FACTS againest MYTHS JUNE-JULY-2003.pdf
Media
- extracted text
-
VIKAS ADHYAYAN KENDRA
JUNE-JULY 2003
INFORMATION BULLETIN
WTO: Whose T rade Organisation?
The Myths Behind the Cancun Ministerial Conference
“America's might and light emanate from our political, military and economic
vitality. Our counter-offensive must advance US leadership across all these
fronts...Economic strength — at home and abroad - is the foundation of
American’s hard and soft power".
— Robert Zoellick in the Washington Post, ’Countering Terror with Trade’
“The events of September 11 are a turning point to international economic and
political order and to the globalisation process itself".
- Klaus Schwab, President, World Economic Forum, at the Oil Conference, Mumbai, on
December 3,2001
COMMENT
he collapse of the 5,h Ministerial Conference of the WTO at Cancun is a major setback for the
North headed by the US and the EU. The failure means that it failed to sledgehammer the South
into submission over the “draft ministerial declaration” which essentially supported their own
vested business and trade
interests at the cost of the majority
of world’s poor. Secondly, it
signaled the South to now be
cautious of joining any US-led
initiative e.g. joining the FTA
bandwagon given the commitment
that the South has to undertake
reforms in a wide range of areas
of interest to the US without any
corresponding reform, for instance,
of the heavily subsidised US and
EU agricultural system.Thirdly, the
collapse also meant that the South
partly succeeded in challenging
the free trade regime inspite of the
concerted machinations of the USEU led group. Thus, the 5,h
Ministerial Conference was a major
departure from the previous four
T
Q FACTS against MYTHS- June - July 2003
(
.
FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION ONLY
<
)
ministerial conferences apart from being merely
a conference for stock taking. First, the coalition
of the world’s poorest countries all succeeded in
articulating their respective positions on some of
the most contentious issues in the WTO Agenda.
These countries were the Africa Group, the
Caribbean Group, the group of poorest countries
the G-22, the group of poorest African countries
that are traditionally cotton growers. Second, the
South led by Brazil, India and China presented
their alternative proposals which systematically
exposed the duplicity of the Draft Ministerial text
that fully ignored the implementation issues of vital
relevance to the South. Moreover, with the
exception of isolated vacillators like India and
deserters like El Salvador, led by the Africa Group
and the Caribbean Group, the G-22 group did
succeed in articulating the position of the South.
While Brazil took the strategic leadership in
resisting attempts at agriculture trade liberalisation,
it was Malaysia, which was at the forefront in
rejecting the Singapore issues from the Agenda.
They were also strong in the demand in
terminating subsidies that rich countries provide
to their farmers which, in turn, adversely affect
poor farmers in the South. They also demanded
that new issues, unrelated to trade must not be
part of the WTO negotiating agenda. Finally, a
group of the poorest African countries strongly
opposed the draft text, which fully sub-served the
interests of American cotton growers.
Right from the outset, the US-EU combine tried
to keep their agricultural subsidies, estimated at
$300 b., intact while prying open the agricultural
markets of poor countries by totally eliminating all
kinds of national protection composed of both tariff
and non-tariff barriers to imports on the one hand,
and ending all kinds of subsidies and support
programmes of on the other. Besides, the combine
wanted to launch formal talks on the four “new”
issues-foreign investments, competition policies,
transparency in government procurement, and
trade facilitation. At the prompting of the MNCs
the pro-Globalisation forces were determined to
issue a ministerial declaration incorporating rules
of agriculture liberalization and Singapore issues
as part of the single document related to the
ongoing Doha around of negotiations.
These dynamics and powerful signals emerging
from the collapse indicated that the situation is
tilting against the North power brokers and
therefore it is not surprising that internal divisions
within the WTO have since begun to emerge. The
Doha Conference clearly reflected this trend and
where arm twisting of the South was at its height;
FACTS against MYTHS - June - July 2003
to bully countries which had previously stood up
against their trade and investment agenda.
Significantly, the Doha Conference was held in the
wake of the barbaric attack on the World Trade
Centre, New York. The tragedy was manipulated
for a number of underlying motives. It became a
pretext to boost and promote the aims of the free
traders, their neo-liberal agenda and the
institutions that promote it. The equation, ‘support
in the war on terror = support for free trade”
became their rallying cry, conveniently equating it
as support for neo-liberal globalisation. It helped
in manufacturing the tall claim that through the
enforcement of a set of rules and cooperation
through global trade WTO contributes to world
peace vis-a-vis resolving global conflicts. Since
then, the wordgames about terror and free trade
continues unabated. (Incidentally, Day 2 of the
Cancun Ministerial fell on the 2nd Anniversary of
9/111). Finally, 9/11 was used to ram through Fast
Track (now dubbed Trade Promotion Authority).
Under it the US House and Senate have only 20
hours to debate a lengthy, complex track or
investment agreement. The US Congress must
vote the entire agreement up or down with no room
for amendments!
Mb
Lest it be forgotten, the GATT had initially dealt
only in trade in goods. Many governments used
tariffs, import controls or quotas on imported
goods as a way to build and protect their local.
industry, economy and jobs. But under free trade
agreements, the removal and reduction of tariffs
have led to de-industrialization, the closure of
countless domestic firms, job losses and a loss in
revenue for government. Such trade measures
adversely impact the South in the long run. For
India and a number of countries in the South,
agriculture is extremely crucial. Under the WTO
regime India is one of the worst affected. V
Agriculture production is critical as key source of
employment and food security. Because there are
no guaranteed alternative sources of employment
for a such a large number, large scale food imports
is synonymous with importing unemployment and
food insecurity. The link with global market has
introduced an unprecedented vulnerability in
Indian agriculture. Farmers chasing the mirage of
cash crops and (direct or indirect) exports have
faced ruination; a number of them have been
resorting to suicide and suicides of farmers
continue to this day. The component of agricultural
imports has increased leading to its dependence
on MNCs. The GMO seeds like the terminator
(and verminator) have pushed farmers into
servitude of these mega corporations. And the US
2
fl
Aspects of the Sustainable Development Paradigm
2
I
I
I
I
I
❖ The liberalisation of trade, to have an impact on poverty eradication, must be embedded in
a comprehensive national development that prioritizes domestic markets as stimulus for
growth over global markets;
❖ Countries must be free to choose the types of investments to safeguard against de-
industrialisation, closure of industries, job losses as well as destruction of natural resources.
A socially just global trade system must honour all the rights and welfare of workers and
farmers who produce wealth and provide goods and services and not result in their
impoverishment;
II
|
'
!
.
•
❖
Granting poor countries duty and quota-free access to the market of the North with significant
reduction in trade-distorting farm subsidies by the US and EU;
❖
Develop an efficient and equitable global system for patent rights;
❖
Impose trade sanctions against industries for environmental violations so as to ensure that
environmental costs cease being externalities for India’s economic growth;
❖
Provide space for representatives of organised civil society sectors to participate in the
WTO rule-making process including intervening in their dispute settlements;
|
|
The dispute settlement system must prioritise the development needs of the countries
especially those most vulnerable, over whether or not free-trade rules are being violated;
and
*
I
❖
|
Seeds, plants, organisms and drugs should be exempted from TRIPS so as to preserve
basic health care and agricultural systems in the South.
u———————————————————————————————————J
use institutions like the WTO to openly support
these mega American biotech/agri business
corporations; promoting genetically modified seed,
grain and foodstuff into Indian and other markets,
field and stomachs.
These policies, among others, have naturally led
to much opposition and mass demonstrations
worldwide. Institutions which enforce and promote
neoliberal globalisation have had to face the wrath
of countries of the South. Such opposition has
since led the WTO machine to choose major
conference venues for their inaccessibility and
relative ease to secure. The choice of Cancun was
no exception to this rule! This tiny but highly
militarized island is also an exclusive beach resort
for the rich and the super rich. Despite the heavy
barricades mass demonstrations in front of the
8ft high metal barriers of the venue took place.
On September 10, a South Korean protester killed
himself and others fought riot police as Ministers
opened global trade talks.
In the light of the above, it is essential that the
task and the challenge for global civil society is to
redouble its efforts to dismantle the structures of
inequality and to push for alternative
C FACTS against MYTHS - June - July 2003
arrangements. This involves in not just dismantling
spurious claims like “support in the war on terror
= support for free trade” but also calling for a
paradigm shift — from a “trade-creates-wealth”
to one based on sustainable development — that
ensures the long term sustainability of natural
resources — advancing the interests of the, poor,
the marginalised and the disempowered . The
initial step in this direction is to uncover some of
the tall claims that were tom-tomed on the 5,h
Ministerial Conference at Cancun, Mexico.
MYTH: The removal and reduction of tariffs,
through free trade, is a positive feature in
trade negotiations ultimately serving as a
major boon for consumers worldwide.
FACT: By negotiating a trade round in industrial
tariff reduction without noting the negative impact
of past and future tariff reduction, and without clear
guarantees they do not have to liberalise further
beyond what the local industries can bear leads
to further de-industrialisation, unemployment and
mass poverty
Moreover, many countries like the US, Japan and
Europe still have controls or quotas on imported
goods such as textiles and clothing. To illustrate,
one carrot dangled in front of many poor countries
of the South was the phaseout of the Multi-Fibre
Agreement (MFA) and its replacement by the WTO
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. What has
happened with the MFA helps to illustrate the
frustrations of any governments in the South about
the promises of growth and prosperity under trade
liberalisation that were made to them, and the
reasons why many have consistently been asking
for a review of existing agreements before any
expansion of the WTO.
Since 1974, the MFA had set the rules for global
trade in textiles and garments made from cotton,
wool and synthetic fiber. It set quotas limiting the
amounts of imports of textiles and clothing from
the “developing” to “developed” countries. Many
small and medium garment firms either became
part of mega TNCs’ subcontracting chains or shut
down.
The phase-out of the MFA and its quota system,
which is supposed to bring textiles and garments
trade under the WTO, was sold to exporting
countries in the South as a great altruistic deed
or sacrifice by the industrialized North. Along with
promises about improved market access for
agricultrual products, it was used as a lever to
force the South to make commitments to the WTO
agreements on trade-related invement measures,
intellectual property and services, and to agree
to lower tariffs. This kind of horse trading
characterizes trade negotiations.
FACT: First and foremost, it was mainly tahe EU
and US who are the main culprits for the collapse.
Not the countries of the South!
When the second revision of the draft of the
Ministerial text appeared early on September 13,
it was clear the that the US and the EU who were
most unwilling to make any significant cuts on their
high levels of agricultural subsidies even as they
continued to demand, intransigently, that the
South reduce their tariffs. It was also clear that
the EU and US were determined to disregard
the Doha Declaration’s stipulation that the explicit
consensus of all member-states was required to
begin negotiations on the so-called new issues of
investment, competition policy, government
procurement and trade facilitation. “Negotiate on
our terms or not at all”—that was the message of
the second revision. Not surprisingly, the South
couldn’t lend their consensus to a framework of
negotiations so detrimental to their vital interests.
The Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (the
Alternative to the MFA) and its implementation is
a clear cut con against the South. With the
downward pressure on wages and conditions, the
withdrawal of supports for local industry, trade and
investment liberalistion and the imposition of an
export-oriented market economic model trough
SAPs workers in the North and South alike have
seen their jobs disappear in the inhuman rush to
maximise profits.
While it is true that posturing took front seat at
Cancun — particularly by countries such as India,
— the two trade majors also did not create a
conducive situation, playing games on the first
three days by saying one thing to one group and
totally different things to others. In retrospect there
were other factors responsible for the collapse.
First, the issue of agriculture was not properly
handled. The major industrialised countries e.g.
the EU, Japan, Korea, Switzerland and Norway
were unhappy and not prepared to show their
cards util the outcome on the 4 Singapore issueds.
Finally, when the EU trade commissioner Pascal
Amy sought the dropping of the two of the
Singapore issues — trade and investment and
trade and competition policy - it was disliked by
others e.g. Japan and Korea. Further, the US was
not happy with the cotton initiative raised by four
west African countries - Mali, Chad, Benin and
Burkino Faso - as it involved a substantive
downpayment and also rubbing the powerful
American cotton lobby on tahe wrong side with
election not too far away. The language of the
formulation on this issue was not acceptable to
their the 4 African countries or the US. Finally, the
G-22 countries, especially India, had its share of
responsibility for the final outcome. Along with
the Philippines India did not share the farm export
interests of Brazil and were pulling in the opposite
direction.The result was that the G-22 was unable
to adopt a cohesive stance in some key areas
like market access.
MYTH: The collapse of the Cancun conference
was due mainly to the intransigence of South
over some of the contentious issues.
Although it was a crucial factor in the negotiations
agriculture was not the main reason for the
collapse of the talks at Cancun. The collapse was
The MFA phase-out has led to uncertainty for the
future of the garments and textile industry in many
countries. The 10-year phase-out period which
ends at the start of 2005 has been characterized
by tardy implementation by the EU and the US,
and new forms of barriers to prevent imports from
the South, including more restrict rules of origin,
and anti-dumping measures. Meanwhile countries
in the South have committed to open their own
markets for textiles and clothing .
FACTS against MYTHS - June - July 2003
r————————————— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —=
1
The Bane of Export Subsidies
|
“
;
I
I
■;
;
1
I
I
j
—
Export subsidies in the US constitute the most egregious form of trade distortion. With reference to
cotton the US has been the main culprit, whose subsidies lead to direct loss of income running to over
$6 b. to farmers in West Africa viz., Chad, Benin, Burkina Faso and Mali. Their demands are clear: the
US must phase out its massive subsidies on cotton cultivation and, over the period of transition, pay
appropriate compensation to the countries that suffered its worst effects.
Faced with a very simple and straight forward demand, the US changed the subject! Trade negotiator
Zoellick argued that quotas on textiles and garments, exports were sheduled to end by January 2005
and this provided cotton-growing countries with great opportunities for diversification. If the US proposal
on cutting all tariffs on textiles and clothing were also accepted, the market would gain a fresh
stimulus. US consumers, for their part, accounted for 22 per cent of all cotton textiles purchased
worldwide4. While demand in much of the world declined through the 1990s, US consumption rose by
the torder of 70 per cent. Without this important source of demand, world cotton prices would have
been depressed by upto 17 per cent.
I
!
|
* Farmers in the South are, if not in a majority, still a sizeable minority of the population. In the North
they are statistically insignificant. Farmers in tahe UK make 1 per cent of the population. While farmers
in the South are over-exploited, those in the North are cosseted. For instance, the USA pay out $4 b.
in subsidies to 25,000 cotton farmers. And this is not about sharecroppers in dungarees and staw hats
wielding hoes.These people are getting $160,000 a head.
3
I
I
The implication of this line of argument was clear: US cotton subsidies undoubtedly hurt the farmers of
from the American government. $ 4 b. is actually more than the entire crop is worth! As a result because nobody actually wants to buy this cotton - it is sold at a loss (“dumped”) on the world market.
Peasants in countries like Mali in West Africa are literally driven to starvation by US cotton displacing
what ought to be their export crop.
y
;;
n
* In Europe, the EU subsides sugar geet producers to the tune of $1 b. “Our boys” manage to produce
the goods at £430 per ton, while cane sugar can be bought in the South for £175. Nothing for it but a
slap a tariff of 140% on imported sugar to enable the likes of the beet barons in East Anglia to survive.
This is a crop that would not be cultivated in Britain if there were a genuine free world market! Yet,
again, the surplus is dumped on the world market, impoverishing the poor farmers of the South.The EU
negotiates as a bloc. But it is downright insulting when negotiator Pascal Lamy assures his constituency
that what he is putting forward is in “our” interests in keeping the “third world” farm products out of
Europe?! But “his” constituency has never been asked, and the Common Agricultural Policy is costing
them a great deal. In reality the EU trade mission has been captured by the interests of a handful of
rich farmers from France and Ireland. Overall, the US and EU featherbed rich farmers at home with
$400 b. per annum. Most of this money on the other hand destroys the livelihoods of the masses of
poor. This costs the North 8 times as much as the aid they fund the South with.
J
B
Africa but without the US consumers, cotton growers everywhere would be plunged into acute distress.
This presumably gave the US the right to dictate what the solution to the problem should be: An
initiative coordinated across the WTO discussion on agriculture, non-agricultural market access and
rules, to “address the impact of distortions that exist in the trade of cotton, man-made fibres, textiles
and clothing to ensure comprehensive consideration of the entirety of the sector.
j
u
I
j
r
?
{
I
=□ Bn ■■
aca ms tsoa r= = c=a e=b b^b i x.i wr:a Bza r. .1
eo
t=3 E=xa ran am asa c=3
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
■■ c=n Baa cna naaa bmb ng
primarily to the Singapore issues. The South had
expected that preferential treatment would be
given to the negotiations on the agricultural issues,
particularly the issue of eliminating the trade
distorting EU and US Agricultural subsidies.
Instead, the Singapore issues were given top
priority over the agricultural issues. This, inspite
of the fact that there was no agreement on
whether members were going to launch
negotiations on the 4 Singapore issues or not.
Moreover, they had formally presented a letter on
September 12, to the Canadian minister P.
Pettigrew, the facilitator of the Singapore Issues
working Group and Mexican minister L.E. Derbez,
Chairperson of the Conference, clearly stating that
with the absence of explicit consensus, there is
no basis to commence negotiations on the four
Singapore issues. Despite these communicated
views of the South, the Draft Cancun Ministerial
Text (second revision) of September 13 mandated
Q FACTS against MYTHS - June - July 2003
o
r
I
I
I
I
I
3
I
i
I
I
I
What Cancun Was All About
The WTO's 5lh Ministerial Conference took place in Cancun, Mexico, from September 10-14,2003.
Delegates hailed from 146 countries to discuss issues of freeing multilateral tarade.
The Agenda
At Cancun, the agenda included 4 new issues, viz., investment, Competition policy, transparency in
government procurement and trade facilitation as well as a number of on-going talks on issues
like agriculture, market access and drug patent rules.
India’s Stand
I
I
I
India’s original stance was that investment and like issues have no place in WTO. Later this position
that was taken by the then commerce Minister, Murasoli Maran, was diluted by the current Minister,
Arun Jaitley.
1
India demanded a large chunk from tahe talks
1
Summits, Summits and... Summits!
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
Singapore: The first WTO meet in December 1996 complicated things by launching studies on trade
and investment and trade and Competition;
Geneva:The second conference in May 1998 took on the additional work of Agreement on electronic
commerce;
Seattle: The third meeting in 1999 collapsed without making any progress
Doha: The 4“’ Ministerial in 2001 made no real progress in fixing the agenda or plan of action. The rich
and powerful North tried to broaden the agenda.
T
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
that negotiations clearly begin on two of the
Singapore issues i.e. transparency in government
procurement (para 16) and trade facilitation (para
17). Negotiations were also launched in a thinly
disguised way on the to the other two issues i.e.
investment and competition.
deal between two countries is this: If the US allows
Chilean goods, for instance, into the US, that
means it is locking out the other 144 countries in
the WTO! This is the argument for multilateral
negotiation. Moreover, in such negotiations the US
will hold all the cards.
Agricultural protection is a life and death issue for
farmers in the South.
True to this threatened claim, the US is to begin
negotiating a series of bilateral deals with small
countries. (The US has already signed free trade
agreements with Chile and Singapore).
MYTH: Bilateral free trade agreements are now
a more effective and pragmatic mechanism for
global trade than the present and complex
multilateral trading system.
FACT: This is a false choice! The WTO is not a
neutral set of rules, procedures, and institutions
that can be used defensively to protect the interests
of weaker players. The rules themselves — the
main ones being the supremacy of the principle
of free trade, “most favoured nation” clause (that
countries must provide to all partners the
privileges they prove their most favoured partner)
and the principle of “national treatment” (that
foreign service providers must have the same
rights and privileges as domestic providers) institutionalise the current system of global
economic inequality. Besides, the trouble with a
Q FACTS against MYTHS - June - July 2003
The weak countries have only a few weapons. The
principle of special and differential treatment for
the South (that they must have a different set of
rules from the North owing to historical and
structural differences) which was institutionalised
in the GATT, has a very weak status in the WTO.
At Cancun, the US and the EU completely
banished from the negotiations this special and
differential treatment agenda that had been
mandated by the Doha Declaration. Clearly, the
WTO is not an authentic multilateral organisation.
It is a mechanism to perpetuate the US-EU
condominium in the global economy. Hence, its
convenient demand for bilateral negotiations.
MYTH: The collapse of the trade negotiations
at Cancun was a major victory for India.
FACT: On the contrary! As pointed out above,
India’s position at this Conference was defensive
in character. This cannot be deemed as a victory!
The Indian government was not only reluctant to
initiate any steps to reassert and reclaim the right
to impose QRs on imports but continues to be
reluctant. It is reluctant re-assert lest it should
invite the displeasure of the EU-US axis. It is well
known that at the last moment at Cancun India
was even willing to toe the American line. For
instance, even while keeping a rhetorical posture,
Arun Jaitely, the Indian commerce minister who
led the Indian delegation had reportedly conveyed
to the Bush administration that he was willing to
negotiate on two of the four Singapore issues,
namely, government procurement and trade
facilitation. Later, he tried to rationalise the
Government position.
MYTH: Apart from their intransigence on the
negotiations the South also oppose trade as
such.
FACT: On the contrary! The South is not against
trade as such. What it desires and demands is
trade on the basis of equality.
What the South is vehemently against is the rigid
protectionist measures maintained by the rich
countries that curb economic and social
development in especially small economies
lacking a mass internal market. Secondly, the
insistence of norms and rules to international
trade, instead of favoring the South, weakens
them as it allows the powerful to impose far-out
rules on the weak ones.
The South is indeed keen in the existence of a
trading system but one that is balanced, fair and
multilateral, following rules that are common to
all countries and that allows global trade to
stimulate all-round development and not economic
annexation which the current trading system is all
about.
The option of a multilateral trade system must take
into account the existence of development
asymmetries among nations. That is, there can
be no free trade, with equal taxes, involving
countries that are hopelessly unbalanced in terms
of development. It is absurd, therefore, to maintain
that tiny countries like Burkina Fasa or Bangladesh
maintain the same trade taxes as Sweden or
Switzerland.
FACTS against MYTHS - June - July 2003
MYTH: Through the active promotion of global
trade and economic cooperation among the
nations of the world the WTO contributes to
global peace and economic prosperity and
resolving major global conflicts.
FACT: On the contrary! The real danger emanates
from the massive inequalities and injustice wrought
by neo-liberal policies, which are bringing about
more instability, more popular unrest, more
desperation, and more conflict.
Inspite of such claims and its rhetoric about a
common set of nutral rules for all members
militarily and economically, the US maintains a die
hard unilatralist approach whenever it sees fit. In
its invasion of Iraq, for instance, there is an
ongoing and intense battle on behalf of the US
TNCs to control not only the main Iraqi resources
but also the profits flowing from these resources
particularly oil. USAID awarded "reconstruction"
contracts to corporate supporters of the Buh
Administration. On August 3,2003 the Press
Herald reported.
If so, the war will not only be proven to have been
considerably about oil, after all, but the Bush
administration’s imperial ambitions will be shown
conclusively to have a major economic
component in the form a corporate tail wagging
the US government dog”.
Thus, contrary to this myth, militariisaton and
enforcing free market disciples are weapons to
make countries “safe” for foreign investors, at the
expense of local communities’ rights to determine
their own future. The US armed forces including
the security agencies serve as the muscle of the
free market economy.
References:
1.
Choudry.A. Neoliberal Globalisation: Cancun and
Beyond, Green Paper, Action for Social and
Ecological Justice, #4, Burlington, VA, 2003
2.
World Trade Organisation: A Road Map for Just
Trade Enforcement System of Illegitimate unfair
trade rules?, Vikas Adhyayan Kendra, Mumbai
2003.
3.
Cancun Fiasco: Belling the Cat, Economic &
Political Weekly, #38, Mumbai 2003.
4.
Bello, W. The Meaning of Cancun, Frontline, #20,
October, 2003.
5.
Brooks, M. Cancun Fiasco Reveals the Real
Nature of WTO, Red Star, #10, New Delhi, 2003.
6.
Koshy, N.Militarised Globalisation and the
Empire, Mainstream, #42, New Delhi, 2003.
7.
Win or Lose, Cancun will choose, Lok Samvad,
September, New Delhi, 2003.
7
r —— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ■=’ — — n
1
I
I
Three Kinds of Subsidies under WTO : The Anomalies
I
J
Amber Box subsidies (such as the payments made by the US government to its cotton farmers
I
to cover market loss, or payments made to encourage farmers to produce cereals in the EU)
significantly distort production and trade. This is because a subsidy can influence the price of
the product and the quantity produced, and therefore the trade in it. If one uses this role a
subsidy plays as a kind of thumb rule.
Blue Box subsidies are those exempted (because subsidies can also be used to limit
;
0
I
I
J
J
J
production). Such subsidies include, for example, what the government pays to farmers sb
that s/he limits the area on which s/he grows a particular crop, or the livestock bred. These
subsidies are considered less trade-distorting.
.
J
|
]
n
■
g
Green Box subsidies. These are considered acceptable, because they are either not tradedistorting, or minimally so. A good example is money given to farmers that acts as an incentive
for them to not damage the environment, or money spent in building rural infrastructure. Such
subsidies are not required to be reduced. There is also no limit to the extent to which subsidies
can be provided under this box. This is precisely what makes the Green box controversial.
|
|
|
|
j
I
I
Consider the recently unveiled EU reform of its common agricultural policy. In the policy, subsidies
on production-related factors have been reduced. At the same time, the farmer will receive
more subsidies if the farmer undertakes environmental protection measures, animal welfare
measures and higher health and food safety standards. Therefore, now the EU can say that it
has reduced trade distorting subsidies.
I
I
:
|
|
|
;
I
I
I
Fact of the matter is, the farmer’s cost of production remains as low as before. Only this time,
no nation on earth an challenge the EU because now, it has begun to provide Green box
subsidies. Fact of the matter is, it has merely shifted its subsidies from one box to another.
Hence, this categorisation is considered an anomaly. Subsidies in any form, distort trade.
Source: Down to Earth, October 15, 2003 (www.downtoearth.org.in)
5
I
L————————————
— _ — — — — — —— — —
GMO
GMO
—
|
|
|
J
I
j
I
I
——————J
GMO
Please feel free to reproduce material from this publication but with due credit.
r———————————————t
1
Facts Against Myths is a monthly bulletin of
I
,
■
.
ll
I
p
L
[]
p
I
II
I
|
:;
J:
'
factual information on a number of
development myths and fallacies, etc, including
information against alien development models,
paradigms and false concepts on caste, creed
and gender.
I
Produced and Published by:
Vikas Adhyayan Kendra
D-1 Shivdham, 62 Link Road,
Malad West, Mumbai 400 064, INDIA
lI
|
|
El
f”
S : 882 2850 & 889 8662
Email: vak@bom3.vsnl.net.in
Fax: 889 8941
|
Design & Layout: Kartiki Desai
I
Printed by: Omega Offset, No40,YashwantYihar,
Nanawadi, Belgaum 9. S 0831-424124/433429
J
I
I
||
~
I
—— — — — —— ~JL
BOOK-POST
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Position: 5484 (1 views)