31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/71 
the public authorities, based on advantages that this 
choice holds for society as a whole. Choice of this type 
can be made, which would favour the use of agricultural 
raw materials, and in particular for environmental 
reasons.' 
Done at Brussels, 19 September 1990. 
1. The Economic and Social Committee fully sup­
ports the Commission's intention to take appropriate 
action in support of the international cooperation plan 
put forward by the Colombian government. 
1.1. The Committee also agrees that exceptional 
measures need to be extended to two other major drug-
producing countries in Latin America: Peru and Bolivia. 
2. Notwithstanding the reservations and suggestions 
which follow, the Committee particularly welcomes: 
2.1. The Commission's decision to increase financial 
support to Colombia by making 60 million ECU avail­
able, over a four-year period, from Articles 931 and 
9490 of the Community budget (!). 
(*) 931: Financial and technical cooperation with Latin American 
developing countries. 
9 490: North-South co-operation programme to combat 
drugs. 15.3. At the same time, unless there are overriding 
environmental or other policy considerations, pro­
motion of non-food usage of agricultural development 
will have to be consistent with the objectives of CAP 
reform. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
2.2. The draft Council Regulation extending to Col­
ombia, Bolivia and Peru the generalized system of pref­
erences (GSP) treatment accorded to the least developed 
countries (LDC). 
2.3. The draft Council Decision applying preferential 
treatment to Community imports of a number of ECSC 
products. 
2.4. The draft Council Resolution concerning the 
coordination of bilateral aid from the Member States 
and aid from the Community under Colombia's special 
cooperation plan. 
3. General comments 
3.1. Colombia's special cooperation plan deserves 
much more substantial support than that proposed by 
the Commission. Bolivia and Peru should also receive Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation extending to Bolivia, Colombia and Peru 
the generalized tariff preferences applied to certain products originating in the least-developed 
countries (LDC) and amending Regulation (EEC) Nos 3896/89, 3897/89 and 3898/89 of 18 
December 1989 
(90/C 332/21) 
On 5 July 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee on an 
optional basis on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for External Relations, Trade and Development Policy, which was responsible 
for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, drew up its Opinion on 3 September 
1990. (Rapporteur: Mr Cavazzuti). 
At its 279th plenary session (meeting of 19 Sepember 1990) the Economic and Social 
Committee unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
No C 332/72 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
more substantial assistance; other budget heading (*) 
could be used in addition to these mentioned in para­
graph 2.1 above. 
3.2. The Committee fully endorses the aim of taking 
part in the campaign against drug abuse. 
However, it is just as important to prevent the consump­
tion and, above all, trafficking and distribution of drugs 
as it is to prevent production (2). As long as there is an 
effective demand for cocaine, poverty and the fact that 
coca is comparatively easy to cultivate mean that pro­
duction will continue, no matter what incentives to 
produce other crops are on offer. 
3.3. Finding an alternative source of income to the 
cultivation and processing of coca is a major problem 
requiring far more vigorous action and more compre­
hensive cooperation programmes than those envisaged 
at present. Proposals should lay down the criteria for 
taking action and ensure that aid is commensurate with 
the progress of individual projects and programmes. 
3.4. As cooperation is to be funded from existing 
appropriations, the programme will come under ordi-
(*) 93 cooperation with Asian and Latin American developing 
countries; 931 Financial and technical cooperation with Latin 
American developing countries; 9 311 Promotion of trade 
relations with Latin American developing countries; 9 312 
Measures to encourage regional or sub-regional integration 
between Latin American developing countries; 9 313 Cooper­
ation with Latin American developing countries on energy; 
9 314 Training operations for nationals of Latin American 
developing countries; operations to promote Community 
investment in Latin American developing countries in the 
context of economic and trade agreements; 940 Expenditure 
on the organization of seminars on the Communiy's GSP; 
941 Community's contribution towards schemes concerning 
developing countries carried out by non-governmental organ­
izations (NGO); 9 411 Contribution to the financing of pur­
chase of food products and seeds by non-governmental and 
international organizations; 947 Aid to training institutes for 
nationals of developing countries; 949 Programme of North-
South cooperation schemes in the context of the campaign, 
against drug abuse; 950 Aid to disaster victims in developing 
and other countries; 954 AIDS control in developing 
countries; 958 Social programme to combat hunger in the 
world; 990 Operations under commercial and economic co­
operation agreements with third countries; 709 Energy plan­
ning; Ref. general budget of the European Communities for 
the financial year 1990 (OJ No L 24, 29. 1. 1990). See also 
Committee Opinion on EC economic and trade cooperation 
with Latin America of 31 January 1990 (OJ No C 75, 
26. 3. 1990). 
(2) See also the Committee's Opinion on money laundering. nary administrative expenditure. This will place a furth­
er strain on already scant financial resources, which 
will have to be redistributed amongst poor countries 
(i.e. taking from others in order to give to Colombia). 
3.5. Although Colombia has been the country to 
introduce a plan to combat drugs, and it is a key 
centre for the transit, sorting and processing of the raw 
material, there can be no denying that Bolivia and 
above all Peru produce far more coca (see appendix II) 
and are consequently major suppliers of the inter­
national narcotics market. 
3.6. The Committee therefore feels that aid should 
perhaps also be granted to Peru and Bolivia from the 
same budget items, (which should be topped up) as part 
of a comprehensive programme for these countries, 
incorporating the features mentioned in the second part 
of 3.3 above. 
3.7. The Committee is pleased that the Commission 
intends to seek additional resources to finance measures 
in support of Latin American drug-producing countries, 
but regrets that this will only apply to 1992/1993. 
3.8. Aid should be used to introduce alternative 
crops to replace drugs and the income they generate; 
the Committee particularly stresses the need to deploy 
resources in the regions actually affected, so that the 
local population gains the benefit. 
3.9. It is regrettable that the Commission and the 
Council did not make a firmer political commitment to 
helping these three Andean countries to switch pro­
duction as of 1990. The Committee is forced to conclude 
that they are content to use the GSP as a palliative. 
4. The coordination of aid from the Community and 
Member States (particularly the latter) would appear 
to be a mere declaration of intent: in the Committee's 
view, there is very little chance of changing the status 
quo (particularly as regards the second objective), 
whereby each Member State draws up and implements 
its own policy of co-operation with developing 
countries with the aim of securing market advantages 
for its own products, regardless of the economic, social 
and political situation in the recipient country. 
5. Turning to the proposal to apply to Colombia, 
Peru and Bolivia, the preferential GSP treatment 
reserved for the poorest countries (see appendix I), the 
Committee would make the following points: 
31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/73 
5.1. The Committee grants that the GSP is the instru­
ment with direct market access initially available to the 
Commission for increasing market outlets for products 
from the three countries, particularly products which 
reflect local skills, climate and culture. 
5.2. However, the Committee notes that the GSP is 
being in an increasingly wide range of situations (e.g. 
Central and Eastern Europe). 
It would remind the Commission that the GSP should 
be used strictly as an aid to development, and that it 
should be tailored to the level of development in the 
recipient country. The application of LDC treatment 
to Colombia, Bolivia and Peru should therefore be on 
an exceptional, temporary basis (the Commission is 
proposing a four-year period). 
5.3. The Commission correctly observes that the fall 
in the price of coffee has reduced Colombia's foreign 
curency reserves. The Community should take this 
opportunity to call for the reintroduction of the inter­
national coffee agreement as a means of ensuring better 
financial resources for coffee producers in the region. 
Although a reduction in customs duties on coffee 
imported into the Community is unlikely to have a 
significant effect on their economies, it would at least 
be a token of the Community's concern for producer 
countries. Would it not be possible to introduce a 
kind of Community excise duty on coffee, and use its 
proceeds to set up a fund to help these countries diver­
sify their economies ? This type of initiative would help 
ensure that all Europeans are aware of the scale of the 
drugs problem and, more to the point, its disastrous 
economic and social effects. 
Done at Brussels, 19 September 1990. 5.4. It is difficult to tell the GSP will have a real 
impact, given the phased reductions in protective tariffs 
currently being negotiated in the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in Geneva. These affect 
goods in general and the ECSC products in particular 
(30% cut in customs tariffs). 
5.5. Demand for agricultural products (whether 
processed or unprocessed) and unsophisticated textile 
products as in the community is relatively inelastic, 
regardless of the level of EC protection, there is a risk 
that the advantages at present enjoyed by countries 
with similar, if not worse, problems may simply be 
transferred to the Andean countries. 
6. The financial impact statement attached to the 
Commission proposals is far from convincing. 
If the proposed programmes succeed in doing more 
than merely transferring the source of Community 
imports from one set of developing countries to another, 
and actually bring about an increase, however slight, 
in overall production, this is bound to have some cotton 
and chemical products being particularly vulnerable. 
7. In spite of these drawbacks, the Committee is not 
against implementing the proposed measures. It does 
however hope that in the light of its comments the 
Community's policy on aid to these countries will be 
promptly reappraised, restructured and assigned more 
specific, appropriate objectives and more generous 
resources. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
No C 332/74 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
APPENDIX I 
Least developed countries 
224 
228 
232 
236 
240 
244 
247 
252 
257 
260 
264 
280 
284 
306 
310 
311 
324 
328 
334 
338 
342 Sudan 
Mauritania 
Mali 
Burkina Faso 
Niger 
Chad 
Cape Verde 
The Gambia 
Guinea Bissau 
Guinea 
Sierra Leone 
Togo 
Benin 
Central African Republic 
Equatorial Guinea 
Sao Tome e Principe 
Rwanda 
Burundi 
Ethiopia 
Djibouti 
Somalia 350 
352 
366 
375 
386 
391 
395 
452 
652 
656 
660 
666 
667 
672 
675 
676 
684 
807 
812 
817 
819 Uganda 
Tanzania 
Mozambique 
Comoros 
Malawi 
Botswana 
Lesotho 
Haiti 
North Yemen 
South Yemen 
Afghanistan 
Bangladesh 
Maldives 
Nepal 
Bhutan 
Burma (MYANMAR) 
Laos 
Tuvalu 
Kiribati 
Tonga 
Western Samoa 
APPENDIX U 
Cultivation and production of Coca in Andean countries 
Colombia 
Coca 
Cultivated (hectares) 
Destroyed (hectares) 
Production (tons) 1986 
25 000 
760 
20 000 1987 
25 000 
460 
20 000 1988 
27 230 
230 
21600 1989 
42 500 
641 
35 500 1990 
(Estimate) 
42 500 
800 
34 000 
Bolivia 
OK. 
Cultivated (hectares) 
Destroyed (hectares) 
Production (tons) 1986 
37 000 
200 
51800 1987 
40 300 
1842 
54 961 1988 
49 976 
1476 
67 900 1989 
53 920 
2 504 
80 004 1990 
(Estimate) 
55 000 
5000 
81400 
Peru 
Coca 
Cultivated (hectares) 
Destroyed (hectares) 
Production (tons) 1986 
107 500 
0 
104 925 1987 
109 500 
353 
109 145 1988 
115 630 
5 130 
110 500 1989 
120 415 
1285 
124 403 1990 
(Estimate) 
132 457 
6000 
108 544 
Source: US State Department