Furore over Hilsa fish
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Qazi Azad
THE sudden imposition of ban on Hilsa fish export for ensuring an abundant domestic supply and driving its exorbitant local price down was not seemingly fair. Although the item is non-agricultural, as a food product it has some proximity to the WTO agreement on agriculture by implications. Article 12 of this agreement of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), to which this country is one of the signatories, says the member instituting the export prohibition or restriction shall give due consideration on the effects of such prohibition or restriction on the importing members food security; before any member institutes an export prohibition or restriction, it shall give notice in writing, as far in advance as practicable, to the WTO committee on agriculture comprising such information as the nature and duration of such measure, and shall consult, upon request, with any member having a substantial interest as an importer with respect to any matter related to the measure in question. The member instituting such export prohibition or restriction shall provide, upon request, such a member with necessary information.
The same article under its clause 2 stipulates, "The provision of this article shall not apply to any developing country member unless the measure is taken by a developing country member, which is a net-food exporter of the specific foodstuff concerned".
India clamped a ban on onion export a few years back following a flood and onion scarcity in its domestic market, which sent the price of the commodity in our home market on an upward trajectory. We mildly protested the ban, both in public and in private. As a traditional importer of Hilsa, India has a right to seek an explanation from us for the sudden U-turn. We should revoke the ban and restrain ourselves from similar sudden restrictive action.
Hilsa in this season, though unusually tasteful, is not a very essential food item that we cannot do without frequently having it. We may enjoy its taste with our neighbours across the border as we did for long previously.
India has reportedly threatened to retaliate against the ban on Hilsa export in this side with an embargo on rice export from its side. A tit for a tat may be the suggestion of some angry Indian consumers. But equating the Hilsa fish, the non-essential food item, with rice, the staple food, is a queer proposition. The reported reaction, if at all true, is not well considered.
The question of the abnormal price difference of the Hilsa fish in the Indian market and in the local market is not a matter for the Indian consumers or importers to account for. The local exporters may be asked to explain how the big difference occurs. How much of this difference is due to the fluctuation of the exchange rate of the respective local currency in the two countries- with India's going upward and ours, at best, stagnated after a big plunge that raised a hue and cry, also deserves the due consideration.
Lately, many Bangladeshi businessmen have encouragingly shown that they have grit, which cause the thoughtful among our fellow citizens to giggle in high expectation about the economic future of our country. At the inaugural function of a recent privately-arranged training programme on building capacity in business journalism professionals, the president of the Federation of Bangladesh Chambers of Commerce and Industry showed guts when he took up a long gun and fired a salvo at the local journalists. Stressing for research on business, he bluntly said "There is a tendency among the reporters that they try to somehow make an issue without analyzing it". Some recent reports verging on welcoming the ban on Hilsa export tended to lend some credence to his harsh observation.
Constructive criticisms and debates on important national issues, among which economy and business come first for their obvious high contributions to the real making of nations, may not be constructive, in spite of good intentions, if these are not based on studied analyses and enriched with dependable suggestions.
The accentuating inter-dependence between nations in the global village of this electronic age offers no room for non-expert-like actions. As national policies across the world are getting increasingly inter-woven because of the intensifying economic inter-dependence, it would be always useful to analyse issues in the global context before making any decision on any of them to avoid perplexing future repercussions. Both leaders and executives should be progressively sensitive about it.
While we should not dread to take up firm stands on matters of principles in inter-state and international relations, we ought to restrain ourselves from creating any unnecessary issue with any country, big or small, whether a neighbour or not. Our principle in world affairs should earn for us the admiration of the global community, which would be no less than a shield for national security at the time of any major crisis, whether internal or emanating from an external threat, but also a vehicle for attainment of economic prosperity through more and more export business and investment from abroad.
Friendship to all and malice to none, which we usually profess, sounds like a bankrupt policy or no principle in a world yet tormented by an unending duel between the good and the bad. We must tell the world that we are irrevocably with the principle. Let the matter of export of small Hilsa be a taste case.
THE sudden imposition of ban on Hilsa fish export for ensuring an abundant domestic supply and driving its exorbitant local price down was not seemingly fair. Although the item is non-agricultural, as a food product it has some proximity to the WTO agreement on agriculture by implications. Article 12 of this agreement of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), to which this country is one of the signatories, says the member instituting the export prohibition or restriction shall give due consideration on the effects of such prohibition or restriction on the importing members food security; before any member institutes an export prohibition or restriction, it shall give notice in writing, as far in advance as practicable, to the WTO committee on agriculture comprising such information as the nature and duration of such measure, and shall consult, upon request, with any member having a substantial interest as an importer with respect to any matter related to the measure in question. The member instituting such export prohibition or restriction shall provide, upon request, such a member with necessary information.
The same article under its clause 2 stipulates, "The provision of this article shall not apply to any developing country member unless the measure is taken by a developing country member, which is a net-food exporter of the specific foodstuff concerned".
India clamped a ban on onion export a few years back following a flood and onion scarcity in its domestic market, which sent the price of the commodity in our home market on an upward trajectory. We mildly protested the ban, both in public and in private. As a traditional importer of Hilsa, India has a right to seek an explanation from us for the sudden U-turn. We should revoke the ban and restrain ourselves from similar sudden restrictive action.
Hilsa in this season, though unusually tasteful, is not a very essential food item that we cannot do without frequently having it. We may enjoy its taste with our neighbours across the border as we did for long previously.
India has reportedly threatened to retaliate against the ban on Hilsa export in this side with an embargo on rice export from its side. A tit for a tat may be the suggestion of some angry Indian consumers. But equating the Hilsa fish, the non-essential food item, with rice, the staple food, is a queer proposition. The reported reaction, if at all true, is not well considered.
The question of the abnormal price difference of the Hilsa fish in the Indian market and in the local market is not a matter for the Indian consumers or importers to account for. The local exporters may be asked to explain how the big difference occurs. How much of this difference is due to the fluctuation of the exchange rate of the respective local currency in the two countries- with India's going upward and ours, at best, stagnated after a big plunge that raised a hue and cry, also deserves the due consideration.
Lately, many Bangladeshi businessmen have encouragingly shown that they have grit, which cause the thoughtful among our fellow citizens to giggle in high expectation about the economic future of our country. At the inaugural function of a recent privately-arranged training programme on building capacity in business journalism professionals, the president of the Federation of Bangladesh Chambers of Commerce and Industry showed guts when he took up a long gun and fired a salvo at the local journalists. Stressing for research on business, he bluntly said "There is a tendency among the reporters that they try to somehow make an issue without analyzing it". Some recent reports verging on welcoming the ban on Hilsa export tended to lend some credence to his harsh observation.
Constructive criticisms and debates on important national issues, among which economy and business come first for their obvious high contributions to the real making of nations, may not be constructive, in spite of good intentions, if these are not based on studied analyses and enriched with dependable suggestions.
The accentuating inter-dependence between nations in the global village of this electronic age offers no room for non-expert-like actions. As national policies across the world are getting increasingly inter-woven because of the intensifying economic inter-dependence, it would be always useful to analyse issues in the global context before making any decision on any of them to avoid perplexing future repercussions. Both leaders and executives should be progressively sensitive about it.
While we should not dread to take up firm stands on matters of principles in inter-state and international relations, we ought to restrain ourselves from creating any unnecessary issue with any country, big or small, whether a neighbour or not. Our principle in world affairs should earn for us the admiration of the global community, which would be no less than a shield for national security at the time of any major crisis, whether internal or emanating from an external threat, but also a vehicle for attainment of economic prosperity through more and more export business and investment from abroad.
Friendship to all and malice to none, which we usually profess, sounds like a bankrupt policy or no principle in a world yet tormented by an unending duel between the good and the bad. We must tell the world that we are irrevocably with the principle. Let the matter of export of small Hilsa be a taste case.