India's proposal on food stockpiling as part of the G33 coalition on agriculture, which includes China as well as other developing countries, is gaining momentum with the chair of agriculture negotiations at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), New Zealand Ambassador John Adank, stating that it needs to be discussed in a time-bound fashion.
The member countries of WTO are in the process of identifying some key issues for the Bali Ministerial meeting that is due end of this year. While several developed country members have been keen on moving forward on the issue of trade facilitation as part of an early harvest for the Doha Round, several developing countries, including India, have been pointing out that there is a need for some balance in the outcome at the Bali Ministerial.
The issue of widening the scope of government support to small farmers was tabled by the G33 to ensure that as the Doha Round moves forward, concerns of the developing countries on the issue of livelihood for small and marginal farmers are kept on the table for negotiations.
The G33 proposal, which has been tabled, urges the member countries to support more flexible rules for farm subsidies in WTO's "green box" - those that are exempt from any ceiling or reduction commitments on the grounds that they cause not more than minimal trade distortion.
A news report by Geneva-based Bridges said the G33 proposal calls for new rules on public stockholding for food security purposes and on domestic food aid. The proposal said if a developing country government purchases food for its stocks at administered prices in order to support "low income, resource-poor producers", it should not count this towards the aggregate measure of support (AMS) it provides. AMS is capped for each country under WTO's rules. One important area of discussion at Geneva has been on how to bring down AMS for countries, especially in the developed world.
Also, the G33 proposal said if developing country governments acquire food for domestic food aid at subsidised prices, they should not count these towards their AMS ceiling, so long as the food was "procured generally" from "low income" or "resource-poor" producers in developing countries. However, the proposal is not clear on the definition of a "resource-poor" producer.
Besides, the group proposed that several kinds of developing country farm programmes should be exempt from any ceiling on subsidies by grouping them with other "green box" programmes at WTO. Policies and services related to farmer settlement, land reform programmes, rural development, and rural livelihood security in developing countries should be among them, the Bridges report said quoting the proposal. This proposal is important for countries like India, since it will be difficult to move away from the concept of stockpiling of food grains in the near future. Not only is this issue politically sensitive, but it is also an important component of food security - which is critical for any developing country.
While the concern for arriving at a solution on trade facilitation is genuine, it will be important for the developed world to consider this proposal from the G33 to bring about a balance for the Bali Ministerial. The coming months are expected to witness some intense debate on this issue in Geneva with countries sharing their thoughts.
Senior commerce ministry officials had highlighted the importance of this proposal to WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy when he was in New Delhi recently. However, Lamy would be stepping down from his post before the Bali Ministerial, and his successor will have to work closely with the member countries to ensure that the agenda for the outcome at the Indonesian seaside resort remains balanced.
The next four or five months will be crucial at Geneva with countries jostling to get their issues on the table. But given the fact that Bali presents a good platform to move the WTO agenda forward, countries must remain practical in their expectations from the meeting.
The writer is Principal Adviser at APJ-SLG Law Offices
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
