The news that EU reached a deal with the Latin American Countries (largely Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Nicaragua Bolivia and Panama) on bananas has sparked anger from the African Caribbean and Pacific Countries (ACP). These countries (ACP) have long enjoyed preferences in the EU as one of their most important markets.
Today, 28/07/2008 as the DDA mini-ministerial negotiations in Geneva entered their second week, the ACP countries in solidarity and banana exporters particularly led by a West African Country of Cameroon expressed outrage and frustration on how the EU handled the issue on Bananas.
They are blaming the EU for shutting them out of the negotiations and reaching a deal with the Latinos that is going to severely affect their banana exports and affect millions of livelihoods in their countries. They warned this was not acceptable.
The ACP countries among other tropical products have long enjoyed preferences on their banana exports into the EU as their major banana market, largely linked to their historical trade relations with the EU characterised by the Lome Conventions and the Cotonou Partnership Agreement.
The EU currently applies a specific tariff of 176 Euros per tonne on bananas to non ACP suppliers. This tariff has always conferred the ACP country banana producers a comparative advantage over Latino producers.
It seems that the Latin American countries took advantage of the current intensified negotiations in the DDA and pressured the EU to cut its banana tariffs from 176 Euros to 109 Euros per tonne by 2014. This sharply contrasts a compromise deal that was proposed by Pascal Lamy the Director General of WTO. Mr. Lamy had proposed a final tariff of Euros 116 by 2015 as a middle ground which was rejected by the Latinos.
Mr. Lamy compromise proposal and the Latino deal means that the initial tariff cuts would be effectively implemented beginning January 2009. The Latinos have offered to concede on the legal part of the preferences on bananas with respect to peace clause as well as the 42 list of products( so called preference products) for which the ACP countries are seeking preservation of long standing preferences.
However, by this morning (28th July 2008) in an impromptu meeting convened by the Coordinator of the ACP Group, the Ambassador of Mauritius, the minister of Cameroon who is also the spokesperson of the ACP banana producing and exporting countries stated it categorically that its members were dissatisfied and were “not going to sign up to the Agriculture revised modalities” if the banana issue agreement does not address the minimum of their concerns.Thus blocking any possible Doha deal
The Ambassador of Mauritius indicated that the group had offered a counter proposal to the deal reached between EU and Latin American countries. In their package proposal the ACP countries are seeking among others (i) readjustment of proposed tariff cuts numbers (ii) measures to address revenue loss due to loss of export earnings from the deal i.e.the ACP wanted to be Compensated by the EU and (iii) EU to fund ACP structural adjustment programmes in ACP banana producing economies will be diversifying away from a single product of bananas which is being hurt by competition from the Latin American countries.
By the close of business today (Monday, 28 July), the ACP delegates were still in discussions but continued their threat that they will not be part of the consensus that wont address satisfactorily their concerns on bananas.
2 comments:
Dick,
I brief the ACP countries position as far as the proposed amendments are concrned are warranted and if the EU does not check its proposal for fairness we may have the doha round derailed like they are already!!!!
Musa
Hon Dick,
To me this just reflects the complexity of the issues at hand. On the one had you have a development round which is meant to address the needs of the developing countries in addressing those tariffs peaks and escalation, subsidies and other issues. Yet on the other hand you have a group of developing countries who are frustrating the negotiations just because of certain vested interests or more specifically trying to preserve those traditional preferences that have been granted to them over the years. Let’s face it; these preferences have to go one way or the other if we are to move forward. We cannot continue to hold back progress of the multilateral trading system on the basis of some petty interests of a few countries who want continue receiving favours and hand outs at the expense of everyone else.
That is my view.
Jeff
Post a Comment