Establishment of a common fund to finance commodity stocks : some possible consequences for African countries

Distr.

LIMITED

E/CN.14/WP. 1/107

18 January 1977 ENGLISH

Original: FRENCH

i

UNITED NATIONS

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL

ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR AFRICA

ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMON FUND TO FINANCE COMMODITT STOCKS:

SOME POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES FOR AFRICAN COUNTRIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

I. OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMON FUND - - - - - II. TRADE SITUATION OP AFRICAN COUNTRIES IN RESPECT

OF THE 18 COMMODITIES ---

III. POSSIBLE IMPACT OF THE COI3MON FUND - - - - Country subscriptions to the capital -

The stabilization system under the Lome Convention

Probable advantages ---

FINAL OBSERVATIONS ----_---_

TABLES:

1 Developing Africa: Trade situation for the 18 commodities covered by the Integrated Programme.

Annual average for the period 1972-1974 - Common Fund: examples of distribution of shares in the capital to be held by the Groups of countries Illustration figures for capital subscriptions to the common fund by selected African countries

(paid-up part of capital) based on trade shares

in 10 "core" commodities --_____

Paragraphs 1 - 2

3-4

5-10

11-32 12 - 27 28 - 29

30-32 33

Pages 1

1

1 - 2

2-6

2-5

5 5-6

6

Example of two different methods of sharing out

the capital to be paid into the Common Fund for the 10 core commodities: capital to be paid ty the countries of developing Africa as exporters

Developing Africa - Indications of the potential

advantages drawn from net exports of the 18 com modities covered by the integrated programme as a

percentage of exports of these commodities compared

with total exports from each country (average for -

1970-1973) ---

7- 8

9

10 - 11

- - 12 - 13

- - 14 - 15

M77-255

E/CN.14/TT\i/i07

INTRODUCTION

1. The- integrated programme for commodities is composed of tv.'.o basic elements:

firstly, a series of arrangements designed to stabilize and strengthen the

markets for a broad ?ange of products of export interest for the developing countries, and secondly a common fund which >?ould be the principal source of finance for these arrangements.

2. In a previous study j/ the ECA secretariat thoroughly analysed the impact

of the integrated programme as a whole for African countries. At the request of,..the; African Group in Geneva, the present document examines more particularly the probable impact of the common fund in terms of its financial aspects and the probable advantages of the fund for the countries of developing Africa, on the.understanding that it is not possible to identify all these consequences accurately before the fund takes more concrete and more specific form.

I. OBJECTIVES OP TEE CO?#ON.FOHD

3. Ifhen formulating the objectives of the common fund, African countries will, no doubt wish to assign to the common fund the fundamental goal of serving as a major instrument in the achievement of the objectives of the integrated

programme as "a'whole, as defined in Nairobi Conference reolution 93(iv).

4. The principal objectives of the common fund should be in particular to

finance international commodity stocks and/or co-ordinated national stocks, and. to finance other necessary measures (processing and diversification of products). In addition, from the institutional point of vieiir, ..the fund should

facilitate the establishment of international arrangements in respect of com modities of special interest to African countries, and play an institutional and support rdo as an instrument designed to accelerate the process of establishment of the new international economic order.

II. TRAHS SITUATION OP AMtlCAN COUNTRIES IN RSSFSCT OF THS 18 COITODITITCS

5- The possible consequences of the common fund for African countries will depend basically on the position in their trade of the 18 commodities covered by

the integrated programme. 2/ . .

6. Table 1 gives the trade position of developing Africa for each of the 18 products or groups of products during the period 1972—1974. The value of total exports of these products represented on average -US 7.7 billion a year in

1972-19741 °r about 60 per cent of the corresponding value of total exports from developing Africa, excluding oil, or 32 per cent of■ such exports if oil is

included.

j/ Implications for African countries of provisions contained in the Manila Programme of Action (e/cN. 14/UNCTAD IV/i).

2/ S/CN.14/UNCTAD IV/1, paras. 4-5.

E/CN.14/WP.1/107

Page 2

7. Africa** imports of the 18 products amounted on average to ^US' 1.2 "billion a year for the same period, so that the value of net experts (exports less imports)

of these products was on average 1> US 6.5 "billion a year for 1972-1974*

8. Table 1 indicates that African countries are important net exporters of the following products: coffee, cotton, cocoa, vegetable oils and oilseeds, timber and hard fibres, in the. sector of products and' raw materials of agricultural origin; copper, iron ore and phosphates, for ores and metals. The probable advantages of the common, fund for African countries will depend first and fore most on stabilization of the mar?:et for the products listed above.

9. For other products such as tea, natural rubber, bananas, meat, or manganese and bauxite, some of which are of major interest for a few countries, African countries as a whole play ,a generally much less important role in world trade, and their net exports are relatively low in value. Lastly, African countries as a whole are net importers of sugar and jute. However, a few of them are major producers and exporters of sugar, which will benefit from the favourable

stabilization effects of the common fund.

10- It is important to note that all the developing Countries of'Africa, with the exception of Algeria, the Li"byan Arab Republic and Botswana, recorded a net export surplus for the 18 products or groups of products considered as a whole.

In addition, the export of the 10 core stockable products is of major interest for 14 of the 18 least developed African countries, while the export of bananas

or oils and oilseeds is of significant interest to three of the other least

developed countries in Africa (Somalia, Gambia and Niger).

III. POSSIBLE IITACT OF THE C0I3OT FUND

11. In this section we will examine the impact of the common fund for African countries under three headings: financial costs, effects on the Lome Convention, probable advantages.

Country subscriptions to the capital r :

12. It is possible to give an approximate evaluation of the finanoial cost of the common fund for African countries on the basis of the estimates made "by the UNCTAD secretariat.

13. The resources required for the operations of the fund (financing of stocks

and other activities) are estimated at ^US 6 billion.

^/GlTc 14/ JP - l/lO7

Page 3

14» The initial estimates covered 10 stockable core commodities (coffee, cocca, tea,

sygar,. rubber, cotton7 jute, hard fibre, cooper; tin). Concerning the 18 products

affected /by Conference resolution 93(lV) on the integrated programme for commodities,

the secretariat recalculated the possible size of the. fund. Its revited estimates, talcing account of the economies which might result from a neutralization of price

movementn, ?.r.dicp.te that the same sum would be needed as under the ini+lal calculations, namely ?;US 6 billion for the stocking operations for all -I'd produul^ end for the

possible financing of other common fund operations* 3/

15. .According to the planned financial structure of the funds as designed to alleviate the debt interest burden, the fund uould be made up one third of the capital euUsdriTjed

"by the-, participants and two thirds "by loans- contracted from governments "and interriaticna"

financial institutions, A preliminary :analysis carried out by the UKCTAJ) secretariat

indicates that if the stocking arrangements uere set up by the end of 1978 at the latest,

in accordance \rith the time-limit laid down in resolution 93(IV)> CUS-3 billion in. all would be required for the first phase (1 billion of capital and. 2 billions of loans),,

For the second phaso, a further ''US 3 billion would be neededv. split up on the sane

^ pf 2 to 1 as. between loans and paid up capital.

16.,,.; It has been, suggested that three groups of countries raigji'i be permitted, tp':;,.

subscribe-to the capital: - the countries which export the commodities covered by tho fund, the importing countries, and possibU" third countries, that is; lyrs:'jsally'the oil-exporting countries. Table 2 gives values selected as examples to show the shares in the capital which -ould be held ty each group of countries 7 on _tho basis of the thrcn formulas indicated,

17- Table 3 gives.the probable order of-magnitude>■in decreasing order5 of the "■' contributions duo under each formula from each African country for v«-b;.'.ch t::o 10 c£ire

commodities are of aajor import and/or expert interest, Thes: contributions have "boen

calculated on the basis of the share of each country in the world export, end import

totaJL^ for. the 10 core commodities as a whole. However, adopting t^e UlCCyAD secretariat'

hypbihesis. the stocking cost for the 18 products covered I^r the integrated programs

should be the same as that for the 10 core commodities s talcing in'bo accov,r.t the 'economic which could, result from compensation for price movements* ' .

18. On the ba^ls -:: -:>c ?^v-. hypothecs: '.^ V12 dc?v:.Icv,inj r.v.:;..-;^,. =;.; Africa would, as exporters of the 18 commoditiesf pay a contribution varying between 'US 93.3 c^sl 148.8 million, which represents 25 .per cent of the total contribution of the exporting

countries., and? as importers7 a total contribution of f'TJS 11 million, which represents about 2 per centt.of the,total importing countries' c.ontribution« Of the 34 countries

listed, five are; importers of the 10 core products as a whole and should -tr^rafore' contribute to lire financing of the common fund only on that "basis ■ (Algeria, Morocco,

Tunisia, Libyan Arab Republic end Senegal).

19« Other formulas may be envisaged to determine the country subscriptions to the

capital- "

3/ . lieport of tho UMCTAD Secretaijy-General to the Prepar^toiy Ileetingf-rr the

Negotiation of a Common Fnnd, TD/b/IPC/CP/2; paras. 21-22.

E/OT.14/WP.1/1O7

Page 4

20. African countries will no doubt feel that it may be useful to envisage,

J?t I' \min^um ^tribution which would be the same for all member governments

ILT ! " ^ thSy !rS °n an Squal f00tin* with re*ard «> conunitments anT _i^T "n thS COmm°n fund' and' ^condly, an additional sum which set for each member government on the basis of agreed criteria. The

S£ry s^Z±Pti°\mishtr fOT eXample to set at US 200000 hlf ^{^Z\} set at *US 200.000, half

"°S h ^ dU^ng the firSt P*1^6 °f the fund' while the

called on in case of need.

21. On the subject of the agreed criteria to determine the additional sum to be thfr I various countries, two criteria have been put forward: the advantages

that each country would probably draw from the fund and its "economic capacity" oT

capacity to pay". The share of a country in trade in a given product could be regarded as an indication of the possible advantages; the indications of the capacity to pay are GNP (total and per capita) and foreign currency reserves.

22. For low-income countries, and particularly those which are experiencing?

serious balance-of-payments difficulties, the payment of a capital subscription, however small, might be a heavy burden. In 1974, 28 Africa* countries had a - Pergpi^a xncome of ^US 300 or less. Furthermore, most African countries belong

he least-developedamongthedlii

g^ 3 ss. Furthermore, most African countries belo eithe. to the least-developed-among-the-developing-countries category or to the most-seriously-affected category, or both.

23. In resolution 93 (W), the Nairobi Conference envisages special measures relating to the financial contributions of the least developed countries. During the preparatory meetings and the negotiating conference African countries should therefore insist on the adoption of special measures in favour of the least developed or low-income countries, such as total exemption from contributions or

partial or full payment in local currency-

24. Another possibility is that payment of the subscription could be spread over .rtrV6*1"5 V**1** the subscription could be reduced from the sum calculated

on the basis of the market. Hit it is unlikely that spreading out payments for the low-income or least developed countries would be a satisfactory solution, in view o:, the already heavy burden they face in servicing thr.*r debt* ard they would probably prefer a reduction in the subscription. '

25. If a reduction in subscriptions was agreed on for the low-income or leaat

£rs?2 rntriHesL^e part paid °r the avaiiabie p^ °f tn7cSitai; 52*^

on the case, would be lower in an amount equal to the reduction. It would then te

necessary to increase the subscriptions of the other participating Entries.

fnL+l^ ccuntriee may perhaps wish to consider the desirability of adopting ^ °f baBing contri^ians on a single criterion, African its swfiT5 ^ ?««ta*i<» <* -ach country would 1» based act

\ %*1 i? trade but alS0 on its it i

its swfiT5 ^ \ %*1 i? trade' but alS0 on its P^ capit income. This formula could ^

equal shares xn trade in these products, their subscription would v Sth their

.Fi/c;i, h/TiIp-1/107

Page 5

per capita income. This formula can be justified "by the argument that the greatest share of the burden of financing the integrated programme for the establishment of a new international economic order should "be borned by the highr-income countries.

27. Assuming the dual weighting procedure suggested above, the developed countries, as exporters, would pay to the common fund 59 per cent of the paid-up capital instead of 14 per cent if account was taken only of the share in trade; the developing countries would, on the same assumption, have to pay 34 per cent instead of 81 per cent. The contributions would be 7 per cent for Africa, 21 per cent for Latin America and 6 per cent for the countries of Asia and the Pacific. Table 4 compares the estimated subscriptions obtained under the two weighting methods for a few African ■

countries for which data are available.

The stabilization system under the Lome Convention

28. The system for the stabilization of the export receipts of the ACP States, or STABEX, established under the Lome Convention, differs from the common fund in terms of objectives. The basic objective of the Lome system is to reduce excessive fluctuations in the export receipts

of the participating countries by means of a compensatory financing mechanism, without any direct action on prices or on the volume of trade, The common fund, in contrast, is basically a mechanism for stabilizing prices, without direct effect on'quantities. But stabilizing prices does not automatically lead to stabilizing export receipts, if the volume of trade continues to be subject to excessive fluctuations due to changes in supply or demand.

29. For the products which are covered simultaneously by the two arrange ments, it follows from the above explanations that through the action of the common fund alone, the level of export receipts could, in certain cases, be lower than the reference level which triggers STABEX. The effects of the two mechanisms may be regarded as comlementary. The common fund would make it possible to stabilize the prices of the commodities covered jointly by STABEX and the fund, and thereby to increase the chances of stabilization of export receipts from these products. On the other hand, STABSX could make it possible to stabilize export receipts from the same products bv"

acting on prices, when the volume of trade varies little or increases regularly. However, the limitations of STABEX should be emphasized. In particular, it will be noted that as far as its scope of application is

concerned, the only receipts benefiting from the Lome system are those

which arise from exports from the ACP states towards EEC of the products enumerated in a list of 12 commodities and 17 semi-finished or finished derivatives. 1'oreover, iron ore is the only item in the ores and metals

group to be covered by the Lome system.

Probable advantages

30. Several methods may be conceived to assess the probable advantages

of the common fund for the participating countries, including the following

Since the fund's stabilizing effects will depend on the importance of the

products covered in comparison with all exported or imported products, it

is possible to assess the probable advantages arising from the operation of

the common fund for African countries by adopting as a yardstick the share

/ 4//

Page 6

of the value of net exports cf the 1fi products covered "by the inte.^rated programme in the total exports of each country. Table 5 gives in the last column the advantages thus estimated for the period 1970—1973^ for which all the data are available, The countries are classified on the basis of (decreasing) value of the exports of the 18 commodities covered by the integrated programme. Total exports include exports of oil,

31. The first .ten probable beneficiaries of the common fund would be the following countries, whose net exports of the 18 commodities represent an average between 80 and 92 per cent of total exports in 1970-1973 5 Burundi, Zambia, Liberia, Fauritius, Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Togo, Mauritania, Zaire and Sao Tome.

32. The ten countries which would appear likely to benefit least from the fund are the following: United Republic of Tanzania, Kenya, Botswana, Guinea, Upper Volta, Seychelles, Somalia, Comoros and Swaziland. "For these countries, the share of the 18 commodities in their total exports varies between 7 and 33 per cent* Such a situation also justifies special measures for the least developed or most seriously affected African countries.

FINAL OBSERVATIONS

33, These are, briefly examined, some of the possible consequences for African countries of the establishment of a common fund for commodity stocks as regards, in particular, their contributions to the financing of the fund and the advantages which may result for them* It is quite clear that the analysis contained in this document could not, at this very preliminary stage in the discussions on the common fund, be exhaustive, nor anticipate all the proposals and counter—proposals which are sure to be made during the forth coming negotiations. It is merely hoped that despite its limitations this work will to some degree help African delegations to reflect more thoroughly on the prospects of the common fundt whose establishment they urged at the fourth session of UNCTAD, and to make use of the substantial possibilities it offers in their best interests 0

TableZ.srevelo-pina,Africa Annualaveragefor

Trede situation ior the 18 oommodities covered

"by

the Integrated Programme

theperiod1972-1974

(in millions of. US. dollars and percentages) EXPORTS

(f.o.b.) DevelopingDeveloping

IMPORTS

(o.i.f.) PRODUCTS Africacountries A.Productsofagri culturalorigin 1.Coffee 2,Cotton

3» Cocoa a/

4.Vegetableoils andoilseeds 5.

Tropical timber b/

6.Hardfibres* 7.Rubber 8.Bananas■■■ 9.Tea 10.Meat 11.Jute 12.Sugar B.Oresandmetals 13.Copper 14.Iron.pre*

15» Phosphates-^

16.Manganese

1,141 1,045

⁹⁴⁵ 689 465 ^{103 109 54 113}

69

0

344 1,756

429 236

74

WorldAfricanexports asapercen tageoftotal developing country- exports AfricanexportsDevelop-Deve- asapercen-ingloping tageoftotalAfricaoount- worldexportsriesWorld

Net African exports

3,805 2,397 1,289 2,514 1,963

208 1,667 573 621

1,154

229

3,997

3,766 1,301 301 127

4,006 4,117 1,533 7,618

7,605

212 1,709

643

778

6,704

238 5,630

7,185 3,417 535

266

30 44 73 27

24

50 7 9 18 6 0 9 47 33

78 58

28 25 62 9 6

49

^{6 8} 14 1 0 61 24 12 44 28

37 39 5

274

81 5 12

14

90

49 23

₅₀₂ 3 0 2 0

173

725

53 1,131 706 36 178

63 243

406 90

1,339 374 38 65

7

4,174 4,330

1,631 7,891

9,346 222

1,884

988 850

6,229

273 6,001 7,478 4,732 722 342

1,104 1,006 940 "

414 384

^{98 97 40} 23 20 -23

-15&

1,753

429 234 74

: Peveloping Africa : Trade situation for the ifl 9 commodities Annual average for

the

period

1972-1974~

(in millions of US dollars and percentage)

EXPORTS(f.o.b.) IWORTS(c.i.f.) PRODUCTS 17.Tin 18.Bauxite

Deyelopxng developing. African exports African exports Develop- Deve- Africa countries as a percentage ae a percentage lag ^ 3oping " of total develop- of total world Africa count- ing country exports ries

exports

exuorta Total18commodities7*691

ooI* 27,37654,530 Allcommodities24,295126,070604,630

E/CN.14/UHCTAD IT/1, Table 1. a/ Including cocoa beans, butter, paste and powde:r. b/ ^Averages for 1972-1973- c/ Net imports.

19

1,170 5.B44 59,524 6,521 19,837 105,277 624,902 4,458

e/cw. 14/^.1/107

Page 9

Table 2: _ Common f$i&}t ezzaiax>les_ of distribution of share e^ in the capital to be

held bjr the groups of countries

(in millions of US dollars)

formula, A

Formula B

Formula C

in the, capital_

the oil-producing the exporting the importing countries countries countries

Tripartite structure Sum to "be

Sum available in case of need

Importers and importers - each group holding an ecjual share in the Capital

Sum to be paid

Sum available in case of need

■Reporters and importers - majority share for the exporting countries Sum to be paid

Stun available in case of need

250

250

37-!

375

375

37.5?

375 375

500

500

605*.

600

600

500

500

40 400

400

l/l96, Table 2»

E/CN.14/WP.1/1O7

Page 10

Table 1: Illustration figures for capital subscriptions to the common fund by selected African countries (paid-up part of"capital) based on trade shares in 10 "core" com-

modities

(in millions of US dollars

Paid-up capital by countries

As exporters As importers

As

exporters and importers

C ountry

Formula Formula Formula

ABC B B

1.

2.

3.

4. 5-

6.

7.

8.

10.9.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

20.

19.

21.

22.

23. 24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29-

30.

32.

31.

33.

34.

Zambia Zaire Egypt

Ivory Coast Nigeria Ghana Sudan Uganda Angola

United Republic of Cameroon United Republic

of Tanzania Kenya

Mauritius Ethiopia Mozambique Algeria Morocco Madagascar Liberia Togo Tunisia Burundi

Equatorial Guinea Benin

Malawi

Central African Republic Chad

Rwanda Mali

Sierra Leone Mauritania Congo

Libyan Arab Republic Senegal

18 13 96,

5

4.

5.

5.

4.

3.

3- 2, 1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

0.

0.

0, 0.

0,

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

.8 -1 .0 .0 .6 .6

■ 5

• 3 .1

.0

.0 .6

• 9 • 9

• 5

.1 .1 ,8

■4■4

■4

■4

4 4 4

4

4 4 4

25. 17-

12.

8.

7- 6.7- 7.

5- 4.

4- 3.

2.

2.

2.

1- 1- 1.

-

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

_

,0 .0

5

0

5

0

5

0

5 0

0

5

5

0

5

5

5

0

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

30 21 14 9

9

9 87 6 4 4 4 3 3 2

1 1 1

.0 0 0 0

0 0, 0, 0, 0.

0, 0,

.0 .0 .4 .6 .0 -0 .2

•4.6

.8 .8 .2 .0 .0

•4

.8 .8 .2

.6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6

0 0 0 0, 1

0.

-

1.

1.

0,

0.

0.

.8

• 4.8 .4 .1

■ 4

-

■ 5

• 5

,8

4 4

1 0 1 0 1

0.

2.

2.

1.

0.

0.

.0

.5 .0

.5 .5

.5

.0 .0

.0

5 5

0 0 0 0 1

0.

1.

1.

0.

0.

0.

.8 .4,8 .4 .2

■ 4

,6 ,6

.8

4 4

18, 13- 9.6.

6.

6.

5-

4»5-

3«

3- 3- 1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

.8 .1 ,8

• 4 .4 ,0 .6 3 .1

.0

.0 ,0 9 9 5 5 5

1 1 8 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

25. 17.

13.8.

8.

8, 7.

7- 5.

4- 4.

4- 2.

2.

2.

2.

2.

1.

1.

1.

1.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0, 0.

0.

0.

0.

,0

■ 5

,0

,5 .5

.0

5

0

5

0

0 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 5 0 0

5 5 5 5 55 5

5

5 5

5 5 5

30.

21.

15-

10.

9-

9-

8, 8.

6.

4.

4.

4.

3- 3.

2.

1.

1.

1.

1.

1.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

.0 .0 .2 .0 .8

.4

■4 4,6

.6

,8 6 0 0 46 6 8 8 2 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 66 6 6 4 4

1/107

Page 11

Table "to Illustrative figures for capital subscriptions to the common fund by selected

African countries (paid-up part of capital) based on trade shares in 10 "core" ^

modities (ooirt'd)

(in millions of US dollars)-^

Country-

Paid-up capital "by countries

As exporters As importers Formula Formula Formula

ABC A B

as

exporters and importers

B

Total developing Africa

Other exporting countries Other importing

countries Oil-exporting

countries

93.3 124.0 148.8

281.7 376.0 451-2

8.5 11.0 8.8 101.8 135.0 157.6

- 281.7 376.0 451-2

366.5 489.0 391-2 366.5 489.0 391-2

- 250.0

World total 375-0 500.0 600*0 375*0 500.0 400.0 1000 1000 1000

Source; E/CN. 14/UMCTAD IV/1, oP-oi*» "table 3.

$j For an explanation of formulas A, B and G see table 2.

E/CN.14/WP.1/107

Page 12

-do i^o

O\ . O

6

O

2

o o o:

-p.

t:

o.

o.5

■Si-

_-P.

■h, a).

■H. O

"JS'tq'

p; ■

•P. fiJ - O\

-p-H

■&

c3 O X!0)

■P

*Mo w

%

-P.

SCO

•ri -P

"P

' O:p:«

'r-o

•H O -P

■H ffl

<D QJ CO TO 03 +>

rHnj

J3

•H -P^

■H -H -P"§)

■H 0>

O

om -p

a

•H

gj

H

CO -r(

P 55

G fl fl

•H O -H -P^^ 0) <D

CD o H -uJ

■rl U (fi S QJ co & fn

CO

■CD ■■;

LT\ ,

•s

_QJ

O

oo

oo

o

d

o

OD M3 >O VO O O ^"CO >O O CO ^O ^ O VO CJVO

H ^W O O O O rj JO..CVJ.O O. CM

WHVOW O.-CO O O O O r-H O

f-O H O C\JrH

U"\C0

fOrlO^OOOOrlOOWHOOOOOOo

O r-i -^- CO ^- ^J- O >O •<- OD <- \O iH r>-»

|:£i

u. ia ci3. a).

CO

*

₀₎

•Ho

•H

■H

1

■H O

h-h cj a q

•ri O P -H OJ fn

-P -H QJ

^-■*tH rd Q) IP P fci^H O ft 'd

■h cj ca aj ffi ^^

CJ ^Cj a -p

w QJ

■rH -p

fu

b o

-I p , Jh O

. c3 -p p, ,J3 Q '■

S o O Q) -P Op tjc% r

o

d

o rH

oo

trvo o oi i-h oj o -Kjr o OinoooOrHOW

oooocMOOoodoooddodo d'D

OJ

w.o.

o <y,

; ,rO

r..-p.<

Pi Vi'

PI rJ.

O P.-

o co t—^GN

^H.P, O.-rH,_r»

r-i. O

Mo

<- o.

1 H

ft*

-drH P

£1P

•Hfl o

&

p>

0

rH O >H O iiiP c p co

^ O (S3

O O J

rO "vj- Lf\

W

•Pi-P

*A

o

o

&

■H p

•HrH

CD

0) -P■H

O P

1

cy CO

(D5^

■H

■H

"8 q

P

_?§

O 0

rH

•Ha*

a)

o

rH rH

■H

-p u

OJ M

o

a

•H ClJ PlD rl O UOjH -H P

o

rH rH rH rH

■riO rH P Ftojh B

*v _»

f-t ™

r-cor-H rH P ta

if 'B §

a t> 5

G\O rH rH CM OJ

Table,4'..Ibcample^oftuodifferent^methods^o£sharingoutthecapital,tp.be_jpaidintotheCommonFundforthe10bore

commodities: capital

to^Tbei

paid bv

thecountries^

of developing

/ii"rica_as

epcporteW

(ConV'd)"■■■-•■-■■•.-,■-. WeightingcoefficientsEstimatedamountsofthecapitalpaidinmillionsofdollars

GI)?/5e.r Share in Dual Formula A Formula B Formula C Countr3r °-'fo7, net world weighting -~ * - ~ -; ■■■ '■-- *n ^yj^ exports of coefficient Weighting Dual i/eighting Dual Weighting Dual in . ars ^1Q -^ "based on based on weighting, based on weighting based on" ■ weighting

commoditiesshareinsharein'method-shareinmethodshareinmethod (averagetradeandtradetrade■trade'': 1970-1973)GDP

per

.-■\. percentcapita-3ercent■

(1) (2) ""(3r (4) (5) (6) (7) . (8): (9)

22. 23* 24. 25- 26. 27- 28o 29- 30.

Zaire Benin TanzaniasUnitedRepublic Malawi Burundi■■" ITthio^ia Chad Paranda Hali Total

136 133 127 110 93 92

87 83

60

3-5 oa ■0.8- oa oa 0.5 oa oa oa 25a

0.4 0.0 .oa. 0.0 OcO 0.0 0.0 0.0 OoO

6.9

13a 0.4 3.0' 0.4 0.4 1.9 0.4 0.4 0*4 94a

1.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0,0, 26a

17a

:-t>-5

■4.0 0,5 0.5

2

=5

P.5 P.5 p*5

125^5

2c2 ■oa- 0.5 oa 0.0 OoO 0.0 0.0 oa 34-8

.21 ad ' '

.0.6 :

4-8

.■ ■0.6'' ;-0.6. 3-0.■ ■O06: ;0.6'. >0.6;;■, 150=6:

2,6 0.1 0.6 oa 0.0 0.0 0.0 OeO oa 41.7

Source: GD? ^er capita in 1973: United Nationss Handbook of International Trade and Development Statistics, 1976, Annexed Table 3a

Share

in

net

world

escortsofthe10.core

commodities, average for

1970^1973':-UffCTAD

Secretariat\ TD/B/C.l/196, Table 4. • ' '" ] '-.''}

o

C) Formulas 1: B and C are explained in table 2. ! - (2) In the table, 0.0 means a value lov?er than 0.5 percentage points or than 0.5 millicin dollars, as appropriate.

o

,- ,—^f-nitjMl;f | j -i

1 ,T

Page 14

Vp. 1/107

Average for 1970-1973 in

millions of US dollars Percentage of total exports

Country-

Value of total exports

Total value Value of net

Zambia Zaire

Ivory Coast

Nigeria 2

Egypt

Ghana Uganda Angola Sudan Liberia

United Republic of Cameroon United Republic

of Tanzania Ethiopia Gabon Kenya Ifeuritania Mozambique Mauritius Senegal Madagascar Morocco Togo Reunion Tunisia Benin Congo

Sierra Leone Malawi

Equatorial Guinea Burundi

Central African Republic

Niger Rwanda Chad Gambia Guinea Kali

895.2 776.0

583.7

,035.0 873.2 431.5 279.0 533.5 354.5 250.0

252.0

306.2 162.5 197.7 363.7 110.2

178.7

93.2 172.0 164.7 611.2 53.7 57-0 274.0 41.5 45-2 112.5 78.0 28.7 24.0

34.7 46.2 24.2 33.7 18.5 62.0 32.7

of exports of the 18 commodities

843.6 633.4 459.5 399.5 418.7 323.2 253.1 252.2 285.3 231.5 182.7

143.6 101.9 97.4 128.0 97.8 92.1

87.7

95.3 69.8 152.3 49.3 43.2 82.8 33.7

30.0 35-0 16.8.

25.4 23-7 20.5 21.8 18.4 22.9 15.8 15.1 20.1

exports (ex

ports less

total imports) of the 18 commodities

825.2 624.5 444.0 367.1 307.9 301.2 248.5 246.6 233.1 229,5 174.5

103.6 98.3 95.0 94.9 91.8 86.S 83-3 74.6 66.S 51.0 47-2 32.6 32.5 31.5 2S.5 29.2 15.9 25.3 23.1 19.1 18.8 17.9 17-2 14.8 12.1 12.1

Percentage oj exports of the 18 commodities

compared with total imports of the country

94.23 81.62 78.72 19.63 47.95 75.90 90.72 47.27 80.48 92.60

72.50

46.82 62.71 49.25 35.19 88.71 51.52 94.05 55.41 42.06 24.91 91.72 75.79 30.22 81,20 66.30 31.11 21.53

88.35

98.75

58.99

47.14 75.88

67.85

86.41 24.35 61.37

Indication of

potential advant ages: percentage of net exports of the 18 commodities compared with total exports from the country

92.18

80.47

76.06 18.03 35-26 69.80 89.06 46.22 65.75 91.80 69.25 33.83 60.49

48.05

26.09 83.30 48.62

89.37 43.37

40.61 8.34 87.89 57-19 11.86 75.90 65.26 25.95 20.38

88.15

96.25 '

55.04 40.69 73.96 51.03 80.0 19.51 37.0

exporis of tEe

;s

DvVeIQPlng Africa " Indications of the potential

18 commodities covered by the inte

E/CN.14/T. 1/107

Page 15 is drawn from net

programme a£ a

..— ww.w^^. %y wq lu^amtt programme as a perc

?SpSB°2cVles °°-Pared vath_total exports from each counts

7^J \cont"a» ^

Country-

Average for 1970-1973 in

millions of US dollars

Total value of exports of the 18

commodities

Value of total exports

Botswana Sao Tome"

Swaziland Somalia Upper Volta Comoros Seychelles Lilian Arab

Republic Algeria

Sources:

40.58.0 86.2 39.0 19.2 5.5

1.5 2,467.5 5»76O.O

10.9 7.0 6.4 10.8 0.8

7.9

0.8 26.2

0.5

Value of net

exports (ex

ports less

total imports)

of the 18 commodities

8.6 6.6 6.0

4.9

3.4 0.6 0.2

-74.3 -115.0

Percentage Percentage of exports of the

18 commodities

compared with total imports of the country

of total exports Indication of potential advant ages: percentage of net exports of

the 18 commodities

compared with total exports from the country

26.91

87.50 27.59

7.42 41-04

14.55 53-33

0.0 2.22

21 82 6 12,

17.

10, 13-

™*3«

-1.

.23

• 50

.96 • 56

.70 .90 .33 01

99

1- Hveem Helge* The political economy of producer asaoeia.ti n»fi, Oslo intentet^m^i P«n* p—h Institute, mimeo 1976?. see Appendix K for 2. united Nations, Handbook of International Trade and

New York 1976: see table 1.1 ±'or total exports.