|
INAUGURAL
SESSION:
The
Inaugural Session of
the workshop got underway at 10a.m. on Friday. Prof S S Singh,
Director, NLIU welcomed the initiative taken by CENTAD and the Centre
for WTO Studies, NLIU to build capacity in the area of global trade
issues. He stressed on the need for understanding the WTO and the
repercussions associated with it. Shri C. Rajasekhar, the
Chairperson, Centre for WTO Studies, NLIU welcomed the delegates and
explained the context of holding the workshop.
Shri
Anil Dave,
Vice-Chairman of the Jan Abhiyaan Parishad, and Chief Guest of the
inaugural session took the assembled audience through the history of
the WTO. He mentioned the Bretton Woods conference post World War II
and the GATT established after the aborted International Trade
Organisation. Shri Dave criticized the stand of clique of the
developed countries at the WTO and wondered whether WTO could move
ahead without addressing the development concerns of the developing
and least developed world. He said that only the spirit of mutual
accommodation could revive the WTO and developed nations particularly
the USA would have to give up its double standards in the
negotiations. He further said that the Doha declaration was a turning
point in the trade talks as there was some realisation among the
developed world that they would have to take the developing countries
along if the WTO talks were to succeed. However, in several areas
deadlines set in Doha could not be met and optimism born of Doha
declaration ebbed out.
Shri.
Linu Mathew Philip, Resource person from CENTAD was the last speaker
at the inaugural session. His short talk relied on examples from the
negotiations in the field of agricultural subsidies. He felt that the
answer was not to renounce from the WTO completely but the solution
lay in tough negotiations and realpolitik. He highlighted the
intricacies faced by the negotiators. Particularly, he stressed on
the need for well-trained lawyers during the negotiation and, after
the mandate had been agreed upon, for the drawing up of documents. He
bemoaned the fact that India lacked well-trained lawyers and gave
first-hand accounts where lack of experts cost us dear.
Inaugural
Session of the Centad-NLIU Workshop
(from
the Left): Shri Anil Dave,( M.P. and Vice Chairman, Jan Abhiyaan
Parishad), Dr. C. Rajasekhar(Associate Prof. NLIU), Prof. S.S.
Singh(Director NLIU), Linu Mathew Philip(Fellow, Centad), and C.M.
Garg (Registrar, NLIUs)
Technical
Session I: Agriculture
Shri
Srinivas Murthy, an IFS officer and Chairperson of the session gave a
practical account of how negotiations work and he particularly
stressed on Phytosanitary Measures (“PSM’s) and how they affect
Indian exports. He lamented that departments set up for WTO
compliance are only paper tigers and often are not manned by experts.
He also pointed out various state-level issues for PSM’s and the
disparity between municipal PSM’s and those set by Codex
Alimentarius.
Shri
Linu Mathew Philip, the resource person then gave a very detailed
power-point presentation and talk on the Agricultural negotiations
that go on in the WTO, with particular reference to the Agreement on
Agriculture (AoA) decided at Doha. In particular, he stressed on,
inter alia:
-
The salient features of the AoA;
-
The current state of negotiations, touching
upon the Doha Mandate, the Hong-Kong Ministerial Declaration etc;
-
The important ‘three pillars’ of the AoA:
Market Access, Domestic Support and Export Subsidies. These formed the
crux of the discussions.
-
The problems with the AoA and the way ahead.
The
focus of the discussion was also on the issues that plagued and still
hamper the negotiations. The problem areas like:
-
The establishment of “Special and
Differential” (S&D) treatment given through flexibilities;
-
The problems in new and emerging areas like
cotton. it was noted that most cotton-based SVE’s in West Africa were
ruined economically due to heavy restrictions in developed economies on
the crop;
-
Due Restraint Clauses (or “Peace Clauses”)
that allowed the earlier barriers to remain until the law was changed.
The clauses expired in 2001 and there are attempts to re-negotiate and
re-introduce these clauses.
-
The Hong Kong Declarations and the issue of
who really benefits from liberalised trade: the developed countries or
the LDC’s.
-
The issues like special concessions given to
SVE’s (Special Vulnerable Economies) and RAM’s (Recently Acceded
Members).
The
three issues or the pillars mentioned above were discussed in-depth.
The problems regarding box-shifting in domestic support, an issue
still not adequately discussed, were also mentioned. Under market
access, graphs were shown that demonstrated that the applicable
tariffs in India were well within the bound tariffs set by the AoA,
on all bands. Under Export Competition, the ramifications of the fact
that all subsidies must be removed by 2013 were noted.
Although,
Mr. Philip noted that there had been some progresses on reduction of
barriers and on issues like cotton and banana, a lot more had to be
done. He particularly lamented the fact that although India was one
of the largest producers and exporters in the field of agriculture,
it was still on the ‘defensive’ in case of the negotiations on
the AoA. He again stressed on the role played by the lawyers at the
time of the negotiations and after the finalisation of the
modalities.
Technical
Session II: NAMA (Non-Agricultural Market Access)
The
resource person for this session was Ms. Suparna Karmakar from the
ICRIER, New Delhi. She pointed out that the history of the GATT-WTO
has generally been one of success as it has progressively reduced
tariff barriers and gave a brief introduction to NAMA. She
particularly mentioned the Swiss Formula that was developed in the
Tokyo Round. She gave a detailed description as to the utility of the
Swiss formula and mentioned the dual non-linear coefficients decided
for the developed and the developing countries and the percentage of
reduction in bound tariff rates that it would entail (70% for
developed economies and 55% for LDC’s).
Ms.
Karmakar also discussed other issues relating to NAMA particularly
under the NAMA July 2004 framework (document WT/L/579) like:
-
S&D treatment, flexibilities and
less-than-full reciprocities (LTFR’s) given to developing economies,
which are non-negotiable;
-
Reduction of high tariff peaks of items
particularly of export interest to developing economies;
-
The status of NTB’s at NAMA. The discussion
noted that all NTB’s have been notified by category and sector. It also
took note of the fact that the members are working on members are
working on a horizontal text for NTB’s and on the treatment of
manufactured and refurbished goods.
When
facing criticism on the formula and also on the role of the WTO at
large, she vehemently defended the WTO negotiations and was of the
opinion that not all malaises are traceable to the WTO – they also
lie in bad policies. She gave the example of US automakers who were
ruined due to undue protectionism. She also gave the example of how
the Indian telecom industry has benefitted from the NAMA.
However,
the speaker chairing the session, Smt. Mona Khare, Professor,
Regional Planning and Economic Growth, Barkatullah University, tended
to differ and gave examples of when bad WTO policies, also with
regard to non-agricultural goods, led to problems in the developing
countries.
The
proceedings then broke up for lunch.
Technical
Session III: TRIPS
The
session was chaired by Dr. Ghayur Alam. Dr Alam, in both his
introductory and his concluding remarks, stressed on how the mandate
derived from the WTO becomes law in India. He maintained that it is
now clear that IPR has become an integral part of our lives and WTO
obligations will make it even more so, even to the extent of becoming
a human right in itself.
Mr.
Yogesh Pai from CENTAD, the key speaker for the session gave a lucid
presentation on the background of the TRIPS negotiations. He
mentioned the developments up to the Uruguay Round like Tokyo
round, the 1982 Ministerial and the Report of the Group of Experts
(1985),
as
well as the early conventions on IPR i.e. the Berne and the Paris
Conventions etc. He also took the audience through:
-
Economic analysis of having a stronger IPR
regime in a country;
-
Availability, scope and use of IPR’s.
-
Enforcement mechanism particularly with
regard to benchmarks and flexibilities.
-
Other significant clauses in the TRIPS text
itself, for instance, those related to the transitional provisions,
dispute settlement etc.
-
Working of the Paragraph 6 of the Doha
Declaration as per the General Council decision in August, 2003 and the
Canada-Rwanda case.
Apart
from giving a birds eye view of TRIPS, Mr. Pai also gave the
procedure in the text for monitoring and review.
Finally,
Mr. Pai pointed out the criticisms in the texts and the future of
TRIPS, especially with regard to:
-
The changing nature of IPR’s themselves.
There is a growing dissatisfaction with the present structure, even by
the developed nations’ block.
-
Whether these types of IP Rights violated
the rights of access to cheap medicine and to technology.
-
DSU and the TRIPS.
-
Developments in other multilateral
institutions particularly in WIPO.
-
Implementation issues in developing
countries. Mr. Pai also used the occasion to mention the evolution of
the municipal IP laws of India and their future.
Mr Pai
also dwelt on the perceived dichotomy/asymmetry/conflict involved in
the current Doha Round negotiations on TRIPS issues concerning the GI
registry and GI extension and TRIPS and CBD. In the latter, there is
a proposal favoured by countries like India and Brazil that patent
offices should not grant patents before ascertaining the source of
origin of Genetic Resources and associated Traditional knowledge and
giving evidence of compliance with National Biodiversity Laws. While
protection of some GI articles like wines and spirits have been
incorporated in TRIPS, other modalities need to be ironed out and the
process is still underway.
Technical
Session IV: Services (GATS)
The
chair for session was occupied by Mr. Anil Chawla, a management
consultant. Through copious layman examples, he laid the foundation
for the key speaker’s talk. He mentioned the need for GATS, the
meaning of services as envisaged by GATS and took the audience
through each of the sub-heads of services as envisaged by GATS. He
also found occasion to mention the significance of services and their
export to an economy like India.
The
main speaker, Dr V.B. Reddy, from NALSAR, Hyderabad also took the
audience through the development of GATS, particularly early
bilateral and multilateral agreements like the Rome Treaty of 1957,
the NAFTA, the OECD Codecs, The US-Canada FTA etc. However, he also
found occasion to briefly mention the history of GATT and the WTO
itself, including the various rounds and a brief synopsis of the
Uruguay Round, which he observed, had not been mentioned as yet. He
stressed on:
-
Why the need for the Uruguay round was felt?
-
The goals of the round.
-
Challenges and problems in the round.
-
The achievements of the Uruguay Round.
He
stressed on the importance of GATS particularly mentioning:
-
Basic principles, like the MFN treatment to
be given to all countries, principles of non-discrimination and
equality, national treatment of services, transparency and reciprocity
and non-intervention in domestic affairs.
-
An overview of all the articles of GATS.
-
A list of the scope of the services which
have been included in GATS.
Finally,
the speaker illustrated the GATS issues through the example of the
globalisation of legal services. He illustrated the effects that
globalisation has had on the legal profession. He also emphasised how
the effects of the increasing globalisation will benefit the
profession and what is to be kept in mind when the regulatory
mechanisms are to be removed. This was also the issue on which the
speakers were quizzed extensively, particularly as to the issue of
reciprocity.
Valedictory
SESSION:
The
main speaker for the closing session was the eminent politician,
social activist and thinker, Shri Govindacharya. Speaking completely
in Hindi and using a variety of methods: storytelling, humour,
analogies and first and second-hand accounts, Mr.. Govindacharya held
the assembled audience mesmerised when he brought out the perceived
failings of the WTO and of the Indian approach. His contention was
that populous countries like China and India should have a greater
say in the workings of the WTO. He also pointed out that the circle
of developing countries has gone so far as to actually threaten LDC
countries to abide by their views. This was the reason why many of
the policies of the WTO were so skewed and biased. At the same time,
he pointed out that the shortcomings in the way the Indian officials
handled the negotiations particularly in the light of the failed
Cancun Round. He also criticised what he called the lackadaisical
approach of the Indian officials in understanding the documents and
in taking the negotiations seriously. He proposed that in today’s
state of affairs, “the world needs India more than India needs the
world.” Advocating a rethink on WTO negotiations, he said interests
of all nations must be protected if the WTO is to survive. Finally,
he suggested some readings on the topic and humbly submitted that his
view was one end of the spectrum – there could be views to the
contrary which the audience would do well to understand.
Valedictory
Session at the Centad-NLIU WTO Workshop
(from
Right): Yogesh Pai (Associate Fellow, Centad), Linu Mathew Philip
(Fellow, Centad), Dr. K.N. Govindacharya (Founder of Bharat Vikas
Samaj), Dr. C. Rajashekhar (Associate Professor, NLIU), and Prof.
S.S. Singh (Director, NLIU).
Agenda
Concept Note
TRIPS Agreement and the Current Doha Round Negotiations
Non-Agricultural Market Access Negotiations: State of Play
Agreement on Agriculture and State of Play
|
