India Wilts To U.S. Pressure At Bali

India has wilted under pressure from the U.S. and agreed to accept conditionalities that were not part of the G-33 proposal.  The text of the agreed draft can be accessed below (see section WT/ MIN 913)/ W / 10 - Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes):

The text:

https://mc9.wto.org/system/files/documents/decw1.pdf

and the various parts to the declaration:

https://mc9.wto.org/draft-bali-ministerial-declaration

What India has traded away: 

1. Anand Sharma had unambiguously stated that the "peace clause" should be in place till such time that a permanent solution is found. The word "interim" that he had used IS IN the text (a clear victory), but in what is being described by the WTO Secretariat as "constructive ambiguity" the US position that it should be only for four years also finds its place (Para 1) in the text by adding, "for adoption by the 11th Ministerial Conference" (there is a WTO Ministerial once every two years and Bali was the 9th Ministerial. (Some experts though are interpreting it as being in India's favour since "interim" can be interpreted as holding on till a permanent settlement is found irrespective of the reference to the 11th Ministerial).

2. While India (G-33 draft) had demanded that no member country can drag a member state to the dispute settlement mechanism, till a permanent settlement is found under the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and the Agreement on Subsisdies and Countervailing Measure (ASCM), only the AoA is mentioned in Para 2. which means that member states can still drag India India to the dispute settlement process under ASCM. The language has also been whittled down and instead of "shall not" replaced with "shall refrain from", which means this guarantee is not secure even under the AoA. 

3. Most disturbingly, this agreement is (Para 2) only, "in pursuance of public stockholding programmes for food security purposes existing as of date". This has the following implications

(a) Minimum Support Price Mechanism cannot be introduced for crops other than those already provided for.

(b) The quantity of foodgrains procured under the MSP cannot be increased beyond the procurement as of date which would threaten the NFSA in the near future.

(c) Pulses, cooking oil and other foods (other than rice, wheat or millets specified in the NFSA) CAN NO longer be introduced in the PDS either by the Government of India or the State Governments if they are not being provided now. Future 

(d) Governments CANNOT increase the entitlements of foodgrains guaranteed under the NFSA which has been notified. For instance, Chhattisgarh, amongst other states, provides 35 kgs per households but no other state which is now providing 20 kgs or 25 kgs can increase the quantity to 35 kgs. 

(e) This may also be interpreted to mean that Government of India  or the State Governments cannot increase the price of the MSP from beyond what has been specified now for the next four years.

4. India will now be subject to ONEROUS DATA requirements that have been made mandatory in the agreed text. This was there in the US/ EU text but not in the G-33 proposal which means that India has accepted to provide details of all holdings in procurement by both States and Government of India. 

5. India will also now have to notify that they have been exceeding the de minimis level (10% of agricultural production as the permissible subsidy for developing countries). Para 3 (a)

6. Para (4) is one of the most problematic proposition for India which has made its way from the US/ EU draft, "shall ensure that stocks procured under such programmes do not distort trade or adversely affect the food security of other members" This leaves open to interpretation that the entire MSP mechanism that is in place for decades and India can be dragged to the dispute settlement mechanism by the US alleging that the entire MSP mechanism distrorts trade. So can Pakistan alleging that India's rice exports is distorting trade.

7.  This also means that even with the most generous interpretation of this agreement, India will still have to continue negotiations for the next four years till a permanent settlement is done and we have to continue to agree to further concessions to the US/ EU while this is being negotiated. 

8. In Bali, the African Group, many members of the G-33 and LAC are very upset with India for having bilaterally with the US a text, whereas till this morning, they were seeking the support of all the countries for the G-33 and Indian position. Anand Sharma had taken a strident note till last night, and raised the hopes of most developing countries that India would not buckle to pressure from the US/ EU. Today his credibility and that of India is severely eroded.

As is evident, what is contained in the agreed text is a big climbdown from what had been stated by Anand Sharma in his strongly worded statement. We have put at stake not just the interests of 650 million Indian farmers but also every single one of the 820 entitlement holders under the NFSA. 

Anuradha Talwar & Biraj Patnaik (Right to Food Campaign)]

(At the WTO Ministerial, Nusa Dua, Bali)

'India Must Not Barter Food Security'

On the occasion of the Ninth Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in Bali, Indonesia, several farmers’ organisations, trade unions, mass organisations and peoples’ campaigns resolved to support the Indian Government’s position to not trade away national food security. 

The group welcomes the decision of the Indian Cabinet on 28^th November to reject any peace clause that does not guarantee a permanent solution. The peace clause has been widely opposed by the Chairs of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce and Agriculture, several political parties including the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Left parties, and mass organisations. 

However, the group cautioned the Indian negotiating team headed by Commerce Minister Mr. Anand Sharma, to not bow to any pressure to weaken India’s position on defending and upholding national food security as a sovereign right. The group declared that the safeguarding and promotion of the country’s food security, rural employment and livelihoods are non-negotiable, and that food security cannot be ensured without supporting agricultural production by small and marginal farmers.

The group reminds the WTO members that no country needs to be defensive about protecting the right to food and fighting hunger in their countries.  And that aggressively upholding the rights of its citizens is not tantamount to collapsing the ministerial talks.  On the contrary, such pressure tactics must be exposed as a conspiracy to keep people hungry and poor.

It was decided that the group would closely monitor the negotiations during the ministerial meeting to ensure that the interests of the poor and hungry are not compromised in any way.

Bhartiya Kisan Union

Bharatiya Krishak Samaj

Bharatiya Majdoor Sangh

Focus on the Global South India

Great Mission Group Consultancy

Public Services International

Right to Food Campaign

Shram Seva Nyas

South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers’ Movements

Swadeshi Jagran Manch

Third World Network India