98-4721 MOREPRESS RELEASE
PRESS/TPRB/92
20 November 1998
TRADE POLICY REVIEW
REVIEW OF BURKINA FASO AND MALI
TPRB'S EVALUATION
The Trade Policy Review Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) concluded its first
review of the trade policies of Burkina Faso and Mali on 18 and 20 November 1998. The text of the
Chairperson's concluding remarks is attached as a summary of the salient points which emerged during
the discussion. The review enables the TPRB to conduc t a collective examination of the full range of
trade policies and practices of each WTO member country at regular periodic intervals to monitorsignificant trends and developments which may have an impact on the global trading system.
The review is based on two reports (per country ) which are prepared respectively by the WTO
Secretariat and the government under review and whic h cover all aspects of the country's trade policies,
including its domestic laws and regulations, the institutional framework, bilateral, regional and other
preferential agreements, the wider economic needs a nd the external environment. A record of the
discussion and the Chairperson's summing-up together with the reports will be published in due course
as the complete trade policy reviews of  Burkin a Faso and Mali and will be available from the WTO
Secretariat, Centre William Rappard, 154 rue de Lausanne, 1211 Geneva 21.
Since December 1989, the following reports have been completed: Argentina (1992),
Australia (1989, 1994 & 1998), Austria (1992), Bang ladesh (1992), Benin (1997), Bolivia (1993),
Botswana (1998), Brazil (1992 & 1996), Burkina Faso (1998), Cameroon (1995), Canada (1990,
1992, 1994 & 1996), Chile (1991 & 1997), Colombia (1990 & 1996), Costa Rica (1995), Côte
d'Ivoire (1995), Cyprus (1997), the Czech Republi c (1996), the Dominican Republic (1996), Egypt
(1992), El Salvador (1996), the European Communities (1991, 1993, 1995 & 1997), Fiji (1997),Finland (1992), Ghana (1992), Hong Kong ( 1990 & 1994), Hungary (1991 & 1998), Iceland (1994),
India (1993 & 1998), Indonesia (1991 and 1994), Is rael (1994), Jamaica (1998), Japan (1990, 1992,
1995 & 1998), Kenya (1993), Korea, Rep. of (1992 & 1996), Lesotho (1998), Macau (1994),
Malaysia (1993 & 1997), Mali (1998), Mauritius (1995), Mexico (1993 & 1997), Morocco (1989 &
1996), New Zealand (1990 & 1996), Namibia (1 998), Nigeria (1991 & 1998), Norway (1991 &
1996), Pakistan (1995), Paraguay (1997), Peru ( 1994), the Philippines (1993), Poland (1993),
Romania (1992), Senegal (1994), Singapore (1992 & 1996), Slovak Republic (1995), the Solomon
Islands (1998), South Africa (1993 & 1998), Sri La nka (1995), Swaziland (1998), Sweden (1990 &
1994), Switzerland (1991 & 1996), Thailand (1991 & 1995), Trinidad and Tobago (1998), Tunisia
(1994), Turkey (1994 & 1998), the United States (1989, 1992, 1994 & 1996), Uganda (1995),
Uruguay (1992), Venezuela (1996), Za mbia (1996) and Zimbabwe (1994).PRESS/TPRB/92
Page 2/3
MORETRADE POLICY REVIEW BODY
Review of Burkina Faso and Mali
Concluding remarks by the chairperson
The first Trade Policy Reviews of Burkina Faso and Mali were conducted by the TPR Body
on 18 and 20 November 1998.  These remarks, prepared on my own responsibility, are intended to
summarize the main points of the discussion;  they are not intended as a full report.  Further details of
the discussion will be fully reflected in the minutes.
The discussion developed under three main themes:  (i) macroeconomic and structural
environment;  (ii) multilateral and regional agreements;  and (iii) trade measures and sectoral policies.
Macroeconomic and structural environment
Members commended Burkina Faso and Mali on the liberalization and economic reforms
they had undertaken.  These, combined with the devaluation of the CFA franc in 1994, had resulted in
steady economic growth, low inflation and improved  international competitiveness of some products.
However, progress in restoring balance to government finances and the current account had beenlimited and export competitiveness was, in general, hampered by the high costs of basic utilities
supplied by public enterprises.  In addition, external debt was high.  Noting that exports, still confined
mainly to cotton, livestock products and gold, hardly covered 50% of imports, Members sought
clarification on measures to diversify both economies, while containing the negative effects of
recurring drought.  Questions were asked about delays in implementing privatization programmes andabout the foreign direct investment (FDI) regimes,  with emphasis on discriminatory treatment of non-
regional investors under the planned WAEMU Community Investment Code (CIC).
Members inquired about the implementation of competition policies and the effects the
WAEMU common external tariff (CET) would have  on tax revenues owing to the heavy reliance of
both Burkina Faso and Mali on trade taxes.  Questions were raised on intellectual property rights andthe steps being taken to bring the Bangui  Agreement into compliance with TRIPS.
There was a certain worry about price controls that still applied to certain goods in
Burkina Faso, and about provisions of its investment Act that gave preference to jobs for nationals
and domestically-owned service suppliers.
Noting the relatively low level of FDI in Mali, Members asked about measures envisaged by
the Government to attract foreign capital.
The representative of Mali said that the CIC would not discriminate against non-regional
investors.  The CIC, in combination with other actions taken to establish the WAEMU customs union,
would help to attract foreign capital.  Moreover , the WAEMU Treaty provided for Structural Funds
and the implementation of common sectoral projects to compensate for negative effects resulting fromparticipation in the customs union.
The representative also indicated that Mali relied on trade taxes both because of the low level
of domestic production and because they were relatively easy to collect;  however, diversification of
production and improved collection of internal taxes were envisaged to reduce reliance on trade taxes.
The Government depended on the private sector to diversify its production and its exports.  The
absence of a capital market in Mali was a major impediment to the implementation of the
privatization programme, which would also cover the services sector.  Since March 1998, Mali hadbeen eligible for the IMF/World Bank initiative for Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC). He added
that updated data on FDI in Mali would be provided to the Secretariat.  National legislation on
competition was being amended with a view to bringing it into line with WAEMU provisions in this
area.  The Bangui Agreement on intellectual property was being revised to bring it into conformity
with TRIPS.  Environmental measures were being implemented to deal with the effects of thedrought.PRESS/TPRB/92
Page 4
MOREConfirming that the CET could reduce tax revenue, the representative of Burkina Faso noted
that the broadening of the tax base and improved tax collection would contribute to offsetting thelosses.  He indicated some of the products that would be promoted for diversification purposes,
including cotton, cereals and vegetables.  A shortage of investors and the need for improved
transparency had delayed implementation of privatization programmes.  Liberalization would also
involve basic utilities.  Burkina Faso had been implementing its competition policy since
January 1998.  However, price controls were maintained on petroleum products as these weresensitive products.  On the external debt, he noted that suitable actions would be taken under the
HIPC.  Moreover, structural adjustment programmes and the move to CET were preparing the
economies of WAEMU members for increased competition;  support from the international
community was necessary.  To deal with the drought, environmental action was being taken.
Multilateral and regional agreements
Members acknowledged the determination of Bu rkina Faso and Mali to base their trade
relations on the principles of the multilateral trading system.  Within this context, some Membersinquired about assistance the WTO could provide to dispel worries about marginalization.  Questions
were asked about the coherence and coordination of regional agreements, especially WAEMU and
ECOWAS to which both Burkina Faso and Mali were party.  It was noted that Burkina Faso and Mali
would need to improve intraregional competitiveness of their products to meet the increased
competition that would result fro m the implementation of the CET.
Members inquired about the effects of preferential treatment granted to Burkina Faso and
Mali under the Lomé Convention and the Generalized System of Preferences, and measures envisaged
by these countries to adjust to any reduction of preferences that might result from multilateral
liberalization.
Recalling the Integrated Programme for least-developed countries, the representatives of Mali
and Burkina Faso indicated that they looked forward to its implementation for their countries.  On
preferential treatment, discussions among African ACP countries had stressed the need for ACP
members to maintain their commercial position.
Coordination between the ECOWAS Secretar iat and the WAEMU Commission contributed
to avoiding inconsistencies between these two regional agreements.  ECOWAS Members agreed that,in the long run it would be the only regional agreement in West Africa.
Trade measures and sectoral policies
Members expressed their appreciation of the considerable progress made by Burkina Faso and
Mali in liberalizing their trade regimes.  However, participants voiced concerns about the complexity
of their tariff structures and the low levels of WTO bindings with respect to non-agricultural products.Members sought clarification on the steps being taken to implement the CET in January 2000. Noting
that neither country had legislation on contingency trade remedies, Members asked about plans for
such legislation.  Questions were also raised about the compatibility of restrictions on certain export
products and the two countries' objectives to boost exports.  It was noted that the countries' unilateral
liberalization in the services sector was not reflected in their WTO commitments, and that restrictions
on FDI in financial services and telecommunications monopolies were being maintained.
Members took note of the fact that, as a safeguard, Burkina Faso was implementing
references prices on sugar.  Specific questions were raised regarding local content schemes, other
duties and charges, import licensing and state ownership in basic services, especially financial
services.
Mali was encouraged to sign the Plurilateral Agreement on Government Procurement.
Members noted that the special internal tax on certain products (ISCP) was included in the VATassessment, and the service provision contribution (CPS) was applied although it did not appear in thePRESS/TPRB/92
Page 5
ENDlist of other duties and charges bound by Mali.  Concerns were expressed about provisions on state
participation in the capital of mining companies.
The representative of Mali indicated that tariff rationalization undertaken by Mali since 1991
had prepared it for implementation of the CET.  However, implementation would increase tariffs on
capital goods and inputs from the current level of zero to 5%.  Future imposition of other duties and
charges would be in compliance with WTO commitments.  Common legislation was scheduled to be
introduced within the framework of WAEMU.  On customs valuation, he indicated that Mali would
apply the "transaction-value" basis from the year 2000.  However, technical assistance was needed to
familiarize customs agents with the system.  An increase in the rate of the VAT would mitigate the
reduction in tax revenues which might result from the planned abolition of the CPS.  The
representative added that the ISCP was a non-discriminatory internal tax.  He added that the 3%
export tax was the main tax on mining activities.  Privatization of public enterprises, including
SOTELMA, the telecommunications comp any, would improve competitiveness.
The representative of Burkina Faso noted that its customs tariff was simplified in July 1998 as
a first step in the move to the CET.  He added that the safeguard action on sugar was to prepare the
state-owned sugar company for privatization.  The ban on hides and skins was to protect an infant
industry;  a revision of the ban was under consideration.  He indicated that, in general, the services
sector was liberalized.  He went on to note that the CSE was collected for livestock development
purposes, while special authorization was required for the export of cereals and shea nuts forstatistical reasons.
In conclusion, it is my sense that Members welcomed the collective participation by
Burkina Faso and Mali in the review process and the significant steps taken by their authorities
towards more open and deregulated economic and trade regimes.  Members recognized the difficulties
of such major adaptation, particularly given the challenges faced by both Burkina Faso and Mali aslandlocked least-developed countries, with a small resource base.  They strongly encouraged both
countries to consolidate and build on the achievements of recent years.  I also thought that Members
were conscious that, if the policies pursued domestically are to achieve the desired results, it is
important that they receive support at the regional level and within the multilateral trading system.