MediaHound

WTO BANANAS: SUSPENSE BUILDS ON EU'S NEXT STEPS The European Union accepted last week at the WTO an Appellate Body ruling against its banana import regime. How the EU plans to implement the recomendations is yet to be revealed. The EU is scheduled to report its plan at the next dispute settlement body (DSB) meeting on 16 October either by complying with WTO rules, by compensating its trading partners for revenue losses or by defaulting on its WTO obligations. Informed sources say that while the EU will reveal what it plans to do, it will most likely not provide much detail around when and how it plans to implement its response. The regime granted preferential market access to EU markets for banana imports from African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, as well as for those from Latin American countries in the Uruguay Round's Framework Agreement on Bananas (Colombia, Venezuela, Costa Rica and Nicaragua). Any EU proposal must meet the approval of the U.S., Ecuador, Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala, which brought this third and latest complaint to the WTO. U.S. estimates put lost trade revenue from the EU restrictive regime at US$2 billion, but U.S. officials have stated that they want compliance, not compensation.
According to informed sources, compliance could take many forms- not all of them appealing to the Latin American countries or Chiquita Brands International, on whose behalf the U.S. brought its complaint to the WTO. The EU could arrange its regime in such a way as to effectively prevent Chiquita from shifting its banana production to the lowest cost Latin American country. This would conceivably give the EU more leverage in its negotiations with the U.S. when working out a final deal.
Jamaica, Cote d'Ivoire and St Kitts and Nevis have criticized in the past few days the WTO ruling, saying it would eliminate more than 30,000 banana industry jobs in their countries. Caribbean nations remain in limbo as their economies face the possibility of losing a significant, and in some cases a majority, of their export revenue. In Guadeloupe and Martinique over 100,000 people are employed in the banana industry, while banana exports account for 80% of GDP in the Canary Islands.
British Minister for International Development Clare Short suggested today in London that a consumers boycott against Central American fruit, as a rejection to plantations where workers endure low pay and poor conditions, could save West Indies growers.
"Le verdict de l'OMC inquiete les producteurs europeens de bananas, JOURNAL DE GENEVE, September 23, 1997; "EU accepts banana ruling but reveals little about future response," INSIDE U.S. TRADE, September 26, 1997; "Banano: la Uni�n Europea s� dar�a preferencias," EL COMERCIO, September 30, 1997.
This article from BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest Vol. 1, Number 35 September 29, 1997

WTO BANANAS:MORE RUMBLING FROM ALL SIDES The Prime Minister of the Windward Islands nation of Dominica last week pleaded with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to see first-hand the devastation facing Dominica's banana growers in the wake of a WTO ruling against the EU's preferential banana import regime favoring banana product from African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. Caribbean countries have been in limbo as the EU decides whether or not to dismantle parts of its regime found in conflict with WTO trade rules. The complaint was brought to the WTO by the United States, Ecuador, Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala. Dominica's Prime Minister Edison James said the uncertainty faced by his country's banana growers could bring about instability and threaten peace in the region. "Peace in our region and peace in the world depend so much on the humanitarian dispensation of justice, and the action which has been taken against us in the WTO is not justice," Mr. James said.
Simon Canarte, director of Ecuador's Association of Banana Growers, said last week that "in spite of the fact that the result [of the WTO decision] could be seen as favorable to Ecuador, there are differing criteria within the country," as to what Ecuador should negotiate for in case of a settlement with the EU. Ecuador, the world's largest banana producer, was significantly affected by the EU import regime established by the Uruguay Round's Framework Agreement between the EU and a group of Latin American countries: Costa Rica, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Colombia. The framework accord could have afforded Ecuador 32 percent of the regional banana quota with the EU, whereas outside the accord Ecuador would only secure 19 percent, according to an industry official in Ecuador.
Many producers and exporters are in favor of joining the regime in place with some modifications. Without the regime, Mr. Canarte said, "large exporters like Chiquita brands will corner the regional offer and have greater access to the European market." Another industry official said the "EU regime forced [Ecuador's banana industry] to seek other markets in Asia and Latin America, which helped us increase our export capacity." However, the same official said, "it would be contradictory for us to indicate willingness to accept the framework accord now if we have fought for years for its elimination."
"Dominica says Caribbean banana-growers face disaster," REUTERS, Oct. 2, 1997; "Ecuador: Debate on banana trade in wake of fight against EU," ONEWORLD NEWS SERVICE, September 28, 1997.
This article from BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest Vol. 1, Number 36 October 06, 1997

EU LASHES OUT AT WTO OVER LOME The European Parliament last week passed a resolution summoning the EU to "use all legal means available" to end alleged attempts by the WTO to squash the Lome Convention. The Convention is between the 15 EU-member countries and 70 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) nations, and provides for such measures as the EU banana regime that allows preferential market access for banana exports from former ACP colonies (see related story, this issue). A report put out by the European Parliament said that the Parliament is concerned with the way in which the WTO questioned the preferential trade arrangements provided for by the Lome Convention, using the banana issue as a case-in-point. The Parliamentary report also points out that developing countries were given only a marginal voice during preparations for the 1994 Marrakech agreement establishing the WTO, saying further that the EU "failed to exercise its responsibilities vis- a-vis those countries." The European Commission recently acknowledged as well that commitments to trade reciprocity made at Marrakech were incompatible with the Lome agreement.
At an international conference on the modernization of the Lome Convention held last week in Brussels, former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard noted that "We got the impression of a very large consensus on the need for a new convention." The conference marked the close of a year-long consultation process for the European Commission Green Paper on Lome. The current Lome Convention IV expires in 2000. When talks for a new Convention begin in September, trade preferences for ACP countries will be the focus of many discussions, as a number of EU states want preferences limited to the world's poorest countries. The European Commission is expected to present its proposal for Lome V in November.
"EU Parliament says WTO against Lome Convention," IPS, October 2, 1997; "Tough talks ahead on new EU-ACP trade, aid pact," REUTERS, September 30, 1997; "Kreis der Lome-Partner soll erhalten bleiben," HANDELSBLATT, October 1, 1997.
This article from BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest Vol. 1, Number 36 October 06, 1997

BANANA UPDATE The European Union last week told a meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) that it intends to comply with a World Trade Organization ruling that its import regime for bananas violates international trade rules. EU officials said that the EU would need a "reasonable period of time" before implementing what they see as an extremely complex ruling. According to WTO rules, members generally have 15 months to implement DSB decisions once they have been adopted (in this case, 15 months from September 25). According to informed sources, the EU does not consider compensating Ecuador and other complainants for lost trade revenue as a "long-term solution," as had been previously suggested. The EU is due to report back to the DSB by November 9 as to what time frame it requires for implementing the WTO ruling. Ecuador, the world's largest exporter of bananas, teamed up with Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, and the US to mount a successful WTO challenge to the EU's banana import system. The EU, they contend, allocates a disproportionate number of licences to traders importing fruit from producers in former European colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP states). Alfredo Pinoargote, Ecuador's ambassador to the EU, informed reporters that the WTO had given the EU until 1999 to bring its regime into line.
"EU says it intends to comply with WTO ruling on banana regime," INSIDE U.S. TRADE, October 17, 1997; "Reform of EU license system only solution--Ecuador," REUTERS, October 13, 1997.
This article from BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest Vol. 1, Number 38 October 20, 1997

EU-ACP MEET TO DISCUSS FUTURE OF LOME CONVENTION The EU and its 71 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) trading partners met in Togo last week to discuss the future role for preferential tariffs in EU- ACP trade relations. The current Lome IV trade convention expires in 2000, and talks for Lome V are set to begin in September 1998. EU delegates made it clear that Lome V will be decidedly different from Lome IV with regard to trade preferences. "You have to understand that, in the long run, preferences are of no use," EU development commissioner Joao de Deus Pinheiro said to reporters in Togo last week. "So you have to find other solutions with a transition period that allows countries to adapt." Despite concurrent negotiations at the World Trade Organization that saw the EU grant improved market access to LDCs, Lord Plumb, co-president of last week's four-day meeting, told delegates that "The new Convention must examine the means whereby the ACP states can take advantage of the possibilities provided by open markets." Togo's President Gnassingbe Eyadema noted that "The globalization and liberalization of the economy should not be a barrier to strengthening relations between [the EU] and [ACP]."
Meanwhile, as the EU decides how it will implement a WTO ruling against its banana import regime favoring banana imports from ACP countries, Caribbean nations such as the Windward Islands, Haiti, Grenada, Guadeloupe and Martinique are asking for technical aid to help cushion the blow of losing preferential access to the EU market for their product. Grenadian Prime Minister Keith Mitchell said last week "If we [Caribbean banana producers] are going to diversify our production, we need help. One thing we could do is branch out and produce banana chips, flour, essence and poultry food, but setting this up is expensive." The EU's preferential ACP banana import regime was successfully challenged last month in the WTO by Ecuador, Honduras, Guatemala and the U.S.
"EU-ACP legislators discuss future partnership," REUTERS, October 27, 1997; "EU seeks alternatives to Lome treaty preferences;" "Caribbean says banana wars not over," REUTERS, October 29, 1997.
This article from BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest Vol. 1, Number 40 November 03, 1997

EU COMPLIANCE WITH WTO BANANA RULING GOES TO ARBITRATION In a letter to the EU last week, the United States, Mexico, Ecuador, Honduras and Guatemala requested that an arbitrator be appointed to determine when the EU would implement the rules and recommendations prescribed by the WTO dispute panel decision against the EU banana import regime. The WTO panel issued its final ruling on September 9 saying that the EU system of preferential market access for banana imports from former Caribbean colonies and Colombia, Venezuela, Costa Rica and Nicaragua, violates international trading rules. Informed sources say that the U.S. is less concerned about the date on which the EU will implement the WTO decision than it is with how the EU will implement the ruling. The European Commission has stated that the EU will "honor its international obligations" by January 1, 1999, but has not provided information as to how it will do so. The EU can either adjust its regime to comply with WTO rules, or compensate the U.S., Mexico, Ecuador, Honduras and Guatemala for lost trade.
The U.S. and Ecuador are adamant that compensation is not an option: sources say that since the U.S. is not an exporter of bananas, assessing compensation would be quite difficult. Following pressure from U.S.- based multinational firms such as Chiquita Brands International, the U.S. brought the complaint to the WTO. The U.S. was later joined by the four Latin American co-complainants.
The EU said last week in response to the letter that it did not understand the purpose of the letter, since it has already been agreed that the deadline for implementation is January 1, 1999. The European Commission is reportedly eager for the banana dispute to be settled once Britain takes over the EU presidency, set to begin in January 1998.
On parallel news, Panama explained at the 18 November meeting of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body that it has requested consultations with the EU, again concerning the Commion Market's regime for importation, sale and distribution of bananas", not interested in re-opening the case but in order to safeguard its own commercial interests, as banana exporter, once the EU defines modifications to the regime.
"U.S., EU clash in WTO over implementation of banana panel decisions," INSIDE U.S. TRADE, November 21, 1997; "Brussel hofft im Bananenkonflikt auf die britische Prasidentschaft," HANDELSBLATT, November 21, 1997; and ICTSD internal files.
This article from BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest Vol. 1, Number 43 November 24, 1997

FAST-TRACK FALLOUT RIPPLES THROUGH THE AMERICAS Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo last week expressed disappointment over the inability of U.S. President Bill Clinton to secure so-called fast-track negotiating authority. "We really wish the political difficulties that have been in the way of fast-track get solved so that pretty soon we can sit down and negotiate free trade in the Americas," Mr. Zedillo told U.S. businessmen. Fast-track allows the U.S. President to negotiate free-trade deals that are put to simple yes-or-no vote in Congress, bypassing the amendment process. Without fast-track, the Clinton Administration will not be able to begin negotiations for the Free Trade Area of the Americas, talks for which are to start in April 1998. Mr. Zedillo credits freer trade borne out of the North American Free Trade Agreement with creating jobs and attracting investment to Mexico, and in part helping Mexico recover from its 1995 peso crises.
Brazil echoed President Zedillo's concerns over the failure of fast- track. Brazilian Foreign Minister Luiz Felipe Lampriella said without fast-track, the U.S. may be crippled in WTO negotiations such as services and agriculture. "[Brazil's] reaction is one of certain concern with what seems to be a victory for. . . a posture of inertia on behalf of the United States in the area of foreign trade," Mr. Lampriella said.
Other observers fear that U.S. hesitance towards freer trade may be contagious: especially in the EU, where the political support for freer trade has been put to the test in light of the recent WTO ruling against the EU banana import regime and its ban on hormone-treated beef.
President Clinton said last week that "I would urge our friends throughout Latin America not to overreact to this." The Clinton Administration is as yet unsure when it will reintroduce fast-track.
"Mexico's Zedillo laments U.S. fast-track setback," THE CONDE REPORT, November 17, 1997; "Un coup de frein americain au libre-echange?" LE MONDE, November 18, 1997; "Brazil says fast-track may hurt world trade," REUTERS, November 18, 1997; "Fast-track fall-out," FINANCIAL TIMES, November 17, 1997.
This article from BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest Vol. 1, Number 43 November 24, 1997

Events & Resources For a more complete list of events, please refer to ICTSD's web calendar at http://www.ictsd.org/html/calendar.htm WTO MEETINGS
An updated list of forthcoming WTO meetings is posted at http://www.wto.org/wto/about/meets.htm. Please bear in mind that dates and times of WTO meetings are often changed, and that the WTO does not always announce the important informal meetings of different WTO bodies. Unless otherwise indicated, all WTO meetings are held at the WTO, Centre William Rappard, Rue de Lausanne 154, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland.
Note: the COUNCIL FOR TRADE-RELATED ASPECTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (TRIPs) will be meeting this week from 20-22 October. Inter alia, Members will be discussing topics such as observer status for international intergovernmental organisations and review of the provisions of article 27.3(b). For information contact Peter Ungphakorn, WTO, (41-22) 739-5412.
27 October: DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY. The agenda includes the following items: status report from the EC on implementation of the EC-Banana Dispute; status report from the U.S. on implementation of the Shrimp- Turtle Dispute; request for establishment of panels from New Zealand and Australia over U.S. safeguard measures on lamb imports; review of the Dispute Settlement Understanding; and appointment of Appellate Body Members. For information contact Nuch Nazeer, WTO, tel: (41-22) 739- 5393.
4 November: GENERAL COUNCIL. For information contact Nuch Nazeer, WTO, tel: (41 22) 739-5393.
5 November: SPECIAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL (on preparations for the Seattle Ministerial). For information contact Nuch Nazeer, WTO, tel: (41 22) 739-5393.-Please note that informal discussions on preparations for the Seattle Ministerial at the General Council are currently ongoing.
8 November: GENERAL COUNCIL. For information contact Nuch Nazeer, WTO, tel: (41 22) 739-5393.
OTHER EVENTS
11-29 October: WTO/WORLD BANK ON-LINE FORUM. The WTO in conjunction with the World Bank is organising an online forum on "Developing Countries and the Millennium Round". This forum is accessible through the joint WTO/World Bank Trade and Development website (http://www.itd.org ). Expert panellists from the WTO and the World Bank will participate in the forum. Registered participants will be able to download background papers. The forum is in English. To view the program or consult background papers, see: http://www.itd.org/wb/dc_milrou.htm. To participate in the online discussion contact webmaster@wto.org or tel: Tessa Jurin, website coordinator: (41-22) 739-5348
20-24 October, Rome, Italy: FOURTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT & TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION. This event is organised by La Sapienza, Roma Tre Universities and the Universidad Central de Venezuela. The Congress will provide opportunities for high-level scientific debate and communication between participants on the problems related to regional and urban management. For more information contact: EETI99, Facolta di Ingegneria, Rome; fax: (39-6) 488-3235; web: http://www.ing.ucv.ve/ceait/eeti.htm
1-2 November, Geneva: INDIGENOUS TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is holding a Round Table discussion meeting. For information contact Wend Wendtland, WIPO, PO Box 18, CH-1211 Geneva 20, tel: (41-22) 338-9111, fax: 733-5428, web: http://www.wipo.org/eng/main.htm
14-17 November, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: GREENING 99 - SUSTAINABILITY: WAYS OF KNOWING/WAYS OF ACTING. This eighth international conference of the Greening of Industry Network is hosted by the Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina. For information contact Kurt Fischer, Clark University, tel: (1-508) 751- 4607, fax: 751-4600, email: greening99@unc.edu, web: http://greening99.bschool.unc.edu
18 November, Budapest, Hungary: FIRST INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EU ACCESSION COUNTRIES. The subject of the first Conference will be "Water and Waste Management: A New Boost for the Eco-Industries in Central Europe". For information contact G. Edward Someus, tel: (36-20) 980-6996, fax: 228- 6045, email: edward@mail.inext.hu.
29 November - 2 December, Joao Pessoa, Brazil: INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN SEMI-ARID REGIONS (WORLD SEMI-ARID'99). For information contact Dorival C. Bruni, President, Brazilian Society for the Environment (BIOSFERA), P.O. Box 2432, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP: 20001-970, tel: (55-21) 221-0155, fax: 221-7626, email: biosfera@biosfera.com.br, web: www.biosfera.com.br
November 1999 - June 2000: FOOD SECURITY, SOCIAL MOBILIZATION AND COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT. The Society for International Development (SID) is launching an international campaign on "Food Security, Social Mobilisation, and Community Empowerment". The campaign will be comprised of 31 national workshops to be held in South America, Central America, the Caribbean, Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. The first workshop will be held in Zaria (Nigeria) on November 3. It is open to organisations working at the local and national levels on food security related issues. For information contact the SID Secretariat, Panisperna, 207, 00184, Rome, Italy, tel: (39-06) 487-2172, fax: 487- 2170 or email Elena Mancusi-Materi: elenam@sidint.org, web: http://www.sidint.org
6-8 December 1999, Bonn, Germany, GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT NETWORK (GDN '99) CONFERENCE: BRIDGING KNOWLEDGE AND POLICY. For information contact Ishac Diwan or Lyn Squire, World Bank, GDN Secretariat, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433, tel: (1-202) 458-9891, fax: 676-9810, email: gdni@worldbank.org, web: http://www.gdnet.org/conference.htm
6-10 December, Basel, Switzerland: BASEL CONVENTION ON HAZARDOUS WASTES. This will be the Fifth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP-5) to the Basel Convention. For information contact the Secretariat of the Basel Convention, tel: (41-22) 979-9111, fax: 797- 3454, email: bulskai@unep.ch, web: http://www.unep.ch/basel/index.html
RESOURCES:
FUTURE POSITIVE: INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY. 1999. By Michael Edwards. In this book, Edwards, Senior Civil Society Specialist at the World Bank, examines globalisation, international affairs and overseas development. He discusses development in the time of globalisation and sets out the case for co-operation at local, national, regional and global levels to help harness and humanise the global economy. ISBN 1 85383 631 1. �20.00. To order online see: Amazon.co.uk, Bookshop.co.uk, Waterstones.co.uk, Countrybookstore.co.uk, or contact Earthscan, Freepost 1, 120 Pentonville Road, London, N1 9BR, UK, fax: 44 (0) 171 278 1142, email: nmoorthy@earthscan.co.uk
THE PRICE OF WATER: TRENDS IN OECD COUNTRIES. 1999. By the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. This book contributes to the debate concerning water shortages, degrading water quality, and the competitiveness of water-intensive economic production. It also provides the latest country-specific information on water pricing practices and trends in OECD countries, as well as comparisons of that data across the OECD Region. There is a special focus on the important water-using sectors of agriculture, industry, and households. Non- sectoral pricing topics, such as water subsidies, institutional change, and affordability are also addressed. ISBN: 9264170790. FF 170. To order see OECD Online Bookshop at http://www.oecd.org/bookshop or email: sales@oecd.org
"WHY GREENS SHOULD LOVE TRADE", and "EMBRACING GREENERY". The Economist, 9, October, 1999. Approaching the trade-environment topic area from a free-trade perspective, these articles discuss the relationship between trade and environment, the WTO, and environmentalists in light of the upcoming WTO Seattle Ministerial. To order visit: http://www.economist.com
TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT SPECIAL STUDY. October 1999. This report by the World Trade Organization Secretariat addresses the economic and political economy dimensions of the interplay of trade and environment. The report argues that trade is neither good nor bad for the environment, but rather a little bit of both. However, the report advocates that win-win outcomes can be attained through well designed policies in both the trade and environmental fields. Furthermore, the study argues that international economic integration and growth reinforce the need for sound environmental policies at the national and international level. To view the report visit: http://www.wto.org/wto/new/press140.htm (see also article in this issue).
This article from BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest Vol. 3, Number 41 October 18, 1999

DSB Meets, Discusses Bananas The WTO Dispute Settlement Body met on 27 October where Members discussed, inter alia, the EU proposed import regime for bananas. The WTO ruled in April that the EU had not complied with a 1997 WTO ruling against its banana import regime (see BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest Vol. 3, No.13-14, 12 April 1999, http://www.ictsd.org/html/story1.12-04-99.htm ). Since that time, an EU team has been working to forge a regime acceptable to all concerned parties -- specifically Ecuador, the U.S., and banana-producing countries in African, Pacific and Caribbean (ACP) countries. In the meantime, the WTO authorised the U.S. to impose US$191 million in retaliatory tariffs to compensate for lost banana revenues resulting from the current EU regime. The EU told WTO Members that there continues "to be wide divergence of views on both the acceptability of the possible mechanisms of such a system, and on which solutions would be considered WTO-consistent." Meanwhile, EU officials last week outlined a proposed revised plan for complying with a WTO ruling against its banana import regime. The EU plan would establish an interim tariff-rate quota for five years that would then change to a single tariff system in 2005. EU officials said the plan would give ACP countries time to adjust to a new import regime.
EU ministers are expected to debate the proposed regime at a 15-16 November meeting in Brussels. France, Spain, Italy and Portugal, however, remain opposed to changing the current import regime that favours imports from ACP producers.
The U.S. reportedly does not support the proposed EU plan. Instead, on 25 October the U.S. presented two alternative plans to the EU for complying with the ruling. The first entails reverting to a tariff-only regime immediately, while the second plan would provide for a transitional tariff rate quota system. It is not clear how the latter proposal differs from the proposed EU regime.
At the same time, Caribbean banana-producing countries will, over the next few weeks, try to build support for its proposed solution to the dispute, involving a quota and licensing system for EU banana imports. Dominica's Prime Minister Edison James last week described the Caribbean proposed regime as WTO-compliant, involving a separate quota for ACP producers. Mr. James said Caribbean officials would be meeting with U.S. trade officials to build support for the plan in an effort to persuade the EU to adopt it.
Meanwhile, Ecuador, the world's largest banana exporter and party to the WTO complaint against the EU, threatened last week to impose US$450 million in sanctions against the EU if it does not change its import regime quickly. Ecuador complained that the EU has already had nine months to comply with the WTO ruling, and that the EU could have at least dropped its quota system while working on a revised regime. "Ecuador is calling for the [European Commission] to withdraw illegal country quotas promptly, or Ecuador will be forced to suspend its concessions granted to [EU] products, as done by the U.S.," Ecuador's Ambassador to the EU, Alfredo Pinoargote said last week.
Also at the DSB meeting, the U.S. blocked requests by Australia and New Zealand for the establishment of a dispute panel to rule to rule over U.S. import tariff and quota restrictions against the two countries' lamb exports (see BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest Vol. 3, No. 27, 12 July 1999 http://www.ictsd.org/html/story5.12-07-99.htm ).
In related news, a list of proposed amendments to the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) has been distributed to Members for consideration by the Chair of the review group of the DSU. According to the provisions of the DSU, the review should have been concluded by the end of 1998, but was extended as the number of suggestions for changes to the DSU were larger than expected. At a 24 September 1999 DSU review meeting, Members were unable to decide on whether or even how to proceed with the review of the DSU, and it is expected that the issue will spill over into further discussions in 2000 after Seattle.
"EU threatens sanctions on EU over bananas," REUTERS, 28 October 1999; "La guerre de la banane continue de diviser," L'AG�FI "EU mulls reform of banana import system to end US dispute," DOW JONES NEWSWIRES, 25 October 1999; "Commission finalising plan to end banana war," FINANCIAL TIMES, 25 October 1999; "U.S. presents two new banana proposals to EU," REUTERS, 27 October 1999; "Ecuador threatens sanctions on EU over bananas;" "Caribbean to seek US support in banana trade issues," REUTERS, 28 October 1999; "U.S. blocks bids for WTO panels on disputes over lamb, steel duties," REGULATION, LAW AND ECONOMICS, 27 October 1999; ICTSD Internal Files.
This article from BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest Vol. 3, Number 43 November 01, 1999

Ecuador, U.S. Reject EU Banana Proposal. Ecuador to Cross-Retaliate The European Commission on 10 November agreed to a revised banana import regime intended to comply with a 1997 ruling against its current banana import program. The WTO ruled in April 1999 that the EU had not complied with a 1997 WTO ruling against its banana import regime (see BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest Vol. 3, No.13-14, 12 April 1999, http://www.ictsd.org/html/ story1.12-04-99.htm ). The new EU plan would establish an interim tariff-rate quota scheme for five years that would then transition to a single tariff system in 2005. EU officials said the plan would give African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) countries time to adjust to a new import regime.
European Commission Deputy Secretary-General Bernhard Zepter, the official charged with forging a new regime, said the new plan would increase the number of non-ACP bananas on the EU market and could lower EU banana prices for consumers.
Specifically, the proposed regime would maintain two existing tariff rate quotas totalling 2,553,000 tonnes, carrying a tariff of 75 euros per tonne and open to all suppliers, except that ACP producers would not have to pay the tariff. The EU would also open up to all suppliers an additional tariff rate quota for 850,000 tonnes previously reserved exclusively for ACP producers. Again, ACP producers would pay no tariffs, while other suppliers would pay a maximum tariff of 275 euros per tonne. The issue of import licences was still left unsettled by the EC proposal.
Ecuador remained unimpressed by the EU proposal, arguing that the banana regime amended as proposed would continue to discriminate against its exports. "Not a single one of Ecuador's concerns has been
This article from BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest Vol. 3, Number 45 November 15, 1999

__________________
Apologies in advance if I am slow to reply to your PM. I suggest posting in the forums for support if you need something urgent.