7/29/2019 Indias Stand Wto Doha Round
1/15
Indias stand on Doha round of
talks at WTO
SIBMPune - EPGDBM
2010-11 .Subject : International Trade.Presented By :
Abhijit Malankar ( Roll - AV 102 )Email - [email protected]
7/29/2019 Indias Stand Wto Doha Round
2/15
Contents
Brief Intro of WTO Doha rounds
Run-up to the DOHA round
Indias stand in the Doha Round in relation to :
- Agriculture / SSM- NAMA
- Services Sector
- IPRs, TRIPS
- WTO Impact on India
Conclusion
7/29/2019 Indias Stand Wto Doha Round
3/15
Brief Introduction about WTO Doha round
The fourth ministerial meeting of the WTO was held in Doha inNovember 2001 in which ministers from 142 member countriesparticipated .
This ministerial had attracted a lot of attention because of theconflict of interests between the developed and developing
countries The developed countries ( USEC ) wanted a new round of
multilateral trade negotiations to be launched soon which included investments,competition policy,trade facilitation,transperency ingovernment procurement, environment, agriculture and TRIPs
Developing countries like India , on the other hand , held that theimplementation issues should be resolved before any new round .India almost singlehandedly fought against the developedcountries .
7/29/2019 Indias Stand Wto Doha Round
4/15
Run up to Doha July 2008 Rounds .
Why India participated in the Doha rounds
1- India went along with the then emerging consensus ,because it supported a rule based multilateral tradingsystem.
2 - At that time India had not emerged as an important
player in the realm of regional trade agreements (RTAs) butit had benefitted from the predictability of the GATT/WTOframework.
3 - India engaged constructively and carried a twinresponsibility : protecting its own core negotiating interests
and joining other like minded developing nations informulating a coordinated position of the developing world
7/29/2019 Indias Stand Wto Doha Round
5/15
7/29/2019 Indias Stand Wto Doha Round
6/15
Earlier GATT and WTO trade roundsName Start Duration Countries Subjects covered Achievements
Geneva April 1947 7 months 23 TariffsSigning of GATT, 45,000 tariff concessions affecting
$10 billion of trade
Annecy April 1949 5 months 13 Tariffs Countries exchanged some 5,000 tariff concessions
TorquaySeptember
19508 months 38 Tariffs
Countries exchanged some 8,700 tariff concessions,
cutting the 1948 tariff levels by 25%
Geneva IIJanuary
19565 months 26 Tariffs, admission of Japan $2.5 billion in tariff reductions
DillonSeptember
1960
11 months 26 Tariffs Tariff concessions worth $4.9 billion of world trade
Kennedy May 1964 37 months 62 Tariffs, Anti-dumping Tariff concessions worth $40 billion of world trade
TokyoSeptember
197374 months 102
Tariffs, non-tariff measures, "framework"
agreements
Tariff reductions worth more than $300 billion
dollars achieved
UruguaySeptember
198687 months 123
Tariffs, non-tariff measures, rules, services,
intellectual property, dispute settlement,
textiles, agriculture, creation of WTO, etc
The round led to the creation of WTO, and
extended the range of trade negotiations, leading
to major reductions in tariffs (about 40%) and
agricultural subsidies, an agreement to allow full
access for textiles and clothing from developing
countries, and an extension of intellectual property
rights.
Doha
November
2001 Ongoing 142
Tariffs, non-tariff measures, agriculture,
labor standards, environment, competition,investment, transparency, patents etc
The round is not yet concluded.
7/29/2019 Indias Stand Wto Doha Round
7/15
Indias stand on Agriculture/ SSM ( Special
Safeguards Mechanism )
For India it appears that cuts in OTDS (overall trade distortingsupport),tariff rate quota expansion and tariff capping were not dealbreaking issues and with some intelligent negotiations,issues relating tosensitive products and special products of Interest to India could also besecured with the give and take policy with developed countries. The issueof SSM however became a deal breaker.
India argued that since agriculture is associated with poverty andsubsistence in the country, markets opening up here needs to becalibrated in order to protect the livelihoods of the poor farmers and theirfamilies.The proposed SSM would enable developing countries like India totake remedial action through higher tariffs in case of import surges orimport induced price declines
Due to Indias efforts, SSM remained an integral part of the mandate
throughout the Doha negotiations, as reiterated in the Hong KongMinisterial Declaration. Differences between India and the US are aboutthe level of increase in import volume (i.e. the trigger) required to crossthe Uruguay Round (UR) bound levels of tariffs and the extent by whichthe UR bound tariffs can be exceeded. Indias position, like that of mostdeveloping countries, was that there should be no difference in thetriggers leading to increase of tariffs up to and above the UR levels.
7/29/2019 Indias Stand Wto Doha Round
8/15
Indias stand on Agriculture/ SSM ( Special
Safeguards Mechanism ) (contd)
For the bound rate trigger, the so-called Lamy Text put a figure of 140
percent, i.e. import volumes to rise by more than 40 percent to enable
increase of tariffs beyond the UR bound levels. India was flexible enough
to consider different options around that number, and suggested a figure
of 115 percent. But the US continued to insist on a trigger of 140 percent.
India expressed its inability to accept this trigger, citing studies
purportedly proving that substantial injury can occur at level above 110
percent.
In the face of differences on this issue, Lamy tried to broker a compromise
through an alternative proposal involving defining substantial injury and
inserting a strict monitoring mechanism. India agreed to negotiate on this
proposal but the US turned it down. With the efforts of the EC, the G-7
senior officials worked out an alternative proposal. India was again ready
to use this as a basis for negotiations but the US again turned it down.
Clearly, the US has shown no flexibility on this issue
7/29/2019 Indias Stand Wto Doha Round
9/15
Indias stand on NAMA ( Non Agricultural
Market Access )
In NAMA (industrial goods but including fisheries), discussions focused on threeissuescoefficients for tariff reduction by developed and developing countries,the anti-concentration clause and sectorals. On coefficients,the depth of Indiasautonomous liberalisation provided it with an adequate cushion based on which itappeared to accept the proposals in the NAMA text albeit developing countrieswere being asked to cut tariffs more than those of developed countries.
Under the mandate for NAMA negotiations, developing countries have someflexibility in tariff reduction for a negotiated percentage of tariff lines. On suchtariff lines,they can either take zero cuts for a smaller number or 50 percent of theformula cuts for a higher number
However, developed countries wanted to restrict this flexibility through the so-called anti-concentration clause to ensure that developing countries would not useit to block liberalisation in sectors important to them, for example, automobiles.India did not accept a blanket restriction on this flexibility, but was willing toconsider a via media, which did not effectively restrict its ability to protectimportant sectors. Having failed to secure that India reverted to its originalnegotiating position that infant and vulnerable industries of developing countriesneeded to be protected. It is apparent that India would not have blocked a deal onthese issues.
7/29/2019 Indias Stand Wto Doha Round
10/15
Indias stand on Services Sector
Services liberalisation is another important issue for India due to itsinterest in the movement of natural persons in the category of
experts and skilled persons. There was a Signalling Conference onServices during the July 2008 meeting with the idea that Memberswith an important interest in services could provide clear signals toeach other regarding their intentions to open their markets. Indiasignalled a liberal offer in important areas of interest to developedcountries including telecommunications, distribution, financialservices, energy and environment services, and courier services.
In the areas of its interest,India received positive signals from,among others, EU, Canada, Norway and Japan. However, the USresponse did not cover new ground; though it talked of increasing
H-1B visas and that too in consultation with the Congress,but it didnot mention anything on liberal entry norms for contractual servicesuppliers (CSS) and independent professionals which is Indias maindemand.
7/29/2019 Indias Stand Wto Doha Round
11/15
Indias stand on IPRs , TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights )
On intellectual property rights (IPRs), India seeks changes in the TRIPS
agreement to accommodate concerns relating to bio-piracy, and issupporting the EC demand for a higher level of protection to allproducts.Though it is not clear whether India has undertaken any soundanalysis on commercial interests in these two issues, their politicalvisibility will require a reasonably credible outcome. The US is against boththe issues. This could be another deal-breaker in the end game.
On trade remedies, zeroing in anti-dumping and fisheries subsidies in theSubsidies Agreement are important. On the former, there is a big groupled by Japan and Chinese Taipei opposing the US position, whichincidentally is also the position emerging from WTO jurisprudence. Indias
stand is similar to that of Japan and therefore, it is content to follow suit.
In the case of fisheries subsidies, fate of small and artisanal farmers inIndia depends on India taking a frontal position to insist upon flexibilities,which is possible with the help of intelligent negotiation that would helpavoid collateral benefits flowing down to big and heavily-subsidised
enterprises in some WTO Members.
7/29/2019 Indias Stand Wto Doha Round
12/15
WTO Impact on India.
7/29/2019 Indias Stand Wto Doha Round
13/15
Conclusion The scenario post-July 2008 Mini-Ministerial meeting, including the failure
of Lamy to secure sufficient support in December to call them to Genevaagain is unclear. While a number of analysts have observed that the DohaRound is frozen, at least till the middle of 2009 (by then Obamaadministration is expected to have it on its table and the Indian electionswill be over), there is plenty of support for continuation of thenegotiations given that considerable progress was made in the run up toand during the Mini-Ministerial meeting.
Lamy certainly did not have any intention of giving up.After his visit to
Delhi for the Conference on Global Partnership for Development organisedby CUTS in August 2008, he travelled to Washington and elsewhere togauge the mood. But with the Obama administrations tongs in manyother fires, negotiators are not calling their trade ministers to Geneva anytime soon.
Given the broad support to calibrated liberalisation accompanied by
regulatory and institutional policies amongst most Indian political parties,so long as its farm sector is protected, the US does not insist on upfrontcommitment of a zero-for-zero in any sector of industrial goods. Moreover,so long as it can take some commercially meaningful achievements homeand some politically useful commitment to accommodate Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD) in TRIPS, India may not be the deal-breaker.
7/29/2019 Indias Stand Wto Doha Round
14/15
Acknowledgements
www.cuts-citee.org
www.wtocenter.iift.ac.in
International Business PHI - Francis
Cherunilam
http://www.cuts-citee.org/http://www.wtocenter.iift.ac.in/http://www.wtocenter.iift.ac.in/http://www.cuts-citee.org/http://www.cuts-citee.org/http://www.cuts-citee.org/7/29/2019 Indias Stand Wto Doha Round
15/15
Q / A