Banana War Never End, Part II

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in ,, at 7/16/2007 12:04:00 AM
The dispute over bananas remains one of the signature cases of the World Trade Organization. To make a long story short, the EU has (had?) for a long time given preferential access to agricultural products from former European colonies in the Africa-Caribbean-Pacific (ACP) grouping. However, this arrangement became rather more suspect as the WTO became a reality as it took a dim view of preferential access deals. A whole bunch of Latin American countries exporting bananas (the "banana republics"of yore) thus complained about this unfair situation with regard to European market access. The Latin American countries were aided by American companies operating in these countries as well. Keep in mind that the EU is the world's largest importer of bananas.

Unfortunately, the EU has been accused of being exceedingly remiss in making its markets more accessible to Latin American banana exports. It has now been, count 'em!, ten years since this case was first filed at the WTO's dispute settlement body (DSB). Ecuador has taken the initiative of calling the EU on not providing the market access promised. Ecuador wants the DSB to examine EU compliance with regard to the DSB's previous rulings. Banana wars never end, indeed:

EC--Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas (July 12, 2007)

The DSB has set up a compliance panel, under DSU article 21.5, at the request of the US (WT/DS27/83).

The US said more than a decade after this dispute began the EC still appeared not to have come into compliance with the DSB's recommendations. The US said this was the reason why they requested the panel. Nonetheless, the US remained fully committed to a negotiated settlement to this dispute.

The EC said it was an unfortunate move by the US and questioned the US's interest in this case as the US is not a producer or exporter of bananas. The EC stated it had already implemented the ruling but would not object to the establishment of the panel.

Panama, Nicaragua and Ecuador supported the US request and declared they were still ready to negotiate a solution.

Jamaica and Cameroon declared they always supported a negotiated solution rather than litigation.

Also, here is the request made by Ecuador at the end of last year:

On 16 November 2006, Ecuador requested consultations under Article 21.5 of the DSU and Article XXIII of the GATT 1994. On 28 November 2006, Ecuador submitted a revised request for consultations under Article 21.5 of the DSU and Article XXII of the GATT 1994. Belize, Cameroon, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Panama, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and the United States requested to join the consultations. The European Communities informed the DSB that they had accepted all the requests to join the consultations. On 23 February 2007, Ecuador requested the establishment of an Article 21.5 panel. At its meeting on 20 February 2007, the DSB deferred the establishment of an Article 21.5 panel. At its meeting on 20 March 2007, the DSB agreed to refer to the original Panel, if possible, the question of whether the new EC banana regime was in conformity with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Cameroon, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Ghana, Jamaica, Japan, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and the United States reserved their third-party rights. Subsequently, Belize, Brazil, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Panama and Suriname reserved their third-party rights.