WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/C/W/545 
21 March 2006 
 
 (06-1266) 
Council for Trade in Goods Original:  Spanish 
  
ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - 
 NEGOTIATIONS UNDER  ARTICLE XXIV:6 
 
Statement by Colombia
 
  
 The following communication dated 10 Ma rch 2006 has been received from Colombia. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
1. Colombia has placed the item "Enlargement of the European Communities, Negotiations 
under GATT Article XXIV:6" on the agenda of the Council for Trade in Goods.  In statements 
relating to the banana issue, Colombia avoids mi xing the three processes that it has been – and still 
is – engaged in with the European Communities on account of this product. 
2. Colombia understands that the Membership is c onfused about the entire banana debate, and it 
therefore wishes to emphasize that the topic addressed  under the previous agenda item concerns the 
Communities' obligation to adopt a single tariff regime for banana imports into its market.  I shall not 
go into the matter at this time but will address  only the question of the enlargement of the 
Communities.  As a reminder to Members, th e third negotiating process concerns the Round. 
3. The negotiations in which other WTO Memb ers took part relate to the European 
Communities' enlargement from 15 to  25 members as of 1 May 2004. 
4. On 19 January 2004, the European Communiti es notified the accession of 10 new members 
and consequently the withdrawal of the commitme nts contained in the Schedules of concessions of 
those 10 countries, which, as a result of the expans ion, undertook the commitments of countries that 
were already part of the EC membership.  In its notification, the EC stated that it was initiating the 
procedures under Articles XXIV:6 and XXVIII of the GATT 1994. 
5. With a minor share in the markets of the 10  new EC members according to the standards 
unilaterally determined by the Commission, Colomb ia exports only a few products to those markets – 
with the exception of one key commodity for the country and its exports, i.e., bananas. 
6. Colombia was exporting bananas to several new EC members under the generalized system of 
preferences or through the duty-free or low-tariff quotas established in the Schedules of various countries. 
7. The EC's expansion significantly affected our  access to the markets of several of these 
countries, since before 1 January 2006, as we a ll know, the EC applied a complex banana import 
system involving payment of a tariff of €75 per tonne, restricted access through licensing and an intricate quota administration system. 
8. So severe was the injury sustained by Colo mbia that on 15 September 2004 the European 
Commission officially recognized the country's negotiating rights in view of the existence of 
substantial interest, because of the discrepancy in  payment of import duties on bananas classified as a G/C/W/545 
Page 2  
 
product of subheading 08030019;  the Commission also quantified the prejudice caused, arriving at a sum that I shall refrain from disclosing out of loyalty to the WTO principles and Article XXIV:6 but that totals several million euros – no inconsiderab le amount for any Member, whether developing or 
developed. 
9. Colombia has had only one session of nego tiations under Article XXIV:6 and hence 
Article XXVIII.  On that occasion, we were in formed that the Commission viewed the banana 
question as a single issue and that it wished to put on the table both the negotiations on the binding of a single tariff on bananas and those relating to the enlargement. 
10. Colombia never agreed to that, and si nce September 2004 it has sent five written 
communications to the European Communities, seeking payment of compensation.  Also since 2004, 
Colombia has taken part in every General Counc il meeting dealing with the item that Honduras and 
Guatemala have regularly placed on the agenda, at which it has respectfully requested space for 
negotiation with the EC. 
11. Colombia has always supported the requests fo r extension of the negotiating deadline made 
by the EC, which has consistently stated that it needed an extension to be able to conclude 
negotiations with ALL Members affected by the enlargement. 
12. After the latest General Council meeting on 8 Fe bruary, at which we delivered a statement 
objecting to the fact that the Communities had c onducted negotiations solely  with developed and 
certain major countries, we were called to a br iefing by the European Communities on 16 February. 
13. At that meeting we learned that the several million euros which the EC had acknowledged 
owing us had been reduced to considerably less th an five million – I will not say exactly how much 
out of loyalty to the WTO principles.  The EC a ll but suggested that it was for Colombia to offer 
compensation for the enlargement. 
14. The EC told us that it had accorded us compen sation for 2004 in the form of an autonomous 
tariff rate quota of 300,000 metric tonnes granted to  all MFN exporters for access to the markets of 
the 10 new members, and for 2005 in the form of a quota of 460,000 tonnes granted to all MFN 
exporters to those same markets.  We answered that that was unacceptable simply because the quota 
had not been set in order to give us market access but to maintain firm control of and access for bananas to the EC-15 market and hence afford protection for Community production and the ACP 
countries. 
15. We therefore do not believe that a TRQ constitu tes compensation, as it was presented to us. 
16. We were then advised that as of 2006, with the new tariff of €176 per tonne and application of 
the same method for calculating prejudice, the value of the latter had fallen to less than 3 million 
euros. 
17. That was our reason for putting the item on the ag enda and why we are requesting that this 
document be circulated with a symbol.  In this statement, Colombia is trying to demonstrate that the Members, or at least some of the Members, are not observing the principles and legal provisions;  it is 
trying to show that the European Commission has fa iled to observe them and has so far disregarded 
our right to compensation.  It has never negotiated w ith us, and I can assure you that this so, even if 
the opposite is claimed in this forum. 
18. All the linkages established with the negotiations  on the single tariff for bananas – which was 
not negotiated either, but imposed – are but wa ys devised by the EC to avoid assuming its 
responsibility to provide compensation as a result of the enlargement.  G/C/W/545 
 Page 3 
 
 
19. The only aspect that these two processes have in common is their coincidence in time.  How 
fortunate were those countries that encountered no  such difficulties.  All those who were granted 
compensation received it only because their access w as jeopardized.  As for us, because bananas are 
an emblematic product and two COMPLETELY diffe rent processes in both nature and substance 
coincided in time, we have NOTHING so far. 
20. Colombia is participating in these negotiations  in good faith and has made a constructive 
contribution so that the Commission could comp lete its negotiations under Articles XXIV:6 and 
XXVIII of the GATT 1994.  Thanks to our endorseme nt of the five requests for extension, the 
Commission was able to conclude the negotiations  with the major trading partners in this 
Organization. 
21. We therefore want to voice before this C ouncil our PROFOUND disappointment at the way 
in which the European Commission has treated Colombia in this process. 
22. Please allow me to conclude with a substantive t hought, and that is that rules are made to be 
respected and the Communities are bound to abide by their obligations towards us.  If they do not, we will resort to the rules and we will apply retaliatory measures, as an alternative that is lawful but bad 
for all the parties and for the multilateral trading system. 
23. Looking at recent developments in this Organi zation, we have noted how and when the rice 
problem between the Communities and the United States was resolved.  The issue was settled 
immediately after the United States announced reta liatory measures against products from Europe's 
Mediterranean countries, which DID INDUCE the Comm ission to settle the matter, since obviously in 
this instance the other party was a Member with a very important and sizeable market. 
24. Colombia hopes that by 1 June 2006 the Eur opean Commission will have compensated it for 
the prejudice caused by the modification of the bound tariffs of its 10 new members.  If not, Colombia 
will announce the application of a measure that will affect a member of the EC with a good 
understanding of the complexity of the banana se ctor, because it is the leading exporter of a luxury 
product to our market.  Such a measure w ill unfortunately affect other exporters. 
__________