The World Trade Organization’s 13th ministerial conference (MC13) ended in Abu Dhabi early Saturday, with an outcome that most analysts described as “muted.” While no headway was made on further liberalisation of world trade, the conference that dragged on for an additional fifth day, could not even forge a consensus on reviving the dispute resolution mechanism, with a functional appellate body. India has managed to foil the attempts by many members to bring “non-trade issues” into the mainstream of the multilateral framework, and protect the interests of its fishermen. While no permanent solution to the grain stock-holding issue was found at the meet, India has no major worries on this front, as an enduring peace clause exists in its favour. The west, particularly the European Union blamed India for the sub-optimal outcome of the conference. Minister for commerce and industry, food and public distribution, Piyush Goyal told FE after rather than dwell on non-trade issues, the WTO at this juncture would do well to restore the credibility of the dispute resolution mechanism. “By and large the objectives with which we had come to Abu Dhabi are largely met and we go back satisfied,” he told Mukesh Jagota in an interview. Excerpts:
Q: How do you see the outcome of the conference? Are you satisfied with what it implies for India?
A: It’s a good outcome and we are completely satisfied. A lot of issues continued to make progress in terms of discussions, through the discussions at MC13.
Progress was made on several contentious issues, which had not been closed for many years. Such forward movement is always a sign of a possible closure going forward.
India continues to retain full policy space for the benefit of our farmers, our fishermen, and in every respect we have been able to safeguard India’s interests.
Q: What were the issues that were problematic for us?
On agriculture, we did not have any problematic issues. As we have the benefit of a peace clause on the public stock-holding of food grains, distribution of the grains to the poor free of cost to them, continues uninterrupted and without hindrance.
On fisheries, we found several ambiguities on the proposals that were on the table , more particularly relating to some of the subsides that certain countries sought to be excluded. Definitions were not satisfactory either, and in several areas, deeper consultations and a greater degree of flexibility were required to ensure a fair and balanced agreement. That was not possible in such a short period of time.
However, by and large the objectives with which we had come to Abu Dhabi are largely met and we go back satisfied.
Q: We had concerns on the moratorium on e commerce taxation. What prompted us to agree to the proposal for another extension of the moratorium?
We are not necessarily opposed to it. We had wanted this issues to have been discussed in the intervening period between the previous ministerial conference and MC13. The idea was to assess the scope of e commerce moratorium, areas to be covered and areas to be excluded and study its impact on different economies. That process has yet been completed. We believe that till this is done it is in our best interest that the moratorium stays. If at all it is found to be necessary, there will be discussions on this at Geneva to see if there are any areas particularly which needs to be covered under an e-commerce moratorium. Otherwise, as the decision stands it will expire in 2 years or the next ministerial, whichever is earlier.
Q) Looking at the economic and political developments around, how relevant is WTO at this juncture?
I think it does hold relevance. The WTO is an important organisation, it does carry the weight of 166 countries. It does create equitable rules of trade and give an opportunity to every country to raise areas of their interests or concerns.
Of course, it can work much better , it can deliver much more and I am sure collectively everybody will try to work for a stronger WTO framework.
Q) What are our “offensive interests” at WTO?
As of now , we do not have any offensive interest per se, our largest interest was to protect our farmers and our fishermen, both of which we are strongly doing, and that is in a way our offensive. We have always stood for the least-developed and developing countries.
Q) Dispute settlement body has been non-functional for many years. Is that the reason many members seem to have lost interest in the WTO?
It’s important to get the appellate body back, so that the dispute can be escalated to the WTO for resolution. Without an appellate body, no dispute can be taken to its completion, and people are understandably concerned about it, and may even be feeling that it’s not the worth the while to have progress (on the trade liberalization front) till this issue is resolved. Certain countries are yet not ready to accept the 2-tier dispute settlement mechanism that is the hallmark of the WTO.
Q) Increasingly, non-trade issues are being brought into the WTO…
We have been successful in making sure that the non-trade issues aren’t being brought into the WTO. For example, an effort was made to begin investment facilitation (via China-led investment pact) . Since investment is not part of the WTO, we did not allow it to come in. Similarly an effort was made to bring industrial policy discussions, again an area that India believes is not a part of the original Marrakesh framework. So, while the effort can be made to bring in non-trade issues, I think India has successfully ensured that no non-trade issue can be allowed to brought before the WTO .
Q) What should be the agenda for MC14?
I think the officials need to persevere much more before the next ministerial to try and forge consensus, explain and understand the points of view. The consensus should be fair and equitable. If we can do that for a longer period of time before the next ministerial, I think the meeting will become more effective and outcome-oriented
Q: There were talks on bringing down the cost of remittances. Any progress on that?
That was India’s offer to the world. We can see that a large number of countries, particularly less- developed and developing countries, are required to use cost effective channels for remittances. I am given to understand that remittances at an average can cost 4-9% of the transaction value and India has developed the UPI and a very robust fintech systems, which can help bring this down to less than one eighth or one fifth of the current level. So we believe that what we were offering to the world was an opportunity to bring down costs of remittances . It has the potential to save between $30-40 billion for LDCs and developing countries.
However, by not permitting that to be discussed in the WTO, some countries wasn’t doing the right thing.