Seminar on "Reflections on Doha Ministerial of The Wto : Issues and Options"
August 27, 2001, New Delhi

Welcome Address by Mr R V Kanoria, Vice President, FICCI

Shri Digvijay Singh-ji, Hon'ble Minister of State for Commerce & Industry
Shri Saptharishi, Additional Secretary - Department of Commerce
Senior Government Officials
Distinguished Panellists
Delegates, Ladies & Gentlemen

It gives me great pleasure to extend, on behalf on FICCI and CUTs, a warm welcome to you all. We are indeed privileged to have Shri Digvijay Singh-ji, Hon'ble Minister of State for Commerce & Industry with us today. We are most grateful you Sir, for kindly accepting our invitation to inaugurate this Seminar. After assuming the new responsibility, this is your first visit to FICCI. I sincerely hope several will follow and we shall benefit from your guidance and advice.

Friends, as you are aware, with around 75 days left for the Doha Ministerial, WTO members remain sharply divided over the scope and elements of the Agenda for the Conference. Major differences and gaps still persist on several important areas. At the same time, after Seattle we cannot afford to have yet another inconclusive or failed Ministerial Conference. Therefore, the success of Doha is essential for strengthening the multilateral trading system. While we eagerly look forward to learn from the Hon'ble Minister, let me quickly share with you some of my thoughts and concerns on the subject.

It is well-known that the WTO-led trading system has failed to deliver the promised expansion in market access for exports from developing and least developed countries. Developing world has bee pressured to liberalise trade, investment and financial flows. But that liberalising zeal has been found wanting when it comes to opening up of developed country markets. The great expectations from expanded market access have remained ephemeral and elusive, even as onerous obligations have been imposed on us.

Indeed, wide-ranging imbalances in various Uruguay Round Agreements have come to light during their implementation in the last six years. Tardy implementation fo the agreement on agriculture by developed countries, limited liberalisation in Mode-4 of service supply and disappointingly slow pace of textile-quota elimination - all these pose serious challenges for us. Is not it interesting that the high income countries average trade-weighted tariff on imports from developing countries is four times their average tariff on imports from industrial countries?

Besides unrealistically stringent Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) measures adopted by industrial countries, tariffs on agricultural products generally remain substantially higher. Developed countries have also managed to wriggle out of subsidy reduction commitments by cleverly manipulating different "Boxes". OECD-countries' combined spending on account of support to agriculture stood at $327 billion during 2000. Looks "Special & Different Treatment" in reverse gear, which is benefiting the industrial countries, instead of developing countries and LDCs.

In such a protectionist backdrop, it is hardly surprising that during 1990-98, more than 62% of the increase in total world trade was accounted for by trade within advanced economies. On the other extreme, the number of least developed countries rose from 24 to 49 in 1999.

Indian business seeks a significant reduction in agriculture tariffs as well as accelerated elimination of export subsidiation and reduction in domestic support. All trade-distorting subsides must be eliminated.

Similarly in the case of services, no significant progress has been achieved so far on liberalisation in Mode-4 of service supply. A recent WTO-Study points out that the binding on movement of natural persons are the least liberal of all, while commitments are largely confined to the movement of intra-corporate transferees.

We strongly demand enhanced access for skilled and professional people in service sectors of our interest. We suggest removal and relaxation of existing limitations on the movement of natural persons. Among others, there is a need for scrapping social security contributions for temporary movement of professionals, establishment of multilateral norms on economic needs test and mutual recognition agreements, as well as more transparent visa administration.

Another disturbing fact is the proliferation of preferential and regional trading arrangements and the resultant disadvantages faced by Indian exporters in terms of trade diversion costs. Clearly, there is a dichotomy between the objectives of multilateral trade liberalisation and the preferential treatments allow under RTAs. We feel, it is time for a re-look at Article 24 sanctioning the RTAs.

Also, provisions of the TRIPS agreement are sought to restrain the supply life saving drugs at affordable prices. We are firmly against such technological protectionism and subordination of technology & knowledge to predatory interests. Doha Ministerial should ensure that nothing in the TRIPS agreement could prevent members from adopting measures to protect public health. Broadest flexibility has to be provided for the use of compulsory licenses and parallel imports.

In light of recent Basmati dispute, we have to strongly push for extension of protection under geographical indications for Basmati Rice and other such exclusive products. Further. The scope or non-actionable subsidies should be widened to include subsidies provided by developing countries fo promoting heir economic and industrial development. It is also necessary to pursue our demand for changes in anti-dumping agreement including a gap of 365 days before initiation of back-to-back investigation for the sam product; increase in threshold volume of dumped imports to 7%; and raising the de minimis dumping margin to 5% for developing countries

We feel S & D provisions which have remained as "best endeaour" clauses are required to be operationalised, and made an integrals part of the multilateral trading rules.

In spite of all the rhetoric about the need for development and implementation-related concerns. Out of the 93 implementation-related proposals submitted by the developing countries, only two have been addressed so far.

Given the peculiarity of the "endgame" of the Uruguay Round, developing countries ate justified in insisting that the unfinished business of increasing market access should be accomplished first. That is why Hon'ble Prime Minister has recently articulated this rationale and position.

To be sure, we at FICCI are committed to the strengthening of a rule-based, non-discriminiatory multilateral trading system and WTO. However, we believe developing countries should be allowed necessary time and apace to successfully complete the adjustment process in accordance with their developmental aspirations and at a pace in line with internal reforms. This alone will build and sustain confidence in the WTO, and make ti more credible and acceptable to the developing world.

With these words, I would like to welcome you all once again, Thank you very much.