ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM (83) 651 
 
 
 
Vol. 1983/02 39 
  
 
Disclaimer  
Conformém ent au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 
concernant l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique 
européenne et de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, 
p. 1), tel que modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) n° 1700/2003 du 22 septembre 2003 
(JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1), ce dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents 
classifiés présents dans ce dossier ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit 
règlem ent. 
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 
concerning the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Econom ic 
Communit y and the European Atom ic Energy Communit y (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as 
amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 (OJ L 243, 
27.9.2003, p. 1), t his file is open to the public. Where necessary, classified documents in this 
file have been declassified in conformity with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation.  
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom  1. 
Februa r 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen  
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Europäischen Atomgem einschaft (ABI. L 43 vom  15.2.1983,  
S. 1), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1700/2003 vom 22. Septem ber 2003  
(ABI. L 243 v om 27.9.2003, S. 1), ist diese Datei der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit  
erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in dieser Datei in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5  
der genannten Verordnung freigegeben.  
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(83/ 651 final 
Brussels, 8 November 1983
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL
Relations between the European Community and the ACP States
in the mining sector
COM(83) 651 final

CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
1. Operations to date 4
2. The Community's dependence on raw material imports 7
2.1 Commodities which have to be imported 7
2.2 Dependence and vulnerability of Community industry 8
2.3 The Community's attitude to the procurement of
supplies 9
3. World market trends for mineral commodities 12
4. The ACP States' mining potential 14
4.1 Resources and reserves 14
4.2 Mining in the ACP States 15
5. The mutual interest - using mining operations to generate
development 18
6. Mining strategies 20
6.1 General outline 20
6.2 Provision of administrative facilities 21
6.3 Exploration 21
6.4 Opening up of mines 22
6.5 Project environment 24
6.6 Economic stimulus 25
6.7 Maintaining the flow of finance in the mining
sector 26
CONCLUSION 28
Annex 1  Community import dependence 
Annex 2 Origin of Community supplies by volume
Annex 3 Origin of Community supplies by volume (Imports from
developing countries)
Annex 4 Origin of Community supplies by value 
Annex 5 World mineral reserves
Annex 6 Mineral reserves in developing countries 
Annex 7 Community imports from ACP States
Annex 8 Capital expenditure on all projects excepting uranium
Annex 9 Exploration expenditure on all projects excepting uranium

INTRODUCTION
Negotiations between the Community and the ACP States "to examine what 
provisions shall ... govern _ /  their / relations" after the second 
Lomé Convention expires will be opening shortly, and the preparatory 
work is under way in Community institutions. At this juncture, 
therefore, the Commission feels that, without pre-empting the 
negotiating position to be adopted, it might usefully present a 
communication to the Council on the Community's relations with the 
ACP States in the mining sector. The second Lomé Convention contained 
a number of important new provisions in this field, and the early 
results should be carefully analysed to see whether that cooperation 
should be continued and stepped up.
The ACP countries, particularly those in Africa, are increasingly in 
difficulties. The main worry is food security, and the Commission has 
already inaugurated emergency operations in this field. In the longer 
term, we have to consider what part a productive sector such as mining 
can play in securing a real and lasting turnaround in the fortunes of 
these countries and in seeing that the best possible use is made of the 
limited development funds available.
Our analysis shows that the Community and the ACP States have a real 
mutual interest in the short term in developing a concerted policy for 
the exploitation of mineral resources. The ACP have important mineral 
reserves, and so far relatively little has been done to explore or

-  2 -
exploit them. Yet properly used this natural wealth could make a 
significant contribution to development, earning money, helping the 
balance of payments position, stimulating industrialization, creating 
jobs and raising the level of technology. The Community for its part 
is the world's largest importer of raw materials, and has a vital 
interest in maintaining and diversifying its sources of supply. The 
survival of its industry, and hence its own survival as a major economic 
power, is at stake.
So the basis for fruitful cooperation is there. But two points must 
be made:
- firstly, where mineral resources have been worked, their contribution 
to development has fallen short of expectations;
- secondly, mineral resources in the ACP countries, particularly those 
in Africa, seem less attractive to potential mining investors than 
those in other continents.
There is thus considerable potential which is still unexploited, or 
fails to provide the returns that might be expected. Recent operations 
under the current Lomé Convention, however, have shown that it helps if 
the two sides can gear the development objectives of the ore-producing 
countries to the supply needs of the importing countries. Mining 
development strategies worked out by the ACP countries and supported by 
the Community would have two advantages: they would have an appreciable
multiplier effect on ACP development efforts, and they would make for 
greater geographical consistency between decisions on mining investment 
and those on official development spending.

- 3 -
In this communication the Commission reviews operations under the 
current Convention and its predecessors, analyses the Community's 
import dependence and looks at ACP potential, going on to suggest 
a number of guidelines for future operations.
This paper does not specifically mention energy products - coal, oil, 
gas and uranium. There are problems with these products, and they 
call for special measures which can only be discussed in depth in 
studies dealing with the subject of energy as such. Nevertheless, 
most of what follows applies to these products as well, and similar 
strategies could be mapped out.
*

1. Operations to date
The conventions which preceded Lome II did not single out the 
development of mineral resources for particular attention and, 
under the first Lomé Convention, EDF money could not be used to 
subsidize loans granted by the EIB from its own resources for 
mining projects unless such projects were located in the 
least-developed, landlocked or island states. This was a 
reflection of over-optimism about the profitability of the 
mining sector, and the feeling that it would be a waste of public 
money to subsidize such operations. The result was that hardly 
any action was taken, barring a few EIB operations.
When the second Lomé Convention was being worked out, the negotiators 
had their attention drawn to a number of pointers indicating a marked 
slowdown in mining activity in the ACP States: prospecting activities
were falling off, there was a dearth of new projects, and existing 
production facilities were falling into disrepair. It was recognized 
that there was a need for governments to take on some responsibilities 
in this sector and not leave it all up to private operators, and 
accordingly a set of provisions was incorporated in Lomé II to enable 
the Community to support ACP States in their efforts to develop or 
maintain mining operations.
Lomé II therefore puts the familiar arsenal of financial instruments - 
grants, special loans, risk capital, subsidized EIB loans - at the 
service of mining development. But in addition it provides a number 
of new instruments specifically designed with mining and energy 
development in mind: unsubsidized EIB loans for mining or energy
projects of mutual interest to the Community and the ACP States, a 
special financing facility known as Sysmin to shore up threatened 
production, and the possibility of concluding "specific" agreements 
to encourage European investment in mining or energy produc ..

- 5 -
Such a spread of facilities enables support to be provided at every 
stage of a mine's development or operation, from the establishment of 
sound administrative structures, the training of staff, surface and 
subsoil exploration and the evaluation of resources to the setting-up 
of joint ventures, the financing of engineering and basic infrastructure 
work, and actual capital investment. Financial support, encouragement 
and a degree of protection can also be given to Community operators 
keen to operate or invest in ACP States. And Sysmin can provide help 
with the maintenance or rehabilitation of declining or threatened 
production capacity. Note that the Convention does not include any 
system of actual guarantee which would provide cover for ACP countries 
against exploitation of their resources without concomitant benefit 
to their development and for operators against "non-commercial risks .  
This is something which merits further consideration.
It is too early to obtain a complete picture of operations under the 
second Lomé Convention, but available results indicate that cooperation 
in the mining sector underwent a rapid and remarkable expansion in 1981. 
The EIB in particular was very active, with a wide range of operations 
from the financing of studies and acquisition of holdings using risk 
capital, to capital investment. In 1981 almost half of the funds 
committed by the EIB went to the mining sector (e.g., the Ok Tedi 
copper deposits in Papua New Guinea and a copper-bearing spoil 
processing project in Zambia), usually for operations cofinanced 
with other sources of funds. Exploration and studies were 
financed from programmable EDF resources (aerial geophysical survey 
in Gabon, targeted prospecting in Cameroon, geological mapping in 
Benin, coal in southern Africa, etc.). In 1982, however, the 
scale of operations in the mining sector was more modest (though 
the first two Sysmin operations were undertaken), and the results 
for the early part of 1983 confirm the slowdown in the rate of mining 
investment and hence of Community activities in the sector. It 
would therefore be premature to attempt an assessment of the overall 
contribution made by Lomé II to mining development.

Financial commitments at May 1983 were as follows:
million ECU
Lomé I programmable EDF resources 8.7
EIB risk capital 10.2
subsidized loans 33.0
Total 51.9
Lomé II programmable EDF resources 13.4
Sysmin 95.0
EIB risk capital 14.2
subsidized loans 25.0
unsubsidized loans 40.0
Total 187.6
A fuller analysis is necessary of the Community's and ACP States' mutual 
interest in the development of mineral resources, and is offered in the 
following chapters.
To two ACP States classed as least-developed - Mauritania and Upper Volta.

- 7 -
2. The Community's dependence on raw material imports
2.1 Commodities which have to be imported
It is currently reckoned that, overall, the Community is dependent on 
imports for 75% of its raw material supplies, as against 90% for Japan 
and a mere 15% for the United States. Those percentages reflect 
orders of magnitude, of course, and are too general to have any precise 
economic significance, but they do give an idea of the relative 
positions of the major industrialized powers.
Annex 1 gives a product-by-product breakdown of the Community's import 
dependence, which varies widely, from 25% in the case of fluorine to 
almost 100% for titanium, zirconium, niobium, tantalum and manganese. 
Apart from fluorine, the only other commodities below the 50% mark 
are iron and lead.
The sources of supply by volume (Annexes 2 and 3) and value (Annex 4)
also vary considerably from product to product, but tend to be
strongly concentrated^ thus there is a high level of dependence on
2imports of chromium and platinum from South Africa, vanadium from the 
Eastern bloc countries, cobalt from Zaire and Zambia and molybdenum 
from North America.
In the developing world, Africa3 is the Community's most important 
source of non-energy raw materials, supplying 20% by value of total 
imports. Africa is a major supplier of cobalt, phosphates, copper, 
manganese and fluorine, Latin America of niobium, antimony, iron, 
molybdenum, aluminium, zinc and copper, and Asia of tin, nickel,
The tables refer, for the period before 1  January 1981, to the 
.nine-member Community.
■Platinum is not included in the tables, however, as no meaningful 
statistics are available.
Excluding South Africa, which is included in this paper among the 
industrialized countries.

-  8 -
and tungsten. The Eastern bloc countries are important 
suppliers of vanadium, fluorine, mercury and tungsten.
But the Community's major suppliers in value terms are industrialized 
countries - Australia, Canada, South Africa and the United States.
These countries have rich mineral resources and old-established mining 
industries. They are the homes of most of the big multinational mining 
companies, leaders in the development and operation of mines, with whom 
Community users of these commodities have inevitably to deal.
2.2 Dependence and vulnerability of Community industry
The structure of the markets for these commodities, and the fact that 
they are basic inputs for the whole of industry, render the Community 
even more vulnerable.
A salient feature of the market structure is the very strong position 
of the mining companies in relation to the producing countries despite 
the number of nationalizations which have taken place. The companies 
generally turn out to be indispensable; they can provide the strong 
management, high technology and skills and mobilize the vast amounts 
of capital generally needed for investments in this sector. The world 
market is dominated by these mining concerns, the most important of 
which are North American or South African. The Community's own mining 
industry has the quality, but not the scale, so for a good part of its 
supplies the Community is at the mercy of planning and decision-making
carried out elsewhere, involving the risk that in a crisis it might not 
receive high enough priority. Also, processing industries which lack 
proper control over their sources of supply are always vulnerable to a 
"pincer movement" by vertically-integrated mining concerns, which can 
raise the price of the raw material while cutting the price of the 
processed product.

- 9 -
As regards the structure of industry, its complexity is such that 
dependence can and often does (e.g., the bauxite-alumina-aluminium 
chain) come at a stage other than that of ore production, so that 
industry is vulnerable to all sorts of contingencies. As not all the 
Community's needs are of the same strategic nature, the different uses 
of primary products have to be classified in relation to the possible 
crisis scenarios - a complete supply breakdown, temporary or permanent, 
sudden price rises, vertical integration in the producing country, etc. 
Only systematic studies of the various scenarios and their implications 
for the Community's economy can elucidate the problems in detail.
A number of such studies have been commissioned in the Member States, 
either by government departments or by mining companies. For obvious 
reasons, they are not usually circulated. Fragmentary and sometimes 
alarmist as they are, these studies nevertheless have the merit of 
highlighting the seriousness of the problems and at the same time 
circumscribing them. A similar but more comprehensive exercise is 
called for at Community level, for a number of particularly critical 
commodi t i  es.
2.3 The Community's attitude to the procurement of supplies
Mineral supply policy varies from one Member State to another. Some 
operate policies and maintain financial instruments specifically aimed 
at improving and diversifying their sources of supply or building 
security stockpiles of minerals considered strategic because of their 
origin, importance to Europe's industry and the lack of readily 
available substitutes; others rely for their supplies on the markets. 
There is a need for coordination in this field.
_
One German study concluded that if Germany's chromium supplies were
interrupted the country's GNP would fall by 20%J

-  10  -
One feature is common to all Member States, however: the main
responsibility for supplies is in the hands of industry, either mining 
companies or mineral users. It has been industrial operators who have 
ensured that the Community has on the whole so far enjoyed a satisfactory 
supply position.
Nevertheless, concern is now being felt on a number of points.
(a) The desire (a) to obtain supplies as cheaply as possible, 
particularly in the current economic situation, and (b) to 
minimize risks leads Europe's businessmen to favour mines in the 
industrialized or industrializing countries - i.e. countries whose 
industry competes with our own, or is likely to do so shortly.
Should an unexpectedly rapid economic upturn or the mining out of 
a particular commodity put pressure on supplies, Europe could 
hardly expect to be a priority customer. Nor is it clear that 
these are the countries with which the Community can most easily 
balance its mineral imports by exports from other sectors of 
industry.
Cb) Within this overall geographical concentration, however, European 
interests tend to be dispersed over a number of the larger 
deposits, where they are in a minority position against other 
industrialized countries' own stakes. Here again Europe runs 
the risk of being "squeezed out", though this can sometimes - 
only sometimes - be offset by means of cross-holdings.
(c) There is a clear tendency on the part of European companies to 
invest in, or conclude supply contracts with, countries not 
linked to the Community by a special relationship of the sort 
that exists with the ACP States. This means that there is often no 
element of interdependence to offset the drawbacks of dependence.

-  1 1  -
In this respect the Community is behaving differently from the other 
industrialized countries - the United States, with its enormously strong 
position throughout the whole American continent, the USSR and the Eastern 
bloc countries, which have so far been self-sufficient, and above all our 
main competitor on the world market, Japan. With virtually no raw 
materials of its own, Japan has used long-term contracts and unwritten but 
irrevocable undertakings, not to mention the financial backing for 
investment in this sector available from a variety of national bodies, 
to forge close ties of interdependence with Asian and Pacific countries, 
including Australia, giving it real security of supply.
The volume of supplies controlled by European companies is one important 
factor in assessing the Community's vulnerability to various type of 
supply crisis. But it is also necessary to bear in mind the barter contracts 
whereby, for example, a German company buys a commodity in Papua New Guinea 
and sells it again to a Japanese firm in return for an identical commodity bought 
by the latter from Spain. More important than the actual volumes imported and 
controlled is the idea of market transparency; in the event of an increase 
in world prices, the only things which will set the Community apart from 
other countries will be the degree of integration, long-term fixed-price 
contracts and stockpiling policies.
*
★ ★

-  1 2  -
3. World market trends for mineral commodities
Markets for mineral commodities are characterized by an extremely low 
elasticity of supply, which to some extent explains
the wild price fluctuations. The supply rigidity goes in both directions - 
upwards, because of the very long lead times between initial exploration and 
the bringing of mines into production, and downwards, because of such factors 
as the highly capitalistic nature of the mining sector. Demand, on the 
other hand, is directly tied to the level of economic activity. The 
recession has led to a fall in prices and hence indirectly to economic and 
social instability in the countries whose major source of income is mineral 
exports. At the same time, investment costs have soared.
The combination of these different factors has produced a very marked 
falling-off in investment, to below the level which estimates made in 
the late 1970s suggested was necessary to ensure that world demand for 
the commodities in the period 1985-90 could be met. Projects undertaken 
in the Western world in the period 1979-83 for the six main metals - iron, 
copper, aluminium, zinc, nickel and lead - represented an investment rate 
of no more than $10 000 million a year, over 20% below forecast 
requirements. However, the forecasts were based on demand estimates made 
by the UN before anyone realized how long the present recession would 
last, and the growth of world demand for commodities has slackened. The 
latest returns from European companies show an upturn in mining investment 
in 1981, particularly in developing countries, but in the ACP countries 
at least the trend does not appear to have been sustained.
At the same time there is an increasing imbalance in the geographical 
spread not only of capital expenditure but of exploration expenditure.
As far as Community companies are concerned, the imbalance is clear 
from the following table, set alongside the published figures for the 
breakdown of reserves (see Annexes 5, 6, 8 and 9).

- 13 -
Reserves^Exploration Investment
1980 19601980
Market economies 38 % 60 %84 % 82 %
State-trading countries 23 % -- -
Developing countries: 39 %2 40 %16 % 18 %
Africa 13.5 % -3 % 2 %
Latin America 14 % -10 % 15 %
Asia and Oceania 11.5 % -3 % 1 7.
—
Annexes 8 and 9 contain figures supplied by the Community mining industry, 
and they show just how marked the trend still is. There was a slight 
upturn in exploration in Africa at the beginning of the present decade, but 
there is no comparison with the scale of activities in Latin America.
The banks' increasing role in the financing of mining investment is also 
leading to the adoption of banking criteria for risk evaluation (in 
particular, the host country's balance of payments situation and indebtedness 
are increasingly being taken into consideration), and this naturally militates 
against the developing countries.
Average arithmetical value.
Value for all ACP, OCT and OD: 12%.

- 14 -
4. The ACP States' mining potential
4.1 Resources and reserves
While potential, resources of minerals as a whole may be thought of as 
distributed evenly throughout all the world's great land masses, discovered 
reserves are directly proportionate to the amount of exploratory effort 
expended. This explains why published figures put the industrialized 
countries' proven reserves higher than those in the developing countries, 
despite the fact that the latter cover twice the area.
Not only are exploitable reserves proportionate to the level of exploration, 
they also depend on various technical and economic factors. A price rise, 
for instance, wilt have the effect of increasing the volume of exploitable 
reserves, as happened in the case of Australian bauxite: in 1950 Australia's
reserves were considered negligible, while today they account for 20% of the 
world total.
Annexes 5 and 6 show official statistics for exploitable reserves of the 
21 main commodities. In the case of the developing countries, and the 
ACP in particular, it is generally recognized that real mineral wealth 
(including any seabed resources) exceeds what has so far been listed. 
Expenditure on exploration in this part of the world has been notably 
inadequate, particularly through the 1970s, just at a time when revolutionary
.  Atechnical developments were increasing the rate of new discoveries. The 
developing countries are also put at a disadvantage by the concept of 
economically exploitable reserves, in particular because all the basic 
infrastructure has to be provided, generally at a high cost, before
New techniques such as remote sensing can be used to scan enormous areas 
quickly, even in difficult conditions (heavy tree cover, for instance), 
making it possible to optimize exploration on the ground.

- 15 -
deposits can be worked.
Experts agree that the ACP States' aggregate resources are probably 
considerable. As far as listed reserves are concerned (Annex 6), Africa 
has the edge over Latin America and Asia for aluminium, chromium, tantalum 
and phosphates, while the ACP group as such has important reserves of 
aluminium, chromium, tantalum and, to a lesser extent, cobalt and copper 
(see Annex 5). The tiny figure for iron ore, despite the exploration which 
is going on in Mauritania and Liberia and the recognized potential of 
Senegal, Guinea and Gabon, confirms what is said above regarding the real 
significance of such figures.
4.2 Mining in the ACP States
The ACP States are already major producers and exporters of mineral 
commodities, and in particular of:^
Copper :  
Cobalt^: 
Phosphates :
Bauxite^:
,1 . 3Alumina :Zambia (4th), Zaire (5th), Papua New Guinea (10th)
Zaire (1st), Zambia (2nd)
Togo (8th), Senegal (12th)
Guinea (2nd), Jamaica (3rd), Suriname (4th),Guyana (7th) 
Jamaica (3rd), Suriname (6th),Guinea (10th)
The World Bank report on"Accelerated Development in Sub-Saharan Africa"(1981) 
notes that the continent of Africa has always been regarded as one of the 
world's great reserves of mineral wealth.
*The f igures in brackets indicate the country's ranking in the world 
production stakes.
"^Excluding Eastern bloc countries.

- 16 -
Manganese: Gabon (3rd)
Chromium: Zimbabwe (5th)
Iron: Liberia (11th), Mauritania (15th)
Tin: Zaire (9th), Nigeria (12th), Rwanda (14th)
Nickel: Botswana (10th), Zimbabwe (11th)
Diamonds: Zaire (1st), Botswana (4th), Ghana (6th), Sierra Leone (8th),
Liberia (9th)
The majority of these commodities are exported to the Community, especially
1in the case of the African ACP States. Annex 7 shows that the proportion 
of mineral commodities in total Community imports (excluding oil) from the 
ACP has been increasing steadily and is now considerable: 30% in 1980.
The ACP mineral producers' dependence on mining (defined as the percentage 
of their earnings from minerals as a proportion of total export earnings) 
tends to range from the considerable to the excessive: of the order of 90%
in the case of Zambia and Guinea, 70% for Suriname,Liberia and Mauritania 
and 50% for Togo, Zaire and Papua New Guinea.
In most cases the ACP States' management of their mining sectors is open 
to certain criticisms. Some of them, faced with the urgent short-term 
need for foreign exchange, force even publicly-owned mining companies to 
keep up a rate of production which far exceeds the economic optimum and 
makes it impossible to carry out proper maintenance or replacement of 
equipment. In some cases, also, public administrative structures are not 
geared to the requirements of modern business efficiency, so that over and
The World Bank report 
mineral commodities.notes that Africa is Europe's largest supplier of

- 17 -
above any desirable measure of state control, bureaucratic inertia and red 
tape paralyse the productive side of operations. The resultant continual 
irritations can make life almost impossible, putting off potential investors 
and explaining at least in part the mining sector's current lack of interest 
in the ACP States.
On the other hand, mining has not really helped the mineral-producing ACP 
States with their development, either. Usually it has simply been a source 
of revenue which has helped governments pay for oil and other imports, and 
build some infrastructure, but has failed to provide the necessary stimulus 
to the rest of the economy, even in the related industrial sector. In some 
cases, indeed, the development of mining has probably weakened rather than 
strengthened the economy, an all-too-familiar syndrome in "split" economies 
where a modern and a traditional sector co-exist without intersecting.
Often the mine simply exists in an enclave, and has no proper links with the 
country's economic, social or human fabric. When this happens it sucks in 
people from the countryside, worsening the problems of food deficit and 
urban overcrowding, while at the same time maintaining the currency at an 
artificially high rate of exchange.
★ ★

5. The mutual interest - using the mining operations to generate development
As we have already seen, the Community is almost wholly dependent for certain 
commodities - manganese, chromium, cobalt and molybdenum - on imports from 
one or two countries (and sometimes .from one or two transnational companies). 
There is an increasing trend towards the concentration of sources of supply 
for other commodities as well.
It is therefore directly in the Community's interest to see more new sources of 
supply developed, and developed in countries with which it has a special 
relationship.
In more general terms, the Community depends to a considerable extent for its 
long-term growth on the overall development of the ACP countries, which will 
offer it substantial export markets and should be taken into account in planning 
redeployment. The Community therefore has an interest in mining development in 
the ACP States, considered as a catalyst for European economic recovery and 
balanced industrial development.
It also has to be remembered that the Community has a development policy, 
in pursuance of which it commits large sums of money in certain countries - 
including over 1  000m ECU a year in black Africa. It is essential that 
the best possible use be made of this money if public opinion in a recession- 
hit Community is to be rallied behind a policy which has proved, in the first 
development decades, something of a disappointment. A good way to do this 
seems to be to concentrate on a productive sector which can generate a 
multiplier effect. Faced with the imperative need for food self-sufficiency, 
the ACP States will be slowing down the expansion of cash crops, and their 
industry is developing only slowly, so mining as a productive sector should 
not be neglected.

- 19 -
The benefits of mining to the ACP countries have already been mentioned - 
wealth creation, the provision of training, job creation, transfer of 
technology, etc. These can be valuable assets, particularly where mining 
revenue eases the pressure of the oil import bill, which often strangles 
economic development at birth. But they will not be enough unless the 
revenue or commodities produced by mining, which after all comes strictly 
speaking within the primary sector, are used to generate development in 
other spheres.
Indeed, the benefits accruing from mining may even be cancelled out unless 
care is taken to eliminate the ill-effects which, as we have seen, arise 
from the failure to integrate the mining operations into the economic, 
social and human fabric of the country.
To preserve the ACP's interest in mining development, therefore, what is 
needed is a development-orientated approach to mining. No single model will do; 
undue standardization would exalt doctrine over pragmatism and be unlikely to 
produce positive results, since the problems vary depending on the 
commodity, region, industrial users and marketing conditions concerned.
But a customized approach taking full account of all the factors upstream 
and downstream from the mining development could bring the ACP States real 
benefits.
The precise framework of mutual interest must therefore be constructed on 
a case-by-case basis, reconciling the Community's supply requirements with 
the imperatives of ACP economic and social development. This leads us 
to the concept of mining strategies to be run in the joint ACP-EEC interest.
* ★

-  20  -
6. Mining strategies 
6.1 General outline
Obviously, the mining strategies come within the sovereign responsibility 
of the ACP States concerned. The Community can provide backing, if desired,at 
both the planning and the implementation stage. The strategies will as a rule 
involve the operators and should therefore be coordinated with them.
Such cooperation will call for a "customized" combination in each case of 
various financial and other instruments, most of which already exist - 
EDF grants and special loans, EIB risk capital and loans, subsidized or 
otherwise, Sysmin, ECSC resources, Community budget resources, and specific 
agreements.
The Community would be contributing essentially to:
(a) the discovery of resources (preparatory work and optimized prospecting)
(b) opening up of mines
(c) rehabilitation of productive machinery
(d) creating the environment for operations - linking mining with overall 
development, stimulating economic development, integrating the mining
operations into the social fabric.
The Community can use its whole arsenal of instruments to provide financial 
support for mining strategies, whether or not within the framework of 
agreements concluded with the ACP States. By guaranteeing thorough'appraisal 
and hence stakingits own prestige on the mining operations in which it is 
involved it can attract other sources of funds as well - the World Bank, 
bilateral aid, Arab Funds and banks, commercial banks - to join in 
cofinancing schemes. It can also encourage Community operators to 
invest by backing various guarantee arrangements.

-  21  -
6.2 Provision of administrative facilities
Both the overall mining policy and particular projects will call for 
skilled and enterprising national or regional administrative services.
One reason for the ACP States' backwardness in the mining sector is 
the inadequacy of their administration, which not only fails to generate 
the initiative for prospecting, but leads to problems with the 
supervisory function - negotiations with operators, product users 
and financiers, management. Here the Community could provide training 
and technical assistance.
6.3 Exploration
1Of a total of 21 500 million spent each year on prospecting, only 
2350 million spent in the developing countries (as against 2600 million 
in the United States), and less than 250 million of that in Africa, where, 
according to the World Bank report mentioned previously, annual 
expenditure in excess of 2100 million is required. The lag in exploration 
in ACP countries is therefore likely to grow even worse, particularly 
as new prospecting techniques are so much more sophisticated and expensive.
Exploration is an expensive business, and there is no question of
2applying to the vast area covered by the ACP States the sort of 
systematic prospecting carried out in some industrialized countries 
such as France, particularly as the findings rapidly go out of date.
The following operations might be undertaken:
(a) Coverage of black Africa and the Indian Ocean by remote sensing, using 
satellites, to be financed from the EDF (funds set aside for regional 
cooperation) or, if appropriate, the Community budget.
Total world expenditure excluding Eastern bloc countries.
21 million km , as compared with the Community's 1.6 million km.

-  22  -
(b) Prospecting in certain regions for specific minerals,, e.g. chromite 
in East Africa, niobium and tantalum in the copper belt; proving of 
deposits, e.g. coal in southern Africa, iron in West Africa. EDF 
(regional cooperation), EIB (risk capital).
(c) Inventories of mining countries' potential resources (in Gabon, Botswana, 
etc.), to be financed from the EDF (national programmes).
(d) Incentives to mining companies to contribute more to the work of 
prospecting, either by acquisition of holdings or cofinancing (EDF national 
or regional resources; EIB risk capital) or by granting of priority 
access to discoveries.
6.4 Opening up of mines
As well as being undei— explored, the ACP countries find it difficult to 
mine those reserves which have been identified. There are a number of 
reasons for this:
(a) The shortage of the skills needed in government departments to cope 
with the complexities of a mining project, which requires action on 
three fronts: engineering studies, the search for finance, and the
marketing of the commodity. The Community can help here by providing 
training and technical assistance (cf. 6.2) and negotiating with 
cofinancing partners.
At the marketing stage, it should support and encourage coordination 
with Community operators and customers (see 6.3.d).
(b) Lack of infrastructure, 
and telecommunications.especially for transport, but also for 
Possible contributions from EDF, EIB,energy
cofinancing.

- 23 -
This sort of infrastructure is extremely expensive, and can hardly 
be economically viable for the mining operation alone. By their very 
nature such works need to be publicly financed, and setting the user 
tariff for the provision of the services to industry is a delicate 
matter. The Community could help the ACP States to be better prepared 
for this type of negotiation.
Mutual suspicion between governments and mine operators - the former 
fear that they will not get their due share of the wealth created, 
the latter are nervous of "political risks". By becoming a party to 
arrangements between governments and operators, the Community can 
help restore the necessary climate of confidence and resist the 
continual irritants which erode the contractually-guaranteed conditions. 
In this context, the specific agreements provided for in Annex VIII 
to the second Lomé Convention could offer an appropriate legal framework 
for balancing mining companies' interests with those of producing 
countries.
To improve the dismal investment situation, it might be helpful if 
the specific agreements were framed to strike a longer-term balance 
of interest between the parties, so that:
(i) a project covered by a specific agreement would contribute 
effectively to the country's development;

- 24 -
(ii) European mining or financing concerns would be protected against 
unilateral changes in their contracts; this would be easy to 
fit into the existing system of guarantees;
(iii) in the event of a major change affecting the project itself or
its background conditions, the contract could be adjusted accordingly 
by means, if necessary, of an agreement at the political level.
(d) The ACP States' lack of own resources, which means that they have to 
go to external sources of funds for all, or virtually all, project 
financing. Such sources of finance, or insurers, may be put off by 
these countries' indebtedness. Here the Community can contribute 
to funding (EIB, ECSC or other Community instruments) and lend its 
backing in the search for investors or cofinancing partners.
6.5 Project environment
In a developing country with its still delicate social and economic fabric 
the setting up of a modern mining complex can act as a powerful destabilizing 
force. The mine attracts a surplus of workers from the land, speeding up 
the general drift from the countryside, and spawns superfluous "services" 
in the mining towns which spring up. It increases the cost of living.

- 25 -
The immediate reaction of both governments and companies to these 
dangers is to set up artificial barriers between the mine and its 
environs, in other words to accept or even promote its isolation.
This is economically unsatisfactory (see 6.6) and can be disastrous in social 
and human terms. It should be the government's prime responsibility to 
integrate the mine into an overall development concept, see to the necessary 
town planning and provide suitable housing and social infrastructure, i.e. 
facilities for education, health services and leisure. The Community can 
contribute to this through the EDF.
6.6 Economic stimulus
A mine contributes to a country's overall development in the first instance 
by creating wealth, i.e. via the tax revenue it provides. Programming and 
strategic planning in other fields, including food and human resource strategies, 
will be conducive to the rational use of this mining revenue.
However, if a mine is to act in the wider sense as a development catalyst, 
directly generating activity in related sectors, upstream (engineering, supply 
of capital goods and materials) and downstream (primary processing, semi-finished 
products, metalworking), mining development must be tied in as tightly as 
possible to energy and industrial development. The Community can contribute 
to this either by putting up funds for studies, research, and energy or 
industrial products or by promoting regional cooperation between neighbouring 
countries which have intersecting mining and energy interests and can offer 
a Larger market.

- 26 -
Not only must the mining sector be integrated with the rest of the economy, 
therefore, there is also a need for vertical integration, with some 
downstream activities, notably first-stage processing of ore, being 
relocated in the ACP States, in conjunction with a measure of industrial 
shake-out in the Community; adjustment in this field is necessary, 
or will shortly become so, since the Community first-stage processing 
industry is steadily becoming less competitive.
Strategies combining aid to ACP States to develop local processing 
operations with a redeployment of Community manpower and financial 
resources into higher added-value downstream activities would in principle 
appear to be in the mutual interest.
6.7 Maintaining the flow of finance in the mining sector
In view of the structure of the world commodity markets and the role of 
transnational companies in those markets, there would appear to be no 
need for a comprehensive system for the stabilization of earnings from 
mining. On the other hand:
(a) Community support to maintain a source of cash flow threatened by 
temporary problems with mining operations can be most valuable; 
this is the principle behind Sysmin in Lomé II, which could be 
incorporated, subject to certain procedural improvements, in the 
next convention;
(b) other approaches could also be considered, e.g. backing for the 
setting up of national or regional mine revenue stabilization funds.

- 27 -
For these mechanisms to remain operational and effective, a degree 
of price and supply stability in the international market would be 
essential. Since there is no prospect of a self-contained ACP-EEC 
system of regular supplies at guaranteed prices, if only because that 
would be contrary to GATT rules, the Community and the ACP States should 
take on a leading role in the negotiations for international mineral 
commodity agreements designed to guarantee prices which are fair both 
to producers and consumers. This would entail the Community's coming 
up with a common policy on this issue and the ACP States' making up 
their mind to play an active part in the negotiations.

- 28 -
CONCLUSION
A policy is needed for relations between the European Community and the 
ACP States in the mining sector which reconciles the more rational and 
fruitful use of development funds with the Community's raw material supply 
requi rements.
The main objective of such a policy would be to promote cooperation between 
ore-producing countries, Community Member States and the companies which 
mine or use ores. It would aim to further the interests of all parties in 
a spirit of joint development.
When ACP States formulate mining strategies designed to attain these objectives, 
the Community should support them by every means at its disposal. There are 
three areas especially in which such contributions could be made:
1. laying the foundations for mining development - administrative structures, 
research, exploration;
2. promotion of mining operations - technical assistance, training , development 
of auxiliary infrastructure, financial and other incentives to European 
investors, contribution to costs of project financing and maintenance 
and/or rationalization of existing production facilities;
3. measures to ensure that mining development contributes more to the social
and economic development of the ore-producing countries - project environment, 
economic stimulus, international dialogue between producers and consumers.

Annex 1
COMMUNITY IMPORT DEPENDENCE (1978)
Commodity 7 . of economic dependence*
Aluminium 65-2
Copper 67.2
Lead 45.0
Tin 77.8
7.inc 52.0
I ron 45.4
Manganese 98.0
Cobalt 95.4
Chromium92.6
Molybdenum95.3
Niobium i99.5Tantalum ;
Nickel 79.6
Vanadium 97.2
Tungsten 72.9
Mercury 56.1
Ant i  mony 64.8
T i  tani urn 99.3
Zi rconium 97.7
Fluorine 28.9
Phosphates (p^O,.) 71.8
★
Here extra-EEC imports as a percentage of global demand (consumption + 
extra-EEC exports + stock variations) (in tonnes).

ORIGIN OF COmjNITY SUPPLIES BY VOLUME (1978)
(%)
Commodity
Aluo»niu®
Copper
Lead
Tin
1 inc
Panganese
Cobalt
Chromium
Ttolybdenum
Miobiu· ♦
Tantalum ·
Nickel
Vanadiu ®
Tungsten
Mercury
Antimony
Titanium
Ii rconiun
Fluorine
Phosphates
/p2o5
IronExtra-EEC 
imports 
t. metaldeveloped
countries
—  
3.653.608  
2.088.560  
652.126  
61.453  
1.070.970  
1.448.596  
17.000  
527.173  
36.719
3.876
177.430
9.841
6.836
994
20.810
506.314
76.207
123.610
5.338.490
69.364.962—
50.3
34.4
71.4
13.4
71.2  
62,1
9,3 
77,8
85.4
30.6
67.2  
50,1. 
45,0
60.3
18.4
97.2
99.6
34.2
24.4Australia'i c*n*da
J *8,625,2
3,4
34,1
3,2
8 ,8
3,1
<°,1
<0 ,1
8 ,0
6 ,6  
0,3 
6 ,6 ■  
34,60 ,2
7,8
13.3
0 ,1
38,0
0,1
*,5
<0,1
19.3of which 
EFTA•  Other 
!  Eur.“T------r---
!S
. Africa! USA
15.4
3,2
12.7  
0,9
16.4
1 1 .8
2,1
1*,5
2 ,87.8
3.9 
3,3 
1,1
3.9 
2 ,8  
0,1
11,8
0,2
1 1 ,823,0 !
! 0al  i7,0 2,8
24,6 j 8,0 I 11,5  ! 9,1! 5' 8
- j 21,3 ! -  1 26,2 ! 2,5
4,1 ! 21,3 j 2,3  ! 4,2 ; 5,7
- ! 8,2! 46' 4  i-I 5,4
2,2 ! 1,41 1 ·  i »  3,8  i 4,2S  · ♦ ’
25,6 ! 31,9j O'10,1 I 0,2
<0,1! ° ' 1J < 0,1 6,6 j 2,9
0,1 1 5,9 
1J 20,8  
17,3 j <  0,1
<0,1 1 0,5 j 0,1 0,3 1 23,5
IT1rrfr
9,7 j 18,2
! 4' 5j 0,6<0,1 I
3,8  ! 
3,0  | 
2,3  | 
43,7  I 
0,3  I 
50,2  !0,9 
*,5 
* ,1  
*,8 
1,8 
0,3 
■ 2,1 
0 , 6  
63,0„ .  .  of which.Developing,______
countri
es j *cp
i (+ OCT)!  Eastern ·  ...
bloc 0ther
46.5
58.1
20.6
83,9
25.7  
33,6  
90,5
13.1
1*,2
57.8  
22,4
7,5
36.0
21.1
42,2
0,7
2,1
29,7
63,945.4  
34,0
4.2 
7,4 
3,7
20.5  
83,9
5.2
16,1
0,3
3,3
<0,1
17,1
16,3
I 47,9  1 17,73 ,2
7.5
4.5
2.7
3.0
2.1 
0,2
8.7 
0,4
10.4
42.4  
16,6  
18,6
5, *
2,1
0,7
32,9
1,6
3,53,5
2 ,2
0,4
11,6
2,4
34.0
3,2
10.1  
<0,1

Annex 3
ORIGIN OF COMMUNITY SUPPLIES BY VOLUME (1978) 
IMPORTS FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
%
1  1
!  Commodity !Developing 
count ri es1111Africa1
iLatin America 111  .î  Asia 1
1  Ij  Aluminium {46,5111130,6i
j  15,6 1 0,31  1Copper j58,111130,7 j 23,0 j 4,4
Lead j20,61118,4 i 12,0 J 0,2
Tin J83,91118,6 j  22,5 j 52,8
1Zinc |25,71113,3 j  21,5 j 0,9
1Manganese {33,611122,4 ! 10,9 J  0,3
Cobalt {90,511190,4! °'11
1
Chromium j13,11116,4 j 0,4 j 6,3
iMolybdenum J14,2111- ! 14,2 I
Niobium + Tantalum [ 57,81112,9 ! 54,7!  ° ' 2
Nickel j22,4111- Î 4,2 j 18,2
1Vanadium j7,51116,3 }  1,21Tungsten j 36,01113,3 J 10,7 j  22,0
iMercury J21,111121,11}
1Antimony J42,2'1111,1 ! 29,8 ! 11,31
Titanium J'2,1111-!
1 ! 2,1IZirconium J0,31110,1111 !  °'2
Fluorine j29,711113,5 { 16,2 11Phosphates J
X63,9111157,4 !  0,3j .! 6,2
111Iron j
147,91111118,81
j  28,5
1î  1
1  '0,6 j1

ORIGIN OF COMMUNITY SUPPLIES BY VALUE (1980)
CommodityExtra-EEC
C LA S S  1of which
C LA S S  IIA C P  ♦ of which
inports 
'000 ECUEFTAOther
Eur.U S A C  ITMdlAustraliaSA + 
Namibia00 + 
OTAfricaLatin
AmericaAsiaOtherCUSSmSecret
Aluninium 2.025.137 67,7 37,1 11^1 11,2 2.4 5,9< 0,1 27,2 22,7 10,8 15,8 0,6-5,1-
Copper 3.607.513 34,9 4,8 3,9 7,3 8,0 2,7 7,4 58,9 30,7 27.5 26,7 4,7 < 0,1 6,2*
Lead 74,6 8,1 4.9· 11,3 7.0 38,5 4,7 21, » 1,8 6.6 12,6 1,5 1,2 3,5 -
Tin 717.311 9,3 0,6 0,3 3,1 0,4 2,1 2,5 89,0 7,9 8,1 15,1 65,8 - 1,7 -
Zinc 180.136 63,4 16,5 7,6 3,7 28,4 5,1 1,8 34,4 3,2 2,7 27,9 1.4 2,4 2,2 -
Iron ?.63?.913 31,6 15,9 1,5 6,1 15,1 7,5 5,5 44,4 14,5 15,6 28,5 0.3 < 0,1 4,0 -
Manganese 3?6.603 ??,7 32,8 9,1 2.3 0,1 1,8 25,8 22,3 14,5 16,5 5,5 0,3- 4,0 1,0
Cobalt 630 .39? 13,9 4,7< 0,1 1,3 4,9 0.4< 0,1 86,0 82,7 86,0.< 0,1 < 0,1 - 0.1.
Chromium 334.703 67,1 12,2 13,1 1,3 - < 0,1 39,6 22,6 2.1 20.3 0,8 1,3 - 8.2 2,1.
Molybdenum 507 .7’ ·’ 68,5 6,7 0,5 ‘0,2 20,6 < 0,1 <0,1  . 30,2 -- 29,7 0,5 - 1,3 -
Niobium 31.377 17,8 0,1- 2,7 15,0 - - 82,2 - - 82,2 - - < 0.1-
Tantalum 39.376 99,0 2,7 0,6 91,7 - - - 0,2 - - - 0,2 - 0,8 -
Nickel 978.943 56,0 7,3 4,4 8,1 19,1 10,0 6,4 32,1 22,4 2,0 5,2 24,9 - 11,9 -
Vanadium 59.831 44,7 3T,1< 0,1 1,8 - - 11,5 4,1 3,7 0,4 - - 51,2  . -
Tungsten 67.837 60,5 33,0 2,8 3,5 9,4 11,6 0,1 19,4 3,8 3,9 2,5 13,0 - 20,1 -
Mercury 9.004 70,0 8,8 52,2 4,7 1,3 -< 0,1 5,2 0,6 2,7 2,4 0,1 - 24,6 0,2
Antimony ?0 .330 29,2 4,3 5,9 0,9 3,5 8,5 6,0 58,9 - 1,4 38,8 18,7 - 11,9 -
Titaniun 199 . ?5? 86,9 ?0,0 2,5 10,7 10,8 18,9 3,4 3,5 0,2 0,2 - 3,3 - 9,6 -
Zirconium 31.??4 97,9 1,2< 0,1 22,4 0,6 57,8 15,9 0,7 - - - 0,7 - 1,4 -
Fluorine 49.716 53,8 14,1 22,4 0,3 - - 17,0 24,0 8,5 15,4 3,2 - 5,4 19,6 2,6
Phosphates878.?07 22,7 2,2 0,1 19,3 0,1 - 1,0 68,4 14,5 59,6 0,3 8,4 0,1 7,4 1,5
TOTAL14.538.576 48,4 13,0 4,4 9,2 8.9 6,7 5,5 45,9 20,4 20,4 18,2 7,1 0,2 5,5 0,2
Class I: developed countries.
Class II: developing countries.
Class III: state-trading countries.Source: Nimexe.

Annex 5
WORLD MINERAL RESERVES
Commodity World
(tonnes)Developed
countries
XDevelopi n 
Xg countries 
ACP,
0D and 0TEastern
bloc
X
Aluminium 23.400.000.000 23,1 73,5 50,7 3,4
Copper 555.000.000 28,9 58,1 H , 7 13,0 # 
0
Lead 165.200.000 65,9 * 16,8 2,6 17,3
Tin 9.570.000 6,1 67,6 2,3 26,3
Z i ne 252.310.000 72,8 13,3 0,9 13,9
Iron 93.600.000.000 35,2 31,0 1,5 33,8
Manganese 1.835.000.000 52,5 9; 3 5,5 38,2
Cobalt 3.665.000 10,2 62,5 32,8 27,3
Chromi urn 1.090.400.000 65,1 29,0 28,4 5,9
Molybdenum 9.480.000 51,4 38,5 0;3 10,1
Niobium 7.940.000 1,7 89,5 3,3 8,8
Tantalum 65.910 6,4 86,7 67,4 6,9
Nickel 82.030.000 21,1 48,9 20,5 30,0
Vanad iurn 15.935.000 51,6 2,0 - 46,4
Tungs t  en 2.976.000 33,9 9,4 0,4 56,7
Mercury 186.500 51,5 14,4 - 34,1
Antimony 4.320.000 20,25 22,00 - 57,75
T itanium 427.750.000 66,8 18,9 2,7 14,i
Zirconium 44.740.000 56,6 31,3 - 12,1
Fluorine (35% CaF^) 300.000.000 57,7 32,6 4,8 9,7
Phosphates70.920.000.000 17,2 69,4 1,0 13,4
Based on: Regional distribution of mining production and reserves of mineral commodities
in the world. Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Hanover, 
January 1982. '
Evaluation by Commission departments

Annex 6
MINERAL RESERVES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
%
CommodityDeveloping
countriesLatin 
Ameri caAsi a Afri ca Other
Aluminium 73,5 26,2 9,9,  35,6 1,7
Copper 58,1 37,3 9,211,6 ~
Lead 16,8 7,9 1,0 4,9 3,0
Tin 67,6 14,6 47,7 5,3 -
2 i  nc 13,3 6,3 3,8 1,9 1,3
I ron 31,0 20,3 8,1 2,4 0,2
Manganese 9,3 2,3 1,4 5,6 -
Cobalt 62,5 1,2 38,7 22,6
Chromium 29,0 0,2 0,428,4 -
Molybdenum 38,5 34,0 4,4 - 0,1
Niobium 89,5 82,4 - 7,1 -
Tantalum 86,7 5,5 ‘  1 2,4 68,8 -
Nickel 48,9 6,1 40,1 1,7 1,0
Vanad i  um 2,0 1,4 0,6 - -
Tungsten 9,4 3,7 5,1 0,6 -
Mercury 14,4 4,6 ’ 1,0 6’ , 5 2,3
Antimony 22,0 15,0 4,9 - 2,1
Titanium 18,9 0,2 14,4 4,3 -
Zirconium 31,3 .2,0 28,8 0,5 -
Fluorine (35% CaF^) 32,6 17,4 6,0 9,2 -
Phosphates 69,4 2,1 3,863,5 •
Based on: Regional distribution of mining production and reserves of mineral commodities
in the world. BundesanstaIt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Hanover, 
January 1982.
Evaluation by Commission departments.

A n n e x
COMMUNITY IMPORTS FROM ACP STATES 
i  Including oil imports |  Excluding oil imports
I I I I I
{  Average |  j  Average j  J
i  77-78/79-80 1980 i  77-78-79-80 |  1980 |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ( .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ^
I I
 I I I
!  1. Oil !  37,70 X !  50,08 X \ i
j-------- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------ 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -f- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - !
I I
 I I I
!  2. Uranium !  1,81 X !  2,23 X !  2,91 X |  4,47 X !
i--------------------- j --------------j --------------- f-------------- 1 --------------{
I  I
 I  I I
3. Ores & derivatives i  13,42 X !  13,03 * !  21,54 X !  26,10 X ' !
------------------------------------------------  „ 4 . ----------------------------------------- 4--------------------------------------------- 1---------------------------------------- 1 ----------------------------------------I
3.
1 Copper !  6,33 X . i  6,17 X !  10,1-6 X j  12,36 X I
3.2 Iron !  2,40 X !  2,12 X !  3,85 X !  4,25 X !
3.3 Aluminium  !  2,29 X i  2,57 X i  3,68 X !  5,15 X !
3.4 Diamonds i  0,65 X i  0,46 X î  1,04 X j  0,92 X |
3.5 Phosphates  !  0,61 X !  0,58 X !  0,98 X !  1,16 X !
I I I  I I
3.6 Tin {  0,46 X !  0,32 X !  0,74 X !  0,64 X !
I I  I  I  I
3.7 Manganese  !  0,31 X !  0,26 X !  0,50 X !  0,52 X !î  î  î  î  î
3.8 Gold i  0,16 X |  0,31 X !  0,26 X !  0,62 X !I j W  I j j
3.9 Silver i  0,05 X i  0,08 X |  0,08 X i  0,16 X !
3.10 Chromium !  0,04 X !  0,04 X !  0,06 X !  0,08 X !
3.11 Zinc i  0,04 X !  0,02 X !  0,06 X !  0,04 X !
3.12 Lead i  0,03 X i  0,02 X i  0,05 X !  0,04 X !
3.13 Residues !  i l l  !
and other |  0,05 X !  0,08 X !  0,08 X '  !  0,16 X I
-------------------------------------------------------- 1------------------------------------------- ! -----------------------------------------f ----------------------------------------- !------------------------------------------ !
. 1
 I I I I
4. Other commodities !  47,07 * !  34,66 X !  75,55 X !  69,43 X !
------------------- 1--------------- î-------------- r-------------- ! --------------î
I I
 I I
I I I I
Total' I  100 X i  100 X !  100 X !  100 X !
Mainly agricultural commodities and derivatives.

COMITÉ D E  LIAISON
DES INDUSTRIES DE MÉTAUX NON FERREUX 
D E  LA COMMUNAUTÉ EUROPÉENNE
Capital expenditure on all projects excepting uranium
In 1981 US $ x 100C
Countries 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Q evetoped co u n tfiie i
Africa
Australia
Europe
comprising :
EEC
Spain & Portugal  
North America67.219
50.657
243.448
146.80145.296 
183.602 
258.361
134.84749.990 
197.367 
216.000
153.18868.447
103.530
148.837
99.81928.488
192.843
202.771
(182.776)
(1.614)
111.54317.300 
241.505 
274.961
(261.752)  
(10.149)
102.692
Oceania (Others) - 4.412 - — “
Sub total 508.125 626.518 616.545 420.633 535.645 636.458
L e a-developed cou.ntAJ.e.i
Africa
As ia
Latin America  
Oceania31.772
3.528
68.188
27.6482.628 
13.437 
56.897 
31.3033.443
45.958
23.340
22.5447.201
24.478
18.82614.887
481
98.175
7.53123.192
751
204.085
21.900
Others - —'
Sub total 131.136 104.265 95.285 50.505 121.074 249.928
TOTAL 639.261 730,783 711.830 471.138 656.719 886.386
Pe.ficc.nta.qe. dt& tfi-ib u tto n  
by coun-tAy qfioup
Developed  
Less developed  
Total79
21
10086
14
10087
13
10089
11
10082
18
10072
28
100oo

COMITÉ D E  LIAISON
DES INDUSTRIES D E MÉTAUX NON FERREU X  
DE LA COMMUNAUTÉ EUROPÉENNE
Exploration expenditure or. ell projects excepting uranium
In 1981 US Î x 1CCC
Countries 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Developed countxlci*
Africa 11.701 12.389 9. 129 9. 310 15.133 13.636
Australia US.322 95.579 99.896 58.289 100.899 95.2C9
Europe
comprising :
EEC
Spain & Portugal83.620 89.933 73.999 82.300 100.826
(85.773)
(7.589)85.569
(73.938)
(5.985)
North America SO.01S * 4  * 4  -  412 39.319 93.627 70.702 83.893
Oceania (Others! - - - - 936 277
Not sub-divisei 21.861 26.201 5.510 5.726 - -
Sub total 212.S19 2ie. 51>* 177.753 199.252 287.996 276.539
Lea-developed to untrlei
Africa 327 759 6.370 8.190 9.511 6.778
Asia 5.809 8.651 11.353 15.702 8.880 7.797
Latin America 10.176 2C.577 17.038 20.167 32.969 99.923
Oceania 601 2.000 1.012 623 581 1.255
Others 10.053 12.368 3.199 - - -
Sub total 26.966 99.350 38.917 99.632 51.936 60.253
TOTAL 239.MBS 262.86« 216.670 293.889 339.932 338.787
Percentage dtitrtbutlon  
by countn/  nroup
Developed 89 83 82 82 85 82
Less develcpcd 11 17 18 16 15 16
Tctel 1ÓC IOC 100 i o : j ic e 1?C