The signs were not pleasant to signal a smooth go-ahead for the WTO Bali work programme following India's veto to the Trade Facilitation deal. Notwithstanding India's reasoning for refusal to adopt the legal text, the fall-out from the incident has been reflected in the recently-held preparatory session of negotiation on agriculture. Delegates differed on how to proceed with work on agriculture under the Bali Ministerial decisions when they met last on September 23, 2014. They remained deadlocked over India's refusal to adopt a legal text on trade facilitation until a permanent solution is found on public stockholding by the end of 2014.
More than thirty delegates from both the developed and developing countries roughly of equal numbers objected directly or indirectly to the trade facilitation text being held up despite consensus being reached on the contents in Bali, where members agreed to adopt it in a proper legal form by July 31 this year. Among them, several delegates repeated their view that the hold-up on trade facilitation amounted to a breach of trust, which made it impossible to engage in further work in good faith. A number of delegates have strongly mentioned that unless the trade facilitation text can be adopted, it will not be possible to advance further work here or in other committees mandated to pursue follow-up negotiations to Bali, on all issues agreed there. These delegations pointed to the fact that the Bali decisions were a package and that in order for work to be advanced across the board, it has to be advanced as a package.
There are valid reasons for the delegates to express their disappointment over the matter. In fact, the trade facilitation negotiation had been concluded in Bali, leaving only the technical task of finalising the text of the agreement by July. Several delegates called for the text to be adopted within the next few days. Some called more generally for all the Bali decisions to be respected. Some other speakers called for the impasse to be resolved quickly. Several delegates said that a work programme to conclude the Doha Round should be agreed on by the end of the year (a target set in Bali), while some argued that the impasse on trade facilitation should not hold up the progress of the work programme. Echoing this sentiment, delegates from the least developed countries (LDCs) commented that the provisions agreed in the Bali Ministerial for their group should not be held up by the impasse. The G-33 and some others argued that negotiations on a permanent decision on public stockholding in developing countries should take place in these "special sessions". Some said it did not matter to them whether it was here or in the regular committee.
India, in its turn, reiterated its position that adopting the trade facilitation text should be delayed until the end of the year (2014), and that a permanent solution on public stockholding should also be agreed by then. Responding to the charges of bad faith as alleged by some delegates, India argued that its accusers were also resorting to bad faith by questioning the feasibility of the December 2008 draft deal in agriculture, which is the only one currently on the table and in turn was based on a framework agreement reached in 2004 and the mandate of the Doha Round.
Given the widely contrasting views, the situation appeared to offer no scope for conciliation. Chairperson of the negotiating committee, New Zealand's Ambassador John Adank, seemed visibly cynical about prospects to push the talks through. "In the absence of a solution to the current impasse", he said, "there is no consensus on how the negotiations mandated for this committee can be taken forward." More than the frustration of the Chairperson, what seems worrying is that the current impasse is potentially threatening to halt progress of work in all other areas where the Bali Ministerial succeeded in reaching consensus on a package deal.
The reason India wants a quick and permanent solution to the public stockholding issue is its fear over implementing stockholding programmes involving purchases at supported prices that might be regarded as 'trade-distorting domestic support'. Trade distorting domestic support is calculated as the difference between the present support price and the 1986-88 reference price multiplied by production that is eligible for support. While India and its supporters say such stockpiling is essential to ensure poor farmers and consumers survive in the cut-throat world of business, Western critics fear this food could be siphoned onto global markets, skewing trade.
Many observers regard the current impasse as a bad precedent capable of halting discussions across the whole range of issues awaiting finalisation. Hope, however, has not totally faded as chances are there to resolve the impasse at the Trade Negotiating Committee (TNC) meeting this month.
wasiahmed.bd@hotmail.com
© 2026 - All Rights with The Financial Express
