| Subject: |
Immediate solution seems unlikely as WTO DG Roberto Azevedo sounds words of caution |
|
New Delhi: India may have a long fight on its hands on the food security issue at the World Trade Organization, going by the statement made by Director-General Roberto Azevedo at a meeting of heads of delegations in Geneva on Monday.
At the first meeting called by the DG since the collapse of talks on July 31, Azevedo said there can't be perfect parallelism between trade facilitation and food security, two key aspects of an agreement reached during the Ninth Ministerial Conference of the WTO in Bali in December 2013.
"On the issue of the Bali decisions, there seems to be a clear interplay between concerns relating to the negotiations on public stockholding for food security purposes and the adoption of the protocol of amendment on the Trade Facilitation Agreement.
However, we know that strict parallelism is not possible," said Azevedo. India wants a permanent solution on food security and has suggested that it could be stitched up together with the trade facilitation deal by December this year.
Azevedo tried to make a distinction between the two, saying that the Bali deal included the trade facilitation agreement but only launched talks on a permanent solution for public stockholding.
At Bali, India was able to negotiate a peace clause, a four-year window under which no country could be penalised for breaching the farm subsidy cap. The country took a hard stand on food security as its subsidy for rice was projected to approach the WTO's limit of 10 per cent of the value of production in a few years.
India's notifications at the WTO last week showed its rice subsidy touched 7 per cent of the total value of production in 2010-11. The subsidy limit is calculated based on prices fixed in 1986-88. The G-33, a group of 46 developing nations, wants the base year to be revised or inflation to be factored in while calculating the cap.
"It is not just for India, but in the interest of many countries which have public stocks of food grains," an Indian government official said, defending its stand. China and Indonesia have similar government programmes to procure food grains from farmers at subsidised rates.
Azevedo, however, indicated he was willing to work to find a solution to the food security issue. "Nonetheless we must find a way of providing comfort for those with outstanding concerns on food security.
And, at the same time, we must find a way of achieving the full implementation of all the other Bali decisions, including the Trade Facilitation Agreement," he said.
India seemed unconvinced and is unlikely to settle for promises. "Our stand is clear. We don't need assurances but actual work on the ground on the permanent solution. More developing countries understand India's position now and the fact that the Bali deal was not balanced," said the Indian government official.
South African agriculture minister Senzeni Zokwana last week supported India's stance, saying that his country is aware of an unfair play between rich and developing countries.
"While they would try to put stringent rules on how we support our farmers, they are protective of their industry. It creates an imbalance," he said. India's stand of blocking the adoption of the trade facilitation protocol was not supported by the BRIC nations and most of the G-33 nations.
"That is the plain fact of the matter — indeed all of the Bali decisions have their own very specific timetables which advance at different paces," the DG said. "These are the issues which we need to tackle. And clearly a vital aspect of our conversations on taking the Bali package forward will be how we can implement the Trade Facilitation Agreement."
Source : economictimes.indiatimes.com
|