World Trade Organisation Agreement - Report Example

THE WTO’S BALI AGREEMENT OF DECEMBER The Bali package is a World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreement that was reached in December 2013, after a series of intense negotiation held by the WTO ministers in Indonesia’s Nusa Dua resort (Bellmann, 2014). Being the first global agreement since the inception of the WTO in 1995, it met a success as it was seen by many is one way to revolutionize the global trade. The Bali package of 2013 is part of the Doha round meeting that had been launched earlier in 2001, in Qatar (Beierle, 2002). Nonetheless, it represents what has been referred as one of the modest development directed at the liberation of Agriculture products and removal of trade barriers. Therefore the objective of the of Bali package was facilitating trade, restoring food security in individual countries , and extending an hand to poor countries to enable them sell in developed countries through quota-free and duty-free market access terms (Das, 2006). This paper is an account of what the Bali package is and how it has failed addressing reforms in agriculture, services, and intellectual property issues. Further, is a look at what India’s position was and how it got addressed (Moise, 2013). The run-up to the Bali package agreement of 2013 The journey to the Bali agreement was advanced early in the Doha round talks in 2001. There was a need to cushion least developed countries (LCDs) of structural handicaps, and that was reflected in low-income level, high trade and industry vulnerability. These small nations faced challenges when trying to venture into global economy (Narayanan, 2013; Newint.org, 2013). The idea of the system was to protect them of supremacy based relations, and boost their bargaining power through the formation of effectual coalition to press for their development interests. In this line, and in the face of constant deadlock in bilateral talks, a series of talks to liberate trade in the WTO framework were commenced in run-up to the Bali agreement (Bellmann, 2014). In the 9th Bali ministerial conference, then came the Bali Package with the aim of facilitating trade; food security and helping least developed countries gain the liberalization they sought for since the inception of the WTO (WTO, 2013a). Trade facilitation This is an obligatory pledge made by all the WTO nations to make it easier for goods and services to cross borders. It involves making straightforward customs procedures, getting rid of red tape and ending corruption. The Bali package envisaged the reduction of trading costs, level customs procedures, lessen red tape, and enhance effectiveness and transparency (Trebilcock, Howse & Eliason, 2013). Consequently, it provided backing for emergent and least developed nations to bring up to date their infrastructure and prepare customs administrators, or for any other agreement implementation costs. The negotiations were mainly designed at advancing disciplines of three articles of the WTO’s 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (Footer & George, 2005). They embodied areas such as fostering transparency, standardizing documentation necessities and trade associated fees, and reorganization existing boundary procedures with precise disciplines (Laird, 2012). Agriculture and Food security The Bali upshot on agriculture was persistent in three critical areas. Two of the proposals submitted by the G20 faction of developing nations were in favour of reform and restructuring on developed countries’ farm trade guidelines. Of the two proposals one was on export subsidies whereas another was on tariff rate quotas (TRQs) (Bellmann, 2014). In the intervening time, the G33 merger of developing countries —domicile to considerable populations of small-scale farmers — had rallied behind an application from India stressing on public food stockholding (Williams, 2014). Also a separate application from West African nations, particularly on cotton, was got consideration as part of the lay down of “development” issue (Bellmann, 2014). Nonetheless, a peace clause agreed on which gave India consent to keep its rules in place but only on the foundation that the accord was provisional, with a permanent agreement to be accomplished within four years. Moreover, as with trade in service, the Bali ministerial agreed the council for Trade in Services (CTS) should kick off a process intended at endorsing the speedy execution of the Least Developed Nations services waivers (Hoda & Gulati, 2013). Failure on Agriculture subsidies When looking back at the anticipation of the Doha development plan, the Doha-related consequences of the Bali’s ministerial conference are remarkable for the failures or what was either partially or entirely not decided. What followed is elimination of Cotton subsidies together with permitting the stockpile for food shortages and tariff allowances, all subjected to the import authorization agreement (Ray, Mayer & Bixby, 2013). The developed nations granted LDCs quota and free duty-free marketplace access of about 97 % of tariff lines. However, the notable failure is that no precise, binding commitments were initiated to nail the deal. The Bali conference did not provide an agreement on domestic agricultural sustenance, tariff reduction of both agricultural and non-agricultural, and no agreement on services and on DSU reforms (Yokoi-Arai, 2008). Therefore, the negotiations failed changing the WTO law that could have furthered trade liberalization of LCDs agricultural products, particularly, phasing out of subsidies that have continually impeded the LCDs from accessing developed nations’ markets by only making commitments that countries will initiate actual amounts of export subsidy or financial support and corresponding measures that are considerably below the bound rates (Van den Borsches, 2013). Failure of tariff reduction The story is same with the tariff reduction on agricultural and non-agricultural products, for no substantial agreement to bind the members at compliance was put in place. Throughout the negotiations, the tariff rate allowance conversation remained to some degree a technical subject and was finally solved through the TRQ administration understanding (Bermann, Herdegen & Lindseth, 2001; Herdegen,2012). Similarly as with the debate on export subsidies, the tariff reductions were also dealt with using political statements. Despite the Doha WTO members committing in 2005 to do away with export subsidies by 2013 as part of a wider Doha arrangement, the deadline was missed due to the general stalemate in the round.The G20 however argued that tangible steps were required to demonstrate that WTO members remained solemn about accomplishing this goal, despite explicit target had been missed (Bellmann, 2014). Other quotas argued that such could be established in the Bali conference while not including matching steps on access to agricultural markets, domestic shore up and the rest of Doha agreement package (Bellmann, 2014). Finally, the Bali affirmation refrained from signing any legal pledge in this area. This meant that member countries would exercise utmost self-discipline in implementing any export subsidy and make sure to the maximum extent possible the advancement towards the analogous abolition of all types of export subsidies will be sustained (Bellmann, 2014). This was a total failure, because, without a binding agreement, there was nothing to guarantee compliance, and such has lead to the prevalent failure. Failure on Liberalization of Trade in Services As adopted in the Doha 2001, the affirmation of the TRIPS accord and public health avowed that that the WTO conformity on Trade-Related facets of Intellectual Property Rights. These rights were to be construed and implemented in a way that is compassionate of WTO members’ right to defend public health and to mainly support access to medicines for all, together with reaffirming that the Agreement provides flexibility in achieving its goals (Abbott, 2005). In addition, the declaration envisaged a further consideration because of the fact that some WTO members with inadequate or no industrialized capacities in the pharmaceutical industries could face impenetrability in making effectual use of obligatory licensing under the TRIPS Agreement. However, the decisions that followed were disappointments that left Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) anxious about access to medicines due to the complexities of the agreement, disagreeing that it would be impracticable in practice (Abbott, 2005 ). Even after the 2013 Bali agreement the failures to have a binding agreement are widespread. The failure on this issue is because there was little dedication to what the agreement envisaged in regard to services export. The CTS (Council on Trade in Services) was instructed to put efforts towards providing a list of service sector and means of supply for preferential right of entry of Least Developed Countries’ service traders and suppliers based on a request-offer premise (Bellmann, 2014). This accepted approach was very casual considering the significant and sensitivity of the trade on services, and therefore a forewarning for failure. The commitments were designed in a way that it depends on the willingness of boards and the Appellate Body to deduce the phrase ‘significant’ maximally. This has made it hard to safeguard trade in services as envisaged earlier. India’s stand on the Agreement India is ultimately one of the notable contenders in negotiating the route to take in regard to the Bali package. As proponents of the Bali package celebrated the achievement of by the WTO, critics such as India lamented vehemently that the agreement was skewed in errand of developed countries (Van den Bossche & Zdouc, 2013; Van den Bossche, n.d.). At the peak of the talks, the package also engrossed trade facilitation agreement with the objective of simplifying logistics as well as corresponding suggestion for agriculture and food security which were imperative for preponderance world nations. However, India held that the issue was controversial since it necessitated that these nations to devote in complicated customs technology despite the consequences of their level of development (Williams, 2014; Wright & Pereira, 2012). But significant concerns by India were on the issue of food security. These concerns by India collectively represented the position held by the G33 coalition made up of developing countries, which have a sizeable population of small-scale farmers. They all rallied behind India’s proposal on stockpiling of public foods. India, therefore, wanted an amendment to the existing agriculture agreement to protect their capacity to continue their food safety measures (Williams, 2014). These are measures through which Indian government procure food from farmers at higher than market rates to stock up on foods like sorghum, rice and wheat for allocation at subsidised prices at later times for their poorest citizens (Williams, 2014). That is why they protested that if the existing agreement is implemented as it was, these food security measures could face legal challenges, particularly if they exceeded the tight limit laydown by the WTO. Finally, India proposed the removal of the compulsion to account for the disparity between the fixed reference price and the administered price as a tawny box subsidy. In its place such price, they held that support plot should be considered well-matched with the “green box,” that is being subject to no limits (Bellmann, 2014). According to India, such flexibilities are essential for developing nations to support low-income and those with poor resource production while providing aid for food to poor consumers. In this framework, WTO rules ought not to get in the way of state members’ rights to the advancement food security (Coppens, 2010; Lowe, 2008). Bali’s Response to India’s plea In Bali conference, the ministerial could not resolve this intricate matter. As a replacement for it, they choose to initiate an interim resolution in the form of a peace article or clause and dedicated to finding an enduring solution in the 11th ministerial convention (WTO, 2013a) in 2017. What it meant is that, under such peace clause, which will provisional until a permanent resolution is arrived at; WTO nations shall provisionally refrain from lodging any legal grievance through the WTO dispute resolution system if a developing country surpasses its “amber box” bound as a outcome of food security stockholding (Bellmann, 2014). Nonetheless, the clause came with some conditions: first, it limited the application to only staple traditional subsistence crops and to ongoing programmes. Secondly it envisaged a series of transparency and notification requirements and the compulsion to hold sessions upon request. In the end, the stocks acquired under such plan should not unfavourably influence the food security of other nations (Cadot et al., 2011). Conclusion In wrapping this paper, it is paramount to reiterate that being the first of the achievement of the WTO, the Bali package is undoubtedly positive. However, the reforms remain far beneath what was envisaged in the Doha convention to ensure developing nations to derive better benefits from participation in the bilateral trading schemes. The failures of the Doha round of negotiations include the failure in subsidy phasing out, liberalization services, and failing to protect intellectual property rights. Bibliography Abbott, F. M., 2005. The WTO medicines decision: World pharmaceutical trade and the protection of public health. American Journal of International Law, 99(2), 317. Beierle, T. C., 2002. Agricultural Trade Liberalization—Uruguay, Doha, and Beyond. Journal of World Trade, 36(6), 1089-1110. Bellmannn, C., 2014. The Bali Agreement: Implications for Development and the WTO. Revue internationale de politique de développement, (5.2). Bermann, G. A., Herdegen, M., & Lindseth, P. L., 2001. Transatlantic regulatory cooperation: legal problems and political prospects. Oxford University Press. Cadot, O., Fernandes, A.M., Gourdon, J., and Mattoo, A., (eds.) 2011. Where to Spend the Next Million? Applying Impact Evaluation to Trade Assistance (Washington: World Bank, London: CEPR). Das, D. K., 2006. The Doha Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations and Trade in Agriculture. Journal of World Trade, 40(2), 259-290. Coppens, D., 2010. WTO Disciplines on Export Credit Support for Agricultural Products in the Wake of the US-Upland Cotton Case and the Doha Round of Negotiations 44. Journal of World Trade, 349. Hoda, A., and Gulati, A., 2013. India’s Agricultural Trade Policy and Sustainable Development. Geneva: ICTSD. Wright, H., and Pereira, R.A., 2012. Legal Framework for Clean Technology Transfer and Finance, in K. Makuch and R. Pereira (eds.) Environmental and Energy Law. Wiley-Blackwell. Laird, S., 2012. A Review of Trade Preference Schemes for the World’s Poorest Countries, ICTSD Program on Competitiveness and Development, Issue Paper No. 25 (Geneva: ICTSD). Lowe, A., 2008. International Economic Law. OUP, chapter 11. Herdegen, M., 2013. Principles of International Economic Law. OUP, chapters 15-18 & 27-28. Footer, M.E, and George, C., 2005. The General Agreement on Trade in Services in PFJ Macrory, A. Appleton, and M Plummer eds. The World Trade Organisation: Legal, Economic, and Political Analysis. Springer. Moïsé, E., 2013. The Costs and Challenges of Implementing Trade Facilitation Measures, Trade Policy Papers, No. 157, (Paris: OECD). Narayanan, S., 2013. In the Balance: The National Food Security Act vis-à-vis the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. Mumbai: Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research. Newint.org, 2013. World Development case study: World Trade Organization -- New Internationalist. [Online] Available at: http://newint.org/books/reference/world-development/case-studies/wto/ [Accessed 12 Dec. 2014]. Ray A. August, Mayer, D., & Bixby, M., 2013. International Business Law: Texts, Cases and Readings, sixth edition. Pearson, Prentice Hall. Trebilcock, M., Howse, R. and Eliason, A., 2013. The Regulation of International Trade. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis Van den Bossche, P., & Zdouc, W., 2013. The law and policy of the World Trade Organization. Cambridge University Press. Van den Bossche, P., n.d. WTO Rules on Technical Barriers to Trade. SSRN Journal. Williams, J., 2014. India Takes on the World Trade Organization. [Online] Toward Freedom. Available at: http://www.towardfreedom.com/28-archives/asia/3653-india-takes-on-the-world-trade-organization [Accessed 12 Dec. 2014]. WTO DOHA MINISTERIAL DECLARATION AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: AFRICAN PERSPECTIVES, 2001. African Yearbook of International Law Online / Annuaire African de droit international Online, 9(1), pp.185-211WTO (2013a), Bali Ministerial Declaration, Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013 WT/MIN(13)/DEC. Geneva: WTO. WTO, 2013. Duty-Free and Quota-Free (DFQF) Market Access for Least-Developed Countries, Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013, WT/MIN (13)/44, WT/L/919. Geneva: WTO. Yokoi-Arai, M., 2008. GATSPrudential Carve Out in Financial Services and Its Relation with Prudential Regulation. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 57(03), 613-648. Read More