WTO The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the only global international organization dealing with the rules

of trade between nations. At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the worlds trading nations and ratified in their parliaments. The goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their business.

INDIA AND WTO

It is not by accident, but by agreed intent that we have called these negotiations the Development Round and not a Market Access Round. Any outcome in this Round and at Hong Kong would need to pass this litmus test - development outcome test - and not ambition in market access alone as seen by some Members. In fact, I have been calling for a 'Development Audit' of the Uruguay Round, as a mean to assessing the developmental impact both positive & negative of the Uruguay Round. Such an audit would help us tremendously in avoiding pitfalls, if any, and building upon strengths. In Agriculture, it remains critical to our collective interests that the trade-distorting subsidies and protection provided by a few developed countries are eliminated so that a level playing field is established. Export subsidies of all forms must be eliminated by a definite date and trade distorting domestic support substantially reduced under the Doha Round, in order to provide market access opportunities to all and to deliver the development dimension. Agriculture supports and provides livelihood to the bulk of the farming community in the developing world. The viability and dynamism of our agriculture sector remains essential to secure success in our poverty alleviation strategies. We cannot accept proposals that would have the potential to disrupt our social and economic fabric. Tariffs remain the only instrument of protection and for safeguarding food and livelihood security and rural development. Appropriate policy space must be intrinsic to any agreement at Hong Kong and beyond. For India, satisfaction on appropriate number of Special Products and Special Safeguard Mechanism with price and volume triggers are absolutely essential. We have been mobilizing the G-33 on this. I have constantly maintained that we cannot establish any linkage between Sensitive Products & Special Products, either in selection or number or treatment. Sensitive products are sensitive commercially; whereas special products are special because they deal with the food & livelihood security of millions of poor people.

The first & foremost point we have been making is that Para 8 flexibilities (to set aside a certain percentage of our products and keep them insulated from tariff cuts) is a standalone provision, and cannot be traded off against less than full reciprocity in the tariff reductions formula. In non-agricultural market access (NAMA) negotiations, India seeks significant market access for developing countries through reduction in tariff peaks, tariff escalation, high tariffs and non-tariff barriers in the developed countries on products of our export interest. Here again any proposal for Swiss formula with a single coefficient for developing and developed countries alike is a non-starter. Developed countries are to undertake greater percentage reduction commitments through the formula. Para 4 is clear on this. We should determine the level of ambition in reduction percentage terms, and not in endresult terms. There is no mandate for harmonization. Under Services, progress in negotiations have been slower than we desire, but hold promise of optimistic results. 28 countries including India have submitted their Revised Offers. India filed its revised offer in August. India's Revised Offer is a substantial improvement over the Initial Offer. (11 sectors and 94 sub-sectors are covered in the Revised Offer, as opposed to 7 sectors and 47 sub-sectors in our Initial offer). Unfortunately, there is not much improvement in areas of interest to India viz. Movement of Natural Persons (Mode 4) and Cross Border Supply (Mode 1) in the offers of developed countries, but discussions in the Group co-chaired by India have been positive, and we expect a better result. Coupled with market access (Mode 4) commitments, it is equally important to have disciplines on domestic regulations. In particular, qualification requirements, licensing requirements and technical standards should not be such as to impede effective market access. In the light of the architecture of GATS, proposals based on quantitative targets on a onesize-fits-all basis disregards the ability and sensitivities of developing countries, and so we have opposed it. We have suggested qualitative bench marking, instead. Developing countries are a recognised repository of traditional knowledge. The traditional knowledge of their indigenous communities has been used for ages to provide cost effective cures for a number of ailments. Developing countries have, therefore, sought amendments in the TRIPS Agreement to prevent bio piracy of biological material and to prevent misappropriation of traditional knowledge. We are asking for disciplines on disclosure of the source of origin of the biological resources and traditional knowledge along with securing prior informed consent and equitable benefit sharing. It is a matter of concern that developed countries have been attempting to introduce a new classification of 'advanced developing countries'. We have made it clear that any such divisive attempt can derail the round.

The emergence of G-20, of which India is a founder member, and the lead role being played by it has been pivotal in the area of agriculture negotiations. India has been actively engaged in different formats (FIPs, G-4, G-20, G-33, Core Group on Services) in the negotiations and would continue to play a constructive role in pursuing its national interests. In fact, in the FIPs, India along with Brazil are representatives of the G-20. I have just come back from G-4 meeting on November 7 which India hosted at London and meeting of some key Ministers at Geneva. There are such wide gaps in the negotiating positions. Therefore, expectations for Hong Kong would need to be calibrated downwards. But this does not mean that the major milestone but all the same, a milestone, is on the way. It was never meant to be the final destination. In my assessment, another 6 months or so of negotiations would be required after Hong Kong in order to accomplish full modalities. The next few days are crucial in order to make progress. All efforts would need to be made to bridge the gaps in positions. The onus, however, remains on the developed countries to move and to meet the aspirations of developing countries. In my interaction with key Trade Ministers, I have made it very clear that July Framework was not up for re-negotiations and there was no question of it being reopened. India is willing to work with other countries with a view to delivering pro-development outcomes and balanced progress on all issues under negotiations.