Did you read the interview in the Packer? This company becomes too big to be managed by one CEO, who flies from one �Hilton� suite to another trying to be on top of everything. Upcoming problems I see in Poland, Greece, Kenya and the EU tariff. On the other hand the war in Ivory Coast can help him to sell the pineapples with a premium.
FDP has accused the Costa Rican Government of placing its banana industry in danger by supporting a perpetuation of the existing regime. Why? Charles E. Grassley knows better. (Republican from Iowa) Chairman, Committee on Finance U.S. Senate Quote Second, I am extremely troubled by the announcement on October 27, 2004, that as of January 1, 2006, the European Union will impose a tariff of 230 euros per metric ton on banana imports that do not originate in African, Caribbean, and Pacific ("ACP") countries. As you know, in April 2001 the United States and the European Union reached an Understanding on Bananas in an effort to resolve the ongoing WTO dispute over trade in bananas. As part of that Understanding, the United States agreed to a temporary tariff-rate quota through 2005, under which the most-favored-nation ("MFN") rate of duty is 75 euros per metric ton while ACP bananas may be imported duty-free. The United States agreed to this lengthy transition period in order to afford ACP countries and the EU sufficient opportunity to adjust to a final tariff-only regime. A final tariff rate was not specified at that time. However, in November 2001, the United States agreed to the EU's request for a WTO waiver from the MFN obligation found in Article 1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ("GATT") based on the understanding that the final tariff rate would "at least maintain total market access for MFN banana suppliers. " Now, you don't have to be a trade lawyer or an economist to see that increasing the MFN duty on bananas by over 200 percent will not serve to maintain total market access for MFN banana suppliers. In fact, it will have exactly the opposite effect. One study estimates that a 230 euro tariff will reduce banana exports from Latin American suppliers by over one-third, resulting in lost income of about $400 million per year and over 75,000 job losses. That is not the outcome envisioned by the United States when we agreed to the Understanding and when we consented to the WTO waiver. It appears at least some in Europe would concur. A recent report by Sweden's Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Affairs concludes that the final tariff should "reach a level of no more than 75 euro/ton...." And according to at least one press report, Sweden's position is supported by a number of EU Member States. I very much hope that the Commission will reconsider its position and instead honor the commitment to introduce a final tariff rate that will at least maintain total market access for MFN banana suppliers. Unquote http://www.hoovers.com/free/news/detail.xhtml?ArticleID=NR20041121665.4_6fde0060 2dff093b