India is going to again push for its demand to have a parallel agreement on public stockholding for food security purposes, as the preparatory committee on a trade facilitation agreement (TFA) is set to meet on September 29 at the World Trade Organization’s (WTO), headquarters in Geneva.
After missing the deadline of July 31, when the protocol of amendment to the TFA was expected to be signed, member-countries were expected to reach a possible consensus on the demand made by India. It seems after a month-long break, countries have rather hardened their positions. While the majority of developed and developing countries have agreed to convert the TFA into a legal framework, India and some countries have demanded a parallel agreement on public stockholding for food security.
A senior commerce department official told Business Standard: “WTO has a long history of missing deadlines, mainly pertaining to those that benefit developing countries. So, missing the July 31 deadline did not bring the world to an end. Deadlines are important but not sacrosanct. India is not backing off from the TFA. All that we have asked for is a parallel agreement on public stockholding. If the Bali Package has to be implemented, then the whole package has to be implemented.”
Following the preparatory committee meeting, the WTO trade negotiating committee is expected to meet on October 6, followed by a meeting of the General Council on October 21, which is equivalent to a formal ministerial meeting.
Earlier this month, after years of delay, India notified its agriculture subsidies at the WTO for 2004-05 till 2010-2011. In the notification, India said it had given subsidies worth $56.1 billion
to farmers. The notification indicated its domestic food security programmes had not breached the WTO’s prescribed limits.
According to officials in the ministry of commerce and industry, India is in no danger of crossing the 10 per cent threshold of food subsidies under the WTO’s agreement on agriculture and it will not breach the level in the near future.
However, developed countries have questioned the methodology adopted by India in calculating its subsidies.
Deputy US Trade Representative and US ambassador to the WTO, Michael Punke, said the ‘key member’, ie India, which blocked implementation of TFA had given confusing signals on what it wanted done. “If the position is to hold the implementation of the TFA hostage until there is a permanent solution to public stockholding, then we and many others would see it as fundamentally rejecting the Bali package. That is untenable and would have serious ramifications – for Bali, for the post-Bali work programme and for the WTO itself,” Punke said in a statement at an informal meeting of the heads of delegation in Geneva.
In similar vein, while acknowledging conflicting demands amongst member-countries over food security and TFA, WTO Director-General Roberto Azevêdo said a “strict parallelism is not possible”.
Launching consultations on the Bali Package, Azevedo said while the negotiation on TFA was concluded in the Bali Package, the talks on public stockholding for food security purposes was an outcome of that package.
“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. Nonetheless, we must find a way of providing comfort for those with outstanding concerns on food security,” Azevedo said.