 "Govt says WTO will understand its food security concerns")
"I am confident that India will be able to persuade the WTO membership to appreciate the sensitivities of India and other developing countries and see their way to taking this issue forward in a positive spirit," Commerce and Industry Minister Nirmala Sitharaman told the Lok Sabha here on Tuesday.
As the WTO Secretariat, based in Geneva, is observing a month-long summer break, India is planning to resume the talks once it reconvenes from September.
Also Read
Sitharaman said a permanent solution to India's and other developing countries' food stockholding and subsidies programme is a must and that it cannot wait "endlessly in a state of uncertainty, while the WTO engages in an academic debate on the subject of food security", hinting towards the two proposals made by the US on food security issue.
The US, it is learnt, had forwarded a couple of communique to India on food stockpiling issue after the Bali ministerial. However, Indian officials rejected both the proposals stating that those only underlined the food security programmes of other countries in a case study format and not a strategy on how to approach the issue.
Meanwhile, India has narrowed its demands to only a couple of issues. Previously, when the WTO General Council met on July 24-25, India had put forward four demands under public stockholding for food security purposes, senior Commerce Department officials told Business Standard.
On July 31, which was the deadline to sign TFA Protocol, India's ambassador to the WTO, Anjali Prasad, had presented a "textual proposal" to WTO Director-General Roberto Azevêdo for consideration.
The two options that India gave were, first, revision of the external reference price (ERP) based on which farm subsidy is calculated, as per WTO norms, to a more recent period taking into account the rise in inflation. At present, the ERP of 1986-1988 is taken into consideration for calculating the quantum of subsidies provided by each member country.
Second, as an alternative, India had asked WTO to allow it to take advantage of the "Peace Clause" till the time a permanent solution is not arrived at and not restrict it till only December 2017, as was agreed in Bali.
"Without a permanent solution, public stockholding programmes in India and other developing countries will be hampered by the present ceiling on domestic support, which is pegged at 10% of the value of production, and is wrongly considered as trade-distorting subsidy to farmers under existing WTO rules. The existence of such a subsidy element is determined by comparing present day administered prices with fixed reference prices of the 1986-88 period which is unrealistic," Sitharaman added.
She also said India was forced to take such a stand, wherein it had to postpone the signing of TFA because there was 'resistance' on the part of the developed countries to take the talks on food security forward.
"Public stockholding is a widely used means to ensure food security in many developing countries where agriculture is largely rain-fed," Sitharaman highlighted.
Meanwhile, China and South Africa, who had deserted India recently, have come out in the open supporting India's stance. However, last month India was officially supported only by Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela.
Ajay Shriram, president, Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), said, "A great amount of effort has gone into clinching a balanced Bali deal. Hence it must not be wasted and all efforts must be made to use Bali Ministerial outcomes as springboard to conclude the Doha Round, which is into its 13th year of negotiations."
India's stance
Some of the significant quotes in the minister's speech are as follows:
* In contrast to their efforts on trade facilitation in the WTO, some developed countries have been reluctant to engage on other issues
* The Bali outcomes were negotiated as a package and must be concluded as such
* Without a permanent solution, public stockholding programmes in India and other developing countries will be hampered by the present ceiling on domestic support
* The developed world too had market price support programmes and was able to move away from such support - though not fully even now - because of their deep pockets. This is not possible for developing countries
* It is important for developing countries to be able to guarantee some minimum returns to their poor farmers so that they are able to produce enough for themselves and for domestic food security
* It is regrettable indeed that today the WTO is unable to agree even to fast track negotiations on an issue of such importance to millions of subsistence farmers across the developing world, while the rich world can continue to subsidise their farmers unabatedly
* Developing countries such as India must have the freedom to use food reserves to feed their poor without the threat of violating any international obligations