The Commonwealth Games went off without any hitch but it is difficult to shake off the defence of an official when shown pictures of unclean toilets at the Games village, that “their (western) standard of hygiene and cleanliness could be different from ours, so there is nothing to be ashamed about”.
The commerce ministry takes a somewhat similar position when it comes to Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) measures in matters relating to trade. The ministry protests that the higher standards in other countries are non-tariff barriers (NTB) that hurt Indian exporters. The World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements on TBT and SPS measures allow the member-countries to stipulate their own standards, if based on science, made known to all and applied without discrimination. If the goods do not meet the standards, their entry can be denied.
The commerce ministry says with the lowering of tariffs across the globe, it is not surprising that developed countries, with relatively lower tariffs, are the more prolific users of NTBs, especially to keep out developing country exports. It lists several TBT/SPS measures taken by other countries. Yet, of 25 measures listed, 13 are from rich countries but 12 are from poorer ones. Some objections of the ministry may be valid but some are baffling. It protests that detailed labelling requirements with extensive product and content description are stipulated for food products by the United States. Now, what is wrong with that? No Indian exporter ought to have any problem in being transparent and telling the world what he is selling. But, apparently, some exporters do have a problem and the commerce ministry goes to town with it.
Another example is the protest against rejection and subsequent destruction of marine products consignments with chloramphenicol/nitrofuran residues in the European Union (EU), rejections in Italy and France due to presence of Vibrio Parahaemolyticus without judging the virulence factors, rejection in the EU due to alleged presence of bacterial inhibitors/ antibiotic residues without any confirmatory test. The essential point is whether these standards were made known and whether they are applied to all imports without discrimination. But mere protest that their standards are different from ours does not help.
Yet another protest of the ministry is that the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals legislation in the EU for chemicals increases the cost of compliance by €85,000 to €325,000 per chemical. Here, again, so long as the EU does not apply different standards for its own locally produced goods and for goods produced in different countries, the protests can have little impact. Similarly, there is no point in objecting to the stipulation of CE (originally known by the French term Conformité Européenne) marking to indicate conformity with the essential health and safety requirements on the grounds that it increases the cost for small and medium enterprises.
The world is still a long way from uniform international standards for all products and services. Till then, exporters must learn to respect others’ higher standards, even if these are different from their own. The ministry should encourage exporters to achieve the standards that buyers expect from their suppliers.
Email: tncr@sify.com