8. D. whereas certain aspects of the European Communities` banana import regime have been found to be wto-inconsistent, while some in the Caribbean, where the agreement initially met with resistance, have expressed their disappointment. Caribbean officials kept a low profile after the agreement was signed and have yet to comment on the potential impact of tariff changes in the region. However, following negotiations on the agreement in 2009, the EU pledged $241 million in aid to affected African and Caribbean countries between 2010 and 2013. In North and South America, the package targets Belize, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Suriname to contribute to crop diversification and the competitiveness of the banana sector. The EU has therefore agreed to reduce tariffs on Latin American bananas, which will likely result in lower prices for European consumers as competition between ACP countries and Latin American (US) producers intensifies. O. whereas the agreement will lead to significant tariff reductions (35 % between 2010 and 2017) for non-ACP banana imports; While producers in ACP and EU countries will certainly have to adapt to the new reality of the international market, the first company to conclude an agreement with the Honduran government was the Vaccaro Brothers Company (Standard Fruit Company). [12] The Cuyamel Fruit Company then followed their example. The United Fruit Company has also signed contracts with the government through its subsidiaries Tela Railroad Company and Truxillo Rail Road Company. [12] F. whereas the new Community banana regime introduced in January 2006 has always been found to be incompatible with the Union`s WTO commitments, 9.
notes that the EU has traditionally granted special tariff preferences for bananas from ACP countries; stresses that some WTO Members have repeatedly questioned the compatibility of this preferential treatment with WTO rules; stresses that a number of legal judgments of WTO dispute settlement bodies, the Appellate Body and special arbitrators have called for the existing regime to be amended; On 9 June 2010, the EU and Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and Venezuela concluded the Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas[2], which agreed on a scale of degressive customs duties on imports of fresh bananas from the EU, which ran from 2009 to June 1, 2010. January 2017, which resolved all ongoing disputes between the EU and these countries – called „banana suppliers for the most favoured countries in Latin America“. 14. Resolutely rejects any attempt to finance the programme for banana-producing ACP countries by reallocating funds to development cooperation budget lines; 18. Recommends that the socio-economic importance of the banana sector for the EU`s outermost regions and the contribution it makes to achieving social and economic cohesion, through the income and jobs it generates, the economic activities it generates and the impact it has on maintaining an ecological and landscape balance that promotes the development of tourism, due account should be taken of this; The „banana wars“ are the culmination of a six-year trade dispute between the US and the EU. The US has complained that an EU system that gives banana producers from the former Caribbean colonies special access to European markets violates free trade rules. The December 2009 agreement required the EU to reduce its tariffs on imported bananas from €176 ($224; £140) per tonne to €114 per tonne over eight years. 21. notes that banana production in the EU`s outermost regions meets higher social and environmental standards than in most Latin American countries; stresses that, in the outermost regions, the use of active substances such as pesticides is 20 to 40 times lower than in the countries of South and Central America, while in the field of plant health, most of the active substances prohibited by EU food safety regulations are widespread in all plantations in South and Central America; – having regard to the declaration of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly of 1 April 2010 on the EU-Latin America Banana Agreement and its impact on ACP and EU banana producers, Mr M, Lamy distributed certified copies of the REVISED EU commitmentS TO THE COUNTRIES CONCERNED (document WT/Let/868 of 30 October 2012), which have only been replaced by tariffs, a complicated and illegal BANANA IMPORT REGIME by the WTO.
These import duties on bananas fall each year to EUR 114 per tonne. One of the EU`s revised commitments is the 2009 Geneva Agreement on Bananas. The WTO is the depositary of these revised commitments, which have now been accepted by WTO Members. If the U.S. doesn`t export bananas directly to Europe, why is it so angry? Whether Democrats or Republicans, U.S. governments have long advocated an ideological commitment to free trade. But the „banana wars“ are darker than this clear principle. Above all, the United States promoted economic, political, and military interests to maintain its sphere of influence and secure the Panama Canal (which opened in 1914). The United States had recently built the Panama Canal to promote world trade and project its naval power.
U.S. companies such as the United Fruit Company also had financial stakes in the production of bananas, tobacco, sugar cane and other raw materials in the Caribbean, Central America and northern South America. 22. notes that, in its recent bilateral agreements with banana producers (the Multi-Party Trade Agreement with Colombia and Peru and the Association Agreement with Central America), the EU agreed to gradually reduce its import duties on bananas originating in these countries to EUR 75 per tonne by 1 January 2020; But the problem that this dispute poses to developing countries could be more serious. 71 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states are subject to the Lomé Convention, an agreement created in the 1970s that obliges the European Union to promote trade with its former colonies. The so-called banana war began in 1991 when Costa Rica filed a complaint with the WTO protesting the EU`s preferential trade terms for the former Caribbean colonies. .