The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is an agreement that was arrived at in 1947 by 23 countries to establish an free and fair international trading regime among member countries based on dismantling of trade barriers-tariffs or non-tariff restrictions like quotas. It Came into existence in 1948 India was founding member. Eight rounds of such negotiations were held under GATT: 

• Havana Round (1947) with 23 countries brought into being the GATT.
• Annecy (France) Round (1949) (France)
• Torcmay Round (England) (1950) (England)
• Geneva Fourth Round (1956)
• Dillon Round (1960-1961) was held in Geneva and were named after Under Secretary of State, Douglas Dillon, who first proposed the talks
• Kennedy Round (1962-1967) was also held in Geneva but was named after the US President John F Kennedy, in his memory.
• Tokyo Round (1973-1979) • Uruguay Round (1986-94)
• WTO was set up as a result of the Uruguay Round. WTO came into existence in 1995, doha Round is the first round under the WTO (2001). It is yet to complete.

GATT is different from WTO in two essential respects GATT is a treaty while WTO is an organization. GATT had no dispute settlement process while WTO has. The GATT was essentially concerned traditional trade issues such as tariffs and quotas in international trade. It had only a relatively small secretariat with no institutional foundation to implement these rules. The World Trade Organization that came into existence at the beginning of 1995 replaces the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Like its predecessor, it is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. It has 156 members Pascal Lamy, former European Commissioner for Trade, is the current Director-General of the World Trade Organization. The WTO states that its aims are to increase international trade by slashing trade barriers and providing a platform for the negotiation of trade and related issues. Basically, it sets up a rule based multilateral trading system to liberalise the regime and boost warld track. Unlike other organizations like World bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) where there is weighted voting a country has as much voting power-as it contributes financially, WTO has a ‘one country one vote’ system making it relatively democratic. Decisions are taken by consensus. Structure of WTO Highest level decision-making body of the WTO is the Ministerial Conference which meets once every two years with each member country represented by the commerce minister. WTO Ministerial conferences

The Director General of the GATT was asked to draft an agreement for the consideration of the members. It was called Dunkel Draft, named after the Director General Arthur Dunkel. After attaining consensus, it was made into the Marrakesh Treaty and was signed in "Marrakesh (Morocco) in 1994 and paved the way for the establishment of World Trade Organization (WTO) at the beginning of 1995.

GATT and WTO

Next in authority is the General Council which carries out the decisions of the Ministerial Conferences. It is seated in Geneva. It has representatives (usually ambassadors or equivalent) from all member governments and has the authority to act on behalf of the ministerial conference (Mr Jayant Dasgupta is India’s Permanent Representative to WTO).

There are two other bodies apart from the General Council. They are the Dispute Settlement Body composed of all members, usually represented by ambassadors or equivalent and. Trade Policy Review Body (TPRB) – the WTO General Council meets as the Trade Policy Review Body to undertake trade policy reviews of Members.

Below the above three bodies, at the third level, there are Councils for Trade. The Councils for Trade work under the General Council. There are three councils – Councils for Trade in Goods, Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, and Council for Trade in Services. Apart from these three councils, six other bodies report to the General Council on issues such as trade and development, the environment, regional trading arrangements and administrative issues.

Dispute Settlement

World Trade Organization (WTO) has a dispute settlement body trade disputes among members. Disputes can arise from trade policies of members that are violative of the WTO rules.

WTO procedures require sixty days of 'consultations' among the disputants to resolve the dispute failing which a disputes panel is set up. There is no separate DSB but the General Council which is the second hi hest body in the organization works as the DSB while giving yerdict on the trade dispute. DSB conclusion can be challenged in an appellate body.

The process of taking the decision by the DSB is known as 'reverse consensus' or 'consensus against’ it requires the ruling of the Panel should be adopted "unless" there is a consensus of the member's against adoption.

After the ruling, the erring nation is directed to make changes in its laws to make them WTO-compliant within a reasonable time. If the 'losing country' does not correct its laws the complainant country is allowed to take cross retaliatory measures.

On the face of it, it gives all member countries a level playing field as the process is multilateral. But the fact is that there is no punishment for the erring country and poor countries can not retaliate against rich countries.

The WTO oversees about 60 different agreements which have the status of 'international legal texts. Member countries must sign and ratify all WTO agreements an accession. Important among the agreements are the following.

Agreement on Agriculture (AoA)

One of the most contentious issues that the Uruguay Round addressed was agriculture. When the Marrakesh Treaty was signed in 1994, AoA was resisted by the developing countries. They were won over with some concessional features arid flexibilities. Its three pillars are

DomesticSupport

It refers to the subsidies that governments give to the farmers like food, fertilizer, power, water etc. The domestic subsidies are grouped into three classes called "boxes": Green Box, Amber Box and Blue Box the first two being borrowed from the traffic light colours.

Green box subsidies relate to research and development and infrastructure like universities, roads in rural areas etc. Since they do not distort trade, there is no limit on them.

Amber Box includes those domestic subsidies that impact on market prices or example, food subsides. Therefore, they need to be limited at an agreed level. Developed countries are allowed less than developing countries in percentage terms.

Blue Box contains subsidies that are direct payments to the farmers to limit their production as agriculture needs to play a multifunctional role that includes environment stability. Leaving land follow etc.

Subsidies given by USA and Europe make agricultural goods so markets are virtually inaccessible to exports from developing countries. The earlier gains expected by the developing countries from a genuinely free international trade in agricultural goods have not come about as the advanced countries are least inclined to reduce the subsidies to the statutory levels. It is one of the ‘implementational concerns’ in WTO being discussed in the Doha round.

Export Subsidies

"Export subsidies" are to be limited by the developed countries either in value or volume terms so that international prices are not lowered below a point and exports of the developing countries are not priced out.

Market Access

Market access means all member countries should throw open their domestic market to agricultural imports by reduction of tariffs and removal of or non-tariff barriers.

• 'Tariffication' - to convert non-tariff barriers (like quotas) to tariffs and

AoA can be expected to, in the long run, benefit the developing countries that have cost advantages in production. However, any such benefits are conditional on the developing countries reducing their subsidies. .

TRIPS

Intellectual property (IP) is the work of intellect or mind to create products that have commercial uses products like drugs, literature, paintings etc. It is protected like the physical property with trademarks, patents etc. Holders of the patents etc are entitled to the commercial proceeds for a specified time period, exclusively.

Types of intellectual property rights:

A patent may be granted for a new useful, and non obvious invention, and gives the patent holder an exclusive right to commercially exploit the invention for a certain period of time (typically 20 years from the filing date of a patent application).

Copyright is given for creative and artistic works (e.g. books, movies, music, paintings, photographs and software) and give a copyright holder the exclusive right to control production or adaptation of such works for a certain period of time.

A trademark is a distinctive sign which is used to distinguish the products or services of different businesses.

An industrial design right protects the form of appearance, style or design of an industrial object (e.g. spare parts, furniture, or textiles).

Agreement OnTrade-Related Aspects Of Intellectual Property Rights (Trips)

Agreement on TRIPS lays down legal standards for the member countries to protect Intellectual propertyb5Tway of rights; geographical indications, industrial & signs, integrated circuit layout-designs; patents; monopolies for the developers of new plant varieties; trademarks. TRIPs regulates dispute resolution procedures and enforcement procedures.

Product AndProcess Patents

Under WTO, patents can be granted for the process or product. Product patents provide for absolute protection of the product exhausting all the process that may lead to the product, whereas process patends provide protection in respect of the technology and the process or method of manufacture. Protection for process patents would not prevent the manufacture of patented products by a process of reverse engineering, where a different process or method from that which has been invented (and patented) is used. For example, national legislation requiring only process patent protection has enabled manufacturers in certain countries to make generic versions of patented medicines. RE (Reverse engineering) made it possible in developing countries to sell medicines cheap. India is a prime example.

TRIPS agreement allows both process product patents must be awarded for food, pharmaceutical and chemicals. Patents should be valid for 20 years, Developing countries have 10 years to adopt the TRIPS agreement standards while the advanced countries adopted them by 1995 itself.

Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005

Indian Parliament passed the Patents (Amendment) Bill 2005. India was required to introduce product patent protection from 1.1.2005 in accordance with the obligation under the TRIPS Agreement, of the WTO.

Highlights of the Act

• Product patent protection to drugs, foods and chemicals
• Availability of Pre-grant and Post-grant challenge
• Discovery of a new form of a known substance does not qualify for a patent; nor mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance 
• Introduction of a provision for enabling grant of compulsory license and parallel imports to meet public health crises

Prior to 1970, 85 per cent of medicines available in India were produced and distributed by multinational corporations (MNCs) and the prices of drugs in the country were among the highest in the world. The 1970 Patents Act of India provided for process patents for pharmaceuticals and agro-chemicals products. This enabled the growth of a strong local generic drug industry, which produced the same drugs as the MNCs at relatively low prices. When Indian generic manufacturers such as Cipla, supplied essential drugs like those for Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS), at much lower prices, it served a public health cause .The demand for these drugs grew in countries that could not afford to buy these drugs from MNCs.

Indian government accepted TRIPS and product patents because Indian pharma industry is going global and TRIPS helps promote R&D, also, PS is a part of the larger WTO package.

Public Health Concerns: TRIPS Agreement AndSafeguards

Safeguards in the TRIPS Agreement include provisions that allow “parallel imports” and “compulsory licensing.”

Parallel importation is the importation of drugs from another country where they are sold at a lower price to meet a public health crisis. It can take place if there are no manufacturers in the country facing the public health crisis and the pharma company that holds the patent for the drug is unwilling to price it affordably for the sake of the ailing public.

Compulsory licensing allows a government to temporarily override a patent. Government may issue a compulsory license to a company to produce generics when faced with a public health problem. This allow generic copies of a patented product to be produced domestically, with compensation paid to the patent holder. Generic copies of patended drugs are much cheaper than the branded drugs. By introducing generics, governments can bring down the price of a certain medicine, thereby ensuring an adequate, affordable stock of the essential drugs. (Generic drugs are unbranded drugs with the same Chemical ingredients of the branded drug).

Nexavar

The government has allowed Indian drugmaker, Natco Pharma to make and sell a patented cancer drug at a fraction of the price charged by Germany's Bayer AG, setting, a precedent for more such efforts by Indian firms and heightening the global pharmaceutical industry's anxiety over the use of the controversial compulsory licensing provision.

Patent controller of India, PH Kurian, in March 2012 granted the country's first compulsory licence to Hyderbad-based Natco-pharma, permitting it to manufacture and market a generic version of Nexavar, a medicine use for treating liver and kidney cancer, in India for just 3% of the patented drug's price in return for paying 6% royalty on sales on Bayer.

Geographical Indicators (GI)

Geographical Indicators are given for world famous goods that owe their origin to the region in which they originate and are nurtured. The soil, the native efforts of the region account for their fame, utility and qualities. Some Indian examples are Basmati Rice, Darjeeling Tea, Kanchipuram Silk Saree, Alphanso Mango, Nagpur Orange, Kolhapuri Chappal, BikaneriBhujia, Agra Petha, Mysore silk, Nilgiri tea, Coorg coffee, Mysore sandal products, Malabar pepper etc. 

GI is granted to a community or group or an institution that represents the interests of the product. It is generally not granted to an individual. It is given to a product for a specific period of time (10 years in India). The product can be an agricultural, natural or manufactured one. The manufactured goods should be produced or processed or prepared in that territory. It should have a special quality or reputation or other characteristics.

GATS

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is the set of regulations that governs trade in services among the WTO countries. (GATS), which is one of the three agreements along with AoA and agreement on TRIPS was adopted in 1995 and details are being worked out since then. GATS rules cover a broad range of economic activity such as health care, education, telecommunications, banking, insurance, business process offshoring (BPO), tourism and so on. India is interested in these fields due to its core competence. 

With GATS multilateral trading system extends to services for the first time. GATT, its predecessor did not cover services.

In services, members of the WTO offer one another most favoured nation (MFN) status as they do for physical goods. MFN means grant of non-discriminatory trade rights.

GATS includes direct foreign investment in services. Liberalisation means national treatment to foreign investor; ending public monopolies, as well as deregulation whenever a regulation is considered restrictive for foreign investors and service providers.

GATS negotiations are conducted among members bilaterally on the basis of requests and offers. Requests can be made by any WTO member in any service sector to any member. Each member makes bilateral requests to its major trading partners covering sectors with export interest. These requests ask for full market access and equal treatment commitments.

National treatment requires that foreign investor should be offered the same terms as the local one.

The GATS agreement covers four modes of supply for the delivery of services in international trade:

	Criteria	Supplier Presence
Mode 1 : Cross-border supply	Service delivered within the territory of the Member, from the territory of another Member	Service supplier not present within the territory of the member
Mode 2: Consumption Abroad	Service delivered outside the territory of the Member, in the territory of another Member, to a service consumer of the Member
Mode 3: Commercial Presence	Service delivered within the territory of the Member, through the commercial presence of the supplier	Service supplier not present within the territory of the member
Mode 4: Presence of a natural person	Service delivered within the territory of the Member, with supplier present as a natural person

Doha Round

Doha Round Doha Round of Trade talks under the WTO began in 2001 in Doha, the capital of Qatar. Doha was the fourth ministerial after the WTO came into force – Singapore, Geneva,   Seattle and Doha. It is called Doha Round because the talks were started in Doha. It is called Doha Development Round as it promised to address the issues that were important to the developing countries like India.

The criticism is that since the developing countries believed that they received a raw deal under the Marrakesh Treaty in matters related to agriculture, patents and so on, they needed additional inducements to agree to the new round of talks. Thus, naming the Round as a Development Round was to pacify the developing countries.

Doha Round aims at further liberalizing international trade for agriculture, industry and service. Two Ministerial Meets at Cancun (Mexico) in 2003 and Hong Kong in 2005 took place without a result. The mini-ministerial in Geneva in 2008 also broke down value due to deep differences between the developing countries and the advanced countries. The informal meet In New Delhi of trade ministers in September 2009 is to develop common round so that the Doha round can be wrapped up by 2010. The need for expeditious completion of the rounds because trade as an engine of growth is needed ever more in the present world when global recession has reduced incomes of hundreds of millions of people due to collapse of demand. Also protectionism is being chosen as a politically convenient strategy by countries including USA. It is a threat to globalization of trade and hurts all members. 

Developing countries' demands and concerns

In Cancun Ministerial Meet 2003, developing countries like India, Brazil, South Africa and China formed the countries-G20. They want the US to slash its agricultural export and domestic subsidies and the EU to reduce tariffs on agricultural goods so that international market is relatively free of distortion and allows fair competition.

This is the 'offensive' interest of the south countries. On the ‘defensive’ side, countries like India want acceptance of two provisions: special products and special safeguard mechanisms.

Developed countries demands 

The rich countries (North) want the developing countries to open up the domestic markets for the manufactured goods – called Non-Agricultural Goods Market Access (NAMA) which the poor countries are resisting partly because it hurts the domestic industry at this stage and partly to use it as a bargaining lever for reforms expected of the rich countries in agriculture. Agriculture is associated with food security, livelihood security and holds key to self-reliance in these countries.

Rich countries also want liberalization of the services sector in the fields of education, legal advice and insurance.

MFN

The principle of the MFN treatment means that the tariff policy that one country receives in an organization should be extended to all others. If some members form a preferential trading block within the larger body all others should also receive similar treatment. Contrary to the popular view, the MFN does not mean giving special treatment to imports from another country. It only means neutral trading relation – neither positive nor negative discrimination. MFN treatment is not limited to tariffs. It extends on all matters like quotas and other rules related foreign trade.

WTO allows departures from the MFN principle.

Imports from poor countries are allowed at lower/zero tariffs (Generalised System of Preference (GSP))

Preferential and free trade arrangement among countries of a region and others are allowed at concessional and free rates respectively.

Article XXIV of the GATT allows Pakistan and India to depart from particular provision of the agreement in their bilateral relations pending the establishment of trade ties between them on a definitive basis. It is under this clause that Pakistan has not given MFN status to India, though the latter has extended such status to the former.

Special Products (SPs)

Special Products (SPs) are agricultural products of particular importance to farming communities in developing countries for reasons of food security, livelihood security and rural development.

It was decided at the Doha Development Round of WTO negotiations that SPs would attract lower levels of tariff reduction commitment than otheragricultural products. The rationale is that higher levels of protection on SP will allow developing countries to sustain and develop domestic production of these products, thereby allowing them to protect and enhance livelihoods and food security in their domestic agriculture.

SP is a component of the WTO special and differential provision is available only to developing country members of the WTO.

The Doha Ministerial Declaration recognized the non-trade concerns of developing countries and explicitly mentioned that the Doha Development Round of trade talks would include concessions that will "enable developing countries to effectively take account of their development needs, including food security and rural development".

Special Safeguard Mechanisms (SSMs)

Special Safeguard Mechanisms or SSMs are a set of provisions through which a WTO member country can temporarily impose higher than bound tariff rates on the import of a particular agricultural product if there is a sudden surge in imports of that product into the country. The SSM provisions will be available to all developing and least developed country members of the WTO. 

SSM is trade defence mechanism to essentially counter the volatility of international commodity prices. Sudden and sharp declines in the international price of an agricultural commodity could lead to an import surge which, in turn, could damage the viability of domestic production.  Even with the available headroom between bound and applied tariff rates, countries may find it difficult to check these surges. In these cases, a temporary measure like SSM will allow developing countries to tide over crises. SSM will allow countries to raise tariffs above their bound levels for a limited duration.

The Hong Kong Ministerial text allows developing countries the right to impose SSMs based on both price and volume triggers. This means that developing countries will have the option of temporarily imposing higher tariff rates on the import of an agricultural product if there is either a surge in its import volume or a sharp dip in import price. However, the exact mechanisms of the implementation of SSMs have not been spelt out.

To conclude, Special Products and Special Safeguards Mechanisms together can provide a reasonable level of protection to the agriculture sector of developing countries.

Safeguard Duty

When imports of a particular production, as a result of tariff concessions or other WTO obligation undertaken by the importing country, increase unexpectedly to a point that they cause or threaten to cause serious injury to domestic, producers of like or directly' competitive products, a safeguard which is a form of temporary relief is used. Safeguards give domestic producers a period of grace to become more competitive vis-à-vis imports.

TBT and SPS

The agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade – commonly referred to as the TBT Agreement is an international treaty administered by the World Trade Organization

TBT exists to ensure that technical regulations standards, testing, and certification procedures do pot create unnecessary obstacles to trade. The agreement prohibits technical requirements created in order to limit trade, as opposed to technical requirements created for legitimate purposes such as consumer or environmental.

Under the SPS agreement, the WTO sets constraints on member states' policies relating to food safety (bacterial contaminants, pesticides, inspection and labelling) as well as animal and plant health (phytosanitary) about imported pests and diseases.

For example, Indian measures against imports of toys from China on safety considerations (first the ban and then its revision to new mandatory safety standards).

Singapore Issues

The first ministerial conference was held in Singapore in 1996, Rich countries introduced four issues that came to be known as the "Singapore issues".

• Investment by foreign companies on same terms as national companies
• Competition laws that  deal with monopolies and cartels, price fixing, mergers etc
• Transparency in government procurement and creating a level playing field for all    players-domestic and foreign
• Trade facilitation: standardization and simplification of customs procedures

The four issues have been controversial. Poor countries do not allow them to be brought into the agendas they feel that they might damage their economic interests. In Cancun Ministerial, trade facilitation is admitted by consensus as it has only procedure implications.

The common theme of three of the issues (investment, competition, government procurement) is to maximise the rights of foreign enterprises to have market access to developing countries through their products and investment; to reduce to a minimum the rights of the host government to regulate foreign investors; and to prohibit government from measures that support or encourage local enterprises. 

U.S. and the E.U support the introduction of the Singapore issues arguing that unfair competition/investment and procurement policies distort trade as much as tariffs do, and therefore should be regulated by the WTO rather than left up to individual country governments. However the U.S and other developed nations should first implement their commitments before expanding the agenda.

Nama

The Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) negotiations cover all those products that are not covered by the Agreement on Agriculture or the negotiations on services. In practice, NAMA products include manufacturing products. 

After the Doha Declaration was adopted in 2001, negotiations on NAMA formally began in 2002 in the beginning negotiations on non-agricultural products were to be concluded by 1 January, 2005.

However, this deadline was missed and the negotiations are still under way.

The deadlock on NAMA negotiations centres around how much tariff cut should be made; what formula should be used; and whether north and south countries should be treated alike. However, here too the developed and developing countries are divided.

Swiss formula and India

Tariff cut formulae are either linear or non-linear. In a linear formula tariffs are reduced by the same percentage, irrespective of how high the initial tariff is. As opposed to a linear formula, in a non-linear formula, tariff cuts are directly or inversely proportional to the initial tariff rate.

Swiss formula is a non-linear formula. In the Swiss formula, tariff cuts are proportionally higher for tariffs which are initially higher. For instance, a country which has an initial tariff of 30% on a product will have to undertake proportionally higher cuts than a country which has an initial tariff of 20% on the same product.

India's average tariffs are much higher than those existing in the developed countries. If a linear formula for tariff reduction was used, then its reduction burden would have been proportional to that of developed countries. However, using a Swiss formula could lead to India taking on a greater reduction commitment than its developed counterparts with lower initial tariffs.

Nama 11 is a coalition of strong developing countries (including Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Venezuela and the Philippines). They are working towards strengthening NAMA. India is a member.

Groups

G-4 - The United States, the European Union, Brazil and India. It has developing and the developed world.

G-10 are major food-importing economies like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Norway, Switzerland Israel etc. It has rich and poor representatives (Bulgaria etc)

Group of 20 (also called G20+) is a bloc of developing nations established in the 5^thMinisterial WTO conference, held in Cancun. It stands for drastic reduction in agricultural subsidies by industrialized nations and opposed liberalization like Singapore issues and NAMA. The G-20 accounts for 60% of the world population, 70% of its farmers and 26% of world’s agricultural exports.

G-33 comprises developing countries like India, Indonesia etc with defensive farm interests that wives protecting farmers from imports. It is an alliance of developing countries on Special Products (SP) and Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) in the ongoing agriculture negotiations. It has 42 members including India, Indonesia etc. They are net-food importing developing countries. 

While G-20 consists of developing countries with exporting interests as well as defensive interests, the G-33 includes only those deve1oping countries interest in agriculture.

WTO MINISTERIAL CONFERENCES

MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE	PLACE	DATE AND YEAR
1st	Singapore	9–13 December 1996
2nd	Geneva, Switzerland	18–20 May 1998
3rd	Seattle, United States	30 November – 3 December 1999
4th	Doha, Qatar	9–14 November 2001
5th	Cancún, Mexico	10–14 September 2003
6th	Hong Kong	13–18 December 2005
7th	Geneva, Switzerland	30 November – 2 December 2009
8th	Geneva, Switzerland	15–17 December 2011
9th	Bali, Indonesia	3–6 December 2013
10th	Nairobi, Kenya	15–18 December 2015
11th	Buenos Aires, Argentina	11–14 December 2017
12th	-

TRADE FACILITATION AGREEMENT

India has formally ratified the WTO’s (World Trade Organisation) Trade Facilitation Agreement, which aims at easing customs procedures to boost commerce. In this regard, India’s WTO ambassador Anjali Prasad handed over the instrument of acceptance to WTO Director-General Roberto Azevêdo. India is the 76th WTO member to ratify the TFA.

The TFA is the WTO’s first-ever multilateral accord that aims to simplify customs regulations for the cross-border movement of goods. It was outcome of WTO’s 9th Bali (Indonesia) ministerial package of 2013. The agreement includes provisions for;

• Lowering import tariffs and agricultural subsidies: It will make it easier for developing countries to trade with the developed world in global markets.
• Abolish hard import quotas: Developed countries would abolish hard import quotas on agricultural products from the developing world and instead would only be allowed to charge tariffs on amount of agricultural imports exceeding specific limits.
• Reduction in red tape at international borders: It aims to reduce red-tapism to facilitate trade by reforming customs bureaucracies and formalities.

The TFA shall enter into force for the notified members upon acceptance by two-third (107 countries) WTO Members. So far 69 countries of the 162 WTO members have ratified this pact. If this agreement is properly implemented, it may create US 1 trillion dollars’ worth global economic activity which may add 21 million new jobs and lower the cost of doing international trade by 10 to 15%. Poorer countries are expected to reap the most benefits from the TFA through provisions that will improve access to richer markets for their products.

11^TH MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ANALYSIS

The outcome of the 11th ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO) at Buenos Aires was on predictable lines. Some serious efforts were made to revive Doha Round negotiations between 2008 and 2011; thereafter, these efforts could succeed only in bringing up selected issues for negotiations in one after the other ministerial meetings. The Bali ministerial in 2013 was unique as it showed how the fear of failure forced leadership on all sides to agree on some outcome. But those were the Barack Obama days. The new dispensation in the US is not that charitable to multilateralism. Bali was followed by India’s dramatic reassertion for resolution on the public stock holding issue, linking it with the implementation of the trade facilitation agreement. India’s enhanced positioning was a reflection of the accession of a new and more assertive dispensation in New Delhi. India very cleverly leveraged its market position to secure a permanent peace clause, recognizing that a large number of members would have been very keen to do business with the new government after relative stagnation over the past few years.

It was, therefore, not a surprise that the membership accepted India’s position and a permanent peace clause was agreed on. It helped the domestic image of the new establishment as well. In trade lexicon, the permanent peace clause was the price for India’s agreeing to the implementation of the trade facilitation agreement. So, a quid pro quo and the deal was over. The developed country membership led by the US, therefore, is not prepared to pay a greater price for converting the permanent peace clause into a rule and thereby removing a structural flaw in the Agreement of Agriculture.

The other old issues on the agenda were of relative insignificance, including the demand for a special safeguard measure (SSM) by a group of developing countries. Since there was no agreement on tariff reduction, SSM was an overstretch by the G-33. However, there were new demands, such as a proposal for beginning negotiations for an agreement on e-commerce and a work programme on micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), etc.

Some developing countries, led by India and China, took a logical position of not agreeing to a proposal such as e-commerce as at the moment it is on the ascendency in the developing world and it would be too soon to start disciplining it because the gains in such a situation would only flow to already established global participants. There are significant issues at the interface of technology-law-business-security and privacy which must be sorted out before any meaningful negotiation can be contemplated on e-commerce. The proposal on MSMEs was too amorphous and woolly. The differences would begin at the definitional level and cover the whole gamut of economic governance.

Since expectations were low, it was a win-win for all those who participated. Some developing countries maintained an obsessive attachment to the Doha Agenda and a ministerial declaration could not come. Those who can recall the Nairobi ministerial declaration would appreciate that divisions had already been formalized on this issue(Para 30,31); for some, it would have been a retraction from their position, and unlikely to happen.

Therefore, if somebody had expected the US to agree to a specific mention of the Doha Agenda, it was a wrong assessment of the realities, given that there was a more hawkish establishment in the US.

There is no doubt that the Doha Agenda is a dream agenda for a developing country as it addresses some of the systemic inequities of the Uruguay Round agreements. But have we not come a long way from 2001, when this Agenda was adopted? Much has happened in the meanwhile that has worked towards rebalancing global trade. Nevertheless, some principles intrinsic to Doha remain equally relevant even now, such as the special and differential treatment of developing countries. What is our ask from the global trading system? Is it not true that several inadequacies in our own policy development and its enforcement are staring at us? Can we talk of regaining competitiveness without addressing many sectoral policies? Don’t we need to bring international trade in the mainstream of our policy discourse and don’t we need to mainstream multiple arms of the government at the federal and state levels in our international trade policymaking and its implementation? Whose baby is trade in the government? Just the department of commerce? Trade is only the front end of a policy and process value chain.

These are just a few questions we need to address before we flog a near-dead horse yet again. We sought protection under Doha hoping that our policies in some critical areas would evolve in the meanwhile. But this incubation has taken much longer. We must prepare our own narrative on where we want to see ourselves in the next decade in the global trade architecture, how we want to influence our development with our trade policies and prepare to mould and influence global policies and institutions accordingly. So it’s back to the drawing board.

WTO KEY Words

AMS – Aggregate Measurement of Support shows the extent of support provided by governments to the agricultural sector, including direct payments to farmers and intervention in the market, e.g. through setting minimum prices. There are limit set on AMS under the AOA of WTO[1].

LDCs – Least Developed Countries, group defined by the United Nations on the basis of certain economic indicators. It includes 49 countries.

Natural persons – People, as distinct from juridical persons such as companies and organizations. ‘Movement of natural persons' concerns the ease of travel and ability to live and work in other countries.

Rules of origin - the production and content criteria defining where a good comes from. For example, among the FTA countries a country can import from non-member countries but has to add a minimum value of about 30% or so before it can be traded within the FTA region.

What has India gained from the WTO?

• MFN status in the 153 member body
• Rule based trading system.
• Impartial trade dispute settlement process unlike earlier when there was bilateral pressures and threats to fall in line (Super and Special 301 of he USA)
• Definitive schedule for trade liberalization with special protection so as to calibrate alignment with global economy.
• Opportunity to throw up MNCs in the pharma sector
• Opportunity to step up agri exports as Indian agricultural reforms yield results and USA and EU reduce their subsidies

WTO: Boon or bane

WTO liberalises International trade and steps up the total output which in turn promotes standards of living for all participants sooner or later. However, the exact impact differs from country to country- the rich benefiting sooner and more substantially than the poor, in general.

There are many benefits to India from its membership of the WTO

• The globalization process that WTO ensures is the course chosen by India as a part of the economic reforms launched in 1991. 
• It is a multilateral body with 153 members and so can set the pace for globalization to benefit all. Here economically weaker countries can group together to increase their bargaining power.
• Most Favoured Nation (MFN) treatment is given to all members within the body by one another. MFN essentially means normal trade among member countries.
• The one country one vote system of decision making makes WTO a democratic body where rich do not command greater voting weightage.
• Dispute settlement process is rule based and transparent.
• India has advantage in the services sector and will benefit from its opening up.
• Lower tariffs, introduced gradually and the right pace, will make Indian economy competitive.
• Reduction of subsidies on agriculture by the developed countries will help India tap its agricultural potential to capture global markets
• Opportunities for Pharma

The opponents argue the following

• While globalization is welcome, its pace must be set by the sovereign government
• The agreement on TRIPS works against affordable medicines
• Multinational corporations influence the agreements and their working in WTO to their advantage
• Farmers may lose their livelihood as agriculture is compulsorily thrown open to imports at lower import duties
• Rich countries are not following their treaty obligations to reduce agricultural subsidies and tariffs
• The multiplicity and diversity of members is often the main impediment towards reaching a consensus as can be seen in several pending DOHA issues.

Latest Developments at WTO concerning India

The Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) of WTO allows for total agricultural subsidies not to exceed 10% of agricultural GDP of the country. After the passage of NFSA (National Food Security Act) India’s agricultural subsidy increased considerably and it stood in violation of the limits imposed by AoA.

However India along with the members of G33 argued for revision of base year for calculation of total subsidies from 1986-87 to a more recent one so that the inflation rise can be accounted for and its commitments towards the food security of Indian citizens can be fulfilled.

Finally after protracted negotiations with several member countries(mainly developed countries), WTO members have agreed to allow India to breach the AoA stipulations in pursuance of food security for its citizens. In return India has agreed not to stall adoption of TFA (trade facilitation agreement) a key demand of the developed nations.

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

WIPO currently has 185 member states and administers 24 international treaties and is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. The current Director-General of WIPO is Francis Gurrey. Francis Gurry 1970 25 treaties 185 members

WIPO was formally created in 1970, Under Article 3 of this Convention, WIPO seeks to 'Promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world." WIPO became a specialized agency of the UN in 1974. WIPO is responsible "for promoting creative intellectual activity and for facilitating the transfer of technology related to industrial property to the developing countries in order to accelerate economic, social and cultural development[2].

Unlike other branches of the United Nations, WIPO has significant financial resources independent of the contributions from its Member States.  90% of its income is generated from the collection of fees under the intellectual property application and registration systems which it administers (the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the Madrid system for trademarks and the Hague system for industrial designs).