COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 16.04.1997 
COM(97) 156 final 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
IMPROVING MARKET ACCESS FOR LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES 

IMPROVING MARKET ACCESS FOR LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES 
TABLE OF CONTENT 
INTRODUCTION 
• The Issue 
• The International Orientations 
• The Objectives for Europe 
1. EC TRADE POLICY FOR LLDCS 
1.1. Market Access conditions 
- the beneficiaries 
- LOME trade regime for ACP LLDCS 
- GSP trade regime applied in practice to non-ACP LLDC 's 
- overall assessment 
1.2. The potential for further liberalisation 
- agricultural trade 
- take-up of GSP preferences by non-ACP LLDCS 
- the Green Paper on the future of the relationship between the EC and the 
ACP countries 
2. THE RESULTS OF THE MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE IN SINGAPORE AND THE ROLE 
OF THE EC 
2.1. The WTO Action Plan 
2.2. The options for further improving market access: challenges for the European 
Community 
3. CONCLUSIONS / PROPOSITIONS 
IMPROVING MARKET ACCESS FOR LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES 
INTRODUCTION 
The increasing marginalisation of the LLDCs within the international trade and the 
international trading system has been recognised by the international community as a 
serious problem. WTO Ministers in Singapore have agreed upon initiatives that concern 
both the improvement of market access and the coordination of technical assistance by 
adopting a comprehensive Action Plan in favour of the LLDCs and organising a High-
Leve! Meeting for late June. 
The present communication suggests a long-term strategy for improving the preferential 
market access given by the EC for LLDCs on the basis of the options suggested in the 
WTO Action Plan. The first element of this strategy foresees the harmonisation of the 
preferences given to LLDCs that benefit today of two different schemes - LOME and 
GSP - and provides for a more flexible implementation of the rules of origin. Finally the 
option of a consolidated preferential scheme could be considered at a later stage within 
the next round of tariff negotiations. 
This document does not deal with the broader question of technical assistance needed by 
LLDCs, to enable them to take better advantage of the opportunities offered to them by 
trade liberalisation. Initiatives on this front are the main focus of the High Level Meeting, 
agreed in the WTO Ministerial Conference in Singapore and due to take place later this 
year in Geneva. 
The Issue 
1. The participation of the LLDCs1 in international trade and investment remains 
worryingly low. Against a background of expanding world trade, both their share of 
total world exports and the absolute value of these exports have actually been 
declining in recent years, while their imports have stagnated. Given the declining share 
in world trade, the sustained weakness of prices, and the high price volatility of 
primary commodities, the continued dependence of LLDCs on those products explains 
a great extent their poor export and growth performance as well as their economic 
vulnerability. Similarly with investment: while the developing countries as a whole 
have seen their share of FDI rise dramatically in recent years, this has in the main been 
directed to around twenty countries in East and South-East Asia and Latin America 
with the LLDCs receiving relatively little FDI. 
2. In terms of trade LLDCs represent a very small percentage of world trade, less than a 
half of 1% in 1993 (the latest year for which full statistics are available). However, 
this can account for a sizeable share of their foreign exchange needs. LLDCs exports 
when expressed as a proportion of GDP represent 9% of GDP, whereas, imports are 
the equivalent of 16% of GDP. Clearly any improvements in access to export markets 
for LLDCs would assist them in reducing this major imbalance. By way of comparison 
ODA represented just over 8.5% of LLDC GDP in 1993. 
The structure and scale of imports from LLDCs is in part explained by their 
production structures, generally weak, and by the trade preferences they are already 
offered by the developed nations. 
Developed country imports from LLDCs have tended to fluctuate along with 
commodity prices. While the composition of trade varies between LLDCs, commodity 
exports are important for most of them with manufactured goods also of importance. 
The degree to which the latter is traded depends in part upon the host market and the 
trade regime in place. 
The International Orientations 
3. The G-7 Leaders, in their 1996 Summit in Lyon, recognised the seriousness of this 
problem and focused particularly in the integration of the least-developed countries 
into the world economy. They recognised that all policy instruments -not only trade 
policy- need to be mobilised to realise this objective but they regarded improved 
market access for LLDCs exports as an important element in the process and declared: 
"In this context, we will examine what each of us could do to improve their access 
to our markets and encourage others to do the same, including other developing 
countries." 
1 As defined by the United Nations ' criteria (listed in Annexes I and II). 
4 
4. These ideas have been carried on within the works of the WTO and served as 
guidelines for the Ministerial Declaration in Singapore by which WTO Members 
agreed to the following initiatives concerning the least-developed countries: 
• "a Plan of Action, including provision for taking positive measures, for example 
duty-free access, on an autonomous basis, aimed at improving their overall 
capacity to respond to the opportunities offered by the trading system; 
• seek to give operational content to the Plan of Action, for example, by enhancing 
conditions for investment and providing predictable and favourable market 
access condition for LLDCs' products, to foster the expansion and diversification 
of their exports to the markets of all developed countries; and ir. the case of 
relevant developing countries in the context of the Global Systerr of Trade 
Preferences; and 
• organize a meeting with UNCTAD and the International Trade Centre as soon as 
possible in 1997, with the participation of aid agencies, multilateral financial 
institutions and least-developed countries to foster an integrated approach to 
assisting these countries in enhancing their trading opportunities." 
The Objectives for Europe 
5. The European Community has played a very active role in the debate that was 
launched in the WTO concerning the LLDCs and contributed to the successful 
outcome of the Ministerial Conference. On this occasion, the Council has reiterated its 
political engagement towards the poorest countries by the following declaration: 
"In this context, the European Union considers the Plan of Action submitted for 
approval to the WTO Ministerial Conference and contained in the report of the 
WTO Committee on Trade and Development to be a useful instrument for initiating 
further efforts to improve market access of LLDCs. The European Union for its part 
is ready to make commitments with a view to opening further its market to imports 
from all LLDCs and, in this regard, will study in a constructive spirit with all its 
partners the different options advanced in the plan of action with a view to defining 
in a coordinated way, in the WTO, concrete contributions by all involved for an 
early implementation." 
6. It is important not to over-estimate the economic significance for LLDCs of possible 
improvements in access to developed country markets. In the first place, access is 
already quite generous; in the second place, production rather than access is the 
fundamental problem of these countries; finally LLDCs also face difficulties to 
respond to export opportunities because of distribution and marketing problems, 
inability to meet international standards, etc. However, trade and development should 
not be viewed in isolation and further opening of the markets should be combined with 
technical assistance in order to help LLDCs to enhance trade opportunities. 
In this respect the Community is working hard for the success of the High Level 
Meeting due to take place in Geneva later this year. That will focuse on a coordinated 
approach to international technical assistance, notably between the activities of the 
trade policy and aid communities. The WTO, the ITC and the UNCTAD Secretariats, 
with the support of World Bank and the IMF, are closely collaborating on concrete 
contributions that will be discussed in the framework of the WTO Committee on 
Trade and Development. The Community aims to achieve concrete results that will 
help meet the different needs of the developing world (with particular attention to the 
training of human resources) and will divide up the tasks between the executive 
agencies. 
In addition, helping LLDCs to participate more fully in the WTO and other relevant 
institutions, while having a modest short-term economic impact, could be a useful 
political gesture. Within the WTO European Community support for the LLDCs in the 
form of working towards an initiative on market access would be a very important 
political demonstration of our commitment, not only to LLDCs, but also to the 
principle that WTO membership should be beneficial for all its members. We should 
also press forward with the idea of encouraging richer developing countries to open 
their markets to the least-developed to match what the EC has already done, in a 
significant manner. 
I. EUROPEAN COMMUNITY TRADE POLICY FOR LLDCs 
II. MARKET ACCESS CONDITIONS 
The beneficiaries: 
The European Scheme of Generalised Preferences defines a list of 50 least-developed 
countries (Annex I) that benefit from extended tariff preferences for industrial and 
agricultural products, beyond those available to other GSP eligible developing countries. 
This list is very close to the one established by the United Nations (48 LLDCs: Annex II), 
with two exceptions: under the European GSP scheme Botswana and Tonga are eligible 
as LLDCs while Angola is not. 
Of the 50 LLDCs eligible under the European GSP scheme, 41 are also signatories of the 
LOME Convention and therefore benefit as well from the trade conditions set out in this 
Agreement. Of the two schemes, the LOME Convention is more generous in terms of 
markets access provisions and, as a result, in practice only the remaining 9 non-ACP 
LLDCs2 receive the extended GSP preferences. A detailed analysis of the two regimes is 
as follows: 
- LOME Trade regime for ACP LLDCs 
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS: The Lomé Convention gives free access without quotas for all 
industrial products. One result of this regime is that the EC is the largest importer of 
manufactured goods from ACP-LLDCs. In 1994 the EC imported 1.8 Becu of 
manufactured goods from these countries. Total imports of all industrial goods ( NC 
chapters 25-97 including: oil, mineral products and base metals) amounted to about 2.9 
Becu in 1994. 
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS: Of the EC's total imports of agricultural products from ACP 
LLDCs (1.3 Becu in 1994) about 97% enter tariff free due to the LOME trade regime. On 
the remaining part (products which are under a Common Market Organisation), most 
imports receive some degree of preferential access in the form of an unlimited tariff 
preferences or in a few cases, for example fruit and vegetable products, through a tariff 
preference within a quota. It should be noted that the Lomé Convention also grants duty 
free access to fish products (Imports of 267 Mecu in 1994). 
2 List of non-ACP Least Developed Countries: Yemen, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal, 
Bhutan, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia. 
To be noted that the Commission has proposed to the Council to withdraw the GSP preferences for 
Myanmar for violation of the international conventions concerning the prohibition of forced labour. 
SPECIAL PROTOCOLS: In addition to the general Lomé trade regime, the Lomé protocols 
offer additional benefits to some ACPs. One ACP LLDC, Madagascar, enjoys under the 
beef and veal protocol, a reduction of 92% of the specific duties (ad valorem component 
of the tariff is waived for all ACPs) for its exports of boneless beef to the EC within an 
annual quota of 7579 tons. Moreover, four ACP LLDCs -Madagascar, Malawi, Uganda 
and Tanzania- benefit under the Sugar protocol from the selling to the EC at guaranteed 
prices of specific but different annual quantities of sugar (10000, 20000, 5000 and 10000 
tonnes, respectively). 
- GSP Trade regime applied in practice to non-ACP LLDCs 
Non-ACP LLDC countries benefit from a special GSP regime under which: 
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS: Duty free access is provided for practically all manufactured 
exports to the Community. The only exclusions are some primary products and non-
ferrous metals3. However in reality these exclusions touch very little of the non-ACP 
LLDCs actual trade with the European Community. Acccording to 1994 figures the only 
imports of industrial products which are not eligible for tariff preferences were around 7 
MECU (Annex III). Moreover, they concerned leather imports for which the MFN duties 
will be reduced, as a result of the Uruguay Round. 
In the textiles and clothing sector LLDCs also benefit from a duty free treatment (which 
is not the case of the other major textiles importer, the US which does not grant GSP 
benefits at all for textiles and clothing exports). 
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS: Duty free access is provided for practically all 
agricultural products, with the exception of most products which are under a Common 
Market Organisation. Again, these exclusions concern very little of actual trade. Under 
the revised GSP which came into force in 1997, it is estimated that only 0.2 Mecu of 
1994 agricultural trade with non-ACP LLDCs is not eligible for preferential treatment. In 
fact the Community has already made an effort to include more agricultural products 
under preferences since under the old GSP and 1994 figures 3 MECUs of agricultural 
imports were not eligible for preferential access. 
- Overall assessment 
The EC through Lomé and its generous GSP for industrial goods is supportive of 
manufacturing in LLDCs. As a result, the Community's imports from LLDCs contain a 
higher share of manufactured products notably textiles and clothing than do the other 
Quad members. To give the most stark example, in 1995 the EC imported $3.5 bn of 
manufactured goods from LLDCs compared with $1.5 bn of imports by the US and $0.06 
bn by Japan (Annex IV). Of the QUAD it is the Union which has the highest share of 
imports of manufactured goods in its total imports from non-ACP LLDCs. 
Although the agricultural products do not benefit from the same generous conditions as 
industrial ones, the European Community still has better results than the other QUAD 
countries. This is true in absolute terms of the value trade, but also in relative, the 
European Community importing from the LLDCs ± 4% of its total agricultural imports. 
Annex IX of the GSP regulation (EC) n° 3281/94 
However, more needs to be done across the board to expand the potential market 
available to LLDC exporters. The European Community is well placed to call for 
improved treatment for LLDCs by virtue of the efforts which we have made to date. In 
this effect, the results of the High Level Meeting on technical assistance will be 
extremely useful in helping LLDCs to avail of the opportunities offered. 
1.2. THE POTENTIAL FOR FURTHER LIBERALISATION 
- Agricultural trade 
At present very little of the EC's agricultural trade with the LLDCs does not receive some 
sort of preference. However, the specific products not covered by any preferential trade 
represent several hundreds of tariff lines. The potential results of the liberalisation for 
these products are highly unpredictable. Under most of the headings concerned LLDCs 
export nothing to EC. It is difficult to say if this is primarily because of our protection or 
whether LLDC would in any case be uncompetitive in these products. 
It is true that an analysis of the effects of lifting restrictions is difficult but any concern 
about the EC market being "flooded with imports" must be seen in the light of the 
LLDCs potential to expand exports in the future. In the short term at least, this potential 
would appear very limited: 
• Total agricultural production of the LLDCs is around 40 Becu (1993 figure4). 
(P.M. roughly equal to two-thirds of EC's annual agricultural imports) 
• In 1994 LLDCs agricultural exports to the Quad totalled approximately 5.2 Becu. 
Even if twice this amount were exported to the EC alone, it would amount to 
about 7.7% of the EC's total agricultural imports. 
• Furthermore, any increased export potential which might be developed as a result 
of the lifting of restrictions would develop over the medium to long term and 
would not be concentrated on the EC alone. The Singapore Declaration implies 
that Quad but also other developed and developing WTO Members must also 
look to liberalise their trade and other markets with higher levels of protection 
(i.e. Japan) would be more likely to witness a large increase in imports from 
LLDCs. (P.M. the EC already has the highest share and value of LLDC imports 
in its total agricultural imports.) 
4 calculation based on data in UNCTAD Yearbook 1994 
9 
There are nonetheless some products where the potential to expand production to levels 
which might create difficulties on the European market (if production were converted 
into exports to the EC). Rice, bananas, manioc and bovine meat are perhaps the most 
obvious examples. Current imports from LLDCs of these products vary greatly in 
magnitude: 48 Mecu for bovine meat, 10.3 Mecu for bananas 6.5 Mecu for manioc and 
for rice just 50,000 Ecu. However, the concern is that production of these products could 
be rapidly increased if liberalisation took place: witness the increase in production of 
manioc following liberalisation agreed during the Kennedy Round5. 
Any package of liberalisation measures should contain adequate safeguard mechanisms 
to protect against unforeseen surges in trade. A liberalisation package could for example 
include duty-free treatment for some agricultural products but subject to quantitative 
limits (as is the case for certain products under the LOME Convention), or could foresee 
gradual liberalisation by stages before arriving at total exemption of duties. It should also 
be possible for the EC on the basis of the current understanding of LLDCs' production 
capability and with some further analysis to draw up a short list of products to be 
excluded from any liberalisation package. Thus protected the EC would be in a position 
to advance the case for preferential liberalisation for LLDCs in the agricultural sector at 
the WTO. 
- Take up of GSP preferences by non ACP-LLDCs: 
Rules of origin 
In practice, it is difficult for non ACP LLDCs to benefit from these generous access 
conditions, the most frequently quoted reason being the complex rules of origin 
requirements. In fact non ACP-LLDCs face, within the GSP scheme, non-flexible 
rules of origin such as the double transformation requirement in the textiles sector. 
ACP-LLDCs also face the double transformation requirement but benefit from the 
possibility of cumulation between ACP and E.U. countries. Other GSP countries do 
benefit from the possibility of cumulation with the E.U. countries but on an 
individual basis while cumulation between them is not foreseen, with the exception 
of certain cases of regional cumulation (ASEAN). 
The purpose of the specific rules of origin is justified by the necessity to make sure 
that the benefits of the scheme effectively apply to the GSP beneficiaries and help to 
attract and maintain investment within those countries who mostly need it. A 
relaxation of these rules may lead to the development of economic activities that 
produce very little or no value added at all. 
For a broad sectoral analysis of the agricultural potential of the LLDCs, including fruit and vegetables, 
fats and oil and dairy products, see annex V. 
10 
In 1994, the latest year for which data is available, EU preferential treatment was 
claimed for 41.2 percent of textile and clothing imports from non-ACP LLDCs; 
therefore the remaining 58.8 percent had to pay the normal MFN rate, which is in 
the vicinity of 12-13 percent at the moment. As textile and clothing imports account 
for more than 60 percent of all our imports from non-ACP LLDCs, the importance 
of rules of origin requirements is evident. Laos, Cambodia, Bangladesh and others, 
which encounter difficulties with these specific rules of origin for a part of their 
exports have consequently introduced a request for a derogation (as foreseen in 
Regulation (CE) n° 2454/93) in order to be able to export on preferential terms. 
Consideration should be given, therefore, to improving the rules of origin. This 
improvement should be in two forms: 
- simplification, in which the first stage would be the derogations, as well as the 
application of existing regional cumulation facilities for the benefit of LLDCs 
and 
- clarification of the conditions for applying preferences in practice (fraud, 
discrepancies). 
For the latter point, the Commission will put forward, presently, its understanding of 
the situation and will propose methods for avoiding these difficulties; this would be 
in the interests of the beneficiary countries (preventing other countries from using 
preferences in their stead), of Community importers (responsible for paying customs 
duties) and of safeguarding the Community's own resources. 
Only with these conditions can the rules of origin be made more flexible, without 
making the preferences more cumbersome to apply. 
Other factors which might affect the level of preferential access to our market for 
non-ACP LLDCs are: 
• incomplete coverage of our GSP scheme. Only 0.45% of 1994 imports from non-
ACP LLDCs do not receive preferential treatment. However, the effects of 
granting preferences for the products not already included in the GSP scheme on 
potential trade are difficult to quantify. For certain cases the effect might be 
limited since no sufficient production exists. In other cases further preferences 
may incite an increase on production. 
• under-utilisation of GSP: there are also sectors where the utilisation of the GSP is 
rather low (for example only two-thirds of non-sensitive industrial products 
imported, receive preferential treatment), whether because the preferential margin 
is too small because they are not aware of the possibility of claiming preferential 
treatment, or because the administrative cost of following the necessary 
procedures is too high. 
11 
- The Green Paper on the future of the relationship between the EC and the ACP 
countries 
The present Lomé Convention, which includes the trade regime the EC applies to the 
ACP countries, expires on February 2000. In order to prepare for negotiations on the 
relationship beyond that date, which have to start in 1998, the Commission has sent to the 
Council a Green Paperhe future of these relations (Doc. N° 262/96 (ACP)). This Green 
Paper is intended to lead to a large debate inside the Community and in the ACP 
countries as well as between all other concerned people about the options which appear 
open in the beginning of the next century. As such, the Green Paper only presents the 
different possible options, without engaging the EC, at this stage, in favour of a particular 
one. The Commission, however, will have to define, in the light of the results of the 
debate, the options to follow later in this year, when it has to present to the Council a 
proposal for negotiating directives with the ACP States. 
In the trade field, the Green Paper presents three basic options for the future: 
• a reciprocal trade agreement or several reciprocal agreements in conformity with 
GATT/WTO rules; 
• keeping the ACP countries only under GSP treatment; 
• or maintaining the present features of the trade regime with some improvements. 
Each of these three basic options will have different implications for the future 
commercial treatment of the ACP countries and consequently of the LLDCs, since 41 of 
the 49 ones on the UN list are ACP States. The Green Paper also mentions the option of 
unifying the trade treatment for all LLDCs by including in the future trade deal the nine 
LLDCs which are not ACP. 
* * * 
12 
2. THE RESULTS OF THE MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE IN SINGAPORE 
AND THE ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY 
2.1. THE WTO ACTION PLAN 
The Ministerial Declaration in Singapore clearly defines as an essential objective the 
integration of the Least-Developed Countries in the multilateral environment that has 
emerged from the Uruguay Round negotiations. In order to fulfil this objective WTO 
Members have adopted a Comprehensive and Integrated WTO Action Plan for the Least-
Developed Countries. Therefore, WTO Members recognised that although the reasons for 
the LLDCs marginalisation may lie with the incapacity of their economic structures to 
produce and export, policies applied by the developed and developing economies may 
help the poorest countries to take advantage of the trading opportunities that are offered 
and attract investment. 
The WTO Action Plan covers measures and suggests options that aim not only to 
improve the trading performance of the LLDCs but also their better integration and 
participation in the multilateral trading system. Therefore it covers in a comprehensive 
approach the effective implementation of the Decision on Measures in Favour of Least-
Developed Countries with steps that have to be taken in the multilateral context within 
the various WTO Bodies and Committees. 
Secondly, the WTO Action Plan deals with the area of Human and Institutional Capacity 
Building underlining the need of cooperation between the WTO Secretariat and other 
international institutions in matters of technical assistance. 
Finally, in terms of improving market access, the WTO Action Plan suggests various 
options to be considered by WTO Members, in order to take initiatives on an autonomous 
basis. As such the dispositions of the WTO Action Plan on market access represent 
suggestions for voluntary contributions. 
In the market access area the WTO Action Plan introduces two qualitative elements to be 
taken into account: 
* a multilateral approach: 
As such, the WTO Action Plan already constitutes a framework for multilateral 
coordination of autonomous actions taken by WTO Members and it is mentioned that 
"Further consideration should be given to additional multilateral action and coordination 
in this endeavour". Moreover, in Part IV it is also suggested that individual members may 
study the feasibility of binding a multilateral preferential scheme to be applied only to 
LLDCs. 
* burden sharing: 
According to the Action Plan, not only developed but also developing countries would 
explore the possibility of granting preferences to the LLDCs. The Plan does not give any 
objective as to the extent of these preferences but provides for the possibility of 
exceptions. 
13 
2.2. THE OPTIONS FOR FURTHER IMPROVING MARKET ACCESS: 
CHALLENGES FOR THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY 
If least-developed countries are to diversify their exports base and reduce their reliance 
on exports of primary products they need to face international trading environment which 
is conducive to this process. 
The different options suggested by the Action Plan on market access constitute a basis 
upon which the European Community, along with other WTO Members, can construct a 
multilateral strategy in order to fulfil the objectives designed by the Council Declaration 
on LLDCs. 
In order to be in the strongest possible position to provide the opening of the markets for 
LLDCs' exports in other developed and more advanced developing countries, the 
European Community should itself take further steps towards trade liberalisation. 
a) "Developed country Members and developing country Members, on an 
autonomous basis, would explore the possibilities of granting preferential duty­
free access for the exports of least-developed countries. In both cases, exceptions 
could be provided for." 
Preferential duty-free access: 
The establishment of duty free access for all imports coming from LLDCs does not 
have the same economic and legal consequences for industrial and agricultural 
products either for ACP or for non-ACP LLDCs. 
For industrial products, establishing free access will mean that non-ACP LLDCs 
will benefit from the same conditions as ACP ones and will concern, according to 
1994 figures, 7 MECUs of trade. 
For agricultural products, establishing duty-free access will mean that all LLDCs 
will see their preferences improved further than those foreseen by the LOME 
Convention, or the GSP scheme. 
Leaving apart the already explained risks of a further agricultural liberalisation and 
the need for exceptions there are also further problems, that are linked with the 
contractual character of the Lomé Convention. 
Contrary to the GSP, trade preferences granted to ACP countries arc established in 
the Lomé Convention which is a contractual agreement between all the signatories. 
One of its basic principles in the trade field is the non discrimination clause between 
ACP countries as provided for in article 174, b) of the Convention ("The 
Community shall not discriminate between ACP states in the field of trade"). This 
makes it legally impossible for the Community, as long as the present Lomé 
Convention is in force, to extend the scope of trade preferences for ACP LLDCs 
without extending them, at the same time, to the other 29 ACP countries, which will 
go well beyond the intended EC action in this document. 
14 
As stated earlier, the present Lomé Convention expires in February 2000. In the 
meantime, the EC could extend to the non-ACP LLDCs trade preferences equivalent 
to those granted to the ACP countries; this would require quotas and calendars for 
the imports of some sensitive agricultural products which are granted preferential 
access within quotas and calendars in the Lomé trade regime. 
Those sensitive agricultural concessions, which are granted under Lomé special 
protocols and Lomé quotas (sugar, bananas, rice, rhum, veal and beef) and only 
apply to a handful of ACP countries, should not be extended to the non-ACP 
LLDCs. 
Rules of origin 
Improving market access does not only mean applying zero tariffs and eliminating 
quantitative restrictions but also facilitating the access of LLDCs to these open 
conditions. 
Where the European Community could make real progress is in the area of rules of 
origin, which, as described above, limit the accession of non-ACP LLDCs to the 
GSP preferences. However, any improvement in the field of rules of origin should 
be carefully geared so as to make sure that it contributes to achieve the right 
objective, that is the development of the existing industrial infrastructure and the 
creation of new industries in the beneficiary countries. In order to avoid the risk that 
other-countries try to take undue advantage from any further concession appropriate 
administrative instruments (i.e. bilateral textile monitoring agreements with non-
WTO countries or administrative arrangements on textiles trade, as well as the 
reinforcement of the customs cooperation mechanisms) should be considered as 
useful or necessary accompanying measures. 
Solution could be sought in the direction of providing for regional cumulation (as it 
is the case for example for ASEAN and as it could be the case for SAARC6). This is 
already foreseen in the framework of the derogations the Commission is going to 
propose to the Customs Code Committee." Moreover, this will also encourage the 
process of regional integration between LLDCs and developing countries that is one 
of the objectives of the Community's development policy. 
Participation of other WTO Members 
As mentioned in the Action Plan, developed and developing Members could 
contribute to improving market access for the least-developed. In fact, developing 
countries and least-developed ones do give preferences to each other in the context 
of regional integration, that is on a reciprocal basis. The establishment of non-
reciprocal, non-discriminatory autonomous preferences to LLDCs given by 
developing countries should not have a negative effect on the process of regional 
integration. 
6 ASEAN: Association of South East Asian Nations 
SAARC: South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation 
15 
Developing countries, and especially the more advanced among them7, should 
participate but according to the level of their development. For example, the degree 
of exceptions in their preferential schemes could be greater than in the case of 
developed countries. This could diminish any conflict between autonomous 
preferences and regional integration since in the latter case, the coverage of products 
will be larger. The establishment of preferential autonomous schemes can even be a 
motivation for joining a free trade area which will give the opportunity for the 
joining partners to achieve, further liberalisation than they would receive under the 
preferential schemes. 
b) WTO Members should endeavour to make use, when possible, of the relevant 
provisions of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing to increase market access 
opportunities of least-developed countries. 
The European Community does not apply any quantitative restrictions to textile 
products originating in the least-developed countries. Within the Textiles and 
Clothing Agreement the European Community has only one bilateral Agreement 
with Bangladesh that concerns a monitoring system. 
Moreover, LLDCs benefit from tariff preferences for all textile products in the 
context of the LOME Convention, and under the GSP scheme. 
As is the case with imports of manufactured goods as a whole, the openness of the 
EC trade regime with regards to imports of textiles and clothing from LLDCs has 
been beneficial. In terms of absolute value and share of imports in the sector the EC 
is the most important of the QUAD market for LLDCs. 
The European Community can legitimately fix as an objective, in the multilateral 
context, liberalisation measures to be taken by the other developed countries who 
maintain bilateral textile agreements imposing quantitative restrictions. On the same 
occasion the European Community could seek improvements of the preferential 
schemes applied by other WTO Members by extending the coverage to textile 
products. 
However, the abolition of quantitative restrictions for textile products originating in 
least-developed countries might provoke reactions from textile exporting developing 
countries, for which quantitative restrictions will remain. These last ones may argue 
that the maintenance of quotas for their textiles products puts a ceiling on their 
market share, and artificially create a market space for the LLDCs' products for 
which quotas are abolished. 
7 For example, countries listed in the Annex VII of the GSP regulations. 
16 
c) "Whenever provided for in the WTO Agreements, Members may decide to 
extend unilaterally and on an autonomous basis, certain benefits to least-
developed countries' suppliers." 
The European Community could examine if, in the case of the Agreement on 
Government Procurement, the market opening benefits could be extended to 
suppliers in LLDCs, whether or not they are a Party of the Agreement. This 
extension should be done on an autonomous basis and would be not legally binding. 
It could constitute a bilateral or a multilateral action if other WTO Members agree to 
do so. 
d) Part IV point 17 of the WTO Action Plan: 
"Individual Members may study the feasibility of binding preferential tariff 
rates in the WTO preferential scheme which could be applicable to least-
developed countries only." 
Binding preferential rates for LLDCs would introduce an element of stability and 
predictability for LLDCs' exports that might attract investment and allow long-term 
planification. On the other hand, it would introduce an element of rigidity for the 
donor country. In fact, tariff preferences would not be given on an autonomous basis 
but would constitute a bound obligation. In a bound preferential scheme neither the 
list of the products nor the rates, nor the beneficiaries may be modified.8 
Therefore, bound preferences would contribute, by their stability, to the 
development process, but, on the other hand, they would not allow the doner country 
to use them for development policy purposes. 
The establishment of a WTO preferential scheme would have a meaning only if all 
non-LLDCs members would make such a commitment. Of course, the degree of the 
engagements and the timing might vary according to the level of development of the 
donor. 
However, there are also questions relative to the WTO legal basis for a non-
autonomous preferential scheme that would be a bound exemption to the most-
favoured nation treatment. All this will require a strong political initiative that will 
be opposed by many WTO members. In fact, the other QUAD Members have already 
shown great reluctance in moving towards a further opening of the markets for the 
LLDCs. This reluctance was turned into a total negative attitude to the suggestion of 
a bound preferential scheme for market access. Too much insistence for a binding 
scheme, at this stage, will undermine the few advances that could be made in further 
opening of the markets on an autonomous basis. 
As it is the case today, for example for Myanmar, for which GSP preferences will be withdrawn for 
violation of the international conventions concerning the prohibition of forced labour. 
17 
Finally, a binding preferential scheme applicable only to least-developed countries 
would constitute a consolidated concession. As such it is no more a benefit given 
unilaterally by a donor country, but a part of the general balance of rights and 
obligations of the WTO members as a whole. 
For all these reasons, the idea of a binding preferential scheme would be best 
considered only in the context of the next round of negotiations as a possible part of 
the concluding package. 
III. CONCLUSIONS / PROPOSITIONS 
The European Community gives a priority to the issue of least-developed countries and 
has fixed as an objective to contribute to their integration in the international trade and 
trading system. Within the multilateral framework, the European Community has 
supported the WTO Comprehensive Action Plan as well as the organisation of a High 
Level Meeting for the coordination of the technical assistance, in order to help them 
benefit from the opportunities that trade liberalisation is offering. 
For Europe, trade and development aspects are strongly linked and this linkage is 
expressed within the policy applied towards the poorest countries. Therefore, any 
initiative or reorientation of the preferences given to the LLDCs has to be taken in 
harmony with the general evolution of the European development policy. Any initiative 
for the least-developed countries has to take into consideration the fact that the Lomé 
Convention, that covers not only LLDCs but other developing countries, will expire by 
the year 2000. 
In the light of the analysis made in the present Communication, the trade regime already 
applied by the European Community seems quite generous but margins for further 
liberalisation still exist. These margins concern limited amounts of current trade but it is 
difficult to estimate the effect that trade liberalisation will have on trade flows, especially 
as most of the products for which restrictions and tariffs still exist are agricultural ones. 
The Commission therefore suggests to the Council to adopt a long-term, staged strategy 
with initiatives that: 
- would aim to give all LLDCs a similar preferential treatment and equal opportunities 
to the Community market; 
- would be on an autonomous basis but coordinated and valorised on the multilateral 
context; 
- would use the possibilities offered already by the Community's preferential trade 
policy instruments. 
18 
In the short term the European Community should present, within the Committee on 
Trade and Development, autonomous initiatives in the following areas: 
- the harmonisation of the European Community's preferential trade policy towards the 
least-developed countries. This can be realised in the short term by adjusting the trade 
regime given to all LLDCs to the level of the LOME tariff preferences, with certain 
exceptions for sensitive products, notably agricultural products under Lomé quotas 
and Lomé protocols; 
- as far as rules of origin are concerned, the Community could promote the application 
of existing regional cumulation facilities for the benefit of least-developed countries; 
should give positive answers to the derogations requested by certain LLDCs; while in 
the near future, a specific Communication to the Council could contribute, inter alia, 
to the clarification of the conditions of applying preferences in practice. 
On the basis of these initiatives the European Community should call upon the other 
WTO members, including advanced developing countries, to present further 
improvements on the basis of the WTO Action Plan for further opening of their markets 
that should be comparable to the ones already realised by the EC. 
Finally, the idea of a binding preferential scheme would be best considered only in the 
context of the next round of negotiations as a possible part of the concluding package. 
19 
ANNEX I 
List of least-developed developing countries 
Sudan 
Mauritania 
Mali 
Burkina Faso 
Niger 
Chad 
Republic of Cape Verde 
Gambia 
Guinea-Bissau 
Guinea 
Sierra Leone 
Liberia 
Togo 
Benin 
Central African Republic 
Equatorial Guinea 
Sâo Tome and Principe 
Zaire 
Rwanda 
Burundi 
Ethiopia 
Eritrea 
Djibouti 
Somalia 
Uganda Tanzania 
Mozambique 
Madagascar 
Comores 
Zambia 
Malawi 
Botswana 
Lesotho 
Haiti 
Yemen 
Afghanistan 
Bangladesh 
Maldives 
Nepal 
Bhutan 
Burma (Myanmar) 
Laos 
Kampuchea (Cambodia) 
Solomon Islands 
Tuvalu 
Kiribati 
Vanuatu 
Tonga 
Western Samoa 
Angola 
do 
ANNEX II 
UN Definition of Least Developed Countries 
Least Developed Nation status is conferred upon states by the United Nations General Assembly 
on the recommendations of the Committee for Development Planning through ECOSOC. 
The list of LDCs as well as the criteria are reviewed every three years - the next review is due in 
1997. 
The criteria are as following: 
Î) per capita GDP 
2) augmented physical quality of life index (APOLI) comprising four indicators: 
life expectancy at birth, per capita calorie supplies, combined primary and secondary 
enrolment ratio, and adult literacy rate 
3) an economic diversification index comprising: 
the share of manufacturing in GDP, the share of employment in industry, per capita 
electricity consumption and an export concentration ratio. 
UN List of Least Developed Countries 
Afghanistan 
Angola 
Bangladesh 
Benin 
Bhutan 
Burkina Faso 
Burundi 
Cambodia 
Cape Verde 
Central African Republic 
Chad 
Comoros 
Djibouti 
Equatorial Guinea 
Eritrea 
Ethiopia Gambia 
Guinea 
Guinea-Bissau 
Haiti 
Kiribati 
Lao People's Democratic 
Republic 
Lesotho 
Liberia 
Madagascar 
Malawi 
Maldives 
Mali 
Mauritania 
Mozambique 
Myanmar 
Nepal Niger 
Rwanda 
Samoa 
Soa Tome and Principe 
Sierra Leone 
Solomon Islands 
Somalia 
Sudan 
Togo 
Tuvalu 
Uganda 
United Republic of 
Tanzania 
Vanuatu 
Yemen 
Zaire 
Zambia 
àl 
ANNEX in 
41061900 
41061200 
41051990 
41051910 
07032000 
41061190 
41051210 
41041091 
10063025 EC Imports from non-ACP LLDCs 1 not receiving preferential treatment, 
1994 (thousand ECU) 
»2 
Goat or kid skin leather, other 
Goat or kid skin leather, otherwise pre-
tanned 
Sheep or lamb skin, other, split 
Sheep or lamb skin, other, not split 
Garlic 
Goat or kid skin leather, vegetable pre-
tanned. other 
Sheep or lamb skin, otherwise pre-
tanned, not split 
Leather, not further prepared than tanned 
Semi or wholly milled rice 485 
226 
118 
58 
39 
35 2.2 
2.2 
11.6 
2.4 
2.2 
6.7 10.8 2 
2 
9.6 
2 
25 611 ECU / ton 533 ECU / ton 6.5 
416 ECU/ton 
1 Yemen, Afghanistan. Bangladesh, Maldives. Nepal. Bhutan, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia 
2 Industrial products: 1 January 1999 
Agricultural products: 1 July 2000 (if not other specified) 
So 
10063044 Semi or wholly milled rice 
02013000 Boneless meat 
41072910 
17039000 Other leather 
Molasses, other 
10063094 Semi or wholly milled rice 
10063063 Semi or wholly milled rice 
10063092 Semi or wholly milled rice 14 
10 611 ECU/ton 533 ECU/ton 416 ECU/ton 
18.8 + 445.6 16.4 + 388.7 12.8 + 303.4 ECU /100 Kg 
ECU/ 100 Kg ECU/ 100 Kg 
/net 
2.5 
43 ECU/100 
Kg 0.4 ECU / 100 
Kg / net 
611 ECU/ton 533 ECU/ton 
611 ECU/ton 533 ECU/ton 
611 ECU/ton 533 ECU/ton 0.35 ECU/100 Kg 
416 ECU/ton 
416 ECU/ton 
416 ECU /ton 
TOTAL without preferences 7,320 
TOTAL IMPORTS 1,624,477 
Industrial products: 1 January 2000 
Agn;u'Uirai products: i July 2000 ut not other specified) 
So 
TOTAL IMPORTS FROM LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES TO QUAD 
European Community (15) 
Value(000 Ecu) Share (%) US 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 7833161 
7552554 
6509104 
6418896 
5682344 
6373539 
7199627 1,8028 
1,6986 
1,3753 
1,3787 
1,1946 
1,2232 
1,3217 1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 Value(000 Ecu) Share(%) 
3924983 
3614505 
3195236 
3429351 
3771629 
3893464 
3807810 0,8771 
0,8894 
0,7780 
0,8043 
0,7322 
0,6722 
0,6461 
JAPAN 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 Value(000 Ecu) Share(%) 
1326159 
981687 
992215 
909998 
1111100 
1057997 
1207520 0,6930 
0,5324 
0,5194 
0,5069 
0,5406 
0,4581 
0,4699 CANADA 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 Value(000 Ecu) Share(%) 
215209 
160619 
196469 
155182 
130472 
145303 
171995 0,2080 
0,1756 
0,2062 
0,1643 
0,1163 
0,1166 
0,1369 
Source: EUROSTAT (COMTRADE) 
Note: Share in per cent of total imports 
EU15: 1995 EUROSTAT (COMEXT) 
?i 
IMPORTS OF MANUFACTURED GOODS FROM LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES 
European Community (15) 
Value(000 Ecu) Share(%) 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 
JAPAN 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 2216127 
2058076 
2035229 
2459246 
2690863 
2979195 
3427255 
36090 
43251 
42501 
41999 
43748 
55253 
61514 0,8477 
0,7586 
0,6809 
0,8181 
0,8500 
0,8538 
0,9394 
Value(000 Ecu) Share(%) 
0,0449 
0,0550 
0,0509 
0,0529 
0,0459 
0,0484 
0,0451 US 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 
CANADA 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 Value(OQO Ecu) Share(%) 
958971 
884882 
821180 
954470 
1119112 
1222489 
1349103 
33259 
42108 
37900 
42464 
51036 
59435 
72430 0,2878 
0,2995 
0,2674 
0,2949 
0,2812 
0,2690 
0,2900 
Value(000 Ecu) Share(%) 
0,0394 
0,0575 
0,0490 
0,0550 
0,0554 
0,0574 
0,0696 
Source: EUROSTAT 
Note: Share in per cent of total imports of sector) 
Manufactured Products: SITC Headings 5+6-68+7+8 
EU15: 1995 EUROSTAT (COMEXT) 
tf 
TEXTILES AND CLOTHING IMPORTS FROM LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES 
European Community (15) 
Value(000 Ecu) Share(%) 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 
JAPAN 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 438971 
546437 
811747 
899235 
1157041 
1299428 
1492743 
13666 
14528 
13949 
17577 
16069 
17686 
20704 1,4784 
1,6513 
2,0837 
2,2591 
2,6996 
2,8477 
3,3865 
Value(000 Ecu) Share(%) 
0,1130 
0,1441 
0,1260 
0,1485 
0,1139 
0,1030 
0,1094 US 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 
CANADA 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 Value(000 Ecu) Share(%) 
627957 
649156 
645131 
807717 
978702 
1085350 
1164889 
21373 
31024 
28346 
35463 
43200 
51204 
63091 2,1325 
2,4524 
2,2824 
2,5470 
2,5778 
2,6729 
2,9410 
Value(000 Ecu) Share(%) 
0,5189 
0,8382 
0,7583 
0,9312 
0,9682 
1,1207 
1,4000 
Source: EUROSTAT 
Note: Share in per cent of total imports of sector) 
Textiles and Clothing: SITC Headings 65+84 
1995 Data not available for EU (15) or Japan 
EU15: 1995 EUROSTAT (COMEXT) 
dQ 
AGRICULTURAL IMPORTS FROM LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES 
European Community (15) 
Value(000 Ecu) Share(%) 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1995 
1994 
JAPAN 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 2316272 
1938796 
1685524 
1560369 
1557512 
2027531 
2762421 
639325 
424167 
431211 
434148 
523323 
607642 
629270 3,9840 
3,5026 
2,9719 
2,7881 
2,8308 
3,1549 
4,3018 
Value(000 Ecu) Share(%) 
1,4352 
1,1207 
1,0568 
1,0526 
1,0662 
1,1047 
1,1535 US 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 
CANADA 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 
1994 
1995 Value(000 Ecu) Share(%) 
415342 
285059 
261501 
236171 
260658 
336454 
262060 
41767 
28256 
28258 
22578 
26311 
26625 
31213 1,3094 
1,0054 
0,8987 
0,7899 
0,7421 
0,8877 
0,7170 
Value(000 Ecu) Share(%) 
0,5813 
0,4264 
0,4020 
0,3261 
0,3232 
0,3046 
0,3686 
Source: EUROSTAT 
Note: Share in per cent of total imports of sector 
Acriculture: SITC Headings 0+1+21+22+231+24+261+ to 265+268+29+4 
EU15: 1995 EUROSTAT (COMEXT) 
«2? 
ANNEX V 
Liberalising agricultural trade with the LLDCs: identification of exceptions 
Difficulties in defining exceptions 
The initial problem is that the precise level and scope of protection currently levied on 
EC agricultural imports is not readily available. DG VI have spoken of around 5000 
tariff headings on which some form of protection exists. Under a number of these 
lines there is little or no trade, but this is not to say that the LLDCs can not alter their 
production structure overtime and an incentive for this to happen may be given by 
some degree of liberalisation. 
A good example of this is manioc. A reduction in duty occurred during the Kennedy 
Round negotiated by Brazil, which has never been a significant exporter. EC firms 
sought to maximise the concession by exploiting alternative centres of production. 
Thailand was targeted and rapidly, through the right kind of investment, notably in 
infrastructure including port facilities, became a major exporter to the EC. As a result 
of the rapid increase in EC imports in the late 1970s, an auto limitation agreement 
with the Thai government had to be negotiated. 
This illustrates the difficulties in measuring potential for individual products, crops 
never grown before can be cultivated and export patterns change. This is an argument 
for sensible safeguards to protect individual sectors of the market rather than to 
oppose liberalisation in general on the grounds that our markets might be flooded: it is 
clear that LLDCs do not have the capacity to rapidly increase their share of total 
agricultural imports. 
Identification of potential problem products 
Any attempt to identify products for any list of exemptions must take into account the 
productive potential of the LLDCs and market conditions in Europe. With regard to 
the former, little general information is readily available. The data used in this 
exercise were taken from the UNCTAD commodities yearbook, the standard 
sourcebook for this type of information. Even here data are not complete and so the 
analysis is by no means exhaustive (15 sectors are covered for which there were 
consumption and/or production data). However, it does give a general indication of 
product areas which should be investigated further. 
The analysis is based around a comparison of total LLDC consumption, production 
and exports (to the world) with total EC consumption production and imports (from 
the world). 
Obviously any analysis will be quite crude but will give a general indication of sectors 
where there may be potential problems. 
Zf 
Clearly no problems are likely to exist in the 8 sectors where there is no or effectively 
no EC production as these sectors already have very low levels of protection: coffee, 
cocoa beans, tea, pepper, groundnuts, palm kernels, palm oil, and copra. 
Three of the remaining sectors have both consumption and production data available: 
Bovine meat: While the EC is a net exporter, imports are at a reasonably high level, 
equivalent to 20% of total EC production. Total LLDC production stands at about a 
quarter of total EC consumption and at first glance this suggests some scope for 
LLDCs to expand their exports. Not withstanding the fact that LLDC consumption is 
28% higher than production an increase in production could result in increased 
exports to the EC-. This would be the case if the LLDCs could export the "high 
value" cuts and keep the rest of their production. This would enable then to import 
cheaper cuts from other sources to meet domestic demand. 
Bananas: The EC is a large importer and EC production is just over 10% of EC 
consumption. LLDCs consume as much as they produce and currently export very 
little. Liberalisation in the sector could see trade with EC increased. 
Sugar: LLDC consumption of sugar is significantly higher than LLDC production. 
This suggests less scope for export potential than would be the case for bovine meat 
even though the EC imports considerable amounts of sugar. 
For the remaining five products no consumption figures are available and any analysis 
must therefore be even more tentative. 
Wheat: The EC imports a quantity of wheat equivalent to less than 5% of EC 
production, this combined with the very limited production of wheat in LLDCs 
suggest little if any scope for increasing exports to the EC. 
Rice: The EC is again a significant importer of rice and the LLDCs produce vastly 
more rice than the EC. Very considerable scope for increasing exports. 
Vegetable oil seeds and vegetable oil. EC is again a large scale importer with 
substantial production of its own. LLDCs produce about half as much as the EC and 
current exports are very limited. Without data on LLDC consumption it is difficult to 
be catagoric but potentially LLDCs might be able to expand imports to the EC in 
direct competition with EC producers. While vegetable oil seeds already enter duty 
free the same is not true of vegetable oil. This is therefore a sector where more 
detailed research is required although it should be noted that EC industry favoured 
during the Uruguay Round a "zero for zero" in vegetable oil, an offer finally rejected 
by the US 
Soybeans: Similar analysis to that for vegetable oilseeds However, trade in soybeans 
and soymeal derived from the beans, is already duty free. 
lc\ 
Conclusion 
Three of the four products mentioned as being sensitive are considered in the above 
analysis. Of the three rice has clear export potential and so do bananas. The case for 
Bovine meat to be included is rather less clear cut. Its classification as a potential 
problem product, as indeed with bananas (and manioc which is not considered here) is 
as much to do with the political sensitivities which surround the product as with any 
economic considerations. The analysis also suggests that vegetable oil might also 
have to be included on any list of exemptions and possibly sugar although a more in-
depth analysis would be required before a definitive decision could be taken. 
The conclusions drawn here are both partial and general. However, they do indicate 
the sectors which might have to be included in any list of excluded products. 
Effective protection against unforeseen surges in imports as a result of LLDCs 
revising their productive capacity can only be provided by an adequate safeguard 
mechanism. If the granting of preferences to LLDCs is on an autonomous basis, such 
a mechanism, would as a matter of course be built into the preference package. 
3d 
ANNEXV 
LLD 
1 
j Production 
| (000 MT) 
COMMODITY j 
[ J C-EU Trade Potenti 
LLDC 
Consumption 
(000 MT) al (1993 figures) 
Exports 
^000 MT) 
Bovine Meat j 1670 2147 3,6 
I | 
Wheat ! 4610! j 9,3 
: 
Rice 57382 i j 212,7 
i ' ! 
Bananas I 5686 5693 2,5 
Sugar - - . • - 4 
1638 
i 2855 j 147,3 
Coffee 70112462 BAGS I 463,3 
I ; 
Cocoa Beans 
Tea 
Pepper 
Veg oilseeds 
Groundnuts 
Soybeans 
Copra 
Palm Kernels 
Palm Oil 
Tobacco 
Source UNCTAD cor 54 38,7 
146 65,8 110,3 
4,4' | 2,1 
. ' 
2655 160 $mn 
2978! | 22,2 
244 i 7,4 
i ' 
236 66,3 
222 
424 
313 i 
! 15,4 
33,2 
i 
185.6 unman j 117,3 
nmodities Yearbook 1995 -
Production 
(000 MT) 
8000 
80978 
1944 
410 
16614 
0 
0 
0 
0 
5594 
5 
734 
1 
0 
0 
396 
! — 
EC 
Consumption 
-
7347 
3699 
13116 
31699 BAGS 
868,4 
223,1 
702.4 unman 1 
Imports 
(000 MT) 
1624,70 
17136,7 
1493,7 
3973,6 
3028,2 
2237,6 
1049,9 
295 
54,3 
8599.2 $mn 
508,6 
13403,7 
65,7 
34,5 
1735,5 
553,2 LLDC 
cons/prod 
128,56 
100,12 
174,30 
45,07 EC 
con/prod 
91,84 
902,20 
78,95 
no prod 
no prod 
no prod 
no prod 
no prod 
no prod imps/prod 
20,31 
21,16 
76,84 
969,17 
18,23 
no prod 
no prod 
no prod 
no prod 
10172,00 
1826,12 
6570,00 
no prod 
no prod 
139,70 LLDC prod 
/EU cons (i) 
22,73 
5,69 
2951,75 
153,72 
12,49 
6,22 
65,44 
47,46 
59560,00 
33,24 
23600,00 
Page 1 
AlMNfcAV 
(i) production figures used where possible when consumpton figures were not available. Blank indicates no data 
CO 
Page 2 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(97) 156 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 11 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-159-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-18726-7 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
-a