Dead as Doha. But will come alive in 2010

Font Size

Print

Feedback

Email

Discuss

: was weaned away from the core developing country group, perhaps more because of winning a cotton subsidy dispute with the US and less because of the extension of the EU’s ACP (Africa-Caribbean-Pacific) preferences to Latin America. The conflict of interest between a net agricultural exporter and net (even if marginal) agricultural importers couldn’t be reconciled. Because of dissatisfaction with SSM clauses, the agreement was blocked by India and China.

But let’s question India’s stance a bit? Did India really expect safeguard duties above bound levels? Are there any agricultural products (dairy, edible oils) where bound duties wouldn’t have offered enough protection? Or did India not care about a successful multilateral package? Also, did the US and EU miscalculate about the extent to which India and China would hold out on SSM?

Perhaps 2008 was just a bad year for trade negotiations. First, there are US presidential elections. Any trade agreement will have to go to US Congress. This is compounded by possibility of a different trade policy focus under a non-Republican administration.

Second, EU will not contemplate serious agricultural liberalisation before 2012. Third, with global food price inflation and agro export curbs in many countries, this is not the best of times to mention agricultural liberalisation either. Fourth, India is in election mode and agriculture is politically sensitive.

The only person who was keen to broker consensus was Pascal Lamy, since his term expires in 2009. WTO and the multilateral system should recover around 2010. That will be no fault of Pascal Lamy but it will be after his tenure.

And the new director-general will be elected under new power equations—that will be another test of the clout of the core group of emerging countries.