ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM (83) 736 
 
 
 
Vol. 1983/0 261 
  
 
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 openi ng to the public of the historical archives of the European Econom ic 
Community and the European Atomic 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), this f ile 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. 
Februar 198 3 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 vom 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.  
C O M M IS S IO N  OF THE E U R O P E A N  C O M M U N IT IE S
C0MC83) 736 final
Brussels, 16 December 1983
FOLLOW-UP TO UNCTAD VI - COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES OF  
EARNINGS FROM COMMODITY EXPORTS
(Communication from the Commission to the Council)
C0MC83) 736 final

I. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE COMMUNICATION
1. In preparing for the Belgrade Conference the Commission proposed that
as far as the compensation for losses of export earnings from commodities  
was concerned the Community could :
(a) appeal to the other commodity-importing countries or groups of  
countries to set up a system for stabilizing export earnings from  
commodities for the LLDCs and state its readiness to declare the  
Community's intention to extend the Stabex system to LLDCs not  
covered by the Lomé Convention ;
(b) declare its readiness - as part of the review by the IMF of the  
functioning of the compensatory financing facility - to take account  
of the specific problems presented by the loss of export earnings  
from commodities ;
(c) declare its readiness to continue studying, under the auspices of  
UNCTAD and in close cooperation with the IMF, the different methods  
and systems of compensating for reduced export earnings from  
commodities, with the idea of giving preferential treatment to
the least developed countries and those most dependent on raw  
material exports. (1)
2. Discussions within the Council and in the on-the-spot coordination in  
Belgrade enabled the Community to work out a joint position on points  
(b) and (c) (2) and to take part in the Conference, within Group B and  
with the other regional groups, on that basis.
(1) See doc. 7148/83 - UNCTAD 19 of 24 May 1983,
(2)"Readiness to play an active part in the forthcoming review by
the IMF of the operation of the compensatory financing facility under
its own procedures ;
- Readiness of the EEC to continue studying within UNCTAD - taking due  
account of the work carried out in the relevent fora - other systems  
stabilizing earnings from commodities'exports for those developing  
countries which depend to a great extent on commodity exports, bearing  
in mind the desirability of preferential treatment for the least  
developed countries". 1

-  2 -
3. The discussions held at both Council and Coreper level and in the  
on-the-spot coordination (1) did not, however, result in a joint  
position regarding point (a) (extension of Stabex to non-associated  
LLDCs)(2). It was thus decided to postpone any decision on this matter  
until after the Conference had finished.
4. Parellel discussions within the Conference resulted in the adoption (3)  
of resolution 157 (VI) on the compensation of export earning losses
on commodities (see Annex II), which basically asks the International  
Monetary Fund to press on with its work and the UNCTAD Secretary-  
General to arrange for a group of experts to be set up the study the  
matter of compensating losses on export earnings from commodities on the  
basis of fairly clear-cut terms of reference.
5. In its study the group of experts was asked to take account not only  
of existing mechanisms (IMF,Stabex) and studies already carried out
on the subject, but also of suggestions and proposals made by countries  
that are members of the organization .  To that end, the latter countries  
were asked (see § 4 of the resolution) to send the UNCTAD Secretary-General  
by 31 December, any suggestions or proposals they thought might make a  
useful contribution.
6.  The aim of this communication is to propose that the Community express  
in practical terms the importance it attaches to this matter by sending  
the UNCTAD Secretary-General on behalf of itself and its Member States  
a proposal of this kind and to define the content of that proposal.
(1) To facilitate the discussions a Commission staff paper containing a  
detailed analysis of the cost of setting up a system ot this kind for  
the main importers and the advantages for the LLDCs involved was sent  
to the Member States on 13 June.
(2) See doc, 8089/83 rev.1 (UNCTAD 27 - anr^xl).
(3) 90 votes for (including Community Member States), 1 against (USA), and  
10 abstentions (including Australia and Canada).

- 3 -
II. PROPOSALS FOR A CONTRIBUTION FROM THE COMMUNITY AND ITS MEMBER STATES,
BY 31 DECEMBER 1983, TO THE FOLLOW-UP TO UNCTAD VI
(a) Content and main aim of the contribution
7. This initial contribution is designed neither to reiterate the position  
adopted at the Conference by the Community on improving the operation  
of the IMF compensatory financing facility nor to make detailed com­
ments on the proposals put forward by the UNCTAD Secratariat regarding  
the establishment of a global export earnings compensation system  
(this could be done in due course when the final report of the
group of experts is discussed).
8.  On these two points, the letter to be sent to the Secretariat-General  
on behalf of the Community and its Member States could therefore be  
limited to :
- stressing that the Community remains committed to implementing  
resolution 157 (VI), and in particular paragraph 1, with referenceto  
the statement of interpretation made by a number of its Member  
States (1) ;
- declaring the Community's readiness to discuss, at the appropriate  
time, the Secretariat-General's proposals for setting up a global  
Stabex system, and underlining its misgivings at this stage as to  
whether the proposed system would be able to take sufficient account  
of the concept of diversity (by country and product) or to provide  
sufficient guarantees in respect of financial viability and
t-
management.
9. The purpose of the letter would, however, be to :
- send the Conference Secretariat-General by way of a contribution  
following up paragraph 4 of resolution 157 (VI),the results of the
(1) UK (speaking also for Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands) :  
"Para. 1 of this resolution should not be interpreted as putting  
into question the non-discriminatory treatment accorded by the IMF  
to all members under its articles and operating procedures".

- 4 -
study undertaken after the Paris Conference on LLDCs regarding the  
possibility of extending a Stabex-system type to LLDCs not party to  
the Lome Convention (see Annex III).
- indicate the C om m unity's reserve in m aking her position ultimately  
k n o w n  o n  the possible extension of Stabex benefits to L L D C s  not  
concerned b y  the L o m é  Convention, in the light of the following :
- the effect that the A C P /E E C  negotiations for the renewal of the  
Convention w ill  have u p o n  the form  an d  contents of the system;
- the position held b y  the m ajor importers of primary products in  
establishing a  compensatory system, of the Stabex model, in favour  
of the L L D C s.
(b) Conclusions of the study
10. The table below summarizes the conclusions of the simulation used in  
the study and gives a retrospective evaluation of the shortfalls on  
export earnings with which the main importers (2) would have had to  
contend if a Lome II-type Stabex system (3) had been in operation in  
respect of all LLDCs over the five year period from 1974 to 1978 (lower  
figure) or the period from 1977 to 1981 (upper figure).
(1) But including jute and products derived therefrom.
(2) These "losses" are usually higher than the transfers actually made  
on account of the effect of the thresholds and the rules concerning  
certain abatements to be made.
(3) Commodities of agricultural origin only ; jute and jute products  
included in the simulation ; gross losses calculated product by product.

- 5 -
Importers Total losses to be  
coveredMIO. US dollars  
For 27 LLDCs  
and ACP States
EEC
USA
Japan
Scandinavian States
Switzerland
Austria
Austra lia
Canada
New Zealand
Tota l660/860
273/343
143/160
39/59
41/52
18/25
20/22
18/22
9/12
1221/1549572/747 (1)  
231/285 
127/140 
36/49 
35/46 
16/23 
18/21 
15/18 
8/10
1058/1339
(1) Already covered by ACP-EEC Conventions
(c)  Grounds for the recommended approach
11. The study clearly illustrates that the result of an initiative involving  
the Community alone would be relatively modest, as only three (1) of  
the non-associated LLDCs could gain any significant benefit.
The discussions held at the Belgracfe Conference and the declarations  
made on the adoption of the resolutions also showed that three  
importing countries (USA, Canada and Australia) were not willing  
to participate for substantive reasons (preference for a balance  
of payments-type approach and hence for a solution to be found via  
the means offered by the IMF).
12. The Commission does not feel that these reasons are sufficient for it.  
to drop for good the taking of an independent initiative in this field  
at a later stage.
(1) Bangladesh, Haiti and Afghanistan.
(2) Based on the abovementioned retrospective simulation, the additional  
losses to be covered by the Community would be between US $ 90 m and  
US $ 115 m over a period of five years.

-  6 -
13. The discussion on export earnings compensation will provide the Community  
with one of the best opportunities of showing, within UNCTAD in 1983,  
its real desire follow up the resolutions adopted at the Belgrade  
Conference in a constructive and practical manner and the same goes for  
the position taken by the Community on thisquest ion at the Paris  
Conference on the LLDCs in September 1981 (see paragraph 2 of Annex III).
14. Once the Community, as negotiations are opened for renewal of the ACP-EEC  
Convention, has reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining the product-by­
product approach that is a feature of the Stabex system and this approach  
comes to be discussed by some of its partners in Group B, the Community  
must clearly stress, via an initiative of the type proposed, the coherence  
of its overall approach to the problem :  the setting-up of a compensatory  
product-by—product system in favour of all L L C D s  would in its eyes b e a
justified and realistic aim.
15. The position of another major importer, namely Japan, has to date been  
relatively reserved. However, it has still not been officially pronounced.
A  change o f  attitude in the immediate future is unlikely, given the  
present policy of budgetary restrictions.
However, the situation might be different if the date by which a  
decision has to be taken were-as proposed by the Commission - deferred  
until after the signature of the new ACP-EEC Convention. The table  
above shows how important Japan's participation in an initiative of  
the kind the Community might propose would be to the LLDCs :  loss of  
earnings of between US $ 143 m and US $ 160 m (of which $ 127 m. to  
S 140 m would go to those ACP countries (1) which are not covered by the  
"all destinations" derogation).
16. The ooen and even positive reactions shown so far by the Scandinavian  
countries, Switzerland, Austria and New Zealand suggest that a Community
(1) 19 of the 27 ACP/LLDCs

approach 0f the kind proposed might encourage them to uphold such  
a position. Their contribution would be considerable :  earning losses  
(for all the countries in question) of between US $ 107 m and US $ 142  
of which $ 95 m to $ 118 m would go to those ACP countries which are  
not covered by the "all destinations" derogation.
III. CONCLUSIONS
17. As a mark of the Community's resolve to follow up, in a constructive  
and practical manner,
- the resolutions it helped to get adopted at UNCTAD VI ; and
- the position taken by it at the Paris Conference on LLDCs, it is  
proposed that the request made in paragraph 4 of resolution 157 (VI)  
be complied with and a letter sent by 31 December 1983 to the UNCTAD  
Secretary-General containing the points made in paragraphs 7,
8 and 9 of this communication.
I!

co!.„.:üNiTjES B e lg r a d e ,  June 1983
THE COUNCIL '.  _ _  Ü D S 9 /8 3
REV. 1
V R/LI7.:iTE
CNUCED 27
REPORT
from :  the Special Group on actions in favour of LLDCs  
to :  Heads of Member States Delegations·at UNCTAD VI
Subject :  Special actions in favour of LLDCs and other low  
income developing countries
I. Background
4
1. The latest meetings of the EEC Council and COREFER have
m
left the question of STABEX extension to LLDCs still unresolved  
because of a reserve and of the interpretation of the  
following text -which is still between brackets
t
/"Appeal to the other countries or groups of countries  
importing commodities to set up a system for stabilizing  
earnings from the export of commodities in favour of the  
LLDCs and willingness to state, in that event, the EEC's  
'intention to extend, in parallel, cover under STABEX to  
those LLDCs not covered by the Lomé Convention_J7.
2. The‘resei've has been entered by the Danish delegation v.'ni ct 
insists on deleting the notion of conditionality, (') and on the'  
need for thé Community to take an autonomous initiative on
that issue.
*  *.·««« / ·  ·  ·  ,
(  )  "In that event" and "in parallel".
8089/83  REV. 1 CNUCED 27  
R/L’E

-  2 -
//
3· The interpretation problem concerns the words "in that event" 
and "in parallel".
1 ~ According to two delegations (D and UK), these words
should be interpreted as requiring a strict parallel action  
by others in the field of stabilization of export earnings.
- For one delegation (NL), as stated at COREPER on 23 June,
they could be interpreted in a more flexible  
w’ ay (additional actions in favour of'  LLDCs not necessarily  
in the field of stabilization of export earnings, but also in  
other fields as formulated by the NL draft Resolution  
(cf.  .Annex I).
4. .  COREPER on 23 June invited Member States delegations  
in Belgrade to pursue this matter with a view to  
elaborating a compromise and to examine the NL draft  
resolution and its possible use at . UNCTAD VI.
At the meeting.on 27 June Heads of delegations decided  
to establish a special group to examine these two  
questions... ....
II
. Stabex extension to LLDCs— s
5. .  The special group noted that
.  - 8 delegations confirmed that they were prepared to
go along with the Dutch approach as a means of overcoming  
problems regarding conditionality.
- the two 'delegations (D and UK) who were
advocating an interpretation of conditionality based  
on strict parallelism of actions by other members of  
Group B were not in’a position to change their  
position*. 3
•  - in these circumstances, the Danish' delegation,
who was opposed to any conditionality, maintained
its reserve. '  *
• · ·/· · ·
8089/83 ·  E

'  Against this background the Group agreed that there \.as no  
point, at its level, in pursuing either the discussion  
or examining the two documents prepared to this end  
by the NL delegation (cf. new draft resolution - Annex I)  _  
and by the Commission (cf. check list of possible
additional actions in favour of LLDC6 and
other lew income developing countries - Annex—1^)·
I
't consequently decided to refer the matter back  
to Heads of Delegation, while drawing their
attention to the 'following „  five jppssible course^, of. _acti on: :
— further explore the possibility of a compromise
solution along the lines proposed by the NL delegation,
with the aim of reaching before the end of UNCTAD VI  
an agreement within the Community to state the EEC's  
intention to extend cover under STABEX to non-ACP LLDCs.
- ask the Danish delegation to lift its reserve on conditionality  
and then decide - if other Group B countries or groups thereof,  
set up similar STABEX schemes for the LLDCs - to announce in  
the light thereof the intention of the Community to extend
the STABEX scheme to all non-ACP LLDCs, i.e. acceptance by  
all liember States of the strict parallelism of conditionality.
- comi’ rm’xne community’s intentions in accordance with  
'  its statement at the Paris Conference to continue to  
examine· in a constructive way the possibilities of  
extending the Stabex_ scheme^ to non ACP LLDCs,  
and expressj the hope that it will he possible *o  
finalize these considerations at an early date.
- decide to accept the proposal of the Danish delegation,
i.e. to .take an autonomous initiative at UNCTAD VI by  
announcing 'that the Community will extend the STABEX scheme to  
all non-ACP LLDCs in connection with the entering into force of^
’the Lomé III Convention in 1985 and. that thé STABEX list of proou  
will be enlarged to include jute, togetherwith an appeal ta .  
other Group B countries or groups thereof to set up similar sen  
(It is noted that such a decision will imply a change in the  
present position of 9 delegations).
- postpone any decision until aXter the Belgrade Conferen ,
/em

fi JC.
-1 -
157 (vi) Compensatory financing of export earnings shortfalls
Date: 2 July 1983 Meeting: 200th:  Agenda item 9
Resolution adopted by roll-call. Document: TD(Vl)/CG/CRP.8/ 
For: 90» Against: 1; Abstentions: 10 l / Rev.l and Rev.l/
Corr.l
Thp United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
luH'.al· i  Lng it:: resolution 95 (IV) of JO May 1976 on the Integrated Programme 
'or Commodities and particularly its section I, paragraph 2,and section III,
r v i i- ir r a p h  ? (f),
^'1  J l resolution 125 (v) of 3 June 1979 on a complementary
anility lor commodity-related shortfalls in export earnings,
lir^f.P rni,!1r; t-b'· Objective of improving and sustaining the real income of 
n ti v 1 dual il-v-'loping countries through increased export earnings and of
them from excessive fluctuations in export earnings, especially from 
iwimod i  t t o ,
Taking note of the measures to improve and enlarge compensatory financing 
icilities for stabilisation in response to the changing circumstances affecting 
he export earnings of developing countries, notably the IMF Compensatory 
manning Facility and the home Convention's STAUEX, and taking further note of 
··'■ lorthcoming review by the IMF of the operation of the Compensatory Financing 
ac:1ity,
Taking note of the relevant studies prepared by the UNCTAD secretarla and
\ J For:  Algeria; Angola; Argentina; Austria; Bangladesh; Belgium; Botswana;
Brazil; Burma; Burundi; Central African Republic; Chad; Chile; China; Colombia;
Cuba; Democratic People's Republic of Korea; Denmark; Dominican Republic; Ecuador; 
Egypt; Ethiopia; Finland; France; Gabon; Germany, Federal Republic of; Ghana; Greece; 
Grenada; Guinea; Holy See; India; Indonesia; Iran (Islamic Republic of); Iraq; 
Ireland; Israel; Jamaica; Japan; Jordan; Kenya; Liberia; Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; 
Luxembourg; Madagascar; Malaysia; Malta; Mexico; Morocco; Mozambique; Nepal; 
Netherlands;  Nicaragua; Nigeria; Norway; Pakistan; Panama; Papua New Guinea;
Peru; Philippines; Portugal; Qatar; Republic of Korea; Romania; Rwanda; Sao 
Tome and Principe; Senegal; Singapore; Somalia; Spain; Sri Lanka; Sudan; Suriname; 
Sweden; Switzerland; Syrian Arab Republic; Thailand; Tunisia; Turkey; Uganda;
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; United Republic of 
Cameroon; United Republic of Tanzania; Upper Volta; Uruguay; Venezuela; Viet 
Ham; Yugoslavia; Zambia; Zimbabwe.
Against:  United States of America
Abstentions:  Australia; Bulgaria; Canada; Czechoslovakia; German Democratic
Republic; Hungary; Mongolia; New Zealand; Poland; Union of Soviet Socialist 
Republics.Di·· conci deration of thoac issues in other international forums,
2/ li'.-l'crence is made, inter alia,  to TD/b/C.1/234 î TD/b/C.1/237 and
’  /■■fi. l/PòM.

-  % -
Taking note also of agreed conclusions 19 (S-1) Committee on
Commodities and of the report of the Committee on Commodities on its tenth 
session,
Conscious of the particular and urgent needs of the least developed
especially in the context of their heavy dependence on commodity
expor ;r ;  for their foreign exchange eamings,
1 .Invites the International Monetary Fund to complete expeditiously the 
forthcoming review by the Executive Board of the Fund's Compensatory Financing 
Facility, and to consider the establishment of special arrangements for the
benefit of the least developed countries;
2. Requests the Secretary-General of UNCTAD to convene, after consultation
with interested governments, an expert group on the compensatory financing of 
export eamings shortfalls;
3,  Instructs thu expert group to consider, without prejudice to an eventual 
decision on appropriate follow-up action that may be taken ir. accordance wiih 
paragraph 6 below:
(a) The need for an additional complementary facility to compensate for 
the export eamings shortfalls of *  developing countries, bearing in mind the needs 
of those countries which are most dependent on commodity exports, particularly
the least developed among them;
(b) The nature of an additional complementary facility;
(c) Sources of finance for an additional complementary facili'.y;
(d) The operational rules and modalities of an additional complementary
facility; and
(e) The relationship of an additional complementary facility to existing 
facilities and intergovernmental organizations.
In conducting its analysis the expert group fhould examine, inter alia, tne 
nature and causes of export eamings instability, the role and impact of existing 
facilities, the impact of export eamings stabilization on commodity markets, the 
financial and economic costs of stabilizing export eamings, and the possible 
stabilizing influence of commodity agreements and the Common Fund for Commoditi 
should, in so doing, take due account of relevant studios and suggestions made 
by the UNCTAD secretariat, other competent intergovernmental organizations, and 
interested Governments, as wall as previous intergovernmental consideration of the 
:  ues involved, particularly the discussions in the Committee on Commodities. The 
-./pert group may wish to. draw, upon the expertise of the staff of the IMF and of 
other international' bodies ;

4. Invites member countries to transmit to the Secretary-General of UNCTAD, 
>rior to 51 December 1983, any suggestions and proposals they may have concerning 
.he above and related issues;
5. Instructs the expert group to complete its work not later than 
>0 September 1984;
6. Requests the Secretary-General of UNCTAD to transmit'the report of the 
•Xpert group to a special session of the Trade and Development Board, not later 
-han 31 December 1984, and instructs the Board to decide upon requisite follow-up
ction, including the convening of a possible negotiating conference for an 
dditional complementary facility.
i

Brussels, October 1983.
Extension of the Stabex scheme on non-ACP LLDCs
(Commission of the European Communities)

I. BACKGROUND
I. The Paris Conference on the Least 
Developed Countries " H  September 1981) invited "developed countries 
to study ways and means of helping the least developed countries to 
offset the damaging effect of loss of foreign exchange earnings arising 
from fluctuations in the latter's exports of primary commodities to them" 
and to report to UNCTAD VI (cf. para 83 of the Substantial New Programme 
of Action).
2.  The European Community replied by stating its willingness to "examine in a 
constructive spirit the most appropriate means of meeting (this request) 
particularly by studying what arrangements could be made and how to 
extend to the least developed countries not party to the Lomé II Convention 
dispositions similar or equivalent to those of Stabex".
II. STUDY OF AN EEC SUPPORTED SCHEME
a )  ÇommocH ty_export s_of_non;;ACP_LLDCs_to_EEC
t
3.  Detailed time series on exports by the countries under review 
of those commodities covered by or close to the EEC Stabex system 
and on the export structure and exports to the Community (as 
measured by EEC imports) have been examined for a period covering
the years 1974 to 1981.
4. An analysis of these data show 6 that :
(i) These countries' exports to the Community are in general rather 
modest, with Bagladesh, Haiti and Afghanistan as the only regular 
and meaningful suppliers and the two Yemens as marginal ones. The 
exports of Nepal, Bhutan, Laos and the Maldives are practically nil.
(ii) As shown in Annex I, table 1, non-EEC markets are more impor­
tant for their exports. Only Haiti/coffee registers an EEC share of 
exports of more than 50%. For other important Stabex products, this 
ratio is below' 30%.
'Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutag, Haiti, Laos, Maldives, Nepal, Yemen AR (North) 
Yemen PDR (South). As for the 27 UN least developed that are parties of the 
Lome Convention, the Community is already granting Stabex benefits in 
respect of its own imports. Moreover, for 8 of them, the Stabex system 
covers also exports to the rest of the world: Burundi, Cap Vert, Comores,
Ethiopia, Guinea Bissau, Lesotho, Rwanda and Western Samoa.

2.
(iii) Of the Stabex products, only 5 are actuaLLy supplied by these 
countries (coffee, cocoa, cotton, tea, hides and skins).
(iv) Of the category of products "close" to Stabex, raw jute (Bang­
ladesh) stands out for its importance. Fresh and dry fruit (Afghanistan), 
fish (Bang^adesh),spices (Nepal), essential oils (Haiti) could also
be considered for inclusion; however, the Community does not import 
them in any significant quantity from these countries.
b) A Communi^ty_Stabex_for_the_non;ACP_i i _least_develoged_countri_es
5.  On the assumptions of :
- a coverage of exports to the Community only,
- the present structure of commodity imports by the EEC from the 
countries in question and the relative stability of this structure,
- the present coverage of the EEC Stabex (except for jute and jute 
products which are included in the simulation. d)
- the application of the scheme to all the 9 countries in the same way,
- the shortfalls (1) could amount to a total of 90 to 115 million
US dollars (2) over 5 years, on the basis of either a five year average 
for 1974/81 or the five year period 1977/81.
6.  For analytical purposes, it may be Interesting to note that if the EEC 
were to cover the exports of these countries to all destinations (simila 
to the derogation applied to the ACP least developed countries which export 
mainly to non-EEC markets), the cost would vary between about 160/210 milli 
US dollars according to the basis chosen.
However it should be noted that such a decision would be-discriminatory vis 
à vis those least developed ACP countries presently not covered by such a 
derogation.
1) cf.  si mulations in annex II
2) by way of comparison, Community assistance to the non-ACP least developed 
countries amounted to MECU 57.2 (1981) and 69.9 (1982); cf. annex I, 
table 2.

Finally from a practical point of view such a mechanism would be difficult 
to operate, as it would be based on export statistics alone which are rarely 
sufficiently up to date,i
c) Aggra ija l_and_cgnclusi_ons
7.  The application of a Stabex "style Lomé II", or a close variant thereof, 
would provide to the non-ACP least developed countries the advantages of 
the Lomé mechanism: compensation in grant form for commodity earning short­
falls on a product by product basis; automatic application; speedy disburse­
ments, etc.
However, the analysis shows that the system would apply in a rather uneven 
way: only three LLDCs 1 exporters out of nine would be covered <35, leaving 
the other six at best as episodic cases.
.  In order to cover the needs of non-ACP least developed countries, the 
participation of their developed trading partners other than the EEC 
would therefore be required.
As shown in tables 7 and 8 of Annex II, such a participation:
- will not only allow the broadening of the coverage of LLDC non-ACP 
countries both in terms of the number of'beneficiaries involved
(7 countries with the exception of phutan and Maldives) and in terms 
of the total amount of shortfalls concerned (160 to 210 million US 
dollars instead of 90 to 115 million US dollars),
- but it will also increase the financial compensation for losses of 
export earnings for the 19 LLDC ACP countries covered under the normal 
terms of the present Stabex system (up to some A90 to 580 million US 
dollars, assuming full participation by the other potential donors 
included in the simulations
9. Total shortfalls by importing countries (as shown in tables 3 and 8)  
amount for a five-year period to:
3) Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Haiti: cf simulations in annex II.

4.
atotalofsome660/860millionUSdollarsforEEC (1)
atotalofsome270/340mi Ili onUSdp i  l  arsforUSA
atotalofsome140/160millionUSdollarsforJapan
atota lofsome40/50mi11i  onUSdo liarsforNordic States
atotalofsome40/50millionUSdollarsforSwitzer land
atotalofsome20/25mi11i  onUSdollarsforAust r i  a
atotalofsome20/25millionUSdollarsforAus t ra l  i  a
atotalofsome20/25millionUSdollarsforCanada
atotalofsome 10/12millionUSdollarsforNew Zealand
(1) Out of which a total of some 570 to 750 million US dollars is already 
covered by the existing Stabex scheme.

ANNEX I (à L'annexe III)

Annex I
Table 1
Mr-l1X«1%)—*1C.Olc•Olt—1Estimated share of EEC in total exports by product, X
Haiti
coffee
cocoa
Afghani stan
cotton
hides and skins1976
62
3
n.a.
n.a.1977
6 6
1
35
71978
65
15
24
181980
68
n.a.
10
71981
n.a.
n.a.
3
11
Bangladesh
tea
jute
processed jute100
31
2150
31
822
27
0n.a.
20
6n.a.
15
4
sources :  - International Financial Statistics - October 1982
- Handbook of International Trade and Development Statistics (UNCTAD), 1980 and 1981
- Yearbook of International Trade Statistics (UNO), 1978
- OSCE

Annex I 
Table 2
C O M M U N IT Y  A S S I S T A N C E  T O  T H E  N O N - A C P  L E A S T  D E V E L O P E D  C O U N T R I E S  ( c o m m i t m e n t s )
Commitments mUS $
Country 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982
Afghanistan 0.73 0.58 ·«· - -
Bangladesh 37.11 31; 10 58.82 54.65 46.46
Bhutan - - - 0.02 3.42
Haiti 3.52 0.22 8.21 6.18 -7.55
Laos 2.93 6.40 - 0.04 -
Maldives - 0.23 0.59 -
Nepal 3.99 0.03 5.32 0.39 1.85
Y em en A R 0.92 3.43 - 1.98 6.39
Y em en P D R 2.62 — 0.14 2.45
Total 51.82 41.96 72.72 63.85 68.16
All Community assistance is in grant form and sterna mostly from 
the food aid and Non-Associates’  programmes with minor assistance 
coming also from the NCO,emergency aid and trade promotion programmes.
Source j Community annual reporting to D A C .

Annex II <à L'annexe III)
Results of an ex post simulation for a comprehensive LLDC Stabex

Introductory Note
1. The results of the simulation thereafter presented are based on 
time series of imports by product and exporting/importing countries, 
as provided by UNO/GATT statistics.
2. "Nordic Countries" comprise of Norway, Sweden and Finland, taken 
together.
3. All figures are denominated in current 1000 US dollars, cif.
4. Indicated years refer to years of application. In the last two 
columns of tables 3 to 5, shortfalls are indicated over 5 years, 
on the basis of either a five-year average for 1974/*81, or the 
five-year period 1977/'81.
5. The simulation does not include the possible effects of thresholds, 
neither dependence nor fluctuation. (2% each for LLDCs).
6. The simulation does not include either the possible effects of 
changes in the trade pattern of the countries under review.

Table 1
f
LIST OF LLDC
Afghanistan - 3 
Bangladesh - 3 
Benin - 2 
Bhutan - 3 
Botswana - 2 
Burundi - 1 
Cap Vert - 1 
Tchad - 2
Central African Rep. -2 
Comores - 1 
Djibouti - 2 
Ethiopia - 1 
Gambia - 2Guinea - 2 
Guinea Bissau - 1 
Equatorial Guinea - 
Hai t i  - 3 
Laos - 3 
Lesotho - 1 
Malawi - 2
Maldives - 3 
Mali - 2 
Nepal - 3 
Niger - 2 
Rwanda - 1Sao Tome and Principe
2 Sierra Leone - 2 
Somalia - 2 
Sudan - 2 
Tanzania - 2 
Togo - 2
Uganda - 2 
Upper Volta - 2 
Western Samoa - 1  
Yemen Nord (AR) - 3 
Yemen South (PR) - 3
Total :  36 countries, 27 ACP, 9 non ACP.
Groupe 1 :  8 ACP countries, all destination coverage (marked -1 )
Groupe 2 :  19 ACP countries, EEC coverage (marked - 2 )
Groupe 3 :  9 non ACP countries (marked - 3 ).

ITable 2
4
LIST OF PRODUCTS OF STABEX LOME II.
CTCI (rev. 2)
1. Groundnuts/ shelled or notj
2. Groundnut oil j
3. Cocoa beans
4. Cocoa paste ;
5. Cocoa butter
6.  Raw or roasted coffee
7. Extracts, essences or 
concentrates of coffee
8. Cotton, not carded or
combed
9. Cotton Unters
10. Coconuts
11. Copra
12. Coconut oil
13. Palm oil
14. Palm nut and kernel oil
15. Palm nuts and kernels
16. Raw hides and skins
17. Bovine cattle leather
18. Sheep and lamb skin leather
19. Goat and kid skin leather
20. Wood in the rough
21. Wood roughly squared or 
half“squared, but not 
further manufactured
22. Wood sawn lenghtwise, but 
not further prepared
23. Fresh bananas
24. Tea222,1
423,4
072.1
072.31
072.32
071.1
263.1
057,71
223.1 
424,3
211
247
057,3
074,125. Raw sisal
26. Vanilla
27. Cloves - whole fruit, 
cloves and stems
28. Sheep's or lambs' wool, 
not carded or combed
29. Fine animal hair of 
Angora goats - mohair
30. Gum arabic
31. Pyrethrum - flowers, 
leaves, stems, peel 
and roots; saps and 
extracts irom pyrethrum
32. Essential oils, not 
terpeneless, of cloves 
of niaouli and of 
ylang-ylang
33. Sesame seed
34. Cashew nuts and kernels
35. Pepper
36. Shrimps and prawns
37. Squid
38. Cotton seids
39. Oil-cake
40. Rubber
41. Peas
42. Beans
43. Lentils
44. Iron ore (ores, 
concentrates, and 
roasted iron pyrites)CTCI (rey. 2) 
265,4
075,21
075,23
292,2
551,3
222,5
057,73
075,1
232,01 ♦ 02
Note :  For the purpose of the simulation only those products for which the CTCI 
classification is indicated above have been considered; the other products are 
supposed to have only marginal significance, if any.
On the other hand, the simulation includes " *
- jute 264.0
- jute products 651.98 and 654.5.

Tahiti 3
STABEX LLDCs: Total all LLDCs shortfalls by importing countries 
(thresholds not included)
(000 US dollars)
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 74-81 77-81
(5 years 
average)
1.CANADA 2381 2341 2348 2128 4024 7000 4324 4207 17964 21684
2.ETATS NORDIQUES 782 4923 2986 7046 9657 11564 8951 15782 38551 53000
3-ETATS-UNIS 41931353701643225642 50008 75298 70582121037 272686.342568
4.JAPON 17276323862008816912 21565 26554 36926 57777 143425159734
5.CEE 48702681547996284691113740164254148919347855 660171859459
Total 11107214316312181613641919899428467026970254665611327971436455
Source :  COMTRADE (ONU-GATT GENEVE)

STABEX LI*DC g Total all LLDCa Shortfalls by importing countrios - TABLE'3 bis -
__________________________________________ (1000*)
(T
hrsoholds not Included)
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 19811974-81 
5 yr.a-r.1977-
1981
AUSTRIA *49 701 1785 1955 5045 5476 6784 6017 17628 25272
SWITZERLAND 4148 4699 4205 5925 504? 1C852 14469 16004 40826 52275
ADSTSALIA 526 5182 4981 6151 4556 3255 2764 5166 20225 21670
NEW ZEALAND 467 1547 1299 . 671 2120 2084 2832 5976 9371 11682
TOTAL 5590 12129 12266 14700 16562 21625 26849 5U65 PRO 48 110S97
TOTAL CANADA, 111072 145165 121816 156419 198994 284670 269702 546656 1132797 1456455
USA, NORDIC -
STATES, JAPAN
AND EEC.
GRAND TOTAL 116662 155292 154082 151119 215556 506295 296551 517819 15^7352
f

STABEX LLDCs: Breakdown of shortfalls by regions of origin (thresholds not included) (000 US dollars) Table 4
1974 1975 '  1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 74-81 74-81 7?- 81
(5 years
1. CANADA average)
TOTALGROUPE1 14 66111 146 133 317-468 01255 7841064TOTALGROUPE223382 187 20261 629 2985589836842670 234171463516866TOTALGROUPE3 29 78211 353 907 785 1721537 4072 25453754
TOTAL 23812 341 23482 128 4024700043244207 287441796421684
2. ETATS NORDIQUES
TOTALGROUPE1 139 35112111295
TOTALGROUPE2 616382316565452
TOTALGROUPE3 28749 120 299
TOTAL 782492329867046696403332937458 204741279618775
707713345926492 364692279330376
254 39810661832 4740 29623849
65711564895115782 616833855153000
3. ETATS-UNIS
TOTALGROUPE13112617756324831293118 9031024418389 879125494535783
TOTALGROUPE2104851357388421131945569624724694182864282065176290249166TOTALGROUPE3 32040424342111941321119231339719784 662344145157619
TOTAL 41931353701643225642500087529870582121037436211272686342568I
4. JAPON
5. CEETOTALGROUPE116562761901378388 514 639248995490 465612910033133TOTALGROUPE214148257549176758511 103 20086243754398115620797629107130TOTALGROUPE314723872189914891 948 7776528306 267151669619472
TOTAL 1727632386200881691221 565 265543692657777229483143425159734
TOTALGROUPE112037459143001422813 704 1085812412455711197347483396773
TOTALGROUPE23958242899630456698092 890 135534112855241490795275497047649749
TOTALGROUPE3791717796261734837 146 17862236526079414126788292112937
•48702681547996284691113 740 1642541489193478551 056277660171859469
TOTAL111072143163121816136419198 994 2846702697025466561 812398 11327971.436455

STABEX IXDGx BreaJcdown of Shcrrt f aI I s t»y ré g io n s o f o rig in  ta bls  * *  bit» \
_________________________________________ _ (1000*)
\ *
>lw MV k XUCilid^d )
197e * 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 19811974-
19811974-81
5 yr.BT.1977-
1981
. AttSTRIA
TOT AJ, GSD J? 135 170 564 7<-l 1006 802 1<«10 2262 7080 4425 6311
TOTAL GROUP 225« 3<*3 1169 1066 3 8 8 6.<428L 4636 3082 187^4 11715 16974
TOTAL GROUP 3 ly& 188 50 ■ 145 58 390 718 673 2381 1488 1987
TOTAL Uhq 701 1783 1955 50*· 3 5^76 6?84 6017 28205 25272
.  svrrzrajvro
TOTAL GROUP 139 119 35? 6s6 913 6 7 8 372 557 3662 2289 5176
TOTAL GROUP 23901 2826 ?6?5 435?3580 9225 12072 13105 52691 *?Q 31 42339
TOTAL GROUP 3 212 1754 246 910 554 9?9 2025 23K) 8970 5606 6758
TOTAL_____Ja*A. .  
4699... 4203 592* 60**7 10832 14469 16C*> 6 5323 4 0 8 2 6 52273
AUSTRALIA
TOTAL GROUP 117 4o 71 25 10 7 5** 182.. :404 2 5 2 276
TOTAL GROUP 2 4l8 A511 3536 <♦996 <♦031 2962 2533 <♦646 27613 ■  1 7 2 5 8 191<*8
TOTAL GROUP 3 91 631 1374 1132 315 284 177 338 434 2 2 7 1 3 2246
TOTAL 526 5182 4981 6151 <♦356 3233 2764 5166 32359 2 0 2 2 3 21670
SEW 2ŒALAXD"Hf ~ “X - -
TOTAL GROUP 1 165 731 161 <•92 330 1 8 7 99 1023 3188 1992 8131
TOTAL GROUP 2 302 690 1138 1791<«36 1563 2107 2498 9915 6196 ?783
TOTAL GROUP 3 0 126 O 0354 333 626 <*55 1894 H8 5 1763
TOTAL 467 1547 1299 6712120 2084 2832 3976 14995 9371 11682
G3ÀND TOTAL 5590 12129 12266 1<*700 1656c 21625 26849 31163 140882 PC 04 8110897
- ?«*JF LE « * 111072 143163 121816 1 35'<19 19S95H* * 2&-670 269702 696656 1812398 11*279? K36455
XirSAL TOTAL 11666? 155292 13^082 - J5.P19, 215556 306295 296551 577819 195328612?''?4515.47352
1 n --------------- 1----------------- 1 1  1
 I i

,&· Table 5/2 · * '
• «  -  > v
** Table 5/1
STABEX LLDCs:  Breakdown of shortfalls of group 3 countries 
by regions of origin
(thresholds not included) (000 US dollars)
I -CANADA 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 74-81r
74-81 
(5 years 
average)77-81
AFGHANISTAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BANGLADESH 0 27 0184 758 343 126 1331 2769 1730 ( 68%)2742(73%)%
5JTHAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '*'·
- AITI 25 10 174 149 140 442 46 206 ' 1192 745 (29JO 983(267.)
LAOS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0t
MALDIVES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ·
NEPAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
YEMEN AR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
YEMEN PDR 4 41 •37 20 9 0 0 0 111 69. 29
f------------
!  
TOTALI♦29 78 211 353 907 785 172 1537 4072 2544 3754 ·
1- •

STABEX LLDC :  Breakdown of shortfalls of group 3 countries 
by regions of origin
(thresholds not Yncludéd) (000 US dollars)
II - ETATS 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 74-81t
74-81 77-81
NORDIQUES (5 years
average)
AFGHANISTAN 0 14 2 2 23 2 31 34 108 67 92
BANGLADESH 1391 52 177 45 0217 653 1536 960(327.) 1092-(287.)
BUTHAN 0 0 0 0nU 0 0 0 0 0 0
HAITI1318 54 54 53 247 418 822 1967 1229 (41%) 1594 (42%)
LAOS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .
MALDIVES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0
NEPAL 2 2 4 3 2 1 0 0 14 9 6 : ·
YEMEN AR 18 24 160 0 17 275 234 629 393 013%) 586 (15%)
YEMEN PDR 6 0 7 3131 131 ' 125 89 492 307 (12%) 479 (13%)
TOTAL 28 749 120 299 254 398 1066 1832 4746 2965 3849 1
•• • 1

STABEX LLDC: Breakdown of shortfalls of group 3 countries 
by regions of originTable 5/.'.
(thresholds not included) (000 US dollars)
IIIETATS
UNIS
AFGHANISTAN 
BANGLADESH 
BUTHAN 
HAITI 
LAOS
MALDIVES 
NEPAL 
I EVEN AR 
YEMEN PDR
TOTAL1974
7
14
0
25
113
0
54
49
58
3201975
25
15
0
2 726 
141 
0
1 107 
28 
0
4 0421976
44 
3 366 
0
607
85
0
58
37
145
4 3421977
41
10 196
0
776
66
0
47
0
68
11 1941978
35
55
0
867
180
0
2
101
81
1 3211979
1 733 
1 104 
0
8 666  
140 
0 
1
269
10
11 9231980
1 752 
1 892 
0
9 330 
235 
0
70
96
22
13 3971981
110 
1 013 
0
15 2?12 
■159 
0
3 021 
143 
126
19 78474-81
3 747 
17 655
0
38 209 
1 119 
0
4 360 
723 
510
66 32374-81 
(5 years 
average)
2 342
11 034(27%p 
0
23 880(57%!) 
.  699 
0
2 725 
452 
319
41 45177-81
3 671
14 260(2$%: %
5
34 851(60%: 
7801
0
3 141;
609 
307.
57 619

STABEX HOC: Breakdown of shortfalls of group 3 countries 
by regions of originE Table '5/4 ' V  ^,y --------
(t
hresholds not included) (000 US dollars)
IV - JAPON 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 74-81 74-81 
(5 years 
average)77-81
AFGHANISTAN
BANGLADESH
BUTHAN
HAITI
LAOS
MALDIVES 
NEPAL 
YEMEN AR 
YEMEN PDR
TOTAL0
8
0
45
0
0
126 
190 
1 103
1 47237 
3 139
0
47
263
0
109
190
87
3 872320 
1 029 
0
38
203
0
108
190
11
1 899157
640
0
13
406
0
83
190
0
1 489340
16
0
360
6
0
56
560
610
1 94828
24
0
7
0
0
18
0
0
771 071 
3 693
0
333 
900 
0 
38 
1 445 
172
7 6521 671 
3 673
0 
43 
1 669 
0 
31 
1 046 
771
8 3063 024 
12 222 
0
888 
3 447
0
569 
3 811 
2 754
26 7151 890 (11%) 
7 639(46%)
0
555
«
2 154(13%)
0
356
2 382 (14%) 
1 721 (11%)
16 6972 667(14)!) 
8 046(41%)
&
758
2 981(15%),
0
226·
3 241(17%) 
1 553
19 472.

STA6EX LLDC: Breakdown of shortfalls of group 3 countries 
by regions of origin¥ f , V  «'·Table 5/5 ‘ J
(thresholds not included)(000 US dollars)
V - CEE 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 74-81!
74-81 
(5 years 
average),  I
'  |
77-81
I
i
AFGHANISTAN 3 391 412 999 649 143 9 020 9 242 10919 34775 21 734 (25%) 29 973(27*/j)
BANGLADESH 2314 513 2271 172 4 651 4 888 9 012 26880 61366 38 354 (44%) 46 603(41%)
BUTHAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 6w
HAITI 189 138 672 693 841 1 159 1 320 18239 23251 14 532 (16%) •22 252(20%)
LAOS 31 44 13 41 31 15 13 223 411 257 323
MALDIVES 15 8 12 10 3 3 0 66 117 73 82
NEPAL 3 310 2 098 449 424 287 1 388 3 645 1913 13514 8 446 (10%) 7 657;,·
YEMEN AR 86 288 55 305 74 641 4021339 3190 1 994 2 76T;
YEMEN PDR 872 295 190 189 1 116 748 181215 4643 2 902 3 286-
TOTAL7 917 17 796 2 617 3 483 7 146 17 862 23 652 60794141267 88 292*  11
112 937. |
t- •t

iJ_JXa breuküowTi oi' Shortfall«! of Group ÿÿ. ' ^ ·’ ^
3 count rie er by region»·of -origin -  ·'···— ·  $ (1000Î) ·  *'».
(Thresholds not Included)
AUSTRIA. 197** 1973 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981197**-
1981197^-81 
5 jr.ài.1977-
1981
AFGHANISTAN 108 112 0 8 8 281 2 8I 277 1075672...
85
5
BANGLADESH 0 0 6 7 1 90 98 85 287 179 281
BHUTAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HAITI IO b2 23 ·20 11 1 7 2*0 205 571 357 *»96
LAOS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MALDIVES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NEPAL17 13 0 0 2 2 7 15 5é„ 35 .  .. 2 6
TEXEN A.R.21 21 21 21 O 0 89 89 262 l6kV.
19 9
TEMEN P.D.EL. 0 0 0 92 36 0 0 2 130 •  81 _130
‘
TOTAL 156 188 ‘ 50 1**8 58 390 718 673 2 3 8I«
1**88,
1 9 8 7 ;

STABEX LLDCe Breakdown of Shortfalls of Group f t ÎABLB'SyV- < V  * '·
» * *
5  c o u n t r ie s  b j  r e g io n s  o f  o r i g i n  ' * ■ M rw vitl ^
(Thresholds not included)
SWITÏEBLAND1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 I98I1974-
I98I1974-fyL
5 yr.av.1977-
1981
AFGHANISTAN12 0 0 0 y* 376 905 618 1945 1216 1933
B A N G L A D E S H 0666 212 833 30 29 330 02100 I3I21222
3H0T.ÌN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ΗΑΓΓΠ 123 104? 0 . 55 102 244 569 1464 3602 225I2432
LAOS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
KALDCVES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NEPAL 1 1 3 3 3 2 0 3 16 IO 11
TEKEN A.E. 76 40 26 15 0 0 0 4 l6l 101w
19
TEKEN P.D.R. 0 0 5 6 385 278 221 253 1148 7 1 7 1143
•
TOTAL 212 1754 · 246 910 554 929 2025 2340 8972 5607 6 7 6 0 .

.  u * >  aST A BE X  L IJD C s Breakdown o f S h o r tfa lls  o f Group  
3 countries by region « o f  o rig in '
(Thresholds not Included)t a o u s'^/o
(10001)
AUSTRALIA 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 19811974-
19811974-81
5 yr.ar.1977-
1981
AJCHANISTAIf 64 64 4 0 0 0 0 0 132 82 0
BANGLADESH 154o 1324 1076 309 264 166 320 4000 2500 2 1 3 5
BHUTAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HAITI 1 1 1 . 1 0 0 0 1 3 17 11 1*»
LAOS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MALDIVES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NEPAL 3-  16 42 5** 6 20 11 5 157 98 •96
T O O T  A .  a . 17 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 14 <*
TBtrs P.D.H. 5 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 11 •  7 1
.
T O T A L 91 631 ’ 1374 1132 3 1 5 2 8*» 177 3 3 8 4340 2712 2246
> i  
Q _
bj

STABEX LLDCs Breakdown of Shortfalls of Group * TABLE 5/9
3 countries bj regions of origin (10001)
(Thresholds not included)
NEW ZEALAND 197* * 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1 9 8 0 1981197**-
1981197**-81  
5 y r .m r .1 9 7 7 -
1981
AFGHANISTAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BANGLADESH 0 126 0 0 35* * 333 626 *+55 189*» 118** 1768
BHUTAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HAITI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LAOS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MALDIVES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  ■ *
NEPAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0------------- ^----
0
TE
KEN A.IL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0* 0
HKEN P.D.R. 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1
TOTAL 0 126 0 0 351 * 333 626 *»55 189** 1181 !s'
1768

STARPX Ly,Cs; Breakdown of shortfalls' of group 3 countries ,  ^  Tab1e*^*^  ^
by importers and by regions of origin (summary) (thresholds not incluioed) ’ * · » *
---*----------------------------------------------- (000  US dollars)
CANADA * ET4ÎS NORDIQUES ETATSUNIS J-AP0N CEE TOTAL
5 years 5 Y^jrs 5years 5 years 5years 5years------
average aVc"jge average average average average
74/81 77/8174/81 77/81 74/81 77/81 74/81 77/81 74/81 77/81,  74/81 77/81
AFGHANISTAN 0 067 92 23423671 1890 2667 21734299732603336403
BANGLADESH 1 730 2 742 °601  092 11034142607639 804638354466035971772743
BUTHAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 ■  0 0 0 0 0 0
HAITI 745 983 1 229 1 594 2388034851 555 75814532 222524094160438
LAOS 0 0 0 0699 780 2154 2981 257 32331104084
MALDIVES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 073 82 73 82 '
NEPAL 0 0 9 6 27253141 356 226.  8446 7657 11536 11030
YEMEN AR 0 0293 586 452 609 23823241 1994 276152& 17197
YEMEN PDR 69 29*07 479 319 307 1721 1553 2902 328653185654 ‘
TOTAL 2 544 3 754, 2 *65 3 849 41451576191669719472 8829 2 112937151949197631 ;
1

C T A B E X . LLDC a Breakdownrof-Shortfalla of. G r o u p ^ C iU ü tr i·« ........  — TA D LE 6 b ia  .
. 
bj importera and by region s o f  o r ig in  (1 s nuaary)
. (Threaholdn not in clu ded) (1000 f )% ' *
3
AUSTRIA SWITZERLAND AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND TOTAL '---,-------------
GR
AND 
TOTAL (1)
5 yr.av.
19?4-8l1977-
19815 yr.av.
1974-811977-
19815 yr.av.
1974-811977- 
1981 .5 yr.av.
1974-811977-
19815 yr.av.
1974-811977-
19815 yr.av.
1974-811977-
1981
AFGHANISTAN 672 855 1216 1933 82 0 0 01970 278823003 39191
BANGLADESH 179 28l I312 1222 2500 2135 1184 1768 5175 540664892 78140
BHUTAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HAITI357 496 2251 24 32 11 14 0 02619 294243560 63380
LAOS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03110 \o84
MALDIVES0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 073 82
NEPAL35 26 1 0 11 9 8 9 6 0 0 143 13311679 11163
YÏXEN A.R. 164 199 101 19 14 0 0 0 279 218.5500 7415
TDŒN P.D.R. 8l 130 717 1143 7 7 0 0 805 1274 6123 6928
TOTAL1488 1987 •  5607 6760 2712 2246 1184 1768 10991 12761'162940 21 9 3 9 2
(1) Total of table 6 included (Canada plus Nordic states plus USA plus Japan plus CEE)

T ab le 7 (Revised)
1 · Breakdown of group 3 countries' shortfalls by importers (thresholds 
not included)
Estimates (million US dollars) %
EEC 88,3/113,0 54,0/53,8
USA 41,5/ 57,5 25,5/27,4.
JAPAN 16,7/ 19,4 10,2/ 9,2
NORDIC 3,0/ 3,7 1,8/ 1,8
SWITZERLAND 5,6/ 6,8 3,4/ 3,2
AUSTRIA 1,5/ 2,0 0,9/ 1,0
AUSTRALIA 2,7/ 2,2 1,7/ 1,0
CANADA 2,5/ 3,6 1,5/ 1,7
NEW ZEALAND 1,2/ 1,8 0,7/ 0,9
TOTAL 163 / 210 100 / 100
2. Breakdown of group 3 countries* shortfalls by exporters (thresholds 
not included)
Estimates (million US dollars)
AFGHANISTAN 28,0/ 39,2 * 17,2/18,7
BANGLADESH 64,8/ 78,1 39,8/37,2
BHUTAN -  / - 0,0/ 0,0
HAITI 43,5/ 63,3 26,7/30,1
'LAOS 3,1/ 3,5 1,9/ 1,7
MALDIVES - / 0,0/ 0,0
;  NEPAL 11,6/ 11,1 7,1/ 5,3
YEMEN AR 5,5/ 7,4 3,4/-3,5
YEMEN PDR 6,1/ 6,9 3,7/ 3,3
TOTAL 163 / 210 100 / 10Q_

TOTAL LLOCs SHORTFALLS (OOO US dollars)
(thresholds not included)
74/81 77/81
(5 years
__________________________________________ average) _____________
1.
 Shortfal Is of LLDC ACP countries
Canada 15419 17930
Nordic States 35589 49151
USA 231235 284949
Japan 126729 140263
Subtotal 408972 492293
EEC 571880 746522
TOTAL 980852 1 238815
2. Shortfalls of LLDC non-ACP countries
Canada 2545 3754
Nordic States 2962 3849
USA 41451 -  57619
Japan 16696 19472
Subtotal 63654 84694
EEC 88292 112937
TOTAL .  151946 197631
ShortfalIs. of all LLDCs
Canada 17964 . 21684
Nordic States 38551 53000
USA•272686 - 342568
Japan 143425 · 159734
Subtotal 472626 576956
EEC 660171 - 859459
TOTAL 1 132797 1 436455

TABLE 8 bis
• I
TOTAL LLDC's SHORTFALLS 
(Thresholds not included)
(1000  $ )
1974-81 
5 yr.av.1977-198s !
Shortfalls of LLDC ACP Countries
Aust ri a 
Switzerland 
Austra l i  a 
New Zealand
Subtotal
+ Total table 8 (1)
GRAND TOTAL16.140
35.220
17.510
8.188
77.058
980.852
1.057.91023.285
45.515
21.424
9.914
100.138
1.238.815
1.338.953
Shortfalls of LLDC non-ACP Countries
Austria .  1.488 1.987
Switzerland 5.606 6.758
Australia .  2.713 2.246
New Zealand 1.183 1.768
Subtotal 10.990 12.759
+ Total table 8 (1) 151.946 197,631
GRAND TOTAL 162.936 210.390
Shortfalls of all LLDC's
Aust ri a 
Switzerland 
Austra l i a 
New Zealand
.  Subtotal
+ Total table 8 (1)
GRAND TOTAL17.628
40.826
20.223
9.371
88.048 
1.132.79725.272
52.273 
21.670 
11.682
110.897 
1 .436.455
1 .220.845 1.547.352
(1) Canada + USA + Nordic States + Japan + CEE

Brussels,
Mr Gamani COREA 
Secretary General of UNCTAD
Palais des Nations
CH 1211 GENEVE 10.
Si r,
We would like to refer to paragraph U of UNCTAD Resolution 157 (VI), 
which invites member countries to forward to you any suggestions and 
proposals concerning the need for an additional complementary facility to 
compensate for the export earnings shortfalls of developing countries, and 
to your note of 12 August on the same subject.
You will of course be aware of the position which the Community took 
in the discussions on compensatory financing which were held last January 
in the Committee on Commodities where we both put forward an assessment 
of Stabex as well as comments on the documents to be considered. It was 
in the same spirit that we actively took part in the discussions during 
UNCTAD VI in June 1983 which led to the adoption of Resolution 157 (VI).
In general, the Community considers that mechanisms based on a 
balance of payments approach or on a product by product approach can be 
considered as complementary. It is for this reason that, while awaiting 
with interest the results of the review being undertaken by the Executive 
Board of the I.M.F. on its Compensatory Financing Facility, we look forward 
to studying closely as soon as it is available, the analysis that the expert 
group is due to carry out in accordance with Resolution 157 (VI).

-  2 -
Although we are ready to exchange views on an overall complementary 
financing facility, we would like to note at this stage that such a mechanism, 
embracing "all countries" and "all products" appears to us too global and 
insufficiently specific. It would also be difficult to put into operation 
for administrative reasons; it also appears to carry risks of financial 
non viability which would be difficult to overcome.
On the other hand, the study that we undertook in accordance with 
paragraph 12 of the Substantial New Programme of Action adopted in December 
1981 by the Paris Conference on the least Developed Countries, and which 
we herewith forward to you in accordance with paragraph 11 of Resolution 
142 (VI), shows that the setting up of a system of compensation for falls 
in commodity export earnings based on a product by product approach, and 
limited to agricultural commodities and to the least developed countries, 
could provide a worthy and realisable objective.
Moreover it is important to ensure adequate participation by the 
principal importing countries. The Community through the existing Stabex 
system already meets the requirements of 27 LLDCs and may therefore wish 
at a later date to make known its position on the question of an extension 
of the benefits of Stabex to the nine LLDCs which are not parties to the 
Lome Convention. The Community's position would take into account :
f
- the effect that the current ACP/EEC negotiations for the renewal of this 
Convention will have on the form and content of the Stabex system;

the position that the principal commodity importers may take regarding 
the setting up of a Stabex-type systepi of compensation for the L L D C s .
I have the honour to be, Sir, yours faithfully,
For the Commission For the President of the Counc