only as "dormant" members.
5.2 PARTICIPATION IN TRADE
5.2.1
As stated earlier, COWAC is considered as a "loose"
Conference with no pooling arrangement and specific share
of trade for member lines. The Secretariat does not
monitor closely activities of member lines. During the
November 1983 Principals' fleeting, a draft of a new
Conference Agreement was submitted for Members' considera tion and approval. All provisions and Articles in this new. proposed Agreement were discussed and approved, with the exception of Article 17, dealing with shares in the trade. There was a deadlock when this topic was put up
for discussion. Apparently, European lines had one stand
while the African lines also had their own stand. On the eve of the meeting, the African lines had their own meeting and came up with the following, which was to be their common stand with regards to Article 17 of the Agreement. Among other things, the African 1‘ines wanted:
(l) To be considered as one group for the purpose of shares. They wanted the trade to be divided on the 40:40:20 basis and their 40^ left to them to be shared among the Lines from West Africa them selves, The Annex to Resolution 1 of the UNCTAD
Code allows this Here, it is stated in Part B,
a
83
Participation in Trade, paragraph 4 that:
"National lines within a Region at one end are to have the flexibility of adjustments among themselves in regard to their shares",
(2) To participate in the 2 0 % allocated to cross
traders. It is the wish of African Lines to be considered as cross traders in each other African
countries trade with Europe. This means that
after taking their 40% share in their own
country's trade with Europe, they will partici pate as cross traders in their neighbours trade.
No Agreement was reached at this meeting, so the proposed
new Agreement could not be signed. Article 17 was still
to be resolved. A committee was set up comprising six members;
- 2 Representatives from European National Lines - 2 Representatives from African Lines
- 2 Representatives from Cross traders
to deliberate on the African proposals and other related issues and submit their recommendation to the Conference
Secretariat, To date, the proposed Agreement has not
5.2.2
84 <»
ffs mentioned earlier, UKUJAL members held a Principals' Meeting in Copenhagen in May 1985, and top on the Agenda was the re—allocation of members' percentage shares in
the pool. This was necessary because prior to this, shares
were based on certain criteria, but with the coming into force of the code, there was the need to base shares on
the UNCTAD formula. Also there had been the withdrawal
of Hoegh Line, a third flag line, from the Conference, and SITRAM and CMZ have decided to operate only as”dormant” members.
Prior to this meeting there had been several meetings to
determine the basis for the new shares. Apparently this
issue remained unresolved meeting after meeting as
Members could not come to any compromise. It was general
ly agreed among members that sharing will be based on the UNCTAD formula but what was never resolved, until the Copenhagen meeting was whether to base shares on Member lines' previous years south bound (imports of African
countries) or northbound (export) figures. Initially all
the U.K lines wanted shares to be based on only one leg voyage, that is, southbound, while the African lines,
except NNSL wanted shares t.o be based on the entire trade,- bJhat has been happening is that the U.K lines usually
returned from West Africa in ballast as they considered the carriage of the West African exports unprofitable due
a 85
to high loading expenses and long days in port due to low productivity in these ports. Thus if their total carriage is used, their share would be lower than when southbound alone is used. This was the opposite to the stand and position of African lines, especially Black Star Line and SITRAW, who stand to gain more if both northbound and
southbound figures are used. WNSL opposed using both
northbound and southbound figures because they knew that Nigeria's exports have not been as high as their imports, and as such they stand to loose if both trades are used, (This is seen in table 5.2). U.K Lines later, on knowing the shares were to be based on the UNCTAD principles
became indifferent, as their position will be the same which ever method is used (See table 5.2). So, it was Nigeria against the rest. They alone wanted shares to be based on southbound alone. As they control over B0% of the trade, obviously their stand could not be overruled
despite the fact that they were alone as against all others. They made it clear that voting will not decide the issue. Later, with the withdrawal of CMZ and SITRAM, Black Star Line's support was lost and as such the Secretariat based
the shares on southbound figures only, thus bowing to the pressure from NNSL,
Table 5,1 shows the position of members shares now and prior to the Copenhagen meeting. Table 5.2 shows how the new figures were arrived at.
a 8 6
TABLE 5.1