Preparing
For Doha
Advisory Committee on
International Trade Meets
The Seventh meeting of the Advisory
Committee on International Trade was
held under the chairmanship of Mr.
Murasoli Maran, the Union Commerce
& Industry Minister, in New Delhi
on 12th June, 2001. The Advisory
Committee, which was reconstituted by
the government on 27 April, 2001,
advises the Government on the
formulation of international trade
policy and its terms of reference
include, inter-alia, discussing and
giving inputs for the ongoing
negotiations in the World Trade
Organisation (WTO), recommending
strategies for increasing market
access for Indian goods and services
and analysing the implications of
various changes taking place in the
global trade scenario with a view to
recommending suitable policy changes.
The Minister informed the members
that the purpose of the meeting was to
initiate a process for the formulation
of India’s stand for the forthcoming
Fourth Ministerial Conference of the
WTO to be held in Doha, Qatar and
briefed them about the present state
of play.
On the ongoing mandated
negotiations in agriculture and
services, India has submitted its
proposal for ongoing negotiations in
agriculture in consultation with the
various stakeholders, while in the
services sector, India has given a
proposal at the WTO on liberalisation
of the movement of professionals.
Under TRIPs, India has been demanding
a higher level of protection of the
geographical indications in other
products as has been provided to wines
and spirits. This would mean that our
Basmati rice, Darjeeling Tea, Alphonso
mangoes etc., would also enjoy the
absolute level of geographical
indications protection as presently
enjoyed by Champagne or Scotch whisky.
Under TRIMs, India has demanded a
review of the clause relating to
prohibition of indigenisation
requirement in the case of developing
countries.
As far as preparing of the agenda
for the forthcoming Ministerial
Conference of the WTO is concerned,
Mr. Maran said that some
industrialised countries were trying
to push for the launch of a
comprehensive round of negotiations at
Doha. This is not acceptable. He
reiterated India’s position that
mandated negotiations, mandated
reviews and the ongoing work programme
in the various Working Groups and the
Subsidiary Bodies of WTO including the
work programme for the resolution of
the "implementation issues"
by themselves constitute a fairly
large agenda for WTO and that we
should not overload it as it may be
unsustainable for WTO. He also stated
that Ministerial Conference is
supposed to be held every two years
and unlike the old GATT, WTO
agreements have provided for several
mandated negotiations and mandated
reviews, and it is thus not possible
to launch comprehensive round of
negotiations every two years whenever
the Ministerial Conference is to be
held.
He called upon the members to give
their suggestions on how we should go
about preparing for the Doha
Conference. He referred to the Prime
Minister’s statement of December 1,
1999 in the Lok Sabha and added that
it should guide us in formulating our
stand on various issues as are likely
to come up for discussions at the
Ministerial Conference. He suggested
that we must insist on the upfront
redressal of implementation issues
before the Doha Ministerial Conference
in terms of May 2000 decision of the
General Council of WTO. He also
emphasised that the Ministerial
Conference should give policy
directions on the ongoing mandated
negotiations and mandated reviews and
should undertake stock-taking and
review as contemplated under Article
IV of Marrakesh Agreement establishing
WTO.
The Committee made various
suggestions which, inter-alia,
included recommending a demand for
substantive review of the Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPs) so as to give
necessary flexibility and domestic
policy options to the developing
countries. The Committee also
recommended pressing for the early
upfront resolution of the
implementation issues raised by the
developing countries. The resolution
of implementation issues is likely to
lead to an increase in market access
opportunities for Indian goods
particularly in agriculture and
textiles. The Committee also
recommended that a study should be got
done to assess the impact of the
Uruguay Round agreements on Indian
economy in general and on agriculture
and small scale industry in
particular.
Maran writes to G-77 Trade
Ministers
Excellenc
-
With
the scheduling of the 4th WTO
Ministerial Conference from
November 9-13, 2001 at Doha, the
developing countries as "full
stakeholders" in the
multilateral trading system need
to coordinate their positions on
various WTO related subjects.
As the developing countries have a
strong commonality of interests on
major issues, we should strive to
project our common concerns and
also protect common interests and
thus further the cause of the
objectives enshrined in the
Marrakesh Declaration.
-
Many
factors contributed to the failure
of the Seattle Conference. The
lessons learnt from Seattle remain
relevant for Doha. First, there is
a need to demystify the emphasis
on process instead of substance.
The words like "launching of
a New Round" could certainly
by given a go-by in favour of
meaningful work programme within
the WTO framework. We believe that
no amount of procedural emphasis
will succeed in the inclusion of
non-trade issues. Secondly, the
agreements could only be
negotiated after the convergence
of views of all the member
countries. It is no longer the
domain of few countries only.
The member countries have same of
obligations and cannot be
marginalised from the decision
making process. Thirdly, there
is widely shared feeling of
imbalance in the rights and
obligations of WTO agreements.
A greater element of flexibility
and operationalisation of special
and differential provisions are
needed for wider acceptance of the
multilateral trading system in the
constituencies of developing
economies.
-
Some
of the developed countries favour
a New Round of Negotiations with
certain priorities and objectives
in sight. The European Union has
been relentless in its efforts to
launch a comprehensive New Round
of trade negotiations in the WTO.
It has been argued that the Round
would be a development round
promising welfare gains to all.
However, this is not borne out by
our experience of the Uruguay
Round of Negotiations. There is
widely shared view that Uruguay
Round of Negotiations resulted in
serious imbalance and asymmetry to
the detriment of developing
countries. The developing
countries lack necessary resources
to implement their obligations. In
such a scenario, the constituency
support for multilateral trading
system is also getting thinner.
-
We
are concerned with the advocacy of
the developed countries that
further liberalisation in the
mandated negotiations in
Agriculture and Services may not
be forthcoming unless the New
Round of Negotiations is launched.
It is also argued that the
implementation related concerns of
the developing countries could
only be addressed in a
comprehensive round of
negotiations.
-
Despite
the May 2000 decision of the
General Council that
"implementation issues"
should be resolved before the 4th
Ministerial Conference, many
developed countries are now openly
stating that these implementation
issues can be resolved only as
part of a new round of
negotiations. Most of the
developing countries including
India have been taking a stand
that "implementation related
concerns" are a legacy of the
Uruguay Round of negotiations and
the developing countries have
already paid for them by way of
taking onerous obligations though
not to their liking, under TRIPs,
TRIMs etc. and that these concerns
should be resolved upfront without
linking it to any new round of
negotiations. We would like to
stress that the resolution of the
implementation related concerns
requires political will and
good-faith efforts on the part of
the developed countries. Once
there is a consensus solution to
an identified problem then
modalities of formalizing the
decision would not pose any
problem.
-
We
note with regret the reluctance to
take account of the crisis on
patents and drug prices in the WTO
and lack of interest and
attendance by developed countries
of a WTO initiative on technology
transfer to developing countries.
-
The
proponents for launching a New
Round argue that the momentum of
trade liberalization and the
possibility of trade offs that
would facilitate concessions would
not be feasible without a
comprehensive agenda. However, it
is disturbing to note that
significant non-trade issues are
being promised in the name of
trade liberalization and
constituency interests of
developed countries. Developing
countries are not in a position to
take on more commitments that they
cannot digest and, therefore, they
are reluctant for inclusion of new
issues. This raises new risks and
the cost of failure at Doha would
greatly hurt the multilateral
trading system. We remain
unconvinced that issues such as
investment, competition, labour
and environment under WTO will
facilitate any additional market
access or open up newer
development opportunities for the
developing countries. Developing
countries have long opposed this
linkage of trade with labour and
environmental standards on the
ground that such linkages would be
used as an excuse to distort
competition, undermine comparative
advantage and provide Trojan
horses of protectionism. Such
measures would rather need more
painful domestic adjustments and
create intolerable hardships and
for many developing countries it
may mean years of lost
opportunities and low growth with
all their attendant problems. And
naturally this type of agenda does
not coincide with the basic
concerns of the developing
countries.
-
In
our view, any new item if it has
to be included into the WTO
agenda, must satisfy the following
criteria:-
-
It
should be directly trade related;
-
There
should be a consensus to bring it
into the WTO agenda;
-
It
should have been thoroughly
discussed; we should be able to
evaluate its likely impact on
their additional rights,
responsibilities and obligations
and be ripe for such an inclusion;
-
The
developing countries should get
convinced as to how its inclusion
is going to help – or in any way
hinder the realization of their
development objectives as
enshrined in Marrakesh Agreement
and it should not constrain their
domestic policy options for taking
up development activities.
-
Only
the proposals which satisfy the
above criteria and have
endorsement by member countries
say be end of July 2001, could be
considered for inclusion as
otherwise the sovereign
Governments would not get a chance
to discuss and evolve stakeholder
driven negotiating positions on
such proposals if they are thrust
on the membership without giving
sufficient notice.
-
We
are, therefore, of the view that
the WTO work should concentrate on
the full implementation of the
Uruguay Round results and the
"built-in agenda" which
foresaw new negotiations on
Agriculture and Trade in Services
and reviews of several
multilateral trade agreements.
Other matters of priority are (a)
the implementation of special and
differential treatment as
envisaged in various WTO
agreements, and (b) correction of
imbalances in several WTO
agreements including Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures,
Anti-Dumping, TRIPs and TRIMs
which have major implications for
development policies and interests
of developing countries. We can
ill afford the extension of the
‘frontiers’ of the system in
the context of national
governance. Implementation issues
are our priority. Unless the
present inequalities are removed,
we do not believe in the success
of any Round of Negotiations. It
would be unsustainable,
over-burden the system and upset
the original mandate of Marrakesh
Agreement.
-
I
am also painfully aware of the
veiled threat being given by some
of the developed country friends
that if the developing countries
do not agree to the launch of a
new round of negotiations, then
WTO would lose its relevance and
regionalism would get an upper
hand. In this connection, I would
like to once again reiterate that
developing countries stands for
the further strengthening of the
multilateral trading system and
that the regional/preferential
trading arrangements as have been
or as may be entered into by
various developed and developing
countries, are based on perception
of their self-interests and may
have nothing to do with the launch
or otherwise of a new round.
-
Mandated
negotiations and reviews and
various Working Group discussions
form a large agenda for the WTO
system, which stands unfinished.
We should use Doha to take stock
of the situation on all these
issues plus the implementation
concerns. Bringing multiple issues
on the table just to get
substantial trade-offs and swap
concessions advantageous for a few
countries without any benefit to
developing countries does not
augur well for the success of the
multilateral trading system.
Therefore, it is not necessary
that in every Ministerial, we
should talk about or begin a new
Round.
-
The
developing countries must face the
challenge for Doha Ministerial
before it gets too late to turn
back. I appeal to you for evolving
a common position and strategy to
strengthen the next Ministerial
Conference.
Please
accept the assurances of my highest
consideration.
Yours
sincerely
Sd/-
(Murasoli
Maran)
Consolidation and
confidence building vital for Doha
Statement by Mr. Prabir Sengupta, Commerce
Secretary, Government of India, at the informal General Council meeting of the
WTO held in Geneva on 25 June, 2001.
Mr.
Chairman,
I would like to begin by thanking you for
convening this General Council Meeting at Senior Official level.
Mr.
Chairman, I find that you have posed
some specific questions as a backdrop
for today’s discussions. However, in
order to give reasoned replies to
those questions, it is necessary for
me to outline in brief, our
appreciation of different subjects
currently engaging the attention of
the WTO Membership as well as our
attitude towards the suggestions of
some delegations to enlarge the agenda
of the WTO by negotiating multilateral
rules in a number of different areas.
If we look into our experience during the last
six years in implementing Uruguay Round commitments, we see that many concerns
and difficulties are plaguing countries like ours. These concerns are of three
types, namely, non-realisation of anticipated benefits like in the case of
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing and Agreement on Agriculture; inequities and
imbalances in some of the agreements like TRIPs, Subsidies, Anti-dumping etc;
non-operational and non binding nature of special and differential provisions.
After
the Seattle failure, there was all
round recognition about the need to
build the confidence of the developing
countries in the multilateral trading
system and through a consensus-based
General Council decision, a special
implementation review mechanism was
set up. However, regrettably, the
achievement so far in this area has
been very modest and below our lowest
expectations.
I
understand that some new initiatives
have been taken recently on the
subject of implementation. I also
understand that the Chairman General
Council is commencing shortly an
intensive phase of consultations for
arriving at appropriate decisions in
respect of implementation issues and
concerns so that the objective set by
the May 2000 General Council decision
may be met within the time limit
prescribed. We, like many other
delegations, attach the highest
priority to meaningful resolution of
implementation issues and concerns,
through appropriate decisions.
Mr. Chairman, the WTO has already embarked upon
the mandated negotiations in areas like agriculture and services and also
mandated reviews of Agreements like TRIPS, TRIMS etc. The agriculture
negotiations are bound to be complex in as much as most of the distortions in
international trade in agriculture are caused by major developed countries and
many developing countries are victims of these distortions.
At the same time, many developing countries like
India have to take care of their food security and livelihood concerns. As far
as Services are concerned, this is an area, especially in modes 1-3, where
admittedly developed countries have an enormous competitive edge over
developing countries. Unlike in the Uruguay Round, we hope that developed
countries will respond positively to the request of developing countries with
regard to mode 4. If this does not happen, services negotiations will prove
to be extremely difficult. Agriculture and services account for about 70% of
international trade. Moreover, a number of countries including India view
negotiations towards providing additional protection of geographical
indications to products other than wines and spirits as part of mandated
negotiations. Reviews of agreements like TRIPs and TRIMs will not be an easy
exercise. I am given to understand that in the TRIPs Council meeting held on 20
June, a number of issues relating to public health have been identified.
Obviously there are other aspects of TRIPs agreement which will come up for
discussion during the review. In the case of TRIMS agreement it is clear that
many developing countries have started experiencing the adverse impact of the
TRIMs agreement on their developmental objectives. Therefore, it is obvious
that mandated negotiations in agriculture, services and geographical
indications protection to products other than wines and spirits coupled with
mandated review of agreements like TRIPs, TRIMs, etc., by themselves constitute
a very big and complex agenda. Going beyond mandated negotiations and mandated
reviews will place an undue burden on developing countries.
I have
been told about the proposal to
include fresh negotiations on
non-agricultural market access in the
agenda. I recognise that industrial
tariffs is not a subject which is
alien to the WTO. However, we are
reluctant to go along with this
proposal when there is such a
noticeable reluctance to deal with
implementational issues and concerns
seriously and sincerely. Moreover, our
Seattle experience shows that some
developed country trading partners
would like to launch tariff
negotiations without a commitment to
address issues like peak tariffs and
tariff escalation.
Next, I would like to deal with the Singapore
issues. It would be recalled that we agreed for a study programme in respect of
four subjects at Singapore on the basis of an explicit understanding that this
is only a study programme and that negotiations can be launched in these areas
only if there is explicit consensus. Our delegation has explained our position
in respect of each one of these issues on a number of occasions. As far as the
proposal to negotiate rules on foreign direct investment in concerned, I would
at the outset like to request everybody not to mix up two different issues
namely, willingness of a country of receive foreign direct investment and
willingness of a country to accept binding multilateral rules on foreign direct
investment in the WTO. I would also like to point out that India has a
fairly open and liberal foreign investment regime but does not believe that
there is need for negotiating rules on this subject in the WTO. In our
assessment, the only purpose of such an exercise would be to protect the
interests of foreign investors and to take away the policy flexibility
available to the developing countries. Besides, it is well known that a WTO
agreement on investment will not significantly change the current pattern of
investment flows.
As far
as competition policy is concerned,
many developing countries are yet to
gain the experience of developing and
implementing a national competition
legislation. They will be at a
disadvantage if they have to
straightaway negotiate rules in the
multilateral forum
without
any experience of dealing with the
subject nationally. It is also found
that the competition rules which some
of our major trading partners are
looking forward to are not likely to
be in the interest of developing
countries. Moreover, the Singapore
Ministerial declaration clearly
foresees parity of treatment between
the subjects of trade and investment
and trade and competition and India
cannot agree to a situation where the
two subjects are treated differently. India’s
reservations with regard to
negotiating rules on these two
subjects is well-known.
We all recognize the gains that could be derived
from trade facilitation. However, WTO will not be credible if it talks about
negotiating new rules about trade facilitation when one important trade
facilitation agreement viz. the Agreement on Rules of Origin is languishing for
want of implementation.
As far
as transparency in government
procurement is concerned, it is
obvious that the proponents foresee
this as a prelude to a full-fledged
agreement on government procurement.
For valid policy reasons, my
Government is not in a position to go
along with the idea of mandatory
opening of government procurement to
foreign suppliers.
Even an
agreement on transparency in
government procurement is likely to
place undue burden on our procurement
entities. There are procurement
entities below the sub-federal level
also and even the burden of
translation of procurement documents
will be quite heavy.
As regards e-commerce, India can go along with a
meaningful work programme so that all delegations
may get exposed to the complexities of this new
technology from the point of view of trade.
Regarding
environment, India’s firm belief is
that existing WTO rules are sufficient
to protect all legitimate concerns
relating to environment. India also
feels that the committee on trade and
environment which has a balanced
agenda should deal with all the
items
included in the agenda and that there
should not be any selective approach.
As regards non-trade issues like labour
standards, consistent with our well-known approach, I will avoid talking about
them in the WTO building.
Mr.
Chairman, having set out our position
with regard to different subjects, I
would make an attempt to respond to
the best of my ability the questions
posed by you. We have consistently
supported the Director General’s
idea of a reality check in July. By
July end, we should have a clear idea
of the subjects in respect of which
there is consensus and the subject in
respect of which there is no
consensus. You have asked as to what
would be a satisfactory level of
progress to have achieved by the end
of July reality check. We strongly
feel the reality check will really be
a reality check only if it checks as
to whether there is consensus or not.
This means that there should be
finality in respect of Doha agenda by
the end of July. The period from
September onwards has to be utilised
to draft the declaration on the basis
of the agenda arrived at by the end of
July. We do not see any major obstacle
in going through the reality check by
the end of July. The discussions so
far in the preparatory process have
clearly brought out the position of
various delegations. There could be
attempts by interested Members to
build consensus in some areas from now
to July but July should be the
absolute deadline for this process.
We have already shown enough flexibility by
engaging ourselves in substantive discussions on other issues in the WTO even
without there having been satisfactory progress on the resolution of the
implementation issues in terms of the May 2000 Resolution of the General
Council.
I feel that all of us will be taking a risk if
we do not finalise the elements of the Doha agenda by the end of July. Regarding
flexibility expected from others, we would request good faith efforts so as to
facilitate a meaningful and early resolution of implementaion issues. We
would also request our trading partners to show flexibility and not to try to
impose an agenda on us, the burden of which we cannot bear.
Mr.
Chairman, you have also invited
initial comments on organisation and
management of the work programme. In
this context, you have also referred
to the level of details in the
declaration, especially with regard to
any mandate which may be included in
the declaration. Our primary concern
is not about the length or about the
level of details. Our concern is about
clarity and specificity. We have
pointed out on a number of occasions
that we do not want ministerial
declarations and mandates to have
ambiguities. It is our experience that
wherever there are ambiguities,
described as constructive or
otherwise, whether in the ministerial
declarations, mandates or agreements,
it is the developing countries who
suffer. We are absolutely clear that
we will not accept any language which
is not supposed to mean what it says
and which is not supposed to say what
it means.
WTO Agreement provides for a Ministerial
conference once in two years. Unlike GATT, WTO is designed to be a permanent
forum for negotiations. The Ministerial conferences should be primarily
designed to provide an opportunity to Ministers to look at the multilateral
trading system in a holistic way and give guidance to their officials. I have
explained my position with regard to individual subjects and made the point
that finding solution to implementation issues is our highest priority and that
mandated negotiations and mandated reviews themselves constitute a big agenda.
I find that some delegations are taking the position that only when the agenda
has a wide range of subjects, there will be possibility of trade off and
appropriate balance. We all have the Uruguay round experience before us. If the
number of subjects alone can determine the outcome and balance, the Uruguay
Round should have produced the best possible results for developing countries.
Admittedly this has not happened. In short, India does not find any merit in
the arguments being put forward for overloading the agenda of the WTO.
Therefore, the Doha Conference should basically review as to whether the
implementation concerns have been resolved in terms of May 2000 resolution of
the General Council, give policy directions for the ongoing negotiations and
reviews, and deal with major current issues like TRIPS and Public Health,
regionalism, least developed countries etc. This conference should be devoted
to confidence building and consolidation.
I find
that the term ‘round’ is being
used by trade negotiators in Geneva to
denote a comprehensive or a broad
based round. Public opinion in many
countries including my country is
getting restless in the absence of
meaningful benefits accruing from the
WTO regime. Any open-ended fresh round
of negotiations will only further
compound the problems of the
developing countries as they would
once again be expected, and probably
forced, to undertake broader and
deeper commitments, not commensurate
with their level of development. I
trust that no Member will make
launching of a comprehensive round of
negotiations at Doha, a precondition
for participating in the mandated
agriculture negotiations seriously and
in good faith.
Mr. Chairman, India like all of you
present here, is strongly committed to the Multilateral Trading System. It
is clear that all the WTO Members want the Doha Ministerial Conference to be a
successful one. I trust that today’s meeting will help us all to
appreciate the risks involved in prescribing arbitrary yardsticks for measuring
the outcome of the Ministerial Conference at Doha. Let us all work together for
a successful Doha Ministerial Conference.
Annex
Built-in Agenda of WTO: The
Important Items
I. Mandated Negotiations
1.
Under Agreement of Agriculture (AoA)
-
Ongoing mandated negotiations
under Art 20 of Agreement on
Agriculture in the Special sessions
of the WTO Committee on Agriculture
(COA).
-
Formulation of rules /
disciplines governing export
credits, export credit guarantees
and insurance programmes as per Art
10.2 of AoA.
2. Under GATS*
-
Ongoing mandated negotiations
under Art XIX of GATS in the Council
on Trade in Services (CTS).
-
Art X of GATS provides for
negotiations on the formulation of
disciplines on Emergency Safeguard
Measures (ESM) by Working Party on
GATS Rules (WPGR). NGP has set up
the deadline for the completion of
negotiations on ESM as 15.3.2002.
-
Art XIII of GATS provides for
negotiations on the formulation of
disciplines on Government
Procurement of Services by Working
Party on GATS Rules (WPGR).
-
Art XV of GATS provides for
negotiations on the formulation of
disciplines on Subsidies by Working
Party on GATS Rules (WPGR).
-
The Working Party on Domestic
Regulation (WPDR) has been entrusted
with the formulation of
multilateral, horizontal disciplines
in respect of domestic regulations
including for all professional
services sectors except the
accountancy sector for which the
disciplines have already been
finalised by the Working Party on
professionals services.
3. TRIPS
- Art 24.1 of TRIPS Agreement
mandates negotiations aimed at
increasing protection of
geographical indications under Art
23 (for wines and spirits).
II.
Mandated Reviews
1.
TRIPS
-
Art 24.2 mandates review of
TRIPS provisions on geographical
indications.
-
Art 27.3(b) mandates the
review of TRIPS provisions relating
to patentibility of plants and
animals and also the protection to
plant varieties.
-
Art 64.2 mandates the review
of provision relating to
non-application of Art XXIIII: 1 (b)
& (c) of GATT to the settlement
of disputes relating to TRIPS.
-
Under Art 71.1, Council on
TRIPS is required to review the
implementation of the TRIPS
agreement after the expiration of
transition period (i.e. 1.1.2000)
(which has not yet been done). The
TRIPS Council is also required to
review the implementation of TRIPS
agreement two years after the date
and at identical intervals
thereafter.
2.
TRIMS
3.
Services
-
Para 2 of Annex on Art II
exemptions (MFN exemptions) mandates
the review of all MFN exemptions
granted for a period of more than 5
years. As per the Negotiating
Guidelines and Procedures (NGP), MFN
exemptions shall be subject to
negotiations.
-
Para 5 of Annex on Air
Transport Services requires review
to consider possible further
application of GATS in this sector.
4.
Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures (ASCM)
-
Art 8.2 (a) (footnote 25)
provides for review on
non-actionable research and
development subsidies by the
Commitee on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures.
-
Art 27.6 of ASCM mandates the
review of operation of export
competitiveness provision for
developing countries.
-
Art 31 of ASCM mandates the
review of Art 6.1 on actionable
subsidies and Art 8 and 9 on
non-actionable subsidies.
5. Other Reviews
-
Understanding on
interpretation of Art XXXVIII of
GATT mandates the review by the
Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) to
decide whether the criteria for
determination of "additional
negotiating rights" has worked
successfully.
-
Marrakesh Ministerial
Declaration had mandated a review of
dispute settlement rules and
procedures.
-
Section F of Trade Policy
Review Mechanism (TPRM) requires the
WTO to undertake the review of the
operation of TPRM.
-
Marrakesh Ministerial
Declaration had mandated the review
of standard of review for
anti-dumping disputes provided in
Art 17.6 of anti-dumping agreement.
-
Para 3 of GATT 1994 mandates
the review of the only
"grandfather" rights i.e.
US Jones Act.
-
Mandated triennial review of
TBT Agreement.
-
Review of SPS Agreement at
such intervals as decided by the
Membership.
-
Annual Review of the
implementation and operation of the
agreement on Anti-Dumping as per its
Art 18.6.
-
Trade Policy Reviews of
countries as per the schedule.
-
Review of the various
legislations of the member countries
for conforming to TRIPS agreement.
-
Review of various waivers
under Art IX of the Marrakesh
Agreement.
-
Review of Notification
obligations under various
Agreements.
-
Examination of notifications
made under para 7 (a) of GATT Art
XXIV by Working Party on RTAs.
III.
Working Groups
-
Trade and Investment -
Established by Singapore Ministerial
Declaration.
-
Trade and Competition Policy -
Established by Singapore Ministerial
Declaration.
-
Transparency in Govt.
Procurement - Established by
Singapore Ministerial Declaration.
IV.
Other Studies
-
Work programme on Electronic
Commerce - By Council for Trade in
Goods, Council for Trade in
Services, TRIPS Council and
Committee for Trade and Development.
-
Study on Trade Facilitation
by Council for Trade in Goods -
Established by Singapore Ministerial
Declaration.
-
Study of Trade and
Environment linkage by Committee on
Trade and Environment (CTE).
-
Studying the problem of
circumvention of anti-dumping rules
by Committee on Anti-Dumping
practices - Mandated by MMD.
-
Work programme on
harmonization of Rules of Origin by
the Committee on Rules of Origin and
the Technical Committee on Rules of
Origin - Mandated by Art 9 of
Agreement on Rules of Origin. As per
General Council Decision, work
relating to harmonization of
non-preferential rules of origin
should be completed by the 4th
Ministerial or at least by the end
of 2001.
V. Work relating to accession of
over 30 countries.
VI. Resolution of several pending
disputes.
VII. Resolution of various
Implementation-related concerns of the
developing countries in terms of May
2000 decision of General Council.
India Seeks
Flexibility in Trips Agreement to
Ensure Affordable Access to medicines
(India’s Joint Paper on Trips and
Public Health)
The WTO Council for Trade-Related
Aspects for Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPs) held a Special Session
in Geneva on 20 June, 2001 to discuss
the issue of affordable access to
medicines in the context of the WTO
Agreement on TRIPs. In the Special
Session, India along with 46 other
developing countries has submitted a
joint paper on "TRIPs and Public
Health" demanding that the WTO
should ensure that the TRIPs Agreement
does not undermine the right of the
WTO Members to formulate their own
public health policies and adopt
measures for providing affordable
access to medicines. Greater
flexibility and clarity has been
sought in the interpretation of the
TRIPs Agreement so as to enable the
developing countries to take care of
their main public health concern of
providing affordable access to
essential medicines and life saving
drugs to their people. In the Special
Session, it was decided that the issue
of the "TRIPs Agreement and
access to medicines" would be
further discussed in the next meeting
of the WTO Council for TRIPs scheduled
to be held in September, 2001. Given
below is the text (including summary)
of the joint paper submitted by India
along with 46 other developing
countries on "TRIPs & Public
Health":
TRIPS and Public Health
Submission by Brazil, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, India, Nigeria,
Paraguay, Philippines, Peru, South
Africa, Sri Lanka, Venezuela.
Summary
-
The
special discussion on TRIPs and Public Health at
the TRIPs Council is not a one-off event. It
should be part of a process to ensure that the
TRIPs Agreement does not in any way undermine
the legitimate right of WTO Members to formulate
their own public health policies and implement
them by adopting measures to protect public
health.
-
The
TRIPs Agreement allows for implementation of
public health policy measures. Nevertheless,
where the provisions of the Agreement may be
considered insufficient to protect public
health, Members may wish to bring further
proposals for modifications in the Agreement,
with a view to increase its flexibility.
-
Nothing
in the TRIPs Agreement should prevent Members
from taking measures to protect public health.
-
Each
provision of the TRIPs Agreement should be read
in light of the objectives and principles set
forth in Articles 7 and 8. The protection of
intellectual property rights, in particular
patent protection, should encourage the
development of new medicines and the
international transfer of technology to promote
the development of manufacturing capacities of
pharmaceuticals, without restraining policies on
access to medications.
-
Compulsory
licences are an essential tool for Governments
to carry out public health policies, as they may
facilitate access to medicines through
prevention of abuses of rights, encouragement of
domestic capacities for manufacturing
pharamaceuticals and in cases of national
emergency or other circumstances of extreme
urgency, or of public non-commercial use.
Nothing in the TRIPs Agreement limits the
grounds for Governments to issue compulsory
licences.
-
Parallel
imports can also be an important tool to ensure
adequate access to medications. In light of
TRIPs Article 6, the TRIPs Council should
confirm the unconditional right of Members to
determine the way in which exhaustion of rights
regimes are applied in their jurisdiction.
-
While
we favor discussions on differential pricing
arrangements, they are only part of a broader
set of initiatives to improve access to
medications. Differential pricing should in no
way be used to limit the flexibility of the
TRIPs Agreement in any of its provisions. Given
that the issue is not within the sphere of
discussions on intellectual property rights, it
should not be covered by the TRIPs Council, but
rather by other intergovernmental international
organisations, such as the World Health
Organisation.
-
Other
issues related to the provisions of the TRIPs
Agreement also deserve further discussion by
Members, such as the extension of transitional
arrangements.
-
Finally,
the Ministerial Conference in Qatar in November
2001 will be the best opportunity to take such
action as will ensure that the TRIPs Agreement
does not in any way undermine the legitimate
right of WTO Members to formulate their own
public health policies and implement them by
adopting measuresto protect public health.
I. Introduction
-
At
the TRIPs Council meeting held on 2 to 6 April
2001, Members agreed to hold a special session
of the TRIPs Council in June 2001 to initiate
discussions on the interpretation and
application of the relevant provisions of the
TRIPs Agreement with a view to clarifying the
flexibilities to which Members are entitled to
and, in particular, to establish the relation
between intellectual property rights and access
to medicines. The decision to hold such
discussion was based on a proposal by the
African Group, which was supported by virtually
all Members.
-
The
main purpose of this paper is to address the
relationship between the TRIPs Agreement and
public health. Clearly, the World Trade
Organization has no mandate to establish public
health policies, which should remain within the
mandate of other international bodies, such as
the World Health Organization. In this sense, we
believe that the purpose of the discussions on
TRIPs and public health at the TRIPs Council
should be to ensure that the TRIPs Agreement
does not undermine the implementation of public
health policies by Members.
-
The
special discussion on TRIPs and public health at
the TRIPs Council is not a one-off event. It
should be part of a process to ensure that the
TRIPs Agreement does not in any way undermine
the legitimate right of WTO Members to formulate
their own public health policies and implement
them by adopting measures to protect public
health.
-
Our
commitment to the TRIPs Agreement stems from our
expectation that the protection and enforcement
of intellectual property rights, accordingly
with the objectives of the Agreement (Article
7), "should contribute to the promotion of
technological innovation and to the transfer and
dissemination of technology, to the mutual
advantage of producers and users of
technological knowledge and in a manner
conducive to social and economic welfare, and to
a balance of rights and obligations". With
a view to fulfill these objectives, we remain
committed to implementation of the TRIPs
Agreement based on its proper and flexible
interpretation and in accordance with the
objectives and principles contained in Articles
7 and 8 of the Agreement.
-
Some
provisions of the TRIPs Agreement may elicit
different interpretations. Such ambiguities
serve the purpose of accommodating different
positions held by Members at the time of
negotiations of the Agreement. We strongly
believe, notwithstanding the above, that nothing
in the TRIPs Agreement reduces the range of
options available to Governments to promote and
protect public health, as well as other
overarching public policy objectives. The TRIPs
Council must confirm this understanding as early
as possible.
-
The
issues raised in this paper are not exhaustive.
According to the developments in this exercise
of interpreting the TRIPs Agreement, we may wish
to bring (collectively or individually) further
clarifications and complements to this document.
All elements and views presented in the document
are without prejudice to individual positions
that Members may take in further discussions in
the TRIPs Council or in other WTO bodies,
including dispute settlement procedures.
II.
Context of the discussions on
TRIPs and public health
-
Although
the TRIPs Council has only recently begun to
discuss the implications of TRIPs to public
health, other intergovernmental organizations
and civil society have already been paying
careful attention to such implications for some
time.
-
A
number of recent events have illustrated the
effects of the TRIPs Agreement on public health
policies. In this respect, one landmark case was
the lawsuit brought by a Pharmaceutical Industry
Association and 39 of its affiliate
pharmaceutical companies against the Government
of South Africa regarding provisions of its
Medicines and Related Substances Control
Amendment Act. The South Africa Government’s
resolve on the correctness of its policy,
serious weakness in the technical arguments of
the plaintiffs together with strong pressure
from domestic and international public opinion
resulted in the withdrawal of these companies
from the case. The case also signaled that
public opinion is seriously concerned that
intellectual property rights may be interpreted
and implemented in a manner that runs counter to
the promotion of public health policies by
Governments.
-
Further,
in April 2001, the 57th World Human Rights
Conference adopted Resolution
2001/33, on "Access to Medication
in the Context of Pandemics such as
HIV/AIDS", which was
approved by the overwhelming majority of its
Members. The Resolution recognizes access to
medicines in the context of pandemics as an
essential human right. The United Nations
Commission on Human Rights, in this Resolution,
"calls upon States, at the national level,
on a non discriminatory basis for all, to: (i)
refrain from taking measures which would deny or
limit equal access for all persons to
preventive, curative or palliative
pharmaceuticals or medical technologies used to
treat pandemics such as HIV/AIDS or the most
common opportunistic infections that accompany
them; (ii) adopt legislation or other measures,
in accordance with applicable international law,
including international agreements acceded to,
to safeguard access to such preventive, curative
or palliative pharmaceuticals or medical
technologies from any limitations by third
parties; adopt all appropriate positive measures
to the maximum of the resources allocated for
this purpose so as to promote effective access
to such preventive, curative or palliative
pharmaceuticals or medical technologies".
Among other actions, the Human Rights Commission
"also calls upon States, at the
international level, to take steps individually
and/or through international co-operation, in
accordance with applicable international law,
including international agreements acceded to,
such as: (i) to facilitate access in other
countries to essential preventive, curative or
palliative pharmaceuticals or medical
technologies used to treat pandemics such as
HIV/AIDS or the most common opportunistic
infections that accompany them wherever possible
as well as to extend the necessary cooperation
wherever possible, especially in times of
emergency; and (ii) to ensure that their actions
as members of international organizations take
due account of the right of everyone to the
enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of
physical and mental health and that the
application of international agreements is
supportive of public health policies which
promote broad access to safe, efficient and
affordable preventive, curative or palliative
pharmaceuticals and medical technologies".
-
In
21 May 2001, the 54th World Health Assembly also
approved two Resolutions that are relevant for
the discussions at the TRIPs Council: the
Resolution "Scaling Up the Response to
HIV/AIDS" and the Resolution "WHO
Medicines Strategy". In the Resolution
"Scaling Up the Response to HIV/AIDS"
(WHA 54.10), the World Health Assembly recalls
"efforts to make drugs available at lower
prices for those in need" and urges Member
States "in order to increase access to
medicines, to cooperate constructively in
strengthening pharmaceutical policies and
practices, including those applicable to generic
drugs and intellectual property regimes, in
order further to promote innovation and the
development of domestic industries consistent
with national law".
-
The
Resolution "WHO Medicines Strategy" (WHA
54.11) also contains several important elements
for discussion at the TRIPs Council. The World
Health Assembly notes that "the impact of
international trade agreements on access to, or
local manufacturing of, essential drugs and on
the development of new drugs needs to be further
evaluated". Further, the Resolution urges
Members to "cooperate with respect to
resolution 2001/33 of the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights" and "in
order to increase access to medicines, and in
accordance with the health needs of people,
especially those who can least afford the costs,
and recognizing the efforts of Member States to
expand access to drugs and promote domestic
industry, cooperate constructively in
strengthening pharmaceutical policies and
practices, including those applicable to generic
drugs and intellectual property regimes in order
further to promote innovation and the
development of domestic industries, consistent
with applicable international law". The WHA
also requests the Director-General "to
continue and to enhance efforts to study and
report on existing and future health
implications of international trade agreements
in close cooperation with relevant
intergovernmental organizations".
-
In
June 2001, the General Assembly of the United
Nations will hold a Special Session on HIV/AIDS.
The TRIPs Council could take into consideration
some of the important conclusions of the Report
of the Secretary General to this meeting
(document A/55/779, issued on 16 February 2001).
In paragraph 48, for instance, the UN Secretary
General notes that "[g]lobally trade policy
provisions need to be used more effectively to
increase access to care. The availability of
low-cost generic drugs needs to be expanded, in
accordance with national laws and international
trade agreements and with a guarantee of their
quality. The relevance of compulsory licensing
and the development of national manufacturing
capacities need further expansion". In
paragraph 101, the Report also remarks that
"[w]e need to find ways of more effectively
using trade policy provisions, such as
compulsory licensing or parallel importation, to
increase access to care. The availability of
low-cost generic drugs needs to be expanded, in
accordance with national laws and international
trade agreements and with guarantees of their
quality".
-
At
the XI Summit of the
Heads of State and Government of the
Group of Fifteen (G-15), in
Jakarta (30-31 May 2001), the Heads of State and
Government stressed the "urgent need to
address pandemic and endemic diseases such as
HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria" and
stated that "the implementation of the
Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs)
Agreement should in no way prevent developing
countries from taking measures, such as
compulsory licensing and parallel imports to
ensure access to life-saving drugs at affordable
prices to overcome hazards to public health and
nutrition caused by HIV/AIDS and other
diseases". They also considered "the
forthcoming Special Discussion in the Council
for TRIPs of the WTO as an opportunity for
promoting a convergence of views in this
regard".
-
Finally,
in civil society, a number of important
non-government organisations, such as "Medecins
Sans Frontiers", Oxfam and Consumers
International also have emphasied their concern
that the TRIPs Agreement may be applied in
detriment to health policies.
III.
TRIPs and Public Health
-
There are different elements
that relate the TRIPs Agreement to
public health issues. In particular,
provisions related to patents on
pharmaceutical products have an
obvious effect on national policy on
access to medications. In the Preamble
of the TRIPs Agreement, Members
recognise "the underlying public
policy objectives of national systems
for the protection of intellectual
property, including developmental and
technological objectives". They
also recognise "the special needs
of the least-developed country Members
in respect of maximum flexibility in
the domestic implementation of laws
and regulations in order to enable
them to create a sound and viable
technological base. In this context,
patent rights cannot be paramount to
overarching public policies, in
particular health policies".
Whenever Governments deem it
appropriate, a number of the
provisions of the TRIPs Agreement can
be applied in order to ensure access
to medications.
-
Adequate access to medications
at affordable prices is recognized as
one of the most effective elements of
public health policies to reduce
mortality and infection rates. In the
case of HIV/AIDS, for instance, some
of the most successful policies have
been possible through provision of
increased access to generic and
patented medicines to those in need.
Access can be limited by a number of
factors, such as financial hurdles;
physical and infrastructure barriers;
and information gaps, among others.
When intellectual property rights are
properly exercised, they may meet
their objective of contributing to the
development of new medicines. However,
there should be a common understanding
that confirms the right of Governments
to ensure access to medications at
affordable prices and to make use of
the provisions in the Agreement
whenever the exercise of such rights
result in barriers to access to
medicines.
(a) Objectives and Principles of
the TRIPs Agreement
-
Each provision of the TRIPs
Agreement should be read in light of
the objectives and principles set
forth in Articles 7 and 8. Such an
interpretation finds support in the
Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties (concluded in Vienna in 23,
May 1969), which establishes, in
Article 31, that "[a] treaty
shall be interpreted in good faith in
accordance with the ordinary meaning
to be given to the terms of the treaty
in their context and in the light of
its object and purpose".
-
Article 7 is a key
provision that defines the objectives
of the TRIPs Agreement. It clearly
establishes that the protection and
enforcement of intellectual property
rights do not exist in a vacuum.
They are supposed to benefit society
as a whole and do not aim at the mere
protection of private rights. Some of
the elements in Article 7 are
particularly relevant, in order to
ensure that the provisions of TRIPs do
not conflict with health policies: the
promotion of technological innovation
and the transfer and dissemination of
technology; the mutual advantage of
producers and users of technological
knowledge; social and economic
welfare; and the balance of rights and
obligations.
-
Article 7 states that the
protection and enforcement of
intellectual property rights
"should" contribute to
the aforementioned objectives. Such
language stems from a recognition by
Members that the mere existence and
the exercise of IPRs, such as patents,
do not necessarily result in the
fulfilment of the objectives of the
Agreement. In the context of
health policies, for instance, patent
rights should be exercised coherently
with the objectives of mutual
advantage of patent holders and the
users of patented medicines, in a
manner conducive to social and
economic welfare and to a balance of
rights and obligations. Where
confronted with specific situations
where the patent rights over medicines
are not exercised in a way that meets
the objectives of Article 7, Members
may take measures to ensure that they
will be achieved - such as the
granting of compulsory licenses.
-
The objective of the promotion
of technological innovation and the
transfer and dissemination of
technology places the protection
and enforcement of IPRs in the context
of the interests of society. Such an
objective is essential for the
promotion of health policies, as it encourages
the development of domestic production
of pharmaceutical products.
Whenever economically feasible, local
production of pharmaceutical products
is extremely important to ensure that
medications are more readily available
in the market, and at more affordable
prices. Local manufacturing of
pharmaceutical products also
encourages sustainable access to
medications by insulating the price of
patented medicines against currency
devaluations, as well as supporting
the development of local expertise,
which is vital in addressing local
needs. As mentioned above, these
objectives can be obtained by the
normal exercise of patent rights. Where
the patent holder fails to meet the
objectives of the TRIPs Agreement and
of public health policies, however,
Members may take measures to ensure
transfer and dissemination of
technology to provide better access to
pharmaceuticals.
-
Also regarding patent
protection of pharmaceutical products,
the concept of "balance of rights
and obligations" and of
"mutual advantage of producers
and users of technological
knowledge" are relevant to ensure
that the exercise of the exclusive
rights provided by patent rights is
subject to limitations, which are
expressed in different provisions of
TRIPs, such as those relating to
compulsory licences and parallel
imports.
-
In Article 8, the TRIPs
Agreement affirms that Members may
adopt measures to protect public
health, among other overarching public
policy objectives, such as nutrition
and socio-economic and technological
development. Any interpretation of the
provisions of the Agreement should
take into account the principles set
forth in Article 8. The reading of
such provision should confirm that nothing
in the TRIPs Agreement will prevent
Members from adopting measures to
protect public health, as well as from
pursuing the overarching policies
defined in Article 8.
-
Article 8.2 allows Members to
take measures to prevent the abuse of
intellectual property rights by right
holders or the resort to practices
which unreasonably restrain trade or
adversely affect the international
transfer of technology. In the
implementation of public health
objectives, one situation of abuse of
rights could be, for instance, the
practice of excessively high prices of
patented pharmaceutical products.
Under normal circumstances, the
exercise of patent rights can
encourage the creation of new drugs
and promote sustainable availability
to society, as part of the
"balance of interests"
foreseen in the objectives of Article
7. Nevertheless, in many instances,
the owners of patented pharmaceutical
products may abuse their exclusive
rights, by selling or offering for
sale drugs at prices beyond reasonable
margins of profit, which prevents
adequate access to medications by the
general public. Another situation of
abuse of rights could occur when the
owners of patented pharmaceutical
products do not offer their products
in sufficient amounts to meet the
demands of the market. In such
non-exhaustive situations, patent
rights are exercised in a way that
conflicts with public health policies
as they prevent adequate access to
medicines.
(b) Parallel Imports
-
Article 6 of the TRIPs
Agreement is extremely relevant for
Members, especially developing
countries, and particularly the least
developed and smaller economies among
them. Article 6 provides that
Members are free to incorporate the
principle of international exhaustion
of rights in national legislation.
Consequently, any Member can determine
the extent to which the principle of
exhaustion of rights is applied in its
own jurisdiction, without breaching
any obligation under the TRIPs
Agreement.
-
Whenever Governments deem it
appropriate, adoption of the principle
of international exhaustion of rights
can be a useful tool for health
policies. Where the prices of
pharmaceutical products are lower in a
foreign market, for instance, a
Government may decide to allow
importation of such products into the
national market, so as to allow offer
of drugs at more affordable prices.
Such measures may be beneficial to
prevent anti-competitive practices on
behalf of patent owners who offer
their patented products at
unreasonably high prices in the
domestic market. In this case, patent
owners would compete with their own
products: given that their exclusive
rights would be exhausted, the
interests of the patent owner would
not be damaged.
-
For developing countries, in
particular, least-developed countries
and smaller economies, "parallel
importation" can be a significant
way of increasing access to
medications, where the prices charged
by patent holders for their products
are unaffordable. Moreover, in
situations where the local manufacture
of the product is not feasible, and
therefore compulsory licenses may be
ineffective, parallel importation may
be a relevant tool to ensure access to
drugs.
-
In light of the importance of
Article 6 as an instrument for health
policies, we consider that Article 6
should be implemented in such a way as
to ensure the broadest flexibility for
members to resort to parallel imports.
Members should therefore confirm
their right of applying regimes of
exhaustion of rights in their
jurisdiction.
(c) Compulsory Licences
-
Compulsory licences are
important instruments to protect
public health. Obviously, compulsory
licenses alone will not address all
the problems related to public health,
as other structural factors can also
contribute to limiting access to
pharmaceuticals. The TRIPs Council,
however, is called to consider the
extent to which intellectual property
rights, on particular patents, may
impose a barrier to access to
medicines. We believe that Members
should take the view that the TRIPs
Agreement in no way stands in the way
of public health protection, and
therefore that it should provide the
broadest flexibility for the use of
compulsory licenses.
-
Empirical evidence demonstrates
that many Members have extensive
experience in resorting to compulsory
licences, without damaging the patent
protection system. Some developed
countries, for instance, are not only
among of the main users of the patent
system, but also seem to be great
users of compulsory licence1. The
National legislation of several
Members also provides for compulsory
licences on different grounds, such as
refusal to deal, failure to work,
public interest, inadequate supply and
health.
-
Compulsory licences can
represent a significant tool for
Governments to ensure access to
pharmaceuticals. Normally, patent
owners are expected to provide access
of their patented medicines to the
market. In specific circumstances,
however, Governments may deem it
necessary to grant compulsory licences
to allow interested third persons to
produce the medicine, in order to
ensure that it will be more readily
available, or more affordable to the
general public.
-
Some of the most relevant
provisions of the TRIPs Agreement with
respect to compulsory licenses are
Articles 31, 7, 8 and 40 of TRIPs and
Article 5 of the Paris Convention. If
read together, such provisions allow
scope for Members to ensure that
regulatory policies can be exercised
by governments to promote public
health policies. Patent holders may,
for instance, fail to provide enough
medicines in the domestic market and
refuse to voluntarily license the
production of their patent to
interested third persons. Such a
situation obviously poses a threat to
public health policy, as the patent
owner would be free to set abusive
prices for their drugs. Based on
Articles 5A of the Paris Convention
and 31 of TRIPs, Governments may issue
compulsory licences as a way of
ensuring that medicines will be
available at more affordable prices.
-
Clearly, Article 31 of TRIPs
does not define the grounds upon which
to issue compulsory licenses, but
merely establishes procedural
requirements to be followed by
Members. Therefore, Members are
free to determine the grounds upon
which to issue compulsory licences.
-
As regards the relationship of
the provisions related to compulsory
licences with Articles 27.1 and
28 of TRIPs, we believe that
both set of provisions address
different matters and
circumstances. In no way Articles 27.1
and 28 limit the right of
Members to issue compulsory
licences.
-
In many cases, developing
countries - particularly least
developed countries and smaller
economies - have limited industrial
capacities and very small domestic
market to manufacture medicines
locally in order to ensure adequate
access to drugs. In this regard, it
should be noted that nothing in the
TRIPs Agreement prevents Members from
granting compulsory licences for
foreign suppliers to provide medicines
in the domestic market. In addition,
Members may adopt regimes of
international exhaustion of rights in
national legislation to allow parallel
imports into the domestic market. In
this respect, the reading of Article
31(f) should confirm that nothing
in the TRIPs Agreement will
prevent Members to grant compulsory
licences to supply foreign
markets.
(d) Differential pricing
-
Given that differential pricing
(or tiered pricing) is not an
intellectual property issue, we
believe that it should not be covered
by TRIPs, although Members might be
interested in following the
development of discussions in other
competent international fora, such as
the World Health Organisation.
-
We believe that differential
pricing arrangements can play a
relevant role in providing better
access to affordable medicines.
Governments should also consider the
establishment of global data bases on
drug prices, which would facilitate
decisions by Governments related to
the establishment of price controls,
authorisation of parallel imports and
granting of compulsory licences.
-
In no way should discussions
on differential pricing be prejudicial
to the right of Members to make use of
the provisions of the TRIPs Agreement,
such as parallel imports and
compulsory licences.
(e) Other issues
-
Nature and scope of
obligations in the TRIPs Agreement
(Article 1.1): Article 1.1 is
important to ensure the freedom of
Governments on the means of
implementation of the minimum
standards of the TRIPs Agreement in
national legislation. In many cases,
more extensive protection in national
legislation than is required by the
TRIPs Agreement may result in
limitations for the implementation of
health policies. We consider that
Members should be free to implement
the TRIPs Agreement in ways that best
accommodate the protection of health
policies in national legislation.
-
Protection of Test Data
(TRIPs Article 39.3): Article 39.3
establishes that governments may
disclose the data "where
necessary to protect the public, or
unless steps are taken to ensure that
the data are protected against unfair
commercial use." Protection of
test data does not apply where the
registered original product is covered
by a patent and the patent has been
subject to a compulsory licence. In
such an event, the licensee will not
be manufacturing a generic product,
but rather the same product, as
described and claimed in the patent
specifications. Furthermore, the
manufacturer will be a licensee, not
an unfair competitor. Therefore,
compulsory licenses will have the
effect of exempting the licensee from
the obligation of developing test data
anew. As regards parallel imports
covering an entity which is exactly
identical to the one which has been
registered, there is no need for the
importer or the generic manufacturer
to develop test data anew. Article
39.3 in no way affects negatively
research and development of new
pharmaceutical drugs. Finally, the
provision does not prevent third
parties to obtain authorisation for
commercialisation of products
identical or similar to previously
approved ones. The request of
commercialisation based on a product
initially approved by an authority
does not constitute in any case
illegal use of the data or a practice
of unfair competition.
-
Transitional Arrangements (TRIPs
Article 65.4): The TRIPs Council could
consider extending the transitional
periods foreseen in TRIPs Article 65.4.
-
[Non-violation (TRIPs
Article 64.3) Article 64.3 mandates
the TRIPs Council to examine the scope
and modalities and application of
non-violation complaints made pursuant
to TRIPs and submit its
recommendations in the Ministerial
Conference for approval. The scope of
non-violation complaints made pursuant
to TRIPs is unclear to the Membership
and the application of these
complaints could have serious,
negative implications on measures
taken by Governments to achieve public
policy objectives, such as the
protection of public health. Members
shall resolve not to apply non-violation
provisions on measures to pursue
public health objectives, in
particular those providing access to
essential medicines.]
India submits paper on Foreign
Direct Investment and Technology Transfer
An Indian paper on "Foreign Direct
Investment and Technology Transfer", which was
presented in the meeting of the WTO working Group on
Trade and Investment held in Geneva on 13-14 June,
2001 was welcomed by several members as a useful
substantive contribution to the Working Group’s
study process. The WTO Working Group on Trade and
Investment was established by the Singapore
Ministerial Conference of WTO (1996) to study the
relationship between trade and investment. Some of
the members of WTO have been pushing for
multilateral rules in the area of investment under
the auspices of WTO.
India’s paper highlights the fact that the
issue of technology transfer is at the core of
development debate. Development on a self-sustaining
basis has as its essential pre-condition development
of technological capabilities. Transformation of
developing countries from a stage of low
technological development to this stage would not be
possible except through transfer of technology.
However, documented evidence suggest that market
forces do not ensure technology transfer to, and
absorption by, developing countries. The paper,
therefore, concludes that multilateral rules aimed
at curtailing the rights and ability of developing
countries to influence the entry and establishment
of foreign investment are not desirable.
While the last decade witnessed a veritable
explosion in cross border FDI flows, the lion’s
share of such flows was accounted for by Mergers and
Acquisitions (M&As) as compared to the green
field route. The major reason why countries,
especially developing countries, seek FDI is the
expectation of getting the much needed
state-of-the-art technology. M&As do not always
augment the stock of productive physical capital in
the host country. At the same time, while greenfield
investment, by virtue of new entry, increases
competition, M&As most often lead to increases
in economic concentration by reducing number of
active players in the market. The effects of
M&As, either directly or through linkages and
spill-overs, also depend on whether the investment
is natural-resource seeking, market-seeking,
efficiency-seeking or created asset seeking. The
motive of MNCs behind M&A investment would have
an important bearing on the type and quality of the
technology transferred. The paper, therefore, urges
that it is important for developing countries to not
only ensure "whether’ technology is being
transferred, but also the ‘nature’ of such
transfer.
The Indian paper underlines the fact that the
growth rates recorded by FDI flows in the past few
years have been more impressive than those by
technology transfer payments, which tends to
indicate that the recent spurt in FDI flows may not
have been accompanied by technology transfer. More
particularly as the share of developing countries in
FDI flows has started moving up, their share in
technology transfers has come down.
The Indian paper refers to the distinction drawn
by economists between the ‘know how’ and ‘know-why’
of technology transfer and certain findings that
technology transfer within MNCs are very efficient
for transferring know-how, but less so for
transferring know-why. Evidence indicated in the
literature, especially with reference to the
experience of Korea, shows that M&A type of FDI
accompanying MNCs has transferred a high level of
‘operating and organisational’ technology, which
is very different from a high level of ‘production
technology’. Referring to the experience of South
East Asian countries, the paper states that low
technological capability might co-exist with the
capability to successfully use new technologies. The
simple act of high technology production in any
country does not ensure that efficient learning has
occurred, and the latter depends on a host of
factors other than technology transfer per se.
Quoting the World Investment Report, the paper
underlines the fact that developing countries
attract only marginal shares of foreign affiliate
research, and much of what they get relates to
production, adaptation and technical support (which
is in the form of know-how) rather than relating to
innovation (know-why).
In the run up to the WTO Ministerial conference
at Doha scheduled in November, 2001, a group of WTO
Members are pushing for multilateral rules on
investment in WTO. India has been taking the
position that while its own FDI policies are most
open, any move for multilateral rules could
curtail domestic policy options for host countries
that would not be in the interest of developing
countries.
Inputs Sought from States on
WTO Issues
At the second one-day Workshop on "WTO
Issues for Chief Secretaries and other officials of
State and Central Government" organised by the
Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce &
Industry at Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT),
in New Delhi on 26th July 2001, Shri Prabir Sengupta,
Commerce Secretary indicated that the Workshop had
been convened as an ongoing interactive process of
discussion between the Central and State
Government/UT officials on all WTO issues. He also
emphasised the need for each of the State
Governments and Union Territories to create a WTO
Cell in their States/UTs and solicited their
feedback and inputs for the ongoing mandated
negotiations in agriculture and services as well as
their views on the various issues as are likely to
come up at Doha Ministerial Conference. Resource
persons, would be sent from the Department of
Commerce for any workshop or seminar as may be
organised by the states/UT .
Presentations were made on the following :
preparation for the Doha Ministerial Conference;
State of Play on agricultural negotiations; Impact
of removal of QRs and details of import of sensitive
items; GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services)
negotiations, and Anti-dumping Agreement. Each
presentation was followed by detailed discussions
inwhich the queries of the participants were
answered. The participants were also invited to
regularly visit the website of Department of
Commerce (address http://commin.nic.in) for getting
the latest Indian position and other relevant
details on WTO issues. Earlier, a Workshop for Chief
Secretaries on WTO issues was organised on
19.3.2001.
Major efforts made to consult
State Government and other stakeholders on WTO
| Sl. |
Date |
Subject |
| 1. |
29th January,
30th March,2nd June, 17th November and 24th
November, 1999 |
Meetings of
the Advisory Committee on International Trade
consisting of Industrialists, NGOs,
journalists of repute and experts on trade
matters were held to discuss various WTO
issues prior to the Seattle conference. |
| 2. |
24th June,
1999 |
The Commerce
Minister wrote to Chief Minister and political
parties regarding inputs for mandated
negotiations in agriculture & services and
inputs for other WTO matters coming up at
Seattle. |
| 3. |
15th
November, 1999 |
Commerce
& Industry Minister had discussions with
all thenational level trade union leaders on
WTO issues. |
| 4. |
16, 17 &
24th November, 1999 |
Commerce
& Industry Minister had consultations with
all national level political parties on WTO
issues. |
| 5. |
January,
March, April, June, 2000 |
Regional
consultations with State Governments, farmers’
representatives, NGOs’ etc. on agriculture
and other WTO issues conducted jointly by
Agriculture & Commerce Ministries. |
| 6. |
3rd February,
2000 |
A meeting of
the Advisory Committee on International Trade
was held after the Seattle Conference to
discuss various WTO issues in the post-Seattle
scenario. |
| 7. |
5th July, 8th
Aug. & 27th March, 2000 |
Meetings
under the chairmanship of Special Secretary,
Department of Commerce were organised with
various Industry Associations namely CII,
FICCI, Assocham & FIEO to discuss. WTO
related issues. |
| 8. |
11th July,
2000 |
Special
Secretary wrote to all Chief Secretaries
regarding agriculture negotiations. He also
wrote to Vice Chancellors of all agricultural
universities for their inputs on the
negotiations. |
| 9. |
30th August,
2000 |
National
Conference on Small Scale Industries discussed
impact of WTO where Commerce Ministry, jointly
with Ministry of SSI, addressed State level
officials on WTO matters. This was a
culmination of about 28 workshops all over the
country on impact of WTO on SSIs where
Commerce Ministry officials had also
participated. |
| 10. |
13-14th
September, 2000 |
The Minister
of Agriculture held national level
consultations with the representatives of all
political parties, farmers organisations and
NGOs on 13.9.2000. Further national level
consultations were held by the Agriculture
Minister with the State Food and Agriculture
Ministers on 14.9.2000. Commerce Ministry
officials actively participated in the
consultations. |
| 11. |
17th October,
2000 |
Letter by
Commerce & Industry Minister to Chief
Ministers and political parties seeking inputs
for agriculture negotiations. |
| 12. |
18th October,
2000 |
The Commerce
& Industry Minister addressed WTO issues
at Economic Editors’ Conference. |
| 13. |
16th
November, 2000 |
A meeting of
the Sub Group of the Advisory Committee on
International Trade comprising of experts on
agriculture was held. |
| 14. |
17th
November, 2000 |
Presentations
and oral evidences were made by the Department
of Commerce before the Core Group on WTO of
the Department related Parliamentary Standing
Committee. |
| 15. |
25th January,
2001 |
Letter by
Commerce & Industry Minister to Chief
Ministers and political parties enclosing
India’s proposals on agriculture submitted
in the WTO. |
| 16. |
10th
February, 2001 |
Seminar by
Mahratta Chambers of Commerce, Industries and
Agriculture, Pune on impact of WTO on Indian
industry addressed by Special Secretary, in
which State Government officials also
participated. |
| 17. |
19th March
2001 |
"Workshop
on WTO issues" with State/UT Chief
Secretaries. |
| 18. |
27th March,
2001 |
The Special
Secretary, Department of Commerce had a
meeting with the Industry Associations (CII,
FICCI, FIEO and ASSOCHAM) to discuss
various WTO issues. |
| 19. |
11th May,
2001 |
Joint
Secretary of the Department of Commerce made
a presentation at Hyderabad on
"WTO related issues" in which
CM, AP and various officials of Government of
Andhra Pradesh had participated. |
| 20. |
18th May,
2001 |
Joint
Secretary of Department of Commerce made
a presentation on WTO related
issues and Agreements on Agriculture to
the Chief Minister and officials and
various stakeholders at Jammu.21st May,
2001 Conference of the Chief Ministers on
"WTO Agreement on Agriculture and
Food Management" |
| 21. |
15th
February, |
2001 WTO
issues were discussed among other issues in
the meeting of Parliamentary Consultative
Committee of the the Department of Commerce. |
| 22. |
12th June,
2001 |
Meeting of
Advisory Committee on International Trade held
to discuss issues related to the 4th
Ministerial Conference at Doha. |
| 23. |
9th July,
2001 |
A meeting of
Industry Associationsv (FICCI/CII/Assocham/
FIEW) was held under the Chairmanship of
Commerce Secretary to discuss issues relating
to Trade Facilitation and Industrial
Tariffs in the context of 4th Ministerial
Conference. |
| 24. |
4th July,
2001 |
The
Department of Commerce officials alongwith
Ministry of Agriculture officials
attended a sensitisation workshop on WTO
issues including on Agreement on Agriculture
organised by Government of Punjab at
Chandigarh. |
| 25. |
26th July,
2001 |
"Workshop
on WTO issues" with State/UT Chief
Secretaries. |
To analyse issues in depth, premier research
institutions including NCAER (National Council for
Applied Economic Research), RIS (Research &
Information System), ICRIER (Indian Council for
Research on International Economic Relations), RGCIS
(Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies),
NIPFP (National Institute of Public Finance &
Policy), IIM (Indian Institute of Management)
Ahmedabad, CMIE (Centre for Monitoring Indian
Economy), IIFT (Indian Institute of Foreign Trade)
etc., have been assigned time-bound studies on
issues which are likely to come up for negotiations.
The National Law School of India University,
Bangalore, where a Chair for WTO Studies had been
endowed, has also been actively associated in the
consultative process. Studies assigned to premier
institutions cover subjects like: Global electronic
commerce (RGCIS, New Delhi); Industrial tariff
analysis for WTO negotiations (RIS, New Delhi);
Implications of further tariff liberalisation for
Indian industry (RIS, New Delhi); A database on
tariff bindings & customs tariff for 1999-2000 (NIPFP);
Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture & Indian
agriculture: Strategic issues (NCAER, New Delhi);
Technical Barriers to Trade and Sanitary,
Phytosanitary Measures under the WTO: A survey of
implications and implementation in India (RGCIS, New
Delhi) and study on OECD-MAI & WTO Working Group
on Trade & Investment (Consumer Unity and Trust
Society - CUTS).
Monthly Report (I) on Important
events For the Month of May, 2001
HIGHLIGHTS
-
In
an informal meeting of the WTO General Council
in Geneva on 3rd May, 2001, the Chairman came
out with a ‘checklist’ of possible issues
for the preparatory consultations for the Doha
Ministerial. The 6 items on the checklist are (i)
Minister’s views/statements on current issues,
(ii) implementation issues, (iii) ongoing
negotiations/reviews, (agriculture, services,
mandated reviews), (iv) other elements of the
work programme (Singapore subjects and other
possible subjects), (v) organisation and
management of the work programme and (vi)
technical cooperation and capacity building.
-
In
the informal meeting of General Council, Item 1
on the Doha Checklist, viz., Ministers’
views/statements on current issues was taken up
for discussion, as part of the preparatory
process for Doha. Among the issues identified by
members for being focussed on by Ministers in
Doha were: TRIPS and public health,
Multilateralism Vs. Unilateralism, development
dimension, protectionism in developed countries,
sustainable development, operationalising
S&D provisions, regionalism, problems of
LDCs, etc.
-
In
the informal meeting of the General Council, the
item 2 in the Doha checklist on implementation
issues was discussed. There was active
participation by many members. The importance of
resolving these issues and the likely impact on
the Doha Conference, in case the issues are not
resolved satisfactorily was recognised by many
delegations. Developing countries insisted on
the need to resolve them by Doha in line with
the General Council (GC) decision of 3rd May,
2000. Developed countries stressed the need for
pragmatism and said that some issues can be
resolved only in the larger context. Though the
atmosphere in the meeting was positive, there
was little by way of concrete progress.
-
In
the informal meeting of the General Council,
there was a discussion on Doha checklist item 3,
i.e., mandated negotiations and reviews. Members
were of the view that Ministers should take note
of progress and give fresh impetus. The Cairns
Group argued that in case a new round is
launched, the mandate for negotiation in
Agriculture should go beyond Article 20. India
and many other wanted Ministers to give
directives on mandated negotiations in GIs. The
reviews identified by members to be brought to
the attention of members, were RoO, DSU, TRIPS,
TRIMS, Textiles and Clothing.
-
PMI*/Geneva
addressed a letter to the Argentinean side
requesting for consultations under the DSU
regarding Argentinean Statute which constitutes
an unnecessary obstacles to international trade
and prevents Indian medicines and other
pharmaceuticals from entering into the
Argentinean market, thus discriminating against
Indian drugs vis-a-vis like products of other
countries and of Argentina. The Argentinean side
has in turn accepted the consultation request.
-
Next
phase of the negotiations on the Agreement on
Agriculture have begun with the Special Session
of the Committee on Agriculture held from 21st
to 23rd May, 2001. In this phase, all the issues
involved are being taken up for a thorough
examination. The agenda items for this session
were: Tariff Rate Quotas; Tariffs; and Amber
Box.
* Permanent Mission of India
(Source : Trade Policy
Division/Department of Commerce
incorporating inputs from PMI/Geneva)
Monthly Report (II) on
Important events for the Month of June, 2001
HIGHLIGHTS
-
An
informal meeting of senior capital based
officials was convened by the Chairman, (GC) on
25-26 June, 2001 to take stock of the progress
in the preparatory process for Doha. The EC and
US informed that they will be working together
on the common strategic objective of launching a
new round at Doha. EC took a strident position
and said that they cannot imagine a round
without Investment, Competition and market
access in Government Procurement in the agenda.
The US indicated flexibility on issues of
interest to the EC. Many saw this as closing of
the gap between the EC and US.
-
A
Group of 7 countries (submarine group) took
initiative to study the implementation proposals
and submitted a non-paper with their suggestions
on how these are to be addressed in coming
months. They have categorised proposal in the 4
sections: 1) issues that could be addressed
before or at Doha; 2) issues that may not be
relevant any longer; 3) issues referred to
subsidiary bodies; and 4) issues that are
required to be negotiated. In an informal
meeting of GC, progress of work on
implementation issues was reviewed. Many saw the
non-paper as a good basis for further work. The
LMG welcomed the paper and said that it could be
a starting point and that the proposals have to
be seen in the framework of the GC decision of
3rd May, 2000.
-
During
the (DSB) meeting held on 20th June, 2001, India
requested the DSB to establish a Panel to
examine imposition by US of
-
anti-dumping
duties on imports of
-
CTL-Carbon
quality Steel Plates from India. As this was the
first time that request for establishment of
Panel had been made in this dispute, US opposed
the establishment of a Panel. However, as per
WTO rules the Panel would get established
automatically once a request in made again to
this effect by India.
-
A
Special Session on ‘TRIPS and Access to
medicines’ was held as part of the TRIPS
Council meeting on 20th June, 2001. India,
Brazil, Africa group and a number of other
developing countries submitted a joint paper in
the TRIPS Council. The Joint paper demanded that
(a) the objectives and principles of the TRIPS
Agreement as given in the Articles 7 and 8
should be operationalised, (b) nothing in the
TRIPS Agreement should prevent the developing
countries from taking measures for public
health, (c) Compulsory license could be issued
on any grounds, (d) flexibility for exports
under compulsory licenses, etc. All the
developing countries supported the joint paper.
US and other developed countries in their
statements mentioned that there is no need for
change in status - quo in TRIPS. EC in their
paper appeared more accommodative of the
concerns of the developing countries as compared
to US.
-
As
part of the preparations for the Ministerial
Conference, the Chairman, GC held informal
consultations on environment. EC said that this
was a ‘must issue’ for them and reiterated
its agenda comprising MEAs, eco-labeling and
precaution. Hungary, Norway, Czech Republic,
Switzerland and Iceland supported EC fully.
Japan, Chile and Australia, while not very
enthusiastic about EC’s agenda, nevertheless,
said they had no problem with sustainable
development being taken into account in future
negotiations. US said that they were not
convinced about the need to clarify, redraft or
reinterpret existing WTO rules. US said that the
Ministerial Declaration should clearly recognise
the right of countries to set whatever
environmental standards they want. Malaysia,
Thailand, Argentina, Korea, Brazil, Indonesia,
India, Pakistan, Mexico, Venezuela, Hong Kong
China, Uganda, Cuba, Egypt and Bolivia opposed
EC’s agenda and rejected any negotiations in
this matter.
-
An
informal GC meeting on Competition Policy was
held on 5th June, 2001. Canada and EC sought
mandate for negotiations on Competition Policy
at Doha on the ground that it would help promote
level playing field in international trade.
Philippines, Dominican Republic, Thailand,
Malaysia, Trinidad & Tobago, Indonesia,
Cuba, Egypt and Pakistan joined with India in
opposing the proposal. However, countries like
Turkey, Colombia, Czech Republic, Korea,
Hungary, Romania, Chile, Morocco, Poland,
Switzerland and Norway supported the proposal.
While Thailand and South Africa were opposing
the proposal, their concern appeared to be more
related to flexibility. Both Hong Kong China and
Singapore opposed moves for multilateral rules.
The US, while stressing the relevance of
Competition Policy to the trading system, shared
the skepticism on the need to begin negotiations
in this area. US stated that Anti Trust Laws and
Competition Policy were two different things and
they needed more time to understand those
differences.
-
In
an informal meeting held by the Chairman, GC on
investment, as part of preparatory process for
Doha, Japan stated that their objective is to
initiate discussion aimed at multilateral rules
on Investment for a stable, transparent and
predicable framework. They offered to discuss
‘legitimate policy flexibility’ and said
that investment was already in WTO and a GATS
type approach would be suitable. EC, Hungary,
Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Latvia,
Slovenia, Lithuania, Slovak, Poland, Paraguay,
Columbia, Korea, Switzerland and Norway favoured
the Japanese view. Canada, Australia and
Argentina, while not being demandeurs, were not
averse to the idea. Our detailed statement
arguing against the need for enlisting
investment in WTO was supported by Indonesia,
Philippines, Pakistan, Cuba, Malaysia, Thailand,
Egypt, Lesotho and Morocco. We stated the
practical and other difficulties in case
investment is put on the agenda. The US made it
clear that they were on a ‘listening mode’
and remained skeptical about the need for
multilateral rules.
-
A
meeting of the WTO Coordinating Group of
Secretaries was held under the Chairmanship of
Commerce Secretary on 11th June 2001, where the
Members were appraised of the scenario evolving
in WTO, in view of the fourth Ministerial
Conference of WTO scheduled to be held at Doha,
during 9-13 November, 2001 and their views were
sought on the strategy.
-
The
Advisory Committee on International Trade held
its 7th meeting on 12th June, 2001 under the
Chairmanship of Commerce & Industry
Minister. The Committee considered the stand
taken by India at the WTO negotiations in
connection with the forthcoming Ministerial
Conference at Doha. The Committee endorsed the
Indian stand against the launch of a new round
of negotiations at the 4th Ministerial
Conference and called for the resolution of
implementation concerns of developing countries
and meaningful negotiations mandated in
agriculture and services and reviews mandated in
TRIPS, TRIMS, Subsidies, etc. Among other
recommendations, the Committee recommended that
an assessment of the positive and negative
outcomes of the Uruguay Round Agreements should
be undertaken.
-
The
Commerce & Industry Minister wrote a letter
to the G-77 countries, who are also Members of
the WTO in an effort to garner support against
the launch of a new round at Doha and impressed
for the resolution of implementation issues
upfront. He cautioned the developing country
members against the inclusion of new issues,
like investment and competition policy and
social issues like labour and environment, in
the agenda of the WTO.
(Source : Trade Policy
Division/Department of Commerce,
Incorporating inputs from PMI/Geneva)
PARLIAMENT BRIEFS
* Issues to be raised at Doha
The Fourth Ministerial Conference of the WTO is
scheduled to be held from 9th - 13th November, 2001
at Doha (Qatar). The main issue which Government
propose to raise relates to the difficulties
experienced by developing countries in implementing
the Uruguary Round of agreements. These concerns,
which have come to be known as "Implementation
Issues", fall broadly into three categories.
The first category is the imbalances and asymmetries
inherent in some of the Uruguary Round Agreements.
The second category is the non realisation of
meaningful market access by the developing countries
through the implementation of various provisions of
the WTO agreements. The third category rates to the
non-implementation of special and differential
clauses contained in various agreements in favour of
developing countries. As a result of these
difficulties, the market access gains expected by
developing countries from the Uruguary Round of
Agreements have not materialised.
India along with some like minded group of
countries had submitted proposals for the upfront
redressal of the various "Implementation
Related Concerns" of the developing countries
without linking them to any fresh round of
negotiations. India, along with other like minded
group of countries, proposes to press for the
Ministerial Conference at Doha to take all decisions
as may be necessary for the resolution of the
"Implementation Related Concerns" of the
developing countries.
* Impact of QRs Removal on : No surge in imports
As part of the continuing economic liberalisation
programme being followed since 1991, import
restrictions on 715 items were removed on
31.03.2001. These items include 147 agricultural
products, 330 textile products and 238 other
manufactured products. Import restrictions on 714
items were removed on 31.3.2000. The import data of
these items for the year 2000-01 have now been
complied and the data indicate a growth rate of less
than 3% for these items during this period. The
growth rate of exports during this period was more
than 19%. The import restrictions on 715 items have
been removed on 31.3.2001. As per the provisional
data available with the Government, the import of
300 sensitive items, have declined by 11% during the
period April - May, 2001, compared to the same
period last year. The total imports of the country
during this period have declined by 3.74% and the
total non- petroleum oil imports during this period
have declined by 6.01%. The overall picture that
emerges from these quick estimates is one of normal
trading activity in response to demand and supply
factors. The figures reveal that the removal of
quantitative restrictions has not lead to any surge
in imports.
(Replies in Rajya Sabha,
24/07/2001)
WTO Briefs
Moore appoints advisory panel on WTO affairs
WTO Director-General Mike Moore announced on 5th
July, 2001 the appointment of a panel of experts
which will advise him on the challenges and
opportunities confronting the organisation and the
global trading system. The panel will be charged
with examining how the WTO should respond to the
needs of member governments and their citizens at a
time when an increasingly integrated global economy
has brought about profound economic and political
change. The panelists will examine, as well, how the
organisation can ensure the fullest possible
participation of each member government as the WTO
expands to near universal membership and examine
ways of creating a more effective partnership
between the WTO and civil society. "I have
asked this remarkable collection of talented
individuals to join me in finding solutions to the
problems that face us today. I have done so because
I have a responsibility to consult as widely as I
possibly can be look for these solutions. You can
never have enough sound advice. Each of these people
hold great experience in trade and economic
policy-making and I’m sure that they will draw on
their extensive knowledge to provide me with some
fresh insights on how we can move forward in a
manner which provides benefits for all," Mr.
Moore said. The panel will be continuously available
to advise the Director-General, individually and as
a group, both before and after the 4th Ministerial
Conference in Doha, Qatar. The members of the
advisory group are: (i) Professor Robert Baldwin,
Hilldale Professor of Economics, Emeritus,
University of Wisconsin; (ii) Professor Jagdish
N. Bhagwati, University Professor, Columbia
University, New York, Special Adviser to the UN on
Globalisation; (iii) Dr. Peter Eigen,
Chairman Transparency International Berlin; (iv)
Professor Victor Halberstadt, Professor of Public
Economics, Leiden University; (v) Professor
Koichi Hamada, Professor of Economics, Yale
University and President, Economics and Social
Research Institute (Cabinet Office), Tokyo; (vi)
Professor Patrick Messerlin, Professor,
Institute of Political Studies, Paris; (vii) Dr.
Konrad Von Moltke, Senior Fellow, International
Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg;
(viii) Dr. Sylvia Ostry, Distinguished
Research Fellow, Munk Centre for International
Studies, University of Toronto; (ix) Professor
Ademola Oyejide, University of Ibadan; (x) Professor
Manmohan Singh, Leader of the Opposition,
Formerly Finance Minister, and Governor of the
Reserve Bank of India; (xi) Senator LeRoy Trotman,
Former President, International Confederation of
Free Trade Unions, General Secretary, Barbados
Workers’ Union and (xii) Dr. Ernesto Zedillo,
Former President of Mexico.
WTO Expands to 142 members
Moldova officially became the 142nd member of the
WTO on 26 July, 2001-30 days after it notified the
organistion that it had completed domestic
ratification procedures. The WTO General Council
approved the country’s accession package last May
India Joins Countries Seeking WTO Action on US
Legislation (Byrd Amendment)
On 12th July, 2001, India alongwith the European
Union, Japan and certain other member countries of
the WTO including Brazil, Chile, Indonesia, Korea
and Thailand decided to request the establishment of
a WTO panel against a US legislation titled
"Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of
2000."
This legislation, popularly called the Byrd
Amendment, proposes to distribute to the affected
domestic producers of the US, the anti-dumping and
countervailing duties imposed and collected on
imports from other countries. This legislation would
result in the US domestic industry getting a second
layer of protection from the effects of dumped/
subsidised imports over and above those provided for
in WTO agreements.
The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the WTO
would meet on 24th July, 2001 to consider the
request for establishment of a panel to examine the
concerned US legislation. WTO rules on disputes
provide for automatic establishment of a panel at
the latest the second time the request for
establishment of a Panel comes before the DSB.
Earlier, in February 2001 as required by the WTO
rules on disputes, India alongwith other
co-complainant countries had held consultations with
the United States on this legislation. However,
these consultations failed to resolve the dispute. This
joint action is a clear indication of the important
systemic concerns that the legislation raises among
the WTO members.
Schedule of Meetings at the
WTO Geneva* July/August, 2001
|
JULY |
|
9 |
Council for
Trade in Service |
|
9-11 |
Council for
Trade in Services - Special Session |
|
10 & 11 |
Committee on
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures |
|
12 |
Council for
Trade in Services - Special Session -
Treatment of Autonomous Liberalisation |
|
12 & 13 |
Working Party
on the Accession of Kazakhstan |
|
13 |
Council for
Trade in Services |
|
16 |
Committee on
Budget, Finance and Administration |
|
16-20 |
Textiles
Monitoring Body |
|
18 |
GENERAL
COUNCIL |
|
18 & 20 |
Trade Policy
Review Body - Cameroon |
|
20 |
Sub-Committee
on Least-Developed Countries |
|
23 |
Committee on
Rules of Origin |
|
24 |
DISPUTE
SETTLEMENT BODY |
|
24 |
Committee on
Balance-of-PaymentsRestrictions- Bangladesh |
|
August |
|
23 |
Trade Policy
Review Meeting |
(*Source: WTO / Geneva as on
June-July 31, 2001)
|
Publications
