Roberto Azevêdo’s observation that India’s food security law may violate
its commitments to the World Trade Organization should not take New
Delhi by surprise. If anything, the government should be thankful the
Director-General — who seems apprised of India’s legitimate demand for
ensuring food security — has recommended an interim solution until the
WTO Ministerial Conference in December deliberates this issue. It was
clear from the start that legislating such a mammoth undertaking would
involve purchasing food grain from farmers at high prices and selling
them through the Public Distribution System at subsidised rates. Not
only should the needy be provided access to food but farmers too must be
incentivised to produce more grain to reduce reliance on imports. Both
actions, it has been argued, constitute a type of price support that the
WTO classifies as “amber box measures” – “considered to distort
production and trade.” More specifically, India has to comply with its
commitments under the “Aggregate Measurement of Support,” which
stipulates a ceiling on domestic subsidies. Mr. Azevêdo says the food
security law will breach India’s AMS commitments. For now, the
government has sought an “interim” concession from the WTO to ensure
India is not subject to legal action from other members, especially the
United States and the European Union.
But this is no sustainable solution, and the future of India’s food
security law may well hinge on the outcome of the WTO ministerial meet
in Bali in December. The G33 group of developing countries — with India
as a prominent member — has proposed exempting price support measures
aimed at furthering food security from the purview of their AMS
commitments. This argument, however, has cut no ice at the WTO. In fact,
the West has seized upon the G33’s vulnerability, tying its proposal to
the larger, deadlocked discussion on “trade facilitation” under the
Doha Development Round. At the Bali Conference, it is likely the U.S.
and EU will push for a grand bargain: lesser import restrictions and
open markets in developing countries for exemptions on procuring
subsidised food grain. With no wiggle room to negotiate, Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh signalled India’s readiness to strike this bargain during
his recent visit to Washington. In an election year, with the Food
Security Act touted as a jewel in its crown, the United Progressive
Alliance cannot afford to be complacent. To protect its food security
law — and the promise of adequate nutrition for the poor it is supposed
to deliver — the government must go into a diplomatic overdrive. The aim
is to secure an exemption from AMS limits without conceding too much
ground to the West, which is more interested in penetrating the Indian
market.
No comments:
Post a Comment