[Ip-health] Dr Krishan Bir Chaudhary's Article on WTO Draft in The Economic Times

[Indian Society For Sustainable Agriculture]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
In THE ECONOMIC TIMES, India, May 27, 2008

  How should India respond to WTO drafts?

  http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Debate/How_should_India_respo=
nd_to_WTO_drafts/articleshow/msid-3074723,curpg-1.cms

  Dr KRISHAN BIR CHAUDHARY
President, Bharatiya Krishak Samaj (Indian Farmers' Organisation)
  27 May, 2008, 0023 hrs IST,

The two new drafts for negotiations in agriculture and industrial goods (Na=
ma) issued by the WTO on May 19 this year is a mockery of the current situa=
tion. The two drafts do not accommodate the concerns of the developing worl=
d.

  The WTO is practically hopeless and helpless after successive failures of=
 a series of attempts to revive the multilateral trade negotiations. This i=
s primarily due to the adamant attitude of the developed world to continue =
their protectionist regime in agriculture through high subsidies and tariff=
 and ask for market access in the Third World.

  Interestingly, trying to encash upon the current food crisis, the WTO dir=
ector-general, Pascal Lamy instead of urging the developed world to remove =
the distortions in trade suggested the developing countries to open up thei=
r doors.
  The chair of the agriculture negotiating committee, Crawford Falconer, wh=
ile issuing the draft, claimed that it was a result of discussions held sin=
ce September last year. Similarly, the chair of the Nama group, Don Stephen=
son, claimed that his revised text was the product of the bilateral and plu=
rilateral consultations he had over the last few weeks and was also built u=
pon the past years of negotiations. He, however, said, "this revised text i=
s another step in the process and might be subjected to further revision." =
At least Stephenson is more frank in his admission than Falconer.

  The two new drafts show very little areas of convergence despite the WTO =
director-general Pascal Lamy claiming to the contrary.

  The Nama draft has completely ignored the Doha mandate of less than full =
reciprocity in tariff reduction for developing countries. It has linked the=
 tariff reduction coefficients with the flexibilities for developing countr=
ies. If the Doha mandate is to be followed then the issue of flexibilities =
for developing countries should be treated separately and not in the way St=
ephenson has done.

  Stephenson has also sought to divide the developing countries by extendin=
g additional flexibility to some members.

  The Nama text, if accepted would doom the future of many small and medium=
 sized units and also cause problems to the fishery sector. The farm draft =
has ignored the very basic aspect of food and livelihood security of the Th=
ird World.

  Though it has recognised the developing countries' right to self-designat=
e their special products based on food and livelihood security and rural de=
velopment, it has proposed the minimum limit of 8% of the tariff lines and =
maximum limit of 20% of the tariff lines. The crucial issue is the maximum =
extent of self-designation of special products by developing countries whic=
h is in square bracket, implying the need for further negotiations.

  The draft has recognised the developing countries' right to self-designat=
e special products guided by indicators based on the criteria of food and l=
ivelihood security and rural development. G-33 countries suggested the mini=
mum limit of 20% for self-designation of special products. The problem is m=
ore for a multi-crop country like India where farmers depend upon a large n=
umber of crops for their livelihood security. Thus, capping of special prod=
ucts by a fixed percentage would not be enough to protect the farmers.

  The Falconer draft has presented a complex and complicated process for im=
plementing special safeguard mechanism (SSM) to prevent a surge in imports =
in the developing countries, while the special safeguard (SSG) remains simp=
le for developed countries.

  The draft does not provide for conversion of all the complex and specific=
 tariffs in the developed countries into their ad valorem equivalent, which=
 is necessary for transparency and effecting realistic reduction. It reflec=
ts an uncertainty related to desired reduction in subsidies in the develope=
d world. It only indicates some range of cuts that too within square bracke=
ts, implying the need for further negotiations.
----------------------------------------


---------------------------------
 Explore your hobbies and interests. Click here to begin.