(1)

The Commission reached Understandings with Ecuador and the United States of America, on 11 April 2001 and on 30 April 2001 respectively (the ‘Understandings’), which identified means to resolve the disputes brought by those countries in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) with respect to the tariff treatment of bananas imported into the Union. Those Understandings envisaged the introduction of a tariff-only regime for the imports of bananas. To that effect, on 12 July 2004 the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate the modification of the bound tariff with a view to introducing a tariff-only regime for bananas in the EU schedule for bananas pursuant to Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (‘GATT 1994’).

(2)

On 22 March 2004 and on 29 January 2007 the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations pursuant to Article XXIV:6 of the GATT 1994 in the course of the accession to the European Union of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia and of Bulgaria and Romania, respectively.

(3)

The negotiations were successfully concluded on 15 December 2009 by the initialling of a Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas with Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and Venezuela (the ‘Geneva Agreement’) and of an Agreement on Trade in Bananas with the United States of America (the ‘EU/US Agreement’).

(4)

The Agreements negotiated by the Commission meet the claims of the countries concerned pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994. In addition, they implement the Understandings by providing for the binding of a tariff-only regime, and provide an adequate solution to all the pending disputes concerning the tariff treatment of bananas, which should therefore be formally settled.

(5)

Those two Agreements should be signed on behalf of the Union, subject to their conclusion at a later date.

(6)

In view of the need to implement expeditiously the initial tariff cuts, to prevent the continuation of the pending disputes and to ensure that the Union’s final market access commitments for bananas in the next WTO multilateral market access negotiations for agricultural products successfully concluded do not exceed those provided for in paragraphs 3, 6 and 7 of the Geneva Agreement and paragraph 2 and paragraph 3(a) and 3(b) of the EU/US Agreement, both Agreements should be applied provisionally, in accordance with paragraph 8(b) of the Geneva Agreement and paragraph 6 of the EU/US Agreement, respectively, from the date of signature of each Agreement, pending their entry into force,

(a)

the Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas between the European Union and Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and Venezuela (the ‘Geneva Agreement’);

(b)

the Agreement on Trade in Bananas between the European Union and the United States of America (the ‘EU/US Agreement’).

(1)

Commission Decision 2006/601/EC (2) requires that consignments of rice products originating from the United States of America and likely to be mixed may be placed on the market only if they are accompanied by certain documents demonstrating that the products concerned do not contain the genetically modified organism ‘LL RICE 601’. In addition, that Decision provides for certain other control measures.

(2)

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has published the results of its investigation on, in particular, the presence of ‘LL RICE 601’ in US commercial rice. While the exact mechanisms of the admixture could not be established, the findings indicated that the source of the admixture with ‘LL RICE 601’ was limited.

(3)

Additionally, the US Rice Federation adopted a plan aiming to remove ‘LL RICE 601’ from the US export channels. This plan included testing of the seeds before planting, as well as documentary and analytical controls at the delivery points.

(4)

Following the latest amendment to Decision 2006/601/EC, by Commission Decision 2008/162/EC (3), the 2008 seed test results for the five rice growing US states — Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Missouri —, provided in the framework of that plan, were all negative for the presence of ‘LL RICE 601’.

(5)

The findings and conclusions of the Food and Veterinary Office report of 2008 concerning the evaluation of control activities in the United States of America regarding emergency measures for rice exports to the EU [United States 2008-7857] show that there was an acceptable system in place as regards the measures provided for in Decision 2006/601/EC.

(6)

Testing by the US Rice Federation for the 2009 crop of harvested rice, also known as green rice, did not detect lots containing LLRice601. In addition, the US industry indicated that it would continue to apply its plan for the 2010 crop and to provide pre-export testing and certification even if the measure is lifted, should market interests require continued measures.

(7)

Consequently, the reasons which justified Decision 2006/601/EC no longer exist. That Decision should therefore be repealed.

(8)

Member States should nevertheless keep up monitoring, at an appropriate level of random testing, to verify the absence of rice products mixed with ‘LL RICE 601’ on the market. The results of this monitoring are to be rapidly communicated through the RASFF to the Commission which will evaluate whether further action is required.

(9)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,