• 'Allow Kamal Nath to negotiate at WTO'
  Economic Times, July 29, 2008
   
• North should not grudge large, emerging economies: Nath
  Zee News, July 29, 2008
   
• India is being marginalised at Geneva: CUTS
  Economic Times, July 28, 2008
   
• Food for thought
  The Financial Express, July 27, 2008
   
• 'Let's do trade, peace will follow'
  www.jang.com, July 27, 2008
   
• 'India, Brazil unity crucial to success of WTO talks'
  Economic Times, July 26, 2008
   
• A lose-lose situation
  The Financial Express, July 20, 2008
   
• India & Pakistan: Being economically savvy yields a peace dividend
  Economic Times, July 18, 2008
   
• Allow farmers to make hay while the sun shines
  The Financial Express, July 07, 2008
   
• Economic liberalisation, globalisation create hardship for farmers: study
  The Financial Express, July 07, 2008
   
• Let's up the ante on agriculture
  The Economic Times, July 05, 2008
   
• India wants fresh WTO drafts, seeks fair deal
  The Financial Express, July 03, 2008
   

Media Archive...

North should not grudge large, emerging economies: Nath
Zee News, July 29, 2008

Food for thought
The Financial Express, July 27, 2008

By Siddhartha Mitra

The Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) resulted in a decline in the tariffs imposed by developed countries to negligible levels. This was a matter of considerable jubilation for developing countries as their exports could now enter developed country markets more easily. Indeed experts reasoned that in the new era of almost complete openness in trade, countries could now specialise in areas of their comparative advantage to maximise productivity and then use the exchange mechanism underlying trade to augment welfare.

Thus, it was pointed out that self-sufficiency in food grains was no longer required by a country as it could meet its food grain deficits through resources generated from exports. The only people that emphasised self-reliance in food grains were stoic nationalists, who did not want to depend on other countries for their daily bread or bow to the cold logic offered by economists. The subsequent turn of events has vindicated the stand taken by such nationalists and defeated the cold logical arguments offered by pedants.

The above developments can be explained in the following manner. When developing countries pulled at and demolished the traditional system of tariff barriers to trade, they expected easier entry of their primary products into developed countries. Instead, most developed countries came up with an even more deadly and sophisticated set of barriers to agricultural trade which were promoted under the garb of national self interest. These were termed as Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) Measures. TBT were linked to product and process specifications. For example, using such restrictions an export consignment of mangoes can be returned if they are not of a certain hue or size or if the processes used for cultivation have not met certain requirements.

SPS measures on the other hand try to anticipate the danger caused to human, plant and animal health by export consignments through tests for concentrations of chemicals and pesticide residues. A ceiling is set for concentrations of residues in consignments. Consignments which exhibit concentrations exceeding this ceiling are returned to the country of origin by the importing country. These barriers have become so important that in a single year from August 2002 to July 2003, the US Food and Drug Administration rejected 630 Chinese shipments of agricultural and aquatic products. These barriers can therefore be a source of considerable loss for the exporting country.

India too has come under the hammer of such barriers and is likely to do so again and again in the future. The government has tried to tackle such barriers by promoting agricultural exporting zones in select crops. These zones try to encourage organic cultivation of cash crops, fruits and vegetables as such cultivation does not involve the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and therefore minimises the chances of rejection of exports because of SPS and TBT regulations.

It must be remembered though that organic cultivation is not only more labour intensive than conventional cultivation, but also involves un-remunerative crop rotation which diminishes income of the farmer. Moreover, organic yields are often lower then conventional yields. Further, the price premium provided for organic produce in international markets often is not high enough to compensate for the various increases in cost that a switch to organic farming entails and justify such cultivation for exports. The silver lining is that niche markets for organic products are projected to grow in the immediate future and price premiums being offered for them are also likely to widen.

The implication of the above discussion is that a country cannot rush headlong into specialisation in crops for export. Given the various cost increases that a switch from conventional to organic farming involves, the decision to produce organic crops has to involve a careful comparison of underlying costs and benefits. The decision to farm organically for export should be taken only if the benefits over-compensate the attendant costs. Thus, the above considerations dictate that crops can be cultivated for agricultural export only to a limited extent. In cases where the price premium being offered for organic produce in the international market does not compensate for the decrease in yields caused by a switch to organic farming or the attendant increases in costs, such a switch is not justified.

Thus, the traditional argument about focusing on areas of comparative advantage does not go through in the changed scenario as this very comparative advantage has been distorted by the mentioned non-tariff barriers. Therefore, a large-scale switch from food grain cultivation to export-oriented production which would then pay for resulting food grain deficits is no longer feasible. Indeed such a strategy could be dangerous and result in a massive net drain of foreign exchange reserves with the inflows from agricultural exports nowhere matching the outflows due to food grain imports.

To conclude, the need for self reliance in food grains still holds in today’s seemingly open but much more strategic world. The stoicism of nationalists emerges triumphant over the cold logic of the economic rationalist. In economics, like in life, the heart should sometimes be allowed to rule over the head.

The author is Director (Research), CUTS International, a leading research, advocacy and networking group and can be reached at sm2@cuts.org

interview
'Let's do trade, peace will follow'
www.jang.com, July 27, 2008

By Shahzada Irfan Ahmed

Pradeep S Mehta is the founder secretary general of the Jaipur-based Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS International), one of the largest consumer groups in India established in 1983-84. It has overseas centres in London, Geneva, Lusaka, Nairobi and Hanoi.

Mehta has also served on several policy-making bodies of the Government of India, related to trade, environment and consumer affairs, including the National Advisory Committee on International Trade of the Ministry of Commerce and its working groups. Besides, he chairs the advisory board of the South Asia Network on Trade, Economics and Environment, Kathmandu and has also been an NGO Adviser to the Director General, WTO, Geneva, Switzerland.

Recently he was on a personal visit to Lahore during which The News on Sunday got a chance to interview him in the backdrop of Pak government's decision to increase imports from India. Excerpts follow:

The News on Sunday: The PPP government is being criticised for announcing an 'India-centric' trade policy while many outstanding issues between the two states remain unresolved. What would you say on this?

Pradeep S Mehta: First, let me congratulate the Government of Pakistan on this visionary, bold and pro-Pakistan step. However, I would like to make a correction. It was Pakistan, sometime ago, under President Musharraf which first decided to put other bilateral matters on hold and concentrate more on bilateral and regional trade. This means even an army chief had to change his stance and focus his attention on issues related to trade and other fields where the people of the two countries could cooperate. About the second part of the question I would say the trade policy of Pakistan is not at all country specific. I feel the decision has been taken only for the reason that cheap imports from India, especially those of industrial raw materials, are the best option the country has to stay competitive in the international market, and also curb inflation.

I don't want to say that the two countries must forget the outstanding issues between them. What I am suggesting is that these countries must not link mutual trade with the resolution of some difficult issues. I am sure peace will follow if trade is allowed to grow freely. You may call it 'peace dividend' if you want to use a pure economic term. This is by no means a utopian thought. Brazil and Argentina, who were once at daggers drawn with each other, had to abandon their nuclear programmes and concentrate mainly on mutual trade. As a result smaller neighbouring countries of that region have also benefited.

TNS: Pakistan already has a yawning trade deficit with India which may increase manifold if the said trade policy is implemented. How do you think can Pakistan overcome this worry?

PSM: Here I would try to remove a misperception that trade deficit is detrimental to an economy's growth or survival. What if Pakistan has trade deficit with India? It also has a trade deficit with China. The United States has had trade deficit with the rest of the world, forever. Even China has trade deficit with India. It's a fact that out of the $30 billion India-China trade, Indian exports have an overwhelming share. China imports cheap raw material from India and sells the finished goods to the world. I think Pakistan can also benefit from the import of cheap Indian raw materials and minimise the ever-increasing costs of production its industry is burdened with.

Another count on which Pakistan can gain a lot is the transportation cost. The cost of transporting goods from the neighbouring India is much cheaper than getting them from distant countries. With global fuel prices constantly on the rise the transport cost factor is becoming more and more significant. About the import of cheap finished goods, it is very much expected that some businesses will shut down for being non-competitive. It happened in India too, when we had to liberalise the import of consumer goods. But at the same time the end consumers will have the opportunity to buy cheaper goods. Everywhere in the world imports are used to control prices and promote healthy competition.

TNS: There is a perception among many Pakistanis that the goodwill measures have been one-sided. They say while Pakistan is opening up its market, India has not shunned its habit of imposing non-tariff barriers on imports from Pakistan.

PSM: The perception is very much there on both sides of the border. But the fact is that they are mostly the sector lobbies that try to protect their interests by pressurising their respective governments. For example the Indian cement industry opposed cement imports from Pakistan on grounds that the product does not meet international quality standards. But finally the imports were allowed. My point is that if Pakistanis are using the same cement and their buildings are not coming down, there's no harm importing it. Similarly the Pakistani sugar industry kept on propagating for long that Indian sugar has excessive phosphorus content which is harmful to health. Here I would say if Indians can consume the same sugar without getting affected why can't Pakistanis have it. Some imports have often been opposed on religious grounds. In this respect I would say if the Arab states can import packed buffalo meat why can't any other Muslim country. In the overall context, if Pakistan liberalises imports from India, let me assure you that India will not lag behind. With the high growth in India, the market is huge and can absorb many goods from Pakistan, whether intermediates or finished goods.

TNS: How helpful can import of fuel from India be for Pakistan? Do you think the two countries can work together to overcome the deepening energy crises especially that faces Pakistan?

PSM: Here I would try to remove a misperception that trade deficit is detrimental to an economy's growth or survival. What if Pakistan has trade deficit with India? It also has a trade deficit with China. The United States has had trade deficit with the rest of the world, forever. Even India has trade deficit with China. It's a fact that out of the $30bn India-China trade, Chinese exports have an overwhelming share. China imports cheap raw material from India and sells the finished goods to the world. I think Pakistan can also benefit from the import of cheap Indian raw materials and minimise the ever-increasing costs of production its industry is burdened with.

Another project that can bring India and Pakistan closer and help meet their energy needs is the proposed gas pipeline that will come to India from Iran and pass through Pakistan. Pakistan will be able to earn a huge rental if this project gets through as well as get its share of the natural gas passing through it. India cannot sell electricity to Pakistan as it is facing energy crisis itself. It is as severe as the one haunting Pakistan. It's a fact that hardly 10 years back India was planning to buy 500 megawatt electricity from Pakistan. It is strange that the same country, which had surplus energy at that time, is unable to meet its domestic needs. Down the line, new investments in the power sector in Pakistan did not happen. That is something which your government should address more seriously.

TNS: You seem quite optimistic. But how can you convince those who fear smaller economies in South Asia will collapse due to India's exponential economic growth?

PSM: This is another Cassandraic and poorly-argued thought. All economies of the region can ride on the bandwagon of India's huge economic growth and gain. That has been the experience around similar situations. Let me take the example of Vietnam which is growing at 10 percent per annum for long, in spite of the giant China. One critical factor is that the government in Vietnam has kept their economy open, rather than close it to competition. This only goes on to prove my point. Saath chalen gay tu sab ka fayda hoga! 

(Revised on: August 08, 2008)

This interview can also be viewed at: http://jang.com.pk/

A lose-lose situation
The Financial Express, July 20, 2008

By Siddhartha Mitra

Agriculture is often characterised by poverty in plenty. The reason is that people have largely fixed levels of intake of staples such as rice and wheat; thus, abundance is often counterproductive for suppliers, leading to such a steep market clearing fall in prices that farm revenues often decline. Interestingly, climate change and the grim predictions of associated scarcity should analogously imply prosperity for farmers as consumers bid up prices to maintain their daily intake. The stickiness in consumption of staples might imply a really substantial increase in prices — so significant that revenues of farmers and, therefore, their net incomes might go up despite a yield decline.

Predictions of yield decline due to climate change suggest a figure of 6% of present levels for temperate developed countries and as much as 20% for tropical developed countries. For developed countries like the UK and US, the associated price increase might be a mixed blessing with grumpy consumers and buoyant farmers. But we cannot jump to such predictionsfor India.

Given that our agricultural marketing system is still driven by a long chain of intermediaries, who monopolise positions in the marketing chain to siphon off a large amount of the consumer expenditure on farm products, any large increase in retail prices would be dampened by the time they reach the farm gate. Thus, for example, consider a Rs 10 per kg increase in the retail price of rice. In a developed country almost this entire price increase would benefit the farmer. However, in an intermediary ridden farm economy like India only a moth-eaten price increase, of say Rs1, results at the farm gate. This really would not compensate the farmer adequately for the yield decline; while farmers from the developed world benefit those from developing countries like India might be in a sorrier state.

Thus, in countries like India there is no silver lining to the clouds of ‘climate change’ — its leaky agricultural economy would ensure that both farmers and consumers might be worse off. The only people to gain might be the intermediaries — the most undeserving lobby group as their revenues are born out of fortunate circumstances: favourable monopolistic positions in the market chain. With no such bonanzas flowing to productive actors such as farmers and accompanying yield losses, entrepreneurial activity among them would take a back seat; their lower incomes would prevent them from undertaking any productivity enhancing investment which would neutralise the yield reducing effect of climate change. Thus, we are looking at a scenario in the long run where differential rates of farm improvement and technological change in developed and developing countries (such as India) might make the distribution of agricultural incomes even more skewed in the future. This article is, however, not meant to be a prediction of doom. Rather, the idea is to highlight the trends in the Indian economy which might help us to overcome the mentioned difficulties.

Contract farming and direct farming — peasants entering into contracts with large retailers such as supermarkets or even selling produce on their own — have made a beginning in India and signify hope for the future. But these only account for a miniscule proportion of total agricultural transactions taking place in the Indian economy. Unless these reforms gather speed they will be soon swallowed and neutralised by the demons of climate change, paving the way for pauperisation of peasants and further agricultural decline. Time is certainly of the essence.

Pro-active government intervention might be a way out. For instance, in Jaipur, the government has made efforts to nurse back farmers to the pink of financial health by reserving a certain number of shops for them in the subzi mandi for direct sale of farm produce. Here they can make their own fortune instead of being short changed by hawk-like commission agents; the seeds for productivity increase have been sown.

Another way out is to encourage the formation of cooperatives, where farmers can pool their wealth together to arrange for means to transport produce to distant remunerative markets. The idea is to break down the narrow walls within which producers are hemmed in by the lack of infrastructure facilities and within which intermediaries thrive.

However, transport facilities on their own would not be adequate to galvanise peasants into action. Information, through computer kiosks, television and radio bulletins, as well as the print media might be the grease that might lead to greater mobility in agricultural produce and farmers across markets. This should ultimately culminate in the integration of agricultural markets in India with greater participation by farmers and the marginalisation of intermediaries whose interests have been served so well by our fractured agricultural markets.

With sufficient market integration and empowerment of the Indian farmer to realise the full value of produce, reluctance in undertaking entrepreneurial or investment activity in agriculture should soon become a thing of the past. That is, our farmers will become as responsive to price and market incentives as the farmer in the West. But the demons of climate change threaten to turn a bad dream into reality — things can only change if farmers and policy makers wake up and take quick action.

The author is Director (Research), CUTS International, a leading research, advocacy and networking group and can be reached at sm2@cuts.org

Allow farmers to make hay while the sun shines
The Financial Express, July 07, 2008

By Pradeep S Mehta

International trade gives the producers opportunities to gain when global price is higher than the price under autarky, that is, absence of international trade. This is surely the case of cotton where locally used varieties are priced lower than those internationally traded.

There are other opportunities from export as well—a bumper crop under autarky implies a price fall as supply becomes very large compared to demand. Excessive supply implies that producers have to bid prices down to sell their produce. In the presence of international trading opportunities, producers do not find themselves pushed into such a corner—after all an increase in the supply from just one country does not constitute much of a change in international market conditions, affording producers the opportunity of selling their larger produce at an unaltered price.

Thus, while in autarky we can have the paradox of ‘poverty in plenty’, by contrast abundance leads to prosperity for farmers when the economy is open to international trade. However, during crop failures, the government can always step in to alleviate the adverse effect of a lower produce sold at a steady international price through procurement at a minimum support price that exceeds this international price. Given that opening up the cotton sector to exports can produce higher incomes for farmers in good times and not be the cause of unavoidable harm in bad times, my submission is that we should not ban exports.

This argument can be backed up by statistical facts. There has been a quantum jump in cotton production and productivity in the last 3 or 4 years. As a consequence, India has been able to export increasing amounts of the standard international variety (medium staple) of cotton over time. The production of cotton rose by 23% in 2006-07 over 2005-06 to reach 22.7 million bales, out of which more than half was exported during that year. This has generated valuable foreign exchange for the government and higher incomes for farmers.

The Technology Mission on Cotton (TMC), launched in 2000, has undertaken a variety of measures to raise production and productivity of cotton; the yield rates have improved significantly, though they still remain much lower than average global rates. The fact that productivity might increase further implies that the Indian cotton farmer might see a further increase in his export incomes—a possibility that strengthens the case for continuing openness. With measures like TMC taken, it would be a pity if exports were banned. All these efforts would then yield a negative result as excess supply in the market would drive prices down to such an extent that farm revenues might fall instead of rising.

Exporting cotton has never looked this lucrative; the average global price of cotton jumped from Rs 47 per kg in 2005-06, to Rs 53 per kg in 2007-08, an increase of over 11%. Instead of banning the exports of cotton, we should eliminate intermediaries, thus facilitating larger gains for the farmer from each price rise in the international market. One way of doing this is to promote contract farming, where much needs to be done.

Our opinion is not based on any blind adherence to the principles of free trade. For example, we do advocate a ban on both iron ore and steel exports, given the need for augmentation of domestic supplies. An export ban on steel will bring relief to millions. But in the case of cotton it is the producers and not the consumers who need policy assistance. Continuation of cotton exports makes sense, now that the going is good.

To sum up, we support continuation of cotton exports because the prices from the international trade of cotton are definitely much higher than what farmers would get if they traded domestically. Given that cotton farmers have experienced very low incomes in the not so distant past, we should not remove the provisions for export at the present when international markets are booming. Rather exports should continue but precautionary steps such as a policy of yield insurance and a minimum support price should be combined with a greater spread of irrigation facilities and availability of cheaper inputs to boost productivity. Make hay while the sun shines.

The author is Secretary General, CUTS International, a leading research, advocacy and networking group and can be reached at psm@cuts.org

Economic liberalisation, globalisation create hardship for farmers: study
The Financial Express, July 07, 2008

By Ashok B Sharma

Economic liberalisation impacted by globalisation and the WTO has damaged the system of subsidies, price guarantees and food-aid that much of the population depended upon for their livelihood according to a study conducted by CUTS Centre for International Trade, Economics and Environment (CITEE).

CUTS and CITEE, which conducted a study on globalisation and livelihood concerns in Rajasthan and West Bengal, particularly in relation to agriculture and textiles and clothing sectors noted that the economic growth promise of globalisation was not released. “Caught in a new situation about which they are not even aware, people do not know how to navigate their way around and whom to negotiate with to secure their livelihoods. It is therefore important to redesign the policies and institutions to address the genuine concerns of the people in a new reality,” it said.

It called for active state intervention for unlocking the benefits of globalisation. Adequate steps should also be taken to facilitate modernisation and development of better infrastructure, quality control, R&D, training and skill generation, innovation and marketing strategies, it said.

“The condition of the workers, in terms of basic labour standards like regularity of jobs, right to strike, minimum wages is being undermined. Therefore, enforcement of labour laws should be made effective,” said the CUTS-CITEE field survey, supported by the Royal Norwegian Embassy in India and Oxfam Novib-the Netherlands.

It also noted that women's participation in the decision-making was abysmally low and wherever present was usually for namesake only. The study criticised poor implementation of the Foreign Trade Policy at the grassroots level.

Liberalisation of the farm sector has caused significant changes in agricultural patterns across various districts of West Bengal and the factor primarily responsible was the competition not only from neighbouring countries but also from other regions of the country. In the Uttara Dinajpur district imported paddy resulted in lower prices for even high quality local paddy such as Tulaipanji. Farmers shifted to plantation of tea. Similarly in North, 24-paraganas district high quality paddy brought from outside West Bengal at cheaper prices affected the paddy cultivation in the district and farmers began switching over to mango plantation.

“Even in sectors such as tea and oranges in Darjeeling is getting affected due to competition from Sri Lanka and China as also from elsewhere in the country. Packaging and marketing of tea have greatly improved in South India and Assam and is posing a great challenge. The state support provided to horticulture in Maharashtra has caused an influx of oranges into West Bengal, causing widespread impact on the livelihood of many farmers,” the study documented.

Similar changes in farming patterns are noticed in Rajasthan. Many farmers are now concentrating on cash crops such as soybean, groundnut, mustard, fruit and vegetables. In Dausa district, traditional crops like jowar and bajra are being replaced by gwar mustard and groundnut. In Bikaner district farmers are switching over to groundnut, mustard and gram. In Shahbad tehsil farmers are switching over to soybean from wheat, maize and jowar which they had been cultivating for over 10 years.

The textiles and clothing sector in both West Bengal and Rajasthan has suffered on account of liberalisation and globalisation.

This news item can also be viewed at: http://www.financialexpress.com/

Let's up the ante on agriculture
The Economic Times, July 05, 2008

By Pradeep S Mehta

Marie Antoinette, the 18th century queen of France, famously asked the famished French citizens to eat cake if they cannot find any bread. The reaction of developed country members of the WTO and their businesses to legitimate and agreed, ‘less than full reciprocity’ (LTFR) condition in negotiating a balanced deal on non-agricultural market access (NAMA) appears no different.

The automobile lobby in India is already howling, because this could mean allowing import of auto components from other countries which are able to produce at a lower cost than our manufacturers. This is not to say that Indian manufacturers are not competitive, but inherently the cost of all inputs from energy to raw materials to finance is higher and they don’t have to deal with myriad bureaucratic hassles, all the time.

Worse is the possibility of allowing import of second hand cars, which is currently not allowed. The auto industry argues that import of second-hand cars is akin to import of toxic goods and hence cannot be considered at all. We already have a sufficient capacity in the country and are also exporting automobiles.

What happened at Geneva in the last week of June? The rich countries have upped the ante in the NAMA negotiations by insisting on working details on how a draft clause, hidden in an obscure para of the NAMA text of May 2008, should be adhered to by developing countries.

This is the so-called anti-concentration clause, aiming to severely restrict the flexibilities for developing countries in deciding which sensitive industrial products can be designated for reduced tariff cuts. The developing countries insist that there must be a trigger for determining which tariff lines in harmonised system (HS) classification will be eligible for the treatment of sensitive products.

In the recent negotiations, through their typical divide-and-rule ploys, they have weaned away Brazil and Mexico from the developing country camp, which was opposing this clause. Developing countries are back to being on the defensive.

Do we need to be defensive? If we have not learnt any lessons from the past GATT negotiations, we will. Instead, if we can act like the mature negotiators we ought to have become after the emergence of various groups like G-20 and G-33 in agriculture, NAMA-11 and most important, the new quad (US, EC, Brazil, India), we need not be defensive at all. In fact, there is a lot of room for offense here.

First, the agreed LTFR content was that the flexibility has to be real and meaningful. They can explain how that agreement will be thwarted by insisting upon triggers at 4- and 6- and national digit HS levels. There is enough scope of doing simulations, says the auto component sector in India, to bring home the point.

Second, they can use the ricochet action: ask the rich whether similar triggers should be put in the sensitive products in agriculture negotiations; they are likely to cringe at the possibility. If India has to accede to the anti-concentration clause in industrial tariffs on auto components, why should not, for instance, the EC abide by it in agriculture tariffs and subsidies in poultry or the US in dairy products or Norway in meat?

Third, agriculture continues to be the Achilles heel of the developing countries. The new US farm Bill and the new EC CAP are taken as such sacrosanct national compulsions that any argument about real cuts in subsidies is not even discussed seriously.

Why should this anomaly be tolerated? Let us bring up their own domestic compulsions: poverty reduction, rural development and small farm protection, small and medium sector enterprise development, industrial protection programmes, etc. There will be scores of such programmes, some of them even funded by donors from the developed country governments and charities. Let all these programmes be considered equally sacrosanct and built into the texts as non-negotiable.

Finally, the boxes in the agriculture agreement are strange, but now we understand the WTO jargon better. Taking a convoluted traffic light approach, three boxes determine how domestic support to agriculture will be allowed, regulated or prohibited.

The green box is for permissible subsidies, the blue box is for such allowed subsidies that are tied to programmes that limit production, and amber box is for every other subsidy that gets subjected to reduction commitments. Whatever does not get slotted in any of the boxes, but is a prohibited subsidy under the WTO subsidies agreement, is kaput.

The boxes fooled developing countries in the Uruguay Round; we should not be fooled again. The Agriculture Agreement limits what gets slotted in blue box and the green box. The green box is a broad concept that even the amendments proposed in the May 2008 text do not pin them down sufficiently.

The amber box is not defined anywhere; the Agriculture Agreement transfers all unlabelled domestic support (blue or green box) into it. It is time, that we insist upon a positive list for both these boxes so that items are not merrily added after the deal is done. The fact that Brazil had to fight a costly dispute to get market access in cotton, and even after winning the dispute has to search for items on which it can retaliate without affecting its own economy, should squarely prove the point.

For both the positive lists of green and amber boxes, any new entry should need re-negotiations. After all, this is what the NAMA (industrial market access) commitments entail. Any binding which a member wishes to increase has to be renegotiated with the rest of the members, which is the done thing under the WTO agreement.

The point is not what to choose, or whether to choose any of the above options. The point is that we should now show the maturity we have acquired by working together in various groupings and stand up to the rich by proposing tools as beneficial to us as they use. This is the end game, some say. Let this be the start of the real game, the game where equals meet with equally profound arguments backed by equally hard evidence of the need for the success of the argument.

The author is Secretary General, CUTS International, a leading research, advocacy and networking group and can be reached at psm@cuts.org