Bollocks or Banana's
"The EU banana import regime is changing but the level of protection is not increasing", argued EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel . (31 January 2005)
Today EuObserver A dispute launched by Latin American banana producing countries against the European Union's proposed new tariff regime risks sparking a new trade war between developing nations.
If a banana or a bunch of bananas had been subject to the kind of handling that the banana dispute has been getting at the WTO, it would have become a mushy, unedible pulp to be thrown away and the mess cleaned up.
Summary of case:
EC regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas established by Council Reg. No. 404/93 on the common organisation of the market in bananas and subsequent EC legislation, regulations and administrative measures, including those reflecting the provisions of the Framework Agreement on Bananas (the "BFA"), which implement, supplement and amend that regime.
DSB recommendations were implemented by EC Reg. 1637/98 and 2362/98 (into force on 1/1/1999). Complainants contended that the new EC regime continued to violate WTO obligations. US requested suspension of concessions (US$ 520 million); EC requested arbitration on this amount; DSB authorised US to suspend concessions (US$ 191,4 million) on 19/4/1999. EC requested a compliance panel which did not issue a ruling. Ecuador requested a compliance panel which found the new EC regime WTO-inconsistent. Ecuador obtained authorisation on 18/5/2000 to suspend concessions (US$ 201,6 million)."
Current situation:
Understanding reached with the US on 11 Apr. 2001 and with Ecuador on 30 Apr. 2001 on the resolution of the dispute.
Phase 1 of the understanding has been implemented by Commission Regulation No 896/2001.
Phase 2 of the understanding has been implemented by Commission Regulation No 2587/2001.
The request for Article I and XIII waivers were adopted on 14 Nov. 2001.
The case is solved.
Or was that the Birth of another Euromyth.
Straight Banana info from here Commission Regulation (EC) No 2257/94 of 16 September 1994 (pdf file)
.
Today EuObserver A dispute launched by Latin American banana producing countries against the European Union's proposed new tariff regime risks sparking a new trade war between developing nations.
If a banana or a bunch of bananas had been subject to the kind of handling that the banana dispute has been getting at the WTO, it would have become a mushy, unedible pulp to be thrown away and the mess cleaned up.
Summary of case:
EC regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas established by Council Reg. No. 404/93 on the common organisation of the market in bananas and subsequent EC legislation, regulations and administrative measures, including those reflecting the provisions of the Framework Agreement on Bananas (the "BFA"), which implement, supplement and amend that regime.
DSB recommendations were implemented by EC Reg. 1637/98 and 2362/98 (into force on 1/1/1999). Complainants contended that the new EC regime continued to violate WTO obligations. US requested suspension of concessions (US$ 520 million); EC requested arbitration on this amount; DSB authorised US to suspend concessions (US$ 191,4 million) on 19/4/1999. EC requested a compliance panel which did not issue a ruling. Ecuador requested a compliance panel which found the new EC regime WTO-inconsistent. Ecuador obtained authorisation on 18/5/2000 to suspend concessions (US$ 201,6 million)."
Current situation:
Understanding reached with the US on 11 Apr. 2001 and with Ecuador on 30 Apr. 2001 on the resolution of the dispute.
Phase 1 of the understanding has been implemented by Commission Regulation No 896/2001.
Phase 2 of the understanding has been implemented by Commission Regulation No 2587/2001.
The request for Article I and XIII waivers were adopted on 14 Nov. 2001.
The case is solved.
Or was that the Birth of another Euromyth.
Straight Banana info from here Commission Regulation (EC) No 2257/94 of 16 September 1994 (pdf file)
.
posted by Anoneumouse at 8:24 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home