CCP 03/9


Sixty-fourth Session

Rome, 18 – 21 March 2003


Table of Contents


1. World trade in agricultural products totals some US$430 billion annually (average 1997-2000, FAOSTAT). This trade is an important source of foreign exchange earnings and a crucial component of food security. The Secretariat presented to the CCP at its 63rd Session a study analysing market access situation and further trade expansion options in global agricultural markets. Based on the recommendations made by the Committee and taking into account recent developments in global agricultural markets, particularly those relating to multilateral trade negotiations, the present document provides further analysis of the prospects for trade expansion by examining recent trends in agricultural exports. Reporting on protectionism in agriculture and on agricultural trade among developing countries under Conference Resolution 2/79 has also been integrated into this document.

2. The document examines salient trends in the composition and direction of agricultural trade and their implications for market opportunities, particularly for low income agricultural commodity-dependent exporters. Section II reviews the evolution of agricultural trade during 1981-2000 and identifies agricultural export products with high growth rates. Section III assesses the major obstacles emanating from the the international trading system that hinder growth and diversification of agricultural exports.


3. Substantial changes have taken place in the composition and direction of agricultural exports over the past two decades. Although the growth in agricultural trade has continued to lag behind total merchandise trade 1, there has been a faster growth in processed agricultural products. In addition, while developed countries, because of the much higher effective demand, remain the main import markets for most agricultural products, the rapid rise in income growth in East Asia over the past two decades have seen a rapid rise in demand from that region. This section reviews these trends and their implications for market opportunities for low income agricultural commodity-dependent exporters.

4. Trade in processed agricultural products grew faster than primary agricultural products. Over the last 20 years, the world agricultural trade has witnessed striking structural changes with processed product growing faster than primary products. As a group, exports of processed agricultural products grew at 6 percent annually during 1981-2000 (compared to 3.5 percent for primary products), raising their world market shares from 63 percent in 1981-90 to 68 percent in 1991-2000. Among the processed products growth rates have been exceptionally high (above the average 6 percent) for the processed forms of cereals, fruit, vegetables, pulses, tropical beverages and poultry products. As a result, the share in total world agricultural exports of most of processed items increased significantly (Figure 1).

5. Primary agricultural exports, on the other hand, grew by 3.5 percent during 1981-2000. Despite this low growth rate for primary products as a whole, there has been considerable growth in some non-traditional primary export items. These include fresh fruit, vegetables, tree nuts, dairy, poultry, spices, with growth rates exceeding 6 percent. The rapid growth of trade in most of these products has been fuelled by changing consumption trends in developed countries. It is generally argued that trade in these products offers opportunities for low income agricultural commodity-dependent exporters that can meet the required standards.

Source: Computed from FAOSTAT. Processed products as defined in FAOSTAT. Undisplayed Graphic

6. Comparison of country shares in the value of agricultural trade suggests that export shares increased in developed countries in 1991-2000 compared to 1981-1990. This increase is more pronounced in processed products, where the share of developed countries increased from 47 percent in 1981-90 to 52 percent in 1990-2000. The increase was more evident in such products as processed forms of cocoa, coffee, cereals, root crops, sugar and pulses.

7. Dependence on primary agricultural exports continues to be high in many developing countries. While several developing countries diversified away from primary agriculture into processed agricultural products during the last two decades2, high dependence on exports of primary agricultural products continued to be a prominent feature in many developing countries. Developing countries’ primary commodity exports accounted for 75 percent of total world exports of primary agricultural commodities in 1981-90, and increased to 78 percent in 1991-2000. In contrast, the share of these countries in processed commodities decreased from 53 percent to 48 during the same period. Available statistics for the period 1997-99, show that for 50 developing countries, the top 3 primary agricultural exports account for over 25 percent of total merchandise exports 3.

8. For the majority of the agricultural products, the share of developing countries in world agricultural exports declines as the stage of processing increases. This is more evident in the case of coffee and cocoa. In 1981-90, the share of the top 10 cocoa-exporting developing countries in world exports of cocoa beans, cocoa butter, cocoa powder and chocolate were 85 percent, 16 percent, 28 percent and 3 percent respectively. Similarly, while the share in world green coffee exports of the top 10 coffee exporting developing countries remained unchanged at about 65 percent between 1981-90 and 1991-2000, the share of these countries in roasted coffee declined from 7 to 2 percent during the same period.

9. Agricultural trade among developing countries accelerated in many of the developing regions, though it declined during 1995-99. Agricultural trade among developing countries during 1985-99 grew faster, 12.5 percent per annum, than the agricultural exports to developed countries, which grew at 7.2 percent per annum. Intra-regional agricultural exports as a share of total agricultural trade in Latin America increased from 15.5 percent per annum in 1991-94 to 18 percent in 1995-99 (Table 1). It grew at an average of 19 percent per annum during the 1991-94, but growth slowed down to 1.6 percent in the period 1995-1999. The slow growth in intra-regional trade during the latter period can partly be explained by the economic crisis in the region. In South/East Asia, intra-regional agricultural exports grew by 16 percent per annum during 1991-1994, but showed a negative growth rate during 1995-1999. Nonetheless, their share in total trade increased from 35 percent in 1991-94 to 41 percent in 1995-99. The Asian economic crisis has been the main factor behind the deceleration during 1995-99. Trade flows among the countries of West Asia have shown equally impressive growth rates, raising the share of intra-regional trade from 36 to 42 percent during the periods 1991-94 and 1995-99 respectively.

10. Africa’s intra-regional agricultural exports grew on average of 1.4 percent per annum during 1991-1994 and -1.2 during 1995-99. African agricultural exports to other developing regions increased faster than intra-African exports in 1990-1994 (13 percent to Latin America, 10 percent to West Asia, and 11 percent to South/East Asia). The largest markets for African agricultural exports among developing countries are in South/East Asia with an average annual value of US$ 1.3 billion in 1991-1994, and increase to US$ 1.6 billion in 1995-1999.

11. This growth in trade among developing countries could in part be related to the proliferation of regional trade agreements (RTAs) among them. In many developing regions, RTAs are seen as a vehicle for promoting and diversifying trade. This is particularly true of those agreements such as the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), the Central American Common Market (CACM), the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA), which have largely liberalized agricultural trade within their regions. A recent FAO paper assessing the impact of RTAs in Latin America4 concluded that the implementation of regional trade agreements has been the main factor behind the expansion of agricultural trade in that region.

12. However, most of the RTAs among poorer developing countries, particularly in Africa, have not been associated with tangible improvement in intra-regional agricultural trade. 5 All such trading efforts have come up against structural and policy obstacles. Difficulties include inadequate international transport and communication facilities and poor information about markets and investment opportunities. Moreover, the absence or inadequacy of a system for standardized packing, grading and quality control systems at regional levels continues to frustrate efforts to expand trade and establish transparent information systems.


13. Recognising the severe difficulties faced by low income agricultural commodity-dependent exporters in the world market, diversification and adding value to agricultural exports has been viewed as the best way to achieve export growth and stability in these countries. There are both horizontal and vertical dimensions to export diversification. Horizontal diversification involves expansion in the export mix into products with higher growth potential, while vertical diversification involves creating additional uses for existing and new products through value-added activities such as processing and marketing.

14. Although trade in the processed products and high value crops is expanding rapidly, there are a number of obstacles that hinder poorer countries from diversifying into these products and take advantage of the new export opportunities. This has been the result of a combination of demand factors (stagnating world demand, declining prices), unfavourable market access or market entry conditions, competition from subsidized production and supply-side bottlenecks.6 This section discusses those factors relating to the international agricultural trading system, namely: excessive support and protection to agriculture; preferential trade arrangements; and the changing nature of market structure.


15. A major impediment to growth in agricultural trade remains to be the high level of protection and support to agriculture in the developed countries. The Uruguay Round initiated the process of opening up new opportunities for export diversification in agriculture, through, inter alia; tariffication and across-the-board reductions in most-favoured nation (MFN) tariffs on agricultural products; reduction of trade-distorting support; and the strengthening of trade rules, particularly those on sanitary and phytosanitary measures and technical barriers to trade. Despite these changes, little improvement has been achieved and market access problems persist particularly for processed agricultural products.

16. Agricultural tariffs. Agricultural tariffs remain high and complex. Tariffs in the developed countries are generally lower on average, but there are many tariff peaks, particularly on processed products and temperate-zone products such as horticulture, sugar, cereals, dairy products and meat. These tariffs are often complex with several different ad valorem, specific and seasonal rates applying to the same products.7 Bound tariffs are also high in many developing countries, although their applied rates are generally lower.

17. Recent estimates show that nominal protection rates in the OECD countries have declined somewhat but remain high on the whole.8 While tariff rate quotas (TRQs) have created some new trading opportunities, consistently low and declining fill rates indicate that there are difficulties in their implementation.

18. Tariff escalation. The existence of tariff escalation (tariffs which escalated with the degree of processing) in agricultural markets is regarded as one of the major factors that hinder export growth and diversification in the exporting countries.

19. Tariff escalation prevails in a large number of agricultural commodity chains. Of 17 commodity chains examined by the Secretariat, 12 suffer from tariff escalation, mostly at the first stage of processing. In developed countries, escalation is particularly pronounced in coffee, cocoa, oilseeds, fruit and hides and skins. In developing countries, however, applied tariffs are often much lower than bound rates and in almost all cases they also show relatively high escalation.9

20. Tariff escalation has been raised as one of the important market access issues in the current WTO negotiations on agriculture. Country proposals addressing tariff escalation10 are suggesting the adoption of a harmonising reduction formula that reduces higher tariffs by greater amounts, including tariff peaks, and eliminates tariff escalation. A recent FAO study shows that while the adoption of a harmonising formula for reducing tariffs such as the Swiss formula11 appears to be a better option for reducing tariff escalation than linear methods, it is unlikely that this formula will achieve substantial reduction in tariff escalation in all commodities of export interest to low income agricultural commodity-dependent exporters, particularly tropical products, unless it involves some additional criteria for capping tariff wedges along the processing chain.12

21. Support to production and exports. Subsidized production and exports affect both domestic and international markets and exert a negative influence on the diversification of production and exports from commodity exporting countries. Loss of competitiveness caused by subsidized agriculture discourages investments in agriculture and local processing in non-subsidizing countries.

22. Under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), WTO members undertook to reduce both export subsidies and the trade-distorting domestic support. Export subsidies have been reduced somewhat on several products since 1995, but they remain high, particularly for meat and dairy products. In domestic support, some WTO members have shifted to less distorting support measures, but overall support to agriculture remains high. Estimates show that total transfers to agriculture in the OECD countries amounted to US$311 billion in 2001, compared with US$298 billion in 1986-88. The support to producers in these countries as a share of the value of farm output averaged 31 percent for agriculture as a whole and exceeded 40 percent in such products as rice, wheat, sugar, beef and sheep meat. Such support is believed to have stimulated overproduction creating a downward pressure on world prices, thus limiting trading opportunities for non-subsidizing exporters. 13

23. International technical standards. A major challenge faced by many exporters of agricultural products, particularly in low income countries, is to meet the sanitary, phytosanitary and technical requirements of importing countries. An additional challenge is faced by these countries when new standards are introduced on risk assessment grounds that are stricter than those currently recognized by international standard-setting bodies. Rising consumer concerns in the affluent countries over food quality compound the difficulty of these countries in meeting ever higher standards. The transition to risk-based standard setting has required major changes in legislative, regulatory and administrative practices in most countries all of which have implied significant costs.

24. The concerns of low income countries in this regard are three-fold: first that they usually lack the technical and financial capacity to fully participate in activities of international standard-setting bodies such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). Second, they lack the supply-side capacity to meet the increasingly strict standards being adopted by the developed countries. Third, there are concerns about the scope for the discriminatory use of these measures. A recent FAO study provided a broad indication of this problem based on data on rejections following border inspection in export markets. 14 The import detention list for the United States for the period 1996-97 shows that the majority of detentions and rejections of products coming from developing countries, particularly those of Sub-Saharan Africa, are related to microbiological contaminants and filth rather than to strictly technical considerations. This illustrates the considerable problems that low income countries have in meeting basic food hygiene requirements let alone requirements for which more sophisticated monitoring and testing, and therefore more costly procedures are required, such as limits on pesticide residues and heavy metals. 15


25. Despite the current constraints on agricultural trade emanating from protection and support in the developed country markets, preferential trade arrangements involving developing countries have provided some opportunities for these countries to expand and diversify their agricultural exports. Three major forms of trade preferences can be distinguished: the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), special preferential regimes for groups of developing countries (such as Lomé/Cotonou, AGOA, or the Caribbean Basin Initiative), and regional free-trade areas between developed and developing countries. However, the last form differs from the others in that it involves reciprocal rather than unilateral trade preferences. MFN duties are still high for many agricultural products and preference schemes are offering substantial price advantages to some exporters for numerous eligible products. This is specially the case, on a wide scale, for least developed countries, as well as under special preferential arrangements of the EU and the United States for most African, Caribbean, Central American, Andean and Pacific countries.

26. While many developing countries have been accorded preferences for a large number of products, exceptions to these preferences often relate to agricultural products. For example, the European Union’s initiative on “Everything but Arms” (EBA) offers free market access to LDC products, with less than 5 percent of pre-EBA exports left facing a tariff barrier. A recent study by UNCTAD, however, shows that the impact of this initiative will be a relatively small increase, in the medium term, in exports from the LDCs, as 70 percent of the potential positive trade effects would have come from free access for sugar, rice and beef, which has been deferred until 2006. 16 The African Growth and Opportunity Act has also started to open up markets in the United States for African countries.

27. Although trade preferences are of significant benefits to a number of countries, in general they have been, to a large extent, underutilised. Part of the reason for this underutilisation is due to, in many cases, lack of security of access, insufficient product coverage, excessively stringent rules of origin and often a lack of awareness of the preferences available. These factors are in addition to supply-side constraints faced by some countries, in particular the least developed countries 17.


28. Government barriers to trade are important, but as they are reduced other factors impeding market entry, particularly those that spring from restrictive business practices, come to the forefront.

29. The agricultural commodity chains, particularly those of high value crops and processed products, are increasingly dominated by a few multinational enterprises (MNEs) and distribution companies. This dominance of large companies in the world agricultural commodity markets is not only through their actions on international markets, but also through their direct and increasing influence on what is produced, and how. While these changes are opening up unprecedented opportunities for some producers and exporters, benefiting from these developments and avoiding their negative impacts requires much greater business skills than before on the part of Governments and small-scale entrepreneurs, particularly in low-income countries.

30. Changes in agricultural commodity chains, as a result of the increasing dominance of large companies, can be reviewed at three levels, namely, the international markets, exporting developing countries, and the retail markets of importing countries. At the international level, agricultural trade continues to be concentrated in a few vertically integrated MNEs. In 1996, for example, five MNEs accounted for about 50 percent of world trade in green coffee, up from about 37 percent in 1980; and four coffee roasters accounted for 50 percent of the roasted coffee market18. In cocoa, the number of trading houses in London has been reduced from 30 in 1980 to around 10 in 1999. Similarly, the six largest chocolate manufacturers account for 50 percent of world chocolate sales. For vegetable oils, following a series of mergers and acquisitions in the 1990s, a small number of vertically integrated MNEs now dominate the production, distribution and international trade of both oilseeds and oils. In grains, a few big companies are transforming themselves, through mergers and consolidations, into vertically integrated businesses in trading, storage, processing and milling.

31. In exporting developing countries, following the deregulation and the disappearance of many marketing boards, large companies with warehousing and shipping facilities in the producing countries are able to exploit their financial and logistical advantages, even buying the produce directly from the farmer. 19 Intensified competition favours those with access to cheaper finance and good logistics. Being big provides advantages on both accounts.

32. At the retail level, supermarkets have also being growing rapidly in both developed and developing countries. For example, there has been rapid consolidation and multinationalisation of the supermarket sector in Latin America, where the share of supermarkets in food retailing went from 15-20 percent in 1990 to 60 percent in 2000. 20 Given their dominance in the market, supermarkets have a significant impact on production, distribution and trade. To simplify operations, most of these supermarkets are increasingly cutting the number of their suppliers, and as a result those left out will have to sell in a shrinking and low-priced market or find a niche market. In addition, supermarkets have significant impact on production requirements in terms of quality and food safety, product variety and delivery. The Food Business Forum (CIES),21 through its association of the world’s 200 largest supermarkets and their suppliers (with a combined sales of US$2 800 billion), decided earlier this year on new mandatory standards for their suppliers. While this move may help in reducing the number of different standards, it may overshadow whatever Governments decide in the context of the WTO agreements.

33. The stringent private standards set by supermarkets are very often a reflection of consumers’ concerns. Consumers of agricultural commodities are increasingly choosy with respect to the quality of the commodities they buy, the timeliness of delivery, origin and traceability, and the environmental and social conditions under which they have been produced. The use of specialised channels such as fair-trade labelling and other socially or environmentally responsible market practices, and taking advantage of niche market such as that for organic food, may help in facilitating market entry and can improve earnings of producers. In many countries, consumers are willing to pay a price premium (of more than 20 percent) for organic foods, particularly fruit and vegetables. 22

34. There is evidence that the increasing market concentration along agricultural commodity chains has been associated with a declining share of producing countries in the revenues generated from the sale of these products in global markets. Recent studies show a widening gap between world commodity prices and consumer prices in industrialized countries. 23 Growers’ price represents very low shares of the final price of the product, ranging from 4 -8 percent for raw cotton and tobacco to 11 – 24 percent for jute and coffee. 24 Similar patterns were also observed in fresh fruit and vegetables (see Box 1). The International Coffee Organisation (ICO) has reported that in the early 1990s export earnings by coffee producing countries were about US$10-12 billion and the value of retail sales of coffee, largely in the developed countries, was about US$30 billion. However, in coffee year 2000/01, producing countries received only US$5.8 billion of the value of retail sales of more than US$60 billion.25

Box 1. Cost structure along horticulture commodity chains: examples of African exports to the United Kingdom (UK)
Studies on commodity chains involving exports of fresh vegetables and fruit from Africa to the UK have shown that returns to the participant in the market are highly concentrated at the end of the chain in the importing countries. As shown in the figures below, returns to producer, exporter and packaging of fresh vegetables exported from Kenya and mangetout from Zimbabwe amounted to only 27 and 23 percent of the final price of these products respectively.

a. Mangetout from Zimbabwe to the UK b. Fresh vegetables from Kenya to the UK

Undisplayed GraphicUndisplayed Graphic

Source: Dolan, C., Humphrey J. & Harris-Pascal C. (2000), IDS Working Paper 96, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.



35. While recent market trends and policy developments are opening up unprecedented opportunities for some producers and exporters, they also pose formidable challenges for low income agricultural commodity-dependent exporters. Benefiting from such changes and avoiding their negative impacts require considerable enhancement of productive capacities, the upgrading of food quality and safety assurance systems, and much greater business skills than before on the part of entrepreneurs. While these supply-side measures are of fundamental importance for taking advantage of the new trading opportunities, two major problems relating to the international trading system require much more attention by the international community: the continuation of trade distorting agricultural support policies, and the rising market entry obstacles as a result of increasing market concentration along the agricultural commodity chains.

36. If all countries are to benefit from global trade, distortions to global agricultural markets due to government interventions must be reduced. Significant improvements in market access will require, apart from a sharp and meaningful reduction of subsidies, much deeper cuts in tariffs and tariff escalation. In so doing, there would be a need to take into account transitional problems likely to be faced by those countries, particularly low-income countries, whose trade is dependent on preferential access, and a possible temporary rise in food prices. There also appears to be a need to deal with issues relating to market structure and competition in the market chain of various agricultural commodities, which determine the distribution of gains for different participants in particular commodity sectors. Much more research is needed on the changing nature of market structure and supply chains and their implications for agricultural development and food security, particularly for low income agricultural commodity-dependent exporters.

37. The Committee may wish to consider the issues raised in this document and to provide guidance to the Secretariat on further research and analysis.

Table 1. The share of intra-regional and interregional agricultural trade a/
in total agricultural trade, 1985-90, 1991-94, 1995-99




Devel-oped countries

Countries in Eastern Europe

Develop-ing countries,

Latin America, develop-ing

Africa, develop-ing

West Asia, develop-ing

East Asia, develop-ing

Developed countries

























Countries in Eastern Europe

























Developing countries, total

























Latin America, developing

























Africa, developing

























West Asia, developing

























South/East Asia, developing

























Source: UNCTAD Handbook of Statistics – CD-ROM.
a/ Agricultural trade, as defined in UNCTAD Handbook, includes all food items + agricultural raw materials (i.e. SITC 0 + 1 +2 [except 27 and 28] + 4).



1 While total world merchandise exports increased at an average annual rate of 7.4 percent between 1981 and 2000, agricultural exports grew by 4.8 percent. As a result the share of agriculture in total world merchandise exports fell over time reaching about 8 percent in 2000.

2 Examples of developing countries that have succeeded in diversifying their agricultural exports include Malaysia and Chile.

3 FAO (2002), Dependence on single agricultural commodity exports in developing countries: magnitude and trends, in FAO papers on selected issues relating to the WTO negotiations on agriculture, FAO, Rome.

4 FAO (2000), Agricultural trade in the Latin American region: main trends, existing trading agreements and emerging policy issues, Working paper prepared for the FAO Umbrella Programme for Training on Uruguay Round Follow Up and Multilateral Trade Negotiations o Agriculture, Santa Cruz, Bolivia, 29 May-2 June 2000.

5 African Development Bank (2000), African Development Report 2000: Regional Integration in Africa, ADB, Oxford University Press.

6 In fact, a plethora of measures are needed at the domestic level to relieve domestic supply-side constraints. The most important of which are: the maintenance of a stable and predictable macroeconomic and political environment; establishing a fair and open regulatory framework; improving the efficiency of financial institutions, strengthening research and extension for developing and adopting relevant technology; improving rural services; upgrading the marketing, transport and communication infrastructure; and development of human resources.

7 Gibson, P. Wainio, J., Whitley D. and Bohman M. (2001), Profiles of tariffs in global agricultural markets, USDA, ERS, Agricultural Economic Report No. 796.

8 OECD (2002), Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: Monitoring and Evaluation 2002.

9 Article XVIII of GATT 1947 recognises the need of countries in the early stages of development to maintain sufficient flexibility in their tariff structure to be able to grant tariff protection required for the support of their infant industries.

10 Thirteen out of the 45 country negotiating proposals, submitted in the context of the on-going WTO negotiations on agriculture, asked for substantial reduction in tariff escalation, particularly in the developed country markets.

11 The Swiss formula is a method of tariff reduction, used in the Tokyo Round of the GATT negotiations that reduces higher tariffs by greater amounts compared with lower ones.

12 FAO (2003), Tariff escalation in agricultural commodity markets, the State of World Agricultural Commodity Markets (SOCO), 2003, FAO, Rome.

13 To take one example, as reported by the IMF, support to US cotton farmers since 1997 has contributed significantly to the downward pressure on world cotton prices during 2000-2001, hurting some of the world’s poorest countries. This fall in cotton world prices caused a loss of export receipts of over 3 percent of GDP in Mali and Benin, and 1-2 percent of GDP in Burkina Faso and Chad (see IMF, 2002, Improving market access: towards greater coherence between aid and trade, Issue Brief 02/03).

14 FAO (1999), the importance of food quality and safety for developing countries, Committee on World Food Security (CFS: 99/3).

15 FAO (2001), Measuring the economic impact of technical measures on trade in agricultural commodities, Working Paper, prepared by Henson Spencer, FAO, Rome.

16 United Nations General Assembly (2002), World commodity trends and prospects: Note by the Secretary-General, Fifty-seventh Session, Item 86 (b) of the provisional agenda (A/57/381).

17 See, for example, FAO (2002), Improving the value and effective utilization of agricultural trade preferences, Working Paper, FAO/ESCP, Rome

18 UNCTAD (1999), The world commodity economy: recent evolution, financial crises, and changing market structures (TD/B/COM.1/27), UNCTAD, Geneva.

19 UNCTAD (1999), op cit.

20 Reardon T. (2002), Product-market and capital trade liberalisation and food security in Latin America, a paper presented at the FAO Expert Consultation on Trade and Food Security: Conceptualising the Linkages, FAO, Rome, July 2002.


22 FAO (2001), World markets for organic fruit and vegetables, FAO, Rome.

23 See, for example, Morisset, J. (1997), Unfair trade: the increasing gap between world and domestic prices in commodity markets during the past 25 years, The World Bank Economic Review, Vol. 12, No. 3: 503–26.

24 OECD (1997), Market access for the least developed countries: where are the obstacles? OECD, Paris (OECD/GD/(97)174).

25 ICO, The global coffee crisis: a threat to sustainable development, by Néstor Osorio, Executive Director, ICO Submission to the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, 2002.