB). - Review timeline: Staff proposes to review the impact of the new food shock window by end-June 2023, potentially in parallel with Board consideration of the exit strategy for temporary modifications to the Fund’s access limits in response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. ### Implications for GRA and PRGT financing - GRA impact illustrative estimate: - If eligible countries (excluding PRGT-eligible which are not required to blend) request emergency financing under the new window up to the maximum available amount of 50 percent of quota, impact on GRA resources would likely be limited to under SDR 10 billion. - This illustrative impact would be smaller excluding members that currently (i) have an on-track UCT arrangement, (ii) are close to the overall GRA access limits (i.e., would need to request exceptional access), and/or (iii) lack adequate capacity to repay. - PRGT / LIC implications: - To support higher access limits adopted in July 2021, Board agreed to seek bilateral contributions of SDR 2.3 billion in subsidy resources (in addition to SDR 0.5 billion the Fund is generating in internal resources) and SDR 12.6 billion in loan resources. - About two-thirds of the loan resources have been pledged; only about 40 percent of the required subsidies have been pledged. - Reserve coverage ratio has recently fallen to 26 percent—well below its 40 percent average historically—and with significant lending envisaged over the medium term this ratio could approach the 20 percent threshold that may complicate mobilizing loan resources for the PRGT. - Preliminary estimates suggest demand under the new window could reach up to SDR 1.3 billion, which would require up to SDR 200 million in additional PRGT subsidy resources. - Channeling these additional resources to the new Subsidy Reserve Account would largely offset the impact of higher lending on the reserve coverage ratio. - The SDR 12.6 billion loan target could remain unchanged though it would bring forward the need to meet this target, including through additional SDR channeling to low-income countries. - The Annual Review of the Adequacy of PRGT Resources scheduled for Spring 2023 will consider contingency measures and possible steps to accelerate or expand fundraising. ### Issues for discussion (as posed in the text) - Do Directors agree with the proposed food shock window, including the proposed qualification criteria and access limits? - Do Directors agree that the resource implications of the food shock window for the Fund’s concessional financing should be considered in the context of the next review of PRGT adequacy in Spring 2023? - Do Directors agree that contingency measures, as well as possible steps to accelerate or expand fundraising to accommodate the additional lending, could be considered at that time? ### Box 1 — Methodology for estimating BOP impact of the food Terms of Trade shock of War in Ukraine - Impact estimation approach: Compare net import values using latest price projections (shock scenario) to net import values using pre-war projected prices (baseline scenario) for 2022 and 2023. - Commodities covered: seven commodities — three types of fertilizers (Diammonium Phosphate HS310530, Urea HS310210, Potassium Chloride HS310420) and five types of cereals (Wheat HS1001, Barley HS1003, Maize HS1005, Rice HS1006, Sorghum HS1007). - Volume projections: - Net import volumes for 2022 and 2023 projected using UN Comtrade data for 2021, assuming net import volumes grow proportionately with real GDP. - IMF October 2021 WEO projections used for real GDP for both baseline and shock scenario to keep constant volumes across scenarios. - Price inputs: - Value of net imports calculated using IMF Global Assumptions (GAS) price levels and indices. - Baseline: actual 2021 commodity prices and projected 2022 and 2023 price levels using October 2021 GAS vintage. - Shock scenario: updated (as of Sept. 1, 2022) GAS LIVE forecasted price indices. - Data gaps and imputation: - Where only trade values are reported, volumes imputed using GAS commodity price levels. - Where countries do not report data for all commodities, use trade data reported by other countries as trade partners. - If 2021 data not available, use latest available year since 2015 and project volumes forward assuming proportional growth with real GDP. - For countries with no cereal data since 2015, supplement gaps with USDA trade data. *International Monetary Fund — Proposal for a Food Shock Window under the RFI and RCF (excerpt)* --- _Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/pp/2022/english/ppea2022042.pdf_