This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search The Uruguay Round was the 8th round of Multilateral trade negotiations (MTN) conducted within the framework of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), spanning from 1986-1994 and embracing 123 countries as “contracting parties”. The Round transformed the GATT into the World Trade Organization. The Round came into effect in 1995 and has been implemented over the period to 2000 (2004 in the case of developing country contracting parties) under the administrative direction of the newly created World Trade Organization (WTO). The Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture, administered by the WTO, brings agricultural trade more fully under the GATT. It provides for converting quantitative restrictions to tariffs and for a phased reduction of tariffs. The agreement also imposes rules and disciplines on agricultural export subsidies, domestic subsidies, and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures. The Doha Development Round was the next trade round to commence in 2001.
• • • • • • •
1 Goals 2 History
3 Achievements 4 Criticism 5 See also 6 References 7 External links
The main objectives of the Uruguay Round were:
to reduce agricultural subsidies to put restrictions on foreign investment, and to begin the process of opening trade in services like banking and insurance.
They also wanted to draft a code to deal with copyright violation and other forms of intellectual property rights.
The round was launched in Punta del Este, Uruguay in September 1986, followed by negotiations in Montreal, Geneva, Brussels, Washington, D.C., and Tokyo, with the 20 agreements finally being signed in Marrakesh - the Marrakesh Agreement - in April 1994.
The 1982 Ministerial Declaration identified problems including structural deficiencies, spill-over impacts of certain countries' policies on world trade GATT could not manage. To address these issues, the eighth GATT round (known as the Uruguay Round) was launched in September 1986, in Punta del Este, Uruguay. It was the biggest negotiating mandate on trade ever agreed: the talks were going to extend the trading system into several new areas, notably trade in services and intellectual property, and to reform trade in the sensitive sectors of agriculture and textiles; all the original GATT articles were up for review. The round was supposed to end in December 1990, but the US and EU disagreed on how to reform agricultural trade and decided to extend the talks. Finally, In November 1992, the US and EU settled most of their differences in a deal known informally as "the Blair House accord", and on April 15, 1994, the deal was signed by ministers from most of the 123 participating governments at a meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco. The agreement established the World Trade Organization, which came into being upon its entry into force on January 1, 1995, to replace the GATT system. It is widely regarded as the most profound institutional reform of the world trading system since the GATT's establishment.
The GATT still exists as the WTO's umbrella treaty for trade in goods, updated as a result of the Uruguay Round negotiations (a distinction is made between GATT 1994, the updated parts of GATT, and GATT 1947, the original agreement which is still the heart of GATT 1994). The GATT 1994 is not, however, the only legally binding agreement included in the Final Act; a long list of about 60 agreements, annexes, decisions and understandings was adopted. In fact, the agreements fall into a simple structure with six main parts: •
an umbrella agreement (the Agreement Establishing the WTO); agreements for each of the three broad areas of trade that the WTO covers: goods and investment (the Multilateral Agreements on Trade in Goods including the GATT 1994 and the Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMS)), General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), and Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS); dispute settlement (DSU); Agreement on Customs Valuation and reviews of governments' trade policies (TPRM).
Groups such as Oxfam have criticized the Uruguay Round for paying insufficient attention to the special needs of developing countries. One aspect of this criticism is that figures very close to rich country industries — such as former Cargill executive Dan Amstutz — had a major role in the drafting of Uruguay Round language on agriculture and other matters. As with the WTO in general, Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Health Gap and Global Trade Watch also criticize what was negotiated in the Round on intellectual property and industrial tariffs as setting up too many constraints on policy-making and human needs.
 See also
Golan v. Gonzales, a challenge to the copyright restoration provisions of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1996, the implementation of the Uruguay Round agreements in the United States Code Tokyo Round Doha Round
Doha Development Round
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
The Doha Development Round started in 2001 and continues today.
The Doha Development Round or Doha Development Agenda (DDA) is the current tradenegotiation round of the World Trade Organization (WTO) which commenced in November 2001. Its objective is to lower trade barriers around the world, which will help facilitate the increase of global trade. As of 2008, talks have stalled over a divide on major issues, such as agriculture, industrial tariffs and non-tariff barriers, services, and trade remedies. The most significant differences are between developed nations led by the European Union (EU), the United States (USA), and Japan and the major developing countries led and represented mainly by Brazil, China, India, South Korea, and South Africa. There is also considerable contention against and between the EU and the USA over their maintenance of agricultural subsidies—seen to operate effectively as trade barriers. The Doha Round began with a ministerial-level meeting in Doha, Qatar in 2001. Subsequent ministerial meetings took place in Cancún, Mexico (2003), and Hong Kong (2005). Related negotiations took place in Geneva, Switzerland (2004, 2006, 2008); Paris, France (2005); and Potsdam, Germany (2007). The most recent round of negotiations, 23–29 July 2008, broke down after failing to reach a compromise on agricultural import rules. After the breakdown, major negotiations were not expected to resume until 2009. Nevertheless, intense negotiations, mostly between the USA, China, and India, were held in the end of 2008 in order to agree on negotiation modalities. However, these negotiations did not result in any progress.
[hide] • 1 Negotiations ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ • • 1.1 Before Doha 1.2 Doha, 2001 1.2.1 Importance of US presidential 'fast-track' authority 1.3.1 Collapse of negotiations 1.3 Cancún, 2003 1.4 Geneva, 2004 1.5 Paris, 2005 1.6 Hong Kong, 2005 1.7 Geneva, 2006 1.8 Potsdam, 2007 1.9 Geneva, 2008 3 Issues ○ ○ ○ ○ • • • • • 3.1 Agriculture 3.2 Access to patented medicines 3.3 Special and differential treatment 3.4 Implementation issues 1.9.1 Collapse of negotiations
2 Current progress
4 Benefits 5 See also 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External links
Doha Round talks are overseen by the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC), whose chair is the WTO’s director-general, currently Pascal Lamy. The negotiations are being held in five working groups and in other existing bodies of the WTO. Selected topics under negotiation are discussed below in five groups: market access, development issues, WTO rules, trade facilitation and other issues.
 Before Doha
Before the Doha ministerial, negotiations had already been under way on trade in agriculture and trade in services. These ongoing negotiations had been required under the last round of
multilateral trade negotiations (the Uruguay Round, 1986–1994). However, some countries, including the United States, wanted to expand the agriculture and services talks to allow tradeoffs and thus achieve greater trade liberalization. The first WTO ministerial conference, which was held in Singapore in 1996, established permanent working groups on four issues: transparency in government procurement, trade facilitation (customs issues), trade and investment, and trade and competition. These became known as the Singapore issues. These issues were pushed at successive ministerials by the European Union, Japan and Korea, and opposed by most developing countries. Since no agreement was reached, the developed nations pushed that any new trade negotiations must include these issues. The negotiations were intended to start at the ministerial conference of 1999 in Seattle, USA, and be called the Millennium Round but, due to several different events including protest activity outside the conference (the so-called "Battle of Seattle"), the negotiations were never started. Due to the failure of the Millennium Round, it was decided that negotiations would not start again until the next ministerial conference in 2001 in Doha, Qatar. Just months before the Doha ministerial, the United States had been attacked by terrorists on 11 September 2001. Some government officials called for greater political cohesion and saw the trade negotiations as a means toward that end. Some officials thought that a new round of multilateral trade negotiations could help a world economy weakened by recession and terrorism-related uncertainty. According to the WTO, the year 2001 showed "...the lowest growth in output in more than two decades," and world trade contracted that year.
 Doha, 2001
Main article: WTO Ministerial Conference of 2001
Began in November 2001, committing all countries to negotiations opening agricultural and manufacturing markets, as well as trade-in-services (GATS) negotiations and expanded intellectual property regulation (TRIPS). The intent of the round, according to its proponents, was to make trade rules fairer for developing countries. However, by 2008, critics were charging that the round would expand a system of trade rules that were bad for development and interfered excessively with countries' domestic "policy space".
 Importance of US presidential 'fast-track' authority
The round had been planned for conclusion in December 2005 — after two more ministerial conferences had produced a final draft declaration. The WTO pushed back its self-imposed deadline to slightly precede the expiration of the U.S. President's Congressional Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority. Any declaration of the WTO must be ratified by the U.S. Congress to take effect in the United States. Trade Promotion Authority prevents Congress from amending the draft. It expired on 30 June 2007, and congressional leaders decided not to renew this authority for President George W Bush.
 Cancún, 2003
Main article: WTO Ministerial Conference of 2003
The 2003 Cancún talks—intended to forge concrete agreement on the Doha round objectives— collapsed after four days during which the members could not agree on a framework to continue
This is reflected by the new trade bloc of developing and industrialized nations: the G20. including an elimination of agricultural export subsidies. Developing countries too played an active part in negotiations this year.negotiations. With these issues pushed aside.S. but several developing countries refused any consideration of these issues at all. but is spearheaded by the G4 (the People's Republic of China. there was some criticism of procedure. Compromise was also achieved over the negotiation of the Singapore issues as the EU and others decided. and possibly dropping investment and competition. Brazil. it was questioned whether some countries had come to Cancún with a serious intention to negotiate. was faulted for ending the meeting when he did. Cancún ministerial chairman. the wide difference between developing and developed countries across virtually all topics was a major obstacle. Second. Mexico’s Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez. The North-South divide was most prominent on issues of agriculture. This meeting was intended to create a framework for further negotiations. The failure to advance the round resulted in a serious loss of momentum and brought into question whether the 1 January 2005 deadline would be met. differences over the Singapore issues seemed incapable of resolution. Also. The collapse seemed like a victory for the developing countries. Some claimed the agenda was too complicated. The EU had retreated on some of its demands. While the G20 presumes to negotiate on behalf of all of the developing world. the negotiators in Geneva were able to concentrate on moving forward with the Doha Round. government agro-subsidies) became a major sticking point. Negotiations were suspended for the remainder of 2003. U. show strikingly different approaches to special and differential treatment. Developed countries’ farm subsidies (both the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy and the U. a few countries showed no flexibility in their positions and only repeated their demands rather than talk about trade-offs. the G20 has had fluctuating membership. The U.S. Fourth. Low key talks continued since the ministerial meeting in Doha but progress was almost non-existent. In the months leading up to the talks in Geneva. and negotiations resumed in March 2004.” The Singapore issues were moved off the Doha agenda. instead of trying to move the talks into areas where some progress could have been made. In the view of some observers. the EU accepted the elimination of agricultural export subsidies “by date certain. India. considering further action on government procurement.  Geneva. many of the poorest nations continue to have little influence over the emerging WTO proposals. Third.-EU agricultural proposal and that of the G20 developing nations. This intervention was credited at the time with reviving interest in the negotiations. 2004 The aftermath of Cancún was one of standstill and stocktaking. for example. First. Starting in early 2004. The developing countries were seen as finally having the confidence to reject a deal that they viewed as unfavorable. WTO members reached what has become known as the Framework Agreement(sometimes called the July . Since its creation.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick pushed for the resumption of negotiations by offering a proposal that would focus on market access. and second by working toward acceptance of trade facilitation as a subject for negotiation. He also said that the Singapore issues could progress by negotiating on trade facilitation. first by India and Brazil negotiating directly with the developed countries (as the so-called “non-party of five”) on agriculture. and South Africa).  Collapse of negotiations The Cancún ministerial collapsed for several reasons. After intense negotiations in late July 2004.
Package). In addition. Trade ministers representing most of the world's governments reached a deal that sets a deadline for eliminating subsidies of agricultural exports by 2013. Paris talks were hanging over a few issues: France protested moves to cut subsidies to farmers. The agreement contains a 4-page declaration. making trade negotiators fear that agreement on large politically risky issues will be substantially harder. 2005 Trade negotiators wanted to make tangible progress before the December 2005 WTO meeting in Hong Kong. a goal of the United Nations for many years. "I now believe it is possible. and held a session of negotiations in Paris in May 2005.   Paris. while the U. which I did not a month ago. dispute settlement. the agreement acknowledges the activities of other negotiating groups (such as those on rules." . Australia.. Director-general Pascal Lamy said. respectively. with four annexes (A-D) covering agriculture. Brazil and India failed to agree on issues relating to chicken. Most of the sticking points were small technical issues. 13 to 18 December 2005. services. which was the site of the Sixth WTO Ministerial Conference Main article: WTO Ministerial Conference of 2005 The Sixth WTO Ministerial Conference took place in Hong Kong. which provides broad guidelines for completing the Doha round negotiations. WTO director-general Pascal Lamy announced in November 2005 that a comprehensive agreement on modalities would not be forthcoming in Hong Kong. and intellectual property) and exhorts them to fulfill their Doha round negotiating objectives. nonagricultural market access. and trade facilitation. also requires industrialized countries to open their markets to goods from the world's poorest nations.S. and that the talks would “take stock” of the negotiations and would try to reach agreements in negotiating sectors where convergence was reported. The declaration gave fresh impetus for negotiators to try to finish a comprehensive set of global free trade rules by the end of 2006. the EU. The agreement also abandoned the 1 January 2005 deadline for the negotiations and set December 2005 as the date for the 6th ministerial to be held in Hong Kong.  Hong Kong. The final declaration from the talks. 2005 The Hong Kong Convention Center. which resolved several issues that have stood in the way of a global trade agreement. beef and rice. Although a flurry of negotiations took place in the fall of 2005.
 After one week of negotiations. was absent from the first few days of the conference due to a vote of confidence being conducted in India's Parliament. Bush was due to expire in 2007. many considered agreement to be 'within reach'. president George W. A successful outcome of the Doha round became increasingly unlikely. In particular. "Developing country Members receive special and differential treatment with respect to other Members' safeguard measures.S. negotiators and decrease the willingness of other countries to participate.— Technical Information on Safeguard Measures WTO official site Negotiations had continued since the last conference in June 2007. As users of safeguards. with regard to permitted duration of extensions.S. Director-general Pascal Lamy said before the start of the conference that the odds of success were over 50%. in the form of a de minimis import volume exemption. developing country Members receive special and differential treatment with respect to applying their own such measures. which would hinder the U. as a major impasse occurred between the USA. Trade Representative Susan Schwab announced that the U. Raymond Young. The main disagreement was over opening up agricultural and industrial markets in various countries and how to cut rich nation farm subsidies.S. In response.  Geneva. 2008 On 21 July 2008.2 billion in 2006. Hong Kong offered to mediate the collapsed trade liberalisation talks. negotiations within the Doha round broke down at a conference in Potsdam.  India and China's hard stance regarding tariffs and subsidies was severely criticized by the United States. Congress with the possibility of amendments. and the EU also offered an increase in the number of temporary work visas for professional workers.S. 2007 In June 2007. Around 40 ministers attended the negotiations. Director-general of Trade and Industry. India. there was insoluble disagreement between India and the United . there were disagreements on issues including special protection for Chinese and Indian farmers and African and Caribbean banana imports to the EU. negotiations started again at the WTO's HQ in Geneva on the Doha round but stalled after nine days of negotiations over the refusal to compromise over the special safeguard mechanism. However.S. and China. which hosted the last round of Doha negotiations. India's Commerce Minister. from $18. and negotiations took months to resume. The U. U. which were only expected to last five days but instead lasted nine days. India and Brazil. India's Commerce Minister said "I'm not risking the livelihood of millions of farmers. Kamal Nath. because the broad trade authority granted under the Trade Act of 2002 to U. and with respect to re-application of measures. The proposal was on the condition that countries such as Brazil and India drop their objections to various aspects of the round. has a "moral high-ground" on free trade that allows it to play the role of "honest broker"."  Collapse of negotiations The negotiations collapsed on 29 July over issues of agricultural trade between the United States. 2006 The July 2006 talks in Geneva failed to reach an agreement about reducing farming subsidies and lowering import taxes. the EU. Any trade pact would then have to be approved by the U.S. says the territory. would cap its farm subsidies at $15 billion a year.  Geneva. On the second day of the conference.The conference pushed back the expected completion of the round until the end of 2006.  Potsdam.
  Current progress Several countries have called for negotiations to start again. saying that "We've been at this Doha round for far too long. Lula has urged Barack Obama to end the trade dispute between Brazil and the US over cotton subsidies following his increase in tariffs on over 100 US goods. the agriculture talks had been harmed by the five-year program of agricultural subsidies recently passed by the U." He also said that out of a to-do list of 20 topics. one of the founding members of the G20. Lamy visited India to discuss possible solutions to the impasse. The WTO is involved in several events every year that provide opportunities to discuss and advance.2009 is the desire of political leaders to shelter their constituents from the increasingly competitive market experienced during market contractions. Although a WTO ministerial conference scheduled in November 2009 would not be a negotiating session. One of the consequences of the economic crisis of 2008 . former president of Brazil. Lamy has highlighted the difficulty of obtaining agreement from the US without the Presidential fast track authority and biennial elections. "Members have simply not been able to bridge their differences.S. at a conceptual level. In early 2010. It's frankly ridiculous that it has taken 10 years to do .S. Congress. was sacrificing the world's poor for U. Pascal Lamy said. India's Commerce Minister. with the United States arguing that the threshold had been set too low.States over the special safeguard mechanism (SSM).S.  On a more optimistic note. 18 had seen positions converge but the gaps could not narrow on the 19th — the special safeguard mechanism for developing countries. which he said was "one of the most reactionary farm bills in the history of the U. A mini-ministerial meeting held in India on September 3 and 4 pledged to complete the round by the end of 2010. India claimed that its position (i. Then-European Commissioner for Trade Peter Mandelson said that India and China should not be blamed for the failure of the Doha round. In his view. Brazil and Pascal Lamy have led this process. could be countered by successful conclusion of the Doha round. called several countries leaders to urge them to renew negotiations. The United States and some European Union members blamed India for the failure of the talks. that the U. there would be several opportunities over the year 2009 to discuss the progress. At the 2011 annual conference of the World Economic Forum in Davos British Prime Minister David Cameron called for the Doha talks to conclude by the end of the year.S. to keep on the table what is there.". Kamal Nath. the United States. trade negotiations. quoted as the largest annual drop since the Second World War. The declaration at the end of the G20 summit of world leaders in London in 2009 included a pledge to complete the Doha round. said "I would only urge the director-general to treat this [failure of talks] as a pause. China and India could not agree on the threshold that would allow the mechanism to be used. Brazil and Lamy have focused on the role of the United States in overcoming the deadlock.e. broke away from the position held by India. The European Union Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson characterized the collapse as a "collective failure". a measure designed to protect poor farmers by allowing countries to impose a special tariff on certain agricultural goods in the event of an import surge or price fall. However. not a breakdown." Several countries blamed each other for the breakdown of the negotiations. Lamy hopes that the drop in trade of 12% in 2009. Brazil./European commercial interests) was supported by over 100 countries. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
The United States is insisting that the EU and the developing countries agree to make more substantial reductions in tariffs and to limit the number of import-sensitive and special products that would be exempt from cuts. WTO members reached agreement on the TRIPS and medicines issue. A second deals with a review of provisions giving special and differential treatment to developing countries.this deal. food security.-Brazil cotton dispute). member governments approved a decision that offered an interim waiver under the TRIPS Agreement allowing a member country to export pharmaceutical products made under compulsory licenses to least-developed and certain other members. effective and operational. and the vast majority are dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods. to make a more generous offer for reducing trade-distorting domestic support for agriculture. the trade ministers reaffirmed special and differential (S&D) treatment for developing countries and agreed that all S&D treatment provisions “. Three other issues have been important... The issue involves the balance of interests between the pharmaceutical companies in developed countries that held patents on medicines and the public health needs in developing countries. Voting in the General Council. while developing countries are concerned with special products — those exempt from both tariff cuts and subsidy reductions because of development. especially by the United States (some of which it successfully challenged in the WTO U. Additional information on the framework of the DOHA Development Round.” The United States is being asked by the European Union (EU) and the developing countries. Before the Doha meeting. while India has insisted on a large number of special products that would not be exposed to wider market opening. called for the end agreement to commit to substantial improvements in market access. reductions (and ultimate elimination) of all forms of export subsidies. the United States claimed that the current language in TRIPS was flexible enough to address health emergencies. a third addresses problems that developing countries are having in implementing current trade obligations.  Brazil has emphasized reductions in trade-distorting domestic subsidies. Agriculture is particularly important for developing countries.  Issues Agriculture has become the lynchpin of the agenda for both developing and developed countries.be reviewed with a view to strengthening them and making them more precise. On 30 August 2003. because around 75% of the population in developing countries live in rural areas.S.” . The first. or livelihood considerations. in 2001.  Special and differential treatment In the Doha Ministerial Declaration. and substantial reductions in trade-distorting support. pertained to compulsory licensing of medicines and patent protection."  Similar comments were made by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former WTO director-general Peter Sutherland. Import-sensitive products are of most concern to developed countries like the European Union. led by Brazil and India. The first proposal in Qatar. but other countries insisted on new language.:)  Access to patented medicines A major topic at the Doha ministerial regarded the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). now resolved.  Agriculture Agriculture has become the most important and controversial issue.
keep proposals together in the Committee on Trade and Development. Developing countries claimed that the developed countries were not negotiating in good faith. They seek a clarification of language relating to their interests in existing agreements. and set shorter deadlines. A study by the University of Michigan found that if all trade barriers in agriculture. Many major trading powers already provide preferential access to LDCs through initiatives such as the Everything but Arms (EBA) initiative and the African Growth and Opportunities Act.The negotiations have been split along a developing-country/developed-country divide. 100% of tariff lines must be covered for real impact.  Implementation issues Developing countries claim that they have had problems with the implementation of the agreements reached in the earlier Uruguay Round because of limited capacity or lack of technical assistance. Before the Doha ministerial. Developing countries wanted to negotiate on changes to S&D provisions. there is considerable disagreement of how much benefit the agreement would actually produce. They also claim that they have not realized certain benefits that they expected from the Round. the relevant implementation issues will be addressed under that mandate. the United Nations Development Programme and the Kenyan Institute for Research and Policy Analysis found that Kenya would . such as increased access for their textiles and apparel in developed-country markets. and leave deadlines open.   Benefits All countries participating in the negotiations believe that there is some economic benefit in adopting the agreement. there would be an increase in global welfare of $574.g. Outstanding implementation issues are found in the area of market access. members agreed to five S&D provisions for LDCs. rules of origin. the restructuring and adjustment costs required to prevent the collapse of local industries. and manufactures were reduced by 33% as a result of the Doha Development Agenda. it would potentially increase Least Developed Countries’ (LDCs) exports by 10% (or $1bn). $2500 billion of which would go to the developing world. For example. and (b) the other outstanding implementation issues will be addressed as a matter of priority by the relevant WTO bodies. However. e. send some proposals to negotiating groups. Duty-free and quota-free access (DFQFA) currently discussed covers 97% of tariff lines and if the USA alone were to implement the initiative. however. a late 2009 study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. among others. the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA). Pascal Lamy has conservatively estimated that the deal will bring an increase of $130 billion. WTO Members resolved a small number of these implementation issues.0 billion. At the Doha meeting. particularly in developing countries. the Ministerial Declaration directed a two-path approach for the large number of remaining issues: (a) where a specific negotiating mandate is provided. However. Developed countries wanted to study S&D provisions. including the duty-free and quota-free access. A 2008 study by World Bank Lead Economist Kym Anderson found that global income could increase by more than $3000 billion per year. and subsidies and countervailing measures. investment measures. world net welfare gains ranging from $84 billion to $287 billion by the year 2015. is a global concern. Several think tanks and public organizations assess that the conclusion of the trade round will result in a net gain . safeguards. due to LDCs narrow export-base.  Others had been predicting more modest outcomes. while developed countries argued that the developing countries were unreasonable in their proposals. services. At the December 2005 Hong Kong ministerial.
The Guardian (London). ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Fergusson ps. (18 January 2008). Randy Schnepf (22 January 2007). "World Trade Organization Negotiations: The Doha Development Agenda" (PDF). ^ Elliott. Retrieved 20 August 2008.guardian. Trade Representative Susan C.bbc.uk/2/hi/business/7531099. "Hangovers but no anger on the morning after". Retrieved 20 July 2008.see gains in its exports of flowers. tea.nationalaglawcenter. John Vidal (4 December 1999). http://www. World Trade Organization.ustr. http://www.cfm?story_id=E1_NDGVSNP. http://www.nationalaglawcenter.co. Schwab To Attend Meetings To Advance Doha Negotiations 23–24 July". "Week of division on and off streets".economist. http://www.html. Retrieved 2 August 2008. ^ a b "World trade talks end in collapse". 29 July 2008.com/cms/s/0/fe2186c0-5e97-11dd-b354000077b07658. ^ Eg. 6. http://www. The Economist. 2. 8. coffee and oil seeds. Congressional Research Service.co. and on Food And Financial Crises Accra.stm. http://www.ft.  See also • • • • Safeguard Subsidy Trade bloc Copenhagen Consensus • • • • WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 Anti-Globalization Global administrative law Globality  References 1. Statement By Civil Society Organisations on the WTO Negotiating Situation.org/assets/crs/RL33144. Retrieved 3 August 2008. Financial Times. ^ Beattie. 7. ^ "Annual Report 2002" (PDF). Retrieved 20 July 2008. Charles. ^ "Tequila sunset in Cancún".uk/world/1999/dec/04/wto. 17 September 2003. [dead link] . 2008 10.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2006/July/US_Trade_Represent ative_Susan_C_Schwab_To_Attend_Meetings_To_Advance_Doha_Negotiations_July_2324. http://news.pdf.com/issues/subsection. ^ "Emergency Committee For American Trade". "WTO Doha Round: The Agricultural Negotiations" (PDF). 4. Congressional Research Service. http://www.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/anrep02_chp_2_e. after the provision of vitamin supplements to the world's 140 million malnourished children.org/assets/crs/RL32060.asp?id=1. as well as manufacturing of textiles and footwear. 5.ecattrade.johnvidal1.pdf. which evaluates solutions for global problems regarding the costbenefit ratio. Retrieved 29 July 2008. 3. Larry. Alan (31 July 2008). United States Government. ^ "U.pdf.html.com/agenda/displaystory. ^ a b c Hanrahan. Retrieved 31 July 2008. http://www. in 2008 ranked the DDA as the second-best investment for global welfare.wto. machinery and equipment. BBC News.S. Retrieved 26 July 2008. It would concurrently lose in the tobacco and grains markets. 9. The Copenhagen Consensus. Ian F.
^ a b c "Q&A: World trade in crisis".com/opinion/displaystory.reuters. Reuters.nationalaglawcenter. http://search. The Economist. Financial Times. 17. ^ Schnepf. "Trade Officials Agree to End Subsidies for Agricultural Exports". Retrieved 11 August 2008. "U. 20.pdf.uk/2/hi/business/4512367.org/assets/crs/RL32645. 19.nytimes. ^ "Cancún's charming outcome". http://www. AFL-CIO. ^ Bradsher. Alan (21 July 2008). Retrieved 20 July 2008.economist. http://www. Ian.economist. http://www.bbc.ft.eleconomista. 17 July 2008. Retrieved 22 July 2008. ^ "Remember Doha?". Keith (19 December 2005). Reuters. BBC News.pdf.ft. Doug.com/business/displaystory. ^ Williams.com/cms/s/0/392e46b6-574c-11dd-916c-000077b07658. http://www. The Economist. Retrieved 20 July 2008.html. http://www. The Economist. http://news. Hanrahan.co. ^ Beattie. Cooper and Danielle J.11.aflcio. Retrieved 20 July 2008. throw trade round into doubt". Langton (10 February 2005).S. http://www. 23. ^ a b Fergusson.com/finance/displaystory. Retrieved 3 August 2008.html. Randy. 16.S.html. .com/opinion/displaystory. Retrieved 28 July 2008. "The Doha Development Agenda: The WTO Framework Agreement" (PDF). 24. ^ "Defrosting Doha".html. Retrieved 3 August 2008. ^ "The Cancún challenge". Alan (27 August 2008). Retrieved 20 July 2008. http://ecodiario.com/2005/12/19/business/worldbusiness/19trade. New York Times. http://www. "Expectations low as Doha talks begin". Retrieved 20 July 2008. 4 September 2003.es/noticias/noticias/668858/07/08/US-offers-farmsubsidy-cut-but-is-asked-for-more. Charles E. ^ Palmer. Congressional Research Service. William Schomberg (22 July 2008). ^ "Fast Track Is Dead Today". William H. Financial Times. 15. Frances (30 April 2004).stm. http://blog. 14. Womach Jasper (26 April 2007). Congressional Research Service.economist. Retrieved 22 July 2008. http://www. http://www. 4 April 2005. ^ a b Palmer. 22.cfm?story_id=E1_NDPVQJN.com/article/topNews/idUSL2179513320070621. 18.cfm?story_id=11745498. Laura MacInnis (21 June 2007). Doug. "Zoellick to host 'select' dinner in attempt to meet Doha round target". 12. 13. http://www. Retrieved 21 August 2008. Retrieved 22 July 2008. 17 July 2008. Farm Subsidies in the WTO" (PDF). "Visa offer adds to Doha momentum".cfm?story_id=11750413. 18 September 2003. offers farm subsidy cut but is asked for more".ft.com/ftArticle? startDate=05%2F01%2F2004&dsz=1&dse=true&queryText=Robert+Zoellick+Doha &endDate=03%2F10%2F2004&activeTab=ftNews&resultsToReturn=10&aje=false&i d=040430000965&ct=0. "Potential Challenges to U. Financial Times.org/assets/crs/RL33697. 21. Retrieved 4 August 2008. The Economist.com/cms/s/0/bf4102d8-5c0c-11dd-9e99-000077b07658. "G4 talks collapse.cfm?story_id=E1_NDSTGNJ.economist.nationalaglawcenter. ^ Beattie.org/2007/06/30/fast-track-isdead-today/.
^ "Bad tempers flare. Financial Times. "Doha trade talks collapse". Beattie.com/article/idUSTRE5A913T20091110.reuters. "Brazil to dispute US subsidies".ft. slowing Doha talks: report". 27. Retrieved 11 August 2008. 28 July 2008. ^ "World trade contracted 12 percent in 2009: WTO's Lamy". Retrieved 11 August 2008. 26 May 2009 41.ft. Financial Times.17 August". http://www. ^ Beattie.ft.washingtontimes. ^ NDTV Profit. .Doha: India accuses U. 29. ^ a b "Dismayed powers plea to salvage WTO talks". http://www. ^ Dickson.com/world/weekahead.com/english/2009-09/16/content_12061873. 30.com/cms/s/0/069b8e60-5c8e-11dd-8d38000077b07658.html. 30 July 2008. Retrieved 30 July 2008. 30 July 2008 33. http://www.au/world/dismayed-powers-plea-to-salvage-wto-talks20080730-3myb. Retrieved 11 August 2008. 28 January 2010.theage.ft. (30 July 2008).25.com/news/2010-03-10/lula-asks-obama-to-quickly-endcotton-fighting-update1-. 38. http://news. Financial Times. http://www. of sacrificing world's poor at trade talks Heather Stewart in Geneva. ^ a b Alan. ^ Guardian . London. Retrieved 25 February 2011.html. http://www. BBC.S. ^ http://news.com/cms/s/0/7928a77a-6183-11dd-af94-000077b07658. Jonathan (4 August 2008).com/cms/s/0/0638a320-5d8a-11dd-8129000077b07658. 37. ^ http://www. threatening WTO deal". 26.reuters. Retrieved 28 July 2008. Frances William (29 July 2008). "US says China. http://afp. ^ WTO to hold 7th Ministerial Conference on 30 November-2 December 2009 WTO official website 40. Reuters.html.html 42.htm 39. 30 July 2008 31.co. ^ "Davos 2011: Doha round 'should finish by end of year'". ^ FACTBOX: Meetings where WTO Doha round could be discussed Reuters.html.bbc. http://www.google. Retrieved 29 July 2008.businessweek. ^ "World Diary: 11 August .html.S. Financial Times.uk/news/business-12309484. ^ Wheatley. 31 July 2008 34.ft.com. ^ Wheatley.com/article/idUSTRE61N2AO20100224. http://www. 10 November 2009. http://www. Jonathan (3 August 2008). Retrieved 28 July 2008.xinhuanet. ^ "WTO's Lamy says U. http://www.com/cms/s/0/2118beba-61bc-11dd-af94-000077b07658. BBC News.com/news/2008/jul/30/farm-tariffs-sink-worldtrade-talks/. India put trade talks in jeopardy". ^ Voice of America News 30 July 2008 32. "Collapse of Doha forces acceptance of second best Collapse of Doha forces acceptance of second best". 24 February 2010. ^ " Dismay at collapse of trade talks". Reuters. 35.com/article/ALeqM5hBHmONMCfKXs6HNRGCc9uEv2TI1Q. 44. AFP. India 30 July 2008 36. Financial Times. "Farm tariffs sink world trade talks". Alan (28 July 2008). Washington Times. 28. David M. Retrieved 30 July 2008. 43. AFP. ^ Times Online.
World Trade Organization Negotiations: The Doha Development Agenda Congressional Research Service report for Congress. ^ Brown..pdf. Retrieved 29 July 2008.org/INTTRADERESEARCH/Resources/Ch2AgTradeBook_ HertelKeeney. Project Syndicate May.odi. January 18. Kym (ed. Briefing Paper. ^ Hertel. Nairobi. Doha and the Global Crisis. Reuters..org. Computational Analysis of Multilateral Trade Liberalization in the Uruguay Round and Doha Development Round. 2010 46. 2006 Schnepf.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_e. School of Public Policy. September 2008 Statement by the World Council of Churches Central Committee September 6. ISBN 978-0821362396 Briefing paper: The WTO Doha Round Impasse at Overseas Development Institute. WTO Doha Round: Implications for U. Retrieved 16 August 2009. Deardorff and Robert M. UK. Free Growth.umich. Kenya. Thomas W. ^ Kym Anderson and Bjørn Lomborg. World Trade Organization. Jonathan (16 August 2009).. 49. ^ a b Prowse.org  External links • • World Trade Organization's official site on the Doha Round WTO current news site . Susan 2009. http://siteresources. ^  Kym Anderson 50. ^ Press release: Copenhagen Consensus 2008 Results(PDF)  Further reading • • • • • Anderson.uk/resources/details.org Ferguson. http://www. http://fordschool. 52. Retrieved 26 July 2008. World Bank. Free Labor. http://www.htm. 2009 54. ^  "USAID . Alan V. Charles E.worldbank.asp? id=4160&title=doha-development-agenda-closure 48. 2008 51.wto.pdf. ^ Lynn. at nationalaglawcenter. Overseas Development Institute. Export Subsidies and Domestic Support" (PDF). Free Trade. 47. 2008. ^ a b "Ministerial declaration". The University of Michigan.45.Ian F. 2006.): Agricultural Trade Reform and the DOHA Development Agenda. ^ Copenhagen Consensus 2008 55. ^ cited in IPS report Kenya faces grim prospects if Doha round succeeds at Corporate News in Business Daily. Roman Keeney (2005). http://www. "Doha deal could boost world GDP $300700 billion: study". 57. November 20.S. 2010 at nationalaglawcenter.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE57F0KD20090816. Drusilla K. Randy and Hanrahan. Stern (8 December 2002) (PDF).edu/rsie/workingpapers/Papers476-500/r489. Agriculture January 4.reuters. 53. World Bank.Our work". "What is at Stake: The Relative Importance of Import Barriers. London. 14 November 2001.
former director-general. director-general of the WTO.blog of heads of international development agencies including Pascal Lamy. and Supachaï Panitchpakdi. [hide]v · d · eWorld Trade Organization System Accession and membership · Appellate Body · Dispute Settlement Body · International Trade Centre · Chronology of key events Issues Criticism · Doha Development Round · Singapore issues · Quota Elimination · Peace Clause Agreements General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade · Agriculture · Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures · Technical Barriers to Trade · Trade Related Investment Measures · Trade in Services · Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights · Government Procurement · Information Technology · Marrakech Agreement · Doha Declaration Ministerial Conferences 1st (1996) · 2nd (1998) · 3rd (1999) · 4th (2001) · 5th (2003) · 6th (2005) · 7th (2009) People Pascal Lamy (Director-General) · Supachai Panitchpakdi (Former Director-General) · Deputy Directors-General: Alejandro Jara · Valentine Rugwabiza · Harsha Singh · Rufus Yerxa Members Albania · Algeria · Angola · Antigua and Barbuda · Argentina · Armenia · Australia · Bahrain · Bangladesh · Barbados · Belize · Benin · Bolivia · Botswana · Brazil · Brunei · Burkina Faso · Burma · Burundi · Cambodia · Cameroon · Canada · Cape Verde · Central African Republic · Chad · Chile · PR China · Colombia · Democratic Republic of the Congo · Republic of the Congo · Costa Rica · Côte d'Ivoire · Croatia · Cuba · Djibouti · Dominica · Dominican Republic · Ecuador · Egypt · El Salvador · European Union¹ · Fiji · Gabon · The Gambia · Georgia · Ghana · . now secretary-general of UNCTAD.• Ideas for Development.
Designated name for the Republic of China (commonly known as Taiwan) Retrieved from "http://en. and Matsu³ · Tanzania · Thailand · Togo · Tonga · Trinidad and Tobago · Tunisia · Turkey · Uganda · Ukraine · United Arab Emirates · United States · Uruguay · Venezuela · Vietnam · Zambia · Zimbabwe 1. Lucia · St. Penghu. Kinmen. Kitts and Nevis · St. 2. 3.org/wiki/Doha_Development_Round" Categories: World Trade Organization | Diplomatic conferences in Qatar | Diplomatic conferences in Mexico | Diplomatic conferences in Hong Kong | 21st-century diplomatic conferences Hidden categories: All articles with dead external links | Articles with dead external links from October 2010 | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements from June 2009 | Use dmy dates from August 2010 Personal tools • • • Log in / create account Article Discussion Namespaces Variants . Special administrative region of the People's Republic of China.Grenada · Guatemala · Guinea · Guinea-Bissau · Guyana · Haiti · Honduras · Hong Kong² · Iceland · India · Indonesia · Israel · Jamaica · Japan · Jordan · Kenya · South Korea · Kuwait · Kyrgyzstan · Lesotho · Liechtenstein · Macau² · Macedonia · Madagascar · Malawi · Malaysia · Maldives · Mali · Mauritania · Mauritius · Mexico · Moldova · Mongolia · Morocco · Mozambique · Namibia · Nepal · New Zealand · Nicaragua · Niger · Nigeria · Norway · Oman · Pakistan · Panama · Papua New Guinea · Paraguay · Peru · Philippines · Qatar · Rwanda · St.wikipedia. All twenty-seven member states of the European Union are also members of the WTO in their own right: Austria • Belgium • Bulgaria • Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Hungary • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Malta • Netherlands • Poland • Portugal • Romania • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Sweden • United Kingdom. Vincent and the Grenadines · Saudi Arabia · Senegal · Sierra Leone · Singapore · Solomon Islands · South Africa · Sri Lanka · Suriname · Swaziland · Switzerland · Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan.
Views • • • Actions Search Read Edit View history Top of Form Special:Search Search Bottom of Form Navigation • • • • • • • • • • • Toolbox Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia Help About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact Wikipedia What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Permanent link Cite this page Create a book Download as PDF Printable version Interaction • • • • • • • • • Print/export Languages .
Over 10. Speaking as host of the event (The above were Cited from Diego Cevallos. Sadly.S. We are told that trade can provide a ladder to a better life and deliver us from poverty and despair.org/print/article/438 The World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Fifth Ministerial Conference took place in Cancun.WTO Meeting in Cancun.) We can no longer permit well-being to be limited to a few nations. and now prominent critic of the ideology of the Washington Concensus Side . — Kofi Annan. 2003 This page: http://www. the reality of the international trading system today does not match the rhetoric.000 people are thought to have attended the meeting: among them 3. United Nations. use the print version: ○ • http://www. expanded side notes. (In a statement read at the opening session of the WTO meeting. former World Bank Chief Economist. September 10. shows alternative links. and their economic futures. finance and development). 2003 Author and Page information • • • by Anup Shah This Page Last Updated Thursday. Trade Ministers Unfazed by Criticism as Meet Begins. • • Richer countries wanted to talk about newer issues that mostly they themselves would have benefited from. positively and negatively.globalissues. subsidies on their own agriculture and lack of access to those markets. Mexico. Secretary General.g. Mexico from September 10 to 14..) Poorer countries wanted to finish older issues mostly on agriculture that affected them the most. September 18. Inter Press Service (IPS). 2003. These meetings are some of the most important to the world due to the various issues discussed that can impact. especially the impact of European and U.000 journalists.org/article/438/wto-meeting-in-cancun-mexico-2003.) This impasse led to the end of the talks for now but for the first time showed the developing countries make a successful and united stand to represent their concerns. The trade talks opened with key speakers warning of the importance and urgency of these issues.) But these talks collapsed. various countries.000 government delegates (including trade ministers and other ministers of agriculture. (This is part of the free trade and liberalization ideas that they promote.. a Nobel Prize winner in 2001 for economics. Vicente Fox. which have been under increasing criticism from many angles in recent years.globalissues.000 NGOs and 5. We can no longer postpone the battle against poverty and marginalization. especially poor ones. environment. • Joseph Stiglitz. — President of Mexico. To print all information e. (This actually goes against the free trade ideas that these two regions especially promote. 2003. 2.
Introduction 2. W. Leading up to this ministerial meeting. ○ All issues of importance. at the lack of democracy in various ways. The Guardian. ○ All WTO members be informed of consultations and are entitled to participate in them. (W. In the past there have even been closed-door Green Room meetings and consultations by richer countries. But don’t count on that happening. 2002) that at one time he helped to push. Trade imbalances. heads-of-delegations met to discuss the draft text. 2003 This web page has the following sub-sections: 1. and on the whole undemocratic. due to the strong influences and power of the richer nations. it is interesting to note Botswana and the African-CaribbeanPacific (ACP) countries comments on the decision-making process. More Information Introduction As with previous such meetings. Norton and Company. especially seen in previous ministerial meetings.Note»See his book. Globalization and its Discontents. Martin Khor of the Third World Network reports on this: To improve the decision-making process during the Ministerial. ○ The draft text that forms the basis of negotiations reflects the proposals of all members or groups of members. These rules should ensure that: ○ All WTO members decide on the appointment of the Chairpersons of Working Groups formed at the Ministerial Conference. Side Note» The WTO and the meeting and decision-making processes. often behind closed doors. August 15. Amongst many concerns. have been long criticized as being non-transparent. who then basically determine the agenda of the Ministerial meetings. . made a prediction about a month before the meeting took place: The Cancun round of WTO talks is a chance for developing countries to get a fairer deal. even before starting there were debates and concerns on various issues such as: • The apparent lack of democracy in the meeting processes. quite politely. as it highlights some of the concerns. Watchlist Of Critics 4. Trade Talks Collapse 3. including consideration of a proposal to extend the length of the Conference. be put before WTO members as a whole for a decision. the ACP Group proposed the adoption of procedural rules to enhance transparency and inclusiveness. — Joseph Stiglitz.
once again. It is interesting to note how various concerns that were raised here before the meeting. previous meetings have highlighted continued non-democratic decision making processes. Combined with years of disastrous structural adjustment policies upon the third world commodity prices have further plummeted.) and U. and other unfair agricultural trade rules. Trying to introduce new issues before issues raised in the previous Ministerial. Third World Network. the Doha round. transparency in government procurement and trade facilitation. Side Note»Some of these additional issues include those around investment. For example. and armtwisting type negotiation tactics of more powerful and wealthier countries. The authoritative Joseph Stiglitz. the Uruguay round. though not necessarily reported in much detail. (See this site’s section on the Doha round for more details.S of things like bullying and arm-twisting. many fear that what has happened in . competition policy.S. Instead. This round was supposed to redress those imbalances. August 27.) Many therefore feared that this round would not be different and according to some. Protectionism by industrialized (or Northern) countries and regions such as the U. to reflect where they were raised — Singapore in 1996 — not who raised them). and European Union (EU) Side Note»For example. at a meeting of heads-of-delegation of WTO members at the end of August. it did indeed look like this is the way it was going before the talks ended. • • Market access issues for developing countries (or Southern countries). various developing countries were very critical of it and said that the draft text is imbalanced and does not take account of their development needs and of their proposals in many areas. Rich countries dumping agricultural commodities on international markets at prices below the cost of production. 2003 That these issues are being raised suggests there is concern at the decision-making process. North-South divide on Cancun draft at General Council. In addition. is worth quoting as he also highlighted before the meeting. ministers recognised the inequities of the previous round of trade negotiations.U. how concerns from previous years were real: At their last meeting in Doha in November 2001. See this site’s section on the Doha round. developing countries and non-governmental organizations charged rich countries and regions. were very similar to those being raised before and at the previous ministerial meeting. One would have thought that the developing countries would look forward to the meeting as a chance to achieve a fairer global trading system. The agricultural subsidies of the first world or industrialized countries result in their agricultural over-production and thus a downward pressure on prices leading to artificially-low global agricultural prices. WTO member countries have been polarized over these issues. Some of the existing issues include agriculture and patents. while some rich countries want to introduce these. such as the European Union (E. However. In the previous round in Doha. have been resolved. (These issues are also known as the Singapore issues. Patent rules that appear to deny poor countries access to affordable medicines. mentioned further above.— Martin Khor. And many more • • • • Leading up to the meeting there was a Draft Cancun Ministerial Text being discussed. developing countries in general want to avoid extra issues (especially investment).
— Aileen Kwa. where each country has one vote. Take for example what policy analyst at Focus on the Global South. But this time round. a geopolitical dimension to what may sound like economic issues is added. but by “beyond the border” measures. 2003 But this time round it seems that the poor countries have tried to resist such “re-colonization. France and UK — have 100 times more trade than their poor counterparts. August 15. for one of the first times. — Joseph Stiglitz. That might be the case in theory. but. arm twisting. The Guardian. Those 49 countries have a similar population as those top five. The 646 million people in the top exporting countries — the US. This has left rich countries blaming poor countries for the failed talks. the US. and some suggest the WTO represents a continuation. Japan. the International Monetary Fund (IMF) where a single country. often at the expense of the poorer countries who have made even more concessions. but in different forms. The saturation of Northern markets makes it imperative that transnational corporations get access to markets in the South. 2003 Trade is said to be the way to enhance growth and development and eliminate poverty. efforts to go further have met with resistance. Ironically. not only through the drastic reduction of tariffs. the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Seeing it from their side. say. while poorer countries resisted such an attempt. Yet the realpolitik of economic power has ensured that the interests of the developed countries predominate.the past will happen again: secret negotiations. While some progress has been made in making the negotiations more open and transparent. and author. August 29. the 49 least developed countries that make up the world’s poorest countries have not shared in the growth of world trade. The ever-expanding ambit of WTO rules are designed to do just that. Aileen Kwa notes: The WTO perpetrates a subtle and pervasive form of re-colonisation and warfare. Cancun and the Battle for Developing Counties' Markets: Another Form of Warfare. It calls on members to relinquish their sovereign rights and policy freedom (by constraining their ability to put in place domestic regulations) in order to allow pillage by transnational corporations. this talk signified perhaps a new state of affairs too: poorer countries. currently. Trade imbalances. might seem far more “democratic” than. Focus on the Global South. pry open developing country markets. The result is the further subjugation of economies and peoples in the developing world. who in the past have also used non-democratic pressures to get their interests represented in the WTO meetings and their outcomes. Some third world groups have been very critical of the WTO and how it is being used. have been able to make a united stand against the richer countries. and the display of brute economic power by the US and Europe aimed at ensuring that the interests of the rich are protected. . of power struggle. and the impact on the poor countries. and for good reason: unbalanced processes help ensure unbalanced outcomes. has a veto. Germany.” Back to top Trade Talks Collapse The trade talks collapsed over the rich countries attempts to discuss new issues without finishing off the existing and most pressing ones for the poor countries.
such as the European Trade Commissioner appeared to blame (indirectly) poor countries. director of the Uruguay-based Social Watch said [that developing countries standing firm despite Europe offering to concede some of the Singapore issues] was not surprising. The Doha Development Agenda agreed two years ago in the capital of Qatar clearly stated that the Singapore issues would be discussed only after ‘an explicit consensus’ had been reached. the efforts to “steer” these meetings have been mostly done by the rich countries who have decided the agenda: . else they wouldn’t be backing this heavily. the African Union. of even get off the ground. without help from their governments. The existing ones impact the poor the most. and implied that the way the talks were structured it was difficult to get so many countries to talk and to direct the meetings properly. It is not clear how beneficial multinational companies (MNCs) having more market access to poorer countries is for the poorer countries themselves. ○ To that extent.» ○ It is clearly beneficial to the MNCs. While the trade talks didn’t progress. • • • • They all said they would not like to launch negotiations at the conference on the “Singapore issues” (or new issues) before existing ones are resolved. the talks can be seen as a failure for not being able to make progress. India. wealth and knowledge and that local and other regional companies would not be able to compete with such giants. ○ It could be argued that they bring in knowledge and investment which is muchneeded. ○ What many people are concerned about is that this is more concentration in things like ownership. 2003) that “Roberto Bissio. because they are about more market access into poorer countries. fear the MNC pressure represents a new form of colonialism where there will be more dominance and influence by foreign owners and less ability for poor countries to gain a strong foundation and be equal partners in an international arena. Unfortunately. but in some respects can be seen as a sort of success for poorer countries. the fact that it appears not to have made things worse for poorer countries could be seen as a success. the poorer countries have been able to take a bold stance. For the first time then.• • • Depending on who you are and how you look at it. and as exemplified by Aileen Kwa above. what that trade commissioner perhaps did not recognize was that in the past.” The same IPS report also asked why consensus was not reached. he said. Some. The developing countries that took a stand included larger ones such as China. the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Asian countries such as Malaysia. for example. which richer countries frown upon. some in the developing world. Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group. But that had clearly not happened. IPS reported (September 15. Brazil and South Africa but also other blocs such as the African. The new ones are the ones that the rich countries and their corporations would like the most.
There is no way to structure and steer discussions amongst 146 members in a manner conducive to consensus.” The Guardian adds further that the collapse could be a blow to the world economy. September 15.S. if the stance this year by the developing countries is not seen in a wider historical context it looks like they were stubborn and not prepared to negotiate and balance off concerns. the WTO remains a medieval organisation. ActionAid who say that the victory for poor countries might be hollow because all that has happened is that there will be no change to the unfair rules that allow rich countries to continue to subsidize their farmers at the expense of millions of poor people. the rich countries) were ready to make a concession. though on the positive side. The Guardian. Hewmitt and others could make such comments that ignore the views and concerns of the third world? From one angle. How could it be that some of the most senior ministers from rich countries such as Lamy. In addition. tried its best. 2003. the poorer countries have always lost out in these “negotiations”. Inter Press Service. Mixed Feelings About The Debacle. The British newspaper.” Lamy told media representatives. “Despite the commitment of many able people. (These were not her exact words.” — Ramesh Jaura. some development organizations suggest that it wasn’t the poor countries who were stubborn. but the main thrust of her point as I interpreted it. Indeed. which is already fragile.) UK’s Channel 4 news programme also highlighted on the same day that the U. but as the Channel 4 program highlighted. so the temptation to brand poor countries as not wanting to participate or not wanted to “deal” fairly has to be resisted. In a wider historical context.e. listening to her speak. especially in the drafting of texts. these people are just doing their jobs: representing their countries . There were “deals to be done” as some delegates such as Hewitt had said. further deals have not made that would have made a bad situation far worse. so that developing country members can participate more effectively. Director of the Third World Network Martin Khor went a step further: “The deeper reason is the untransparent and undemocratic system of drafting of texts in the WTO.S. 2003 In addition. reported that international development organization Oxfam blamed the U.” he said.EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy had his own explanation [why consensus was not reached].U. another Guardian article reports another organization. UK’s representative. but the rich ones. perhaps even opposite to the interpretation of Hewitts' stance. and E. and that it was totally surprising and unfathomable as to why the poor countries could not agree. while the U. He said the decision-making needed to be revamped and that the EU would continue to work in that direction within the WTO.S. “Oxfam said the refusal of the EU and US to cede any ground to developing countries on agriculture — and Europe’s attempt to force a global investment and competition treaty on to the table — had forced poor countries to walk out. implying that everyone (i. for the collapse. “The procedures and rules of this organisation have not supported the weight of the task. spun the reasons for the failed talks as all other nations not trying to negotiate. Patricia Hewitt on an interview on BBC Radio 4 on the morning of September 15. The decision-making system in the WTO should be reformed so that there is more transparency and democracy. also highlighted just a partial reaction.
The developing countries. Whenever there has been a prospect of solidarity among the weak. they have found themselves massively outnumbered. which. At the talks in Cancun. and that was crushed by a worldwide revolt in 1998. They would continue to permit the subsidy barons of Europe to dump their artificially cheap produce into the poor world. In fact. From a historical perspective.. For more about the Multilateral Agreement on Investment that was derailed in 1998 that Monbiot was referring to.something else is now beginning to shake itself awake. Since its formation. it was precisely because the demands being made by Lamy and (to a lesser extent) the US were so outrageous that the smaller nations could not be dragged away from this new . He tries to see some positive outcomes here in the long term for poor countries. The concessions on farm subsidies that Lamy was offering amounted to little more than a reshuffling of the money paid to European farmers. However. as the rich have done so. perhaps many politicians from the rich world today do not see a way out or even realize these aspects. Being locked into this process for centuries. Cancun is also an example of continued attempts by the rich countries to siphon wealth from the poor. are beginning to unite and to move as a body. Monbiot notes that the nasty and brutish behaviour of the powerful ensures that the lives of the poor remain short. Paradoxically. He appears to have been seeking to resurrect. George Monbiot. see this site’s MAI page. — George Monbiot. the strong — and in particular the US — have successfully divided and ruled them. the infamous Multilateral Agreement on Investment. That they have not done so before is testament first to the corrosive effects of the cold war.interests. Lamy made the poor nations an offer that they couldn’t possibly accept. In the world of realpolitik power is a factor that the modern economic theories don’t seem to account for. for the first time in some 20 years. blackmail and bully the poor ones. In return for granting corporations power over governments. and is quoted at length: . see the Institute for Economic Democracy web site. historically has been enough reason for the powerful to attempt to do whatever they can to ensure they remain influential. September 16. and how it has influenced. he is quite blunt about it. and second to the continued ability of the rich and powerful nations to bribe. the rich countries have been seeking to recruit as many developing nations into the WTO as they can. The Guardian. the poor nations would receive precisely nothing. Referring to Thomas Hobbe’s 1651 work Levaithan. in order to open up the developing countries' markets and force them to trade on onerous terms. But now the rich have become victims of their own power. destroying the livelihoods of the farmers there. A threat to the rich. by promising concessions to those who split and threatening sanctions against those who stay. The EU and the US may already be regretting their efforts to persuade China to join. It has now become the rock — too big to bully and threaten — around which the unattached nations have begun to cluster. by means of an “investment treaty”.) Monbiot’s observation on what is now possibly happening is interesting to note too. writing in The Guardian recognized that the stance of the poor countries was a A threat to the rich. shaped and impacted the world system today. 2003 (For far more detailed insights into these historical aspects and how this has led to the extreme disparities seen in the world today. This was a proposal that would have allowed corporations to force a government to remove any laws that interfered with their ability to make money. in Mexico..
So Pascal Lamy. this has raised questions about the future of the WTO itself. activists and third world/social justice and development organizations are on the whole happy that the talks ended in this way because it showed that the poorer countries can resist the pressures of the richer ones. For now. as underlying this all is that trade should be about creating prosperity. “our” negotiator. the WTO could still be the answer. may accidentally have engineered a better world. They might even disinter it as the democratic body it was always supposed to have been. At Cancun the weak nations stood up to the most powerful negotiators on earth and were not broken. The UN security council will find its anomalous powers ever harder to sustain. as the same IPS report also highlights. collectively. 2003 Whether Monbiot’s optimism for the third world is premature is hard to judge. In addition. in the form of their debts. can begin to exercise a collective threat to the rich. still find a way of negotiating together. The Guardian. the WTO is the way. September 16. her following comments could be applied to others who feel some other organization can do the job instead.” But as well as raising the issue to do with trade (or lack of it) between the rich and the poor. But noting the hypocrisy of the arguments of the rich countries compared to their actions and then the possibility of this coming back to them is interesting. they own the world’s financial systems. While the WTO might have been buried. For Foreign Trade Minister for the Netherlands. Whether those fears are just exaggerations or not is hard to tell. they can begin to wield the sort of power that only the rich have so far exercised. the WTO is the vehicle and the Doha Development Agenda the map ahead. Together they owe so much that. in effect. for example. are needed. And their solidarity is itself empowering. these nations may. Without international rules on trade. Karien Van Gennip. while to others it is to be scraped and replaced completely. how damaging some aspects of North-South trade relationships have been in those cases where the economies of poor countries are so dependent on richer markets. they need leverage and. Talking to IPS. and that local markets and economies cannot get started. South-South. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund had better watch their backs now. Poor nations. it has been hinted at for a while. To that end. Rich countries could vie for bilateral agreements with poor countries in various ways and a plethora of those could get . especially ones that are fair and democratically agreed to. For this. if they stick together. Trade needs to play its role in creating prosperity as a precondition all over the world. The lesson they will bring home is that if this is possible. by fighting so doggedly for a worse one. for example. not an ends to itself: “trade is not an objective in itself. you could end up with the old power games of colonial and imperial times. if they use their collective power intelligently. By threatening. Suddenly the proposals for global justice that relied on solidarity for their implementation can spring into life.coalition. To some. A threat to the rich. However. or between North and the South. they possess it. — George Monbiot. demanding concessions in return for withholding force. or trade between poor countries themselves should also be strengthened. Whatever the US offered by way of inducements and threats. it would seem that in some form (hopefully democratic) global rules for trade and therefore maybe an organization to help see that. to default. they simply had too much to lose if the poor countries allowed the rich bloc’s proposals to pass. in the Behind Consumption section on this site. In the long run though. almost anything is.
No one should be surprised that much of civil society feels excluded and powerless. Some of the people on the list include prominent.S. leading up to the meeting the Mexican police and military had a watchlist of people to observe very closely at the meeting.” says Barlow. Qatar. and in their worst forms very ugly.). 2003 Throughout history. Ralph Nader. Reforma. then you are a potential threat..” — Maude Barlow on the Mexican authorities “watch list” for WTO Meeting. Lori Wallach. from where it has consistently been absent.. Technology and Ecology (India). Council of Canadians. For example.S. MIT Faculty and outspoken critic of U. Back to top “Watchlist” Of Critics Perhaps shocking to some.. Foreign Policy (U. Council of Canadians: • • • • • • • • Noam Chomsky. As critics of the current form of globalization are growing and their voices are trying to be heard more and more. consumer advocate and former leader of the Green Party (U. powerholders have tried various ways to stifle dissent. Editor-in-Chief of the widely respected Le Monde diplomatique (France). What could be more undemocratic than putting a tag on opponents of your philosophy. Economist and director of Focus on Global South (Philippines).very complicated. National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians. Director of the Research Foundation for Science. Maude Barlow’s reactions (also in the previous link) perhaps sums up some of the reactions to this: “This is sickening. Director of OXFAM Great Britain. . The message is clear: if you have a dissenting opinion from your government’s. so are the means to try and silence such critique. has been that according to a document leaked and made public by the Mexican newspaper.. August 19. Director of Global Trade Watch. Ignacio Ramonet. Waldon Bello. as history has warned us with at least two disasters of massive proportions when trade disputes between more powerful countries impacted their economies severely enough: the great European/World Wars. Maude Barlow. “On the other hand. Barbara Stocking. “We are listed for no other reason that we disagree with the powers that be on the effects of economic globalisation. what can you expect of an organisation that decided to hold its previous gathering in a place. outspoken and even popular critics of various aspects of the global system. and not surprising to others. Vandana Shiva.S.). the WTO proceedings are highly controversial and the whole international trade debate should be transferred to the public and political stage. The WTO negotiations will be affecting millions of citizens without them having much of a say on the desirability of the WTO policies. of your ideology? “The fact of the matter is. as reported by the citizen watchdog organization.S. a division of Public Citizen (U.). where protests are illegal? The ironic thing is that WTO officials are always offended when we remind them how their organisation is working against democracy.
Enormous public protests ensued. This web page has the following sub-sections: 1. At the same time. Developing countries were sidelined and one delegate even physically barred from a meeting. Media Portrayal 2. without really looking at the real issues (such as the corporate domination with lack of accountability). . but as was also seen in Doha at the fourth WTO Ministerial Conference. February 18. the protests have been met with violence (or themselves have turned violent). It resulted in a WTO failure to agree on many issues.globalissues. However. even though large protests have been occurring for decades.org/article/46/wto-protests-in-seattle-1999. security organizations have been put on higher alert. use the print version: ○ • http://www.• • • In recent years. Most Protestors Were Not Against International Trade 4. the world over. shows alternative links. More Information Media Portrayal Once more.g. Since the terrorist attacks on the U. This is a large topic itself but one place to find out more is this sites section on global protests. the mainstream media coverage in the US about such a major event was very much lacking. a large group of independent media organizations worked together to provide alternative coverage. terrorism and other factors were raised as excuses to undermine protestors and critics of the current form of globalization in various ways. • WTO Protests in Seattle. There were many differences in the perspectives of developing and industrialized nations on the current reality of free trade and how it affected them. without adopting any resolutions.globalissues. global protests have highlighted various concerns at the impacts of what appears to be overly corporate led and oriented globalization. It was pretty much corporate led and therefore concentrating on the sensationalism of the violent aspects of the protests. according to the previous link. 2001 This page: http://www. Enormous Public Turnout Despite Police Crackdown 3. expanded side notes. Labor Rights 5.S.org/print/article/46 At the end of November 1999. Seattle saw major governments meet at a WTO ministerial meeting to discuss various trading rules. 1999 Author and Page information • • • by Anup Shah This Page Last Updated Sunday. To print all information e. on September 11. Seattle also saw free speech cracked down on in the name of free trade.
labor rights activists etc wanting fairer trade with less exploitation. WTO on High Media Ground by Normon Solomon. in Latin America and other former colonial countries such as. The Rumble in Seattle by Stephen Van Esch.000 to 100. Protesters came from all over the world. This became the mainstream media’s major coverage focus often portraying all the protestors as “loony leftists” or violent groups with no clue as to what they are talking about. arresting.000 to 100. Even right-wing protectionist groups were there also arguing against the current corporate-led free trade. progress has also been made thanks to a variety of public protests: women’s rights. while agreed that international trade is beneficial to everyone.For critique on media coverage and links to other media related sites for Seattle see the following: • • • • • • These collection of articles from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) examine the role of the US media and the quality of their coverage (or lack of!) Prattle in Seattle also from FAIR Nearing Global Summit. East Timor.000 people turned up in the pouring rain. civil rights. a small group started some violence and looting that led to the Seattle police and National Guard declaring a state of emergency (it was even termed as Martial Law by the Mayor of Seattle at one point). (Remember. as obviously not everyone could be in Seattle. if it is fair. the mainstream media is corporate-owned as well and certain media conglomerates make up some of the largest multinational corporations that directly benefit from the current form of free trade) The media’s portrayal of protestors interfering in global trading missed the point that as history has shown. .) Back to top Enormous Public Turnout Despite Police Crackdown Estimates ranged from 50. environmental groups. The fact that 50. from Project Censored. religious leaders. and so on. (Check out this link. non-violent protestors. Learning from Seattle reflects on the media’s role in Seattle. They ranged from human rights groups. This led to the issuing of curfews. pepper spraying and even shooting rubber bullets at innocent. tear-gassing. Back to top Most Protestors Were Not Against International Trade Most people were pro-democracy activists protesting at the dangerous unfairness at the current model of free trade. through all the police crackdowns etc indicates the sheer number of people who are concerned at the current issues. civil wars and revolutions in Europe. How many more would have turned up had it not been raining so bad! While the majority were non-violent protestors.000 protestors. Where’s the Media on the WTO? by Peter Phillips. (although the protectionists were there for very different reasons). a students first hand account of what he believed was a provoked violence response. students. India. Many journalists were also caught up in the much criticized police actions that eventually saw the Seattle police chief resign. not just the developed countries. At least one journalist was even arrested for just reporting what the delegates in the meeting were actually talking about.
At first glance. the issue at Seattle was about protesting the current rules and implementations of these ideas. that then doesn't mean that any form of international trade is acceptable without any thought! Protestors are concerned at the corporate drive in international trade where national safety standards. whose greed got the better of them. However. given that past records on economics and trade do not suggest that there are many humanitarian concerns! In fact. why change it? As developing countries have been increasing their frustrations with the WTO. helping reduce the likelihood of tragedies such as World War I and II which arose through trade battles between the former imperial countries. Coupled with the IMF and World Bank structural adjustment policies making developed countries dependent upon industrialized countries. It would also make it look as though the poor countries are the culprits and not hold any accountability to the foreign multinationals who demand these conditions before “investing” in that nation. as corporations are not democratic and yet the rules that they are pushing forth via the WTO affect everyone. many are alternatively suggesting that the UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade And Development) would be a far more inclusive and democratic a body to house global trade issues. especially for all those activists who have been campaigning on these things for years. Most will agree that international trade will be beneficial and help developing countries raise their standards of living. Many will also agree that international trade can promote peace through internationally agreed standards or rules of that trade. Back to top Labor Rights Seattle saw President Clinton and others suggest that the WTO include core labor rights and sanctions and so forth if these were violated. As we see in the structural adjustment section on this site. However. this seemed like a remarkably enlightened suggestion. (The previous link has some detailed examples from the US). laws and rules are often deemed as barriers to trade and a largely unelected set of WTO officials can make these decisions. a question of why the US would want to do such a thing is natural. This misconception that all who are against the current system of the WTO must automatically be against international trade etc is unfounded. this is a concern as the beneficiaries of global trade in its current form is seriously skewed. This has meant that those who have benefited (including enormous global media conglomerates) urge the same formula to continue—after all. However. the mainstream media preferred to distort the protestors’ concerns saying that they were all anti-trade etc and concentrated mainly on the motives of the right-wing protectionists from industrialized nations. .Instead. the conditions are such that capital can pick up and go elsewhere if there are such conditions. Both developing and developed nations could benefit from international trade. currently only the developed nations have really benefited (and that has also been at the cost of rise in poverty in their own nations). if it works for you. many in the developing countries saw this as reeking of protectionism and that it would be too costly for the poorer nations to be able to afford such dramatic changes given the poverty and dependency they are in. Criticism is also towards the corporate influence on the way the actual rules of trade are made (and what the rules are).
is whether progressives in the U. can become new vehicles for protectionism and imperial manipulation. however. I believe there are more effective and less dangerous ways to achieve this goal and to protect American workers from competition with third world workers who are even more exploited. Suppose only violations of labor or environmental standards are recognized grounds for trade sanctions under new WTO rules. 2000 in New Orleans. campaigns supporting land reform and cessation of U. political. a number of commentators in developed and developing countries did raise better perspectives. The crucial question is not whether the initiative for standards or sanctions comes from capitalist politicians or from the U. and a couple are quoted here as an example: What about labor rights and support for U. imperial policies. It is important that first world labor unions and environmental organizations recognize that our third world counterparts have good reason to worry that such provisions can easily become the new rationale for protectionism at their expense and for punishing regimes resistant to U.S. For example.S. Since the primary concern of the AFLCIO is to arrest the “race to the bottom” effect of trade liberalization. They like any financial or organizational aid we can provide—with no strings attached. laws banning imports of goods made by child labor or slave labor? Are such laws really protectionism in disguise? Such laws. government to pass and enforce laws against imports from offending countries or to insist on such provisions in WTO treaties. third world movements for human.S. only third world countries would be subject to complaints. Effectively. Worse. They would like us to help publicize abuses—particularly when our multinational corporations are the perpetrators. Sometimes they like us to organize consumer boycotts—when they ask for them. Moreover. The issue. when their struggle is at a crucial stage. But there is a difference between responding to requests for international solidarity and promoting measures many of our third world allies oppose. as well as provisions about labor and environmental standards in WTO treaties given how the WTO operates. fortunately the AFL-CIO rethought the issue and passed some important resolutions reaching out to third world workers at its Executive Council Meeting February 16-17. should pressure the U. as was the case in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa and is now the case in the struggle for democracy in Burma.While in the mainstream media’s eyes the developing countries were looked at negatively for their “incomprehensible” reaction. human rights/labor/left communities. Of course it would be a good thing if labor rights were made more secure and labor standards were improved anywhere in the world.S. they can more effectively protect their interests by supporting programs that improve the bargaining power of third world workers more than international labor standards do. Occasionally. precisely because third world workers are terribly exploited. military aid to totalitarian regimes are far more likely to reduce the “race to the bottom” effect of international trade. Many third world unions and grassroots organizations appreciate help from first world progressives in their campaigns for labor rights and standards. The AFL-CIO was oblivious to this legitimate concern going into Seattle and angered third world allies in the anti-globalization coalition as a result. their employers will pass on much of the cost of improvements in labor standards achieved through international trade treaties to their employees in the form of lower wages.S. third world countries would have waived their rights to retaliation when subjected to protectionist measures disguised as protections of labor or environmental standards.S. While they did not abandon their call for labor standards in trade treaties. The crucial question is whether the initiative comes as a request . and labor rights ask us to pressure our governments and/or international organizations to take up economic sanctions.
It is also a useful set of resources to see the criticisms of current globalization models and current forms of free trade practices. is now being pursued though bilateral and regional agreements … The current initiatives of advanced countries intended to make core labour standards in effect compulsory by threatening sanctions are regarded by developing countries as being protectionist. where consensus is required. in the following sections you will find some detailed essays. Trade before Freedom from le Monde Diplomatique. “will be showcasing up-to-theminute independent journalism about the WTO. free trade and economic activism. by Robin Hanhel . this approach could be seriously counterproductive and reduce standards overall. Human Rights. Imperialism. A question and answer session on globalization. — Ajit Singh and Ann Zammit. we should be as responsive as possible. describes some of the fundamental problems of the WTO.” Fighting Corporate Sponsored Globalization. should push so hard for using trade measures as a weapon to enforce labour standards including the right to unionize. The Day the South Cut up Rough. [W]hat cannot be gained regarding labour standards through multilateral channels such as the WTO. AlterNet has a section coverage that.from those we want to help in third world countries. which has not ratified many of the core ILO conventions and whose own degree of unionization is barely above the average for developing countries. The global labor standards controversy: critical issues for developing countries. February 2001 And from the South Centre: [A]ttempts to enforce labour standards through trade sanctions are likely to cause economic harm to most exporting developing countries. and Protectionism. IMF and World Bank etc work: ○ ○ • • • • • World Trade Crisis The WTO in Seattle One World On-line’s Campaign on the WTO summit has many useful resources and articles with up to date as well as background information. • From ZNet. also from le Monde. They question why a country like the US. South Centre. This is because the most severe competition for advanced countries comes from the small number of newly industrializing countries (NICs) whose productivity growth rate is much faster than that of advanced countries. — Robin Hahnel. What is more. October 2000 Back to top More Information The following sources provide good information about the meeting. at least in the short to medium term. any cut-back in developing country exports due to sanctions will not provide protection to labour and industry in the advanced countries for long (if that were the objective). Indeed. while doing little or nothing to improve their labour standards. in their own words. is a great summary of developing nations treatment at the WTO. articles and overviews of the problems of the current ways the WTO. ZNet. under wholly plausible circumstances. If so.
The Battle In Seattle radio coverage from Democracy now provides many interviews with a diverse range of people from around the world. Duford explains very briefly and quite nicely some of the fundamental problems with the corporate aspect of globalization and the possible problems it brings. World Trade Watch Radio from US-based Corporate Watch has live broadcasts. also with regards to the coming Seattle summit. Return of the Living Dead. from le Monde Diplomatique. Many good examples and points are made here. The issues being explored are the strategic policy implications for a country like India in . The 3rd WTO Ministerial Conference is the official WTO site for the meeting. They were also in Seattle and able to report first hand.” Loaded Against the Poor is a report from Oxfam. Trade Developments (UNCTAD) from Third World Network looks in to the UNCTAD and the various developments going on with respect to this UN body. however. WTO and developing countries looks at various concerns of developing nations. Watch Out For MAI Mark Two. The Third World Network has a good analysis of trade and WTO issues and a section on the Seattle meeting itself.” The Emperor’s New Clothes web site has a lot of interviews and articles from people who were at Seattle. the WTO and the world’s poorest communities from Christian Aid looks at the fairness behind the current corporate led globalization and the effects it has had on poor countries. World trade agenda hijacked by vested interests points out that “Two of free trade’s most famous champions (the chief of the rich man’s club. As Justin Forsyth. not to be confused with the US-based Corporate Watch!). IPR on Indian businesses is being carried out. The Guardian Special Report on Seattle is worth checking out as well. The Battle for Free Trade part of the BBC web site has many stories and articles. it can also fuel massive inequalities. from Corporate Watch (a UK-based group.• Sleepless in Seattle: the WTO version. The Independent Media Center in Seattle provided a lot of coverage and brought together many activists and journalists. and a former directorgeneral of GATT) have expressed concern that the industrial countries’ trade policies are being driven and hijacked by narrow commercial interests of big business. by Philippe E. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Impact of WTO and IPR on Indian Business Sector-wise study of the impact of World Trade Organisation and particularly. It has some interesting interviews such as this interview with a doctor who treated injured protestors. Consumer Rights and the Multilateral Trading System from Consumers International has a lot of information. hosted by Corporate Watch editor Julie Light and syndicated columnist Norman Solomon. the OECD. Fair Shares? Transnational companies. Oxfam Policy Director says “Trade is a powerful engine of economic growth.
Such integration helps increase the strengths of individual techniques and is therefore invaluable in managerial decision-making. Shailesh J Mehta School of Management skjha@iitb. They include expert systems.in Pharmaceuticals in India From Wikipedia. artificial neural networks. Intelligent Systems are widely used in organisational management. December 2010.in A Web-based Hybrid Intelligent System Framework for Business Applications With applications in almost all domains. server-centric. the free encyclopedia This article has multiple issues. The framework is XMLbased. footnoting or external linking. CONTACT: Prof R M Sonar. Shailesh J Mehta School of Management rm_sonar@iitb. It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. CONTACT: Prof Shishir K Jha. IIT Bombay has developed a framework (set of tools) to develop and deploy state-of-the-art intelligent web sites and web-based generic. Various prototype applications in banking and finance that use the combined strengths of intelligent systems are currently being developed. domain-independent hybrid intelligent systems. case-based reasoning. .her attempt to make substantial re-alignment with the requirements of the WTO.ac. Its references would be clearer with a different or consistent style of citation. and the specific concerns of many Indian industries.ac. and genetic algorithms. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. Tagged since July 2010. Tagged since July 2010. Tagged since It may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. and can be used through a simple Internet browser. fuzzy systems. It uses a unique and novel way of integrating various intelligent systems and data sources in a web environment. Hybrid Intelligent Systems are those that integrate/use more than one type of intelligent system to solve a problem.
5 Challenges 1.2. which still exists today as one of 5 government-owned drug manufacturers. This patent act removed composition patents from food and drugs.936 crore. For the next 60 years. The first pharmaceutical company are Bengal Chemicals and Pharmaceutical Works. enabled the industry to become what it is today. most of the drugs in India were imported bymultinationals either in fully formulated or bulk form.1 Statistics 1.S. appeared in Calcutta in 1930.8. and with the Patents Act in 1970.3 Comparison with the U. and while they streamed out.7 Labor force 2 Biotechnology ○ 2. Although some of the larger companies have taken baby steps towards drug innovation. The government started to encourage the growth of drug manufacturing by Indian companies in the early 1960s. Indian companies started to take their places.6 R&D 1.639 crore and bio-agri at Rs. India's bio-tech industry clocked a 17 percent growth with revenues of Rs. followed by bio-services at Rs. The lack of patent protection made the Indian market undesirable to the multinational companies that had dominated the market.The Indian pharmaceutical industry is the world's second-largest by volume and is likely to lead the manufacturing sector of India. and though it kept process patents. .1 Relationship between pharmaceuticals and biotechnology ○ ○ 2.137 billion ($3 billion) in the 2009-10 financial year over the previous fiscal. the industry as a whole has been following this business model until the present.829 crore.2 Patents 1.2 Biotechnology statistics 2.3 Product development 1. Contents [hide] • 1 The Indian pharmaceutical industry (IPo) today ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ • 1. these were shortened to a period of five to seven years. Bio-pharma was the biggest contributor generating 60 percent of the industry's growth at Rs.4 Small and medium enterprises 1.1. They carved a niche in both the Indian and world markets with their expertise in reverse-engineering new processes for manufacturing drugs at low costs.
989 2 Dr.4 Relationship with IT 2. Reddy's Laboratories 4.763.7 Challenges 3 Major players ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ • • • [ 3.5 Government support 22.214.171.124 Ranbaxy Laboratories 3.6 Foreign investment 2. as of 2010 Ra nk Company Revenue Revenue 2010(Rs billio 2010(Rs crore) n) 1 Ranbaxy Laboratories 4.622 3 Cipla 3.○ ○ ○ ○ • 2.72 37.25 41.637 .5 Others 4 See also 5 References 6 Reference edit]The Indian pharmaceutical industry (IPo) today Statistics Top 10 Pharmaceuticals in India.96 41.4 Cipla 3.3 Nicholas Piramal 3.2 Dr. Reddy's Laboratories 3.
734 8 Cadila Healthcare 1. are often a mix of public and private enterprise. 85% of these formulations were sold in India while over 60% of the bulk drugs were exported.80 9. down from 70% thirty years ago.S.838 10 Ipca Laboratories 980.635 5 Lupin Ltd 2. and in 2005.215. Growth in other fields notwithstanding. London research company . 250 of the largest companies control 70% of the Indian market . Most pharma companies operating in India. Homegrown pharmaceuticals.613 16.4 Sun Pharmaceutical 2. India currently holds a modest 1-2% share. leadership passes from father to son and the founding family holds a majority share.59 24.13 9 Aventis Pharma 983. multinationals represent only 35% of the market.27]. Most of the players in the market are small-to-medium enterprises. mostly to the United States and Russia.801 7 GlaxoSmithKline 1.773. In terms of the global market.44 9. FDA-approved manufacturing facilities in India. and it is now seeking to become a major player in outsourced clinical research as well as contract manufacturing and research.000 registered drug manufacturers in India sold $9 billion worth of formulations and bulk drugs. almost 20% of all Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) to the FDA are expected to be filed by Indian companies[21.081. There are 74 U.S.463. Mirroring the social structure. employ Indians almost exclusively from the lowest ranks to high level management. Although many of these companies are publicly owned. firms are very hierarchical. even the multinationals. more than in any other country outside the U.155 6 Aurobindo Pharma 2. generics are still a large part of the picture.52 22. Thanks to the 1970 Patent Act. over 20.19 20.8044 In 2002. but it has been growing at approximately 10% per year. India gained its foothold on the global scene with its innovatively-engineered generic drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients (API).41 17. like many other businesses in India.
they were also scrambling to meet the July 1 deadline for compliance with the revised Schedule M Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP). as opposed to on the ex-factory price. the industry is being forced to adapt its business model to recent changes in the operating environment. firms have made their ways into the global market by researching generic competitors to patented drugs and following up with litigation to challenge the patent. those that can afford it have set their sights on an even higher goal: new molecule discovery. The first and most significant change was the January 1. While this should be beneficial to . they will lose $650 million of the local generics market to patentholders. Indian companies achieved their status in the domestic market by breaking these product patents. Product development Mahendra Companies are also starting to adapt their product development processes to the new environment. Small and medium enterprises As promising as the future is for a whole. and it is estimated that within the next few years. In the domestic market. India will be forced to recognize not only new patents but also any patents filed after January 1. Uttaranchal and Jharkhand. Meanwhile. The legislation took effect on the deadline set by the WTO’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. 2005 enactment of an amendment to India’s patent law that reinstated product patents for the first time since 1972. Although the initial investment is huge. larger companies are cutting back on outsourcing and what business is left is shifting to companies with facilities in the four tax-free states Himachal Pradesh. Consequently. For years. 1995.Global Insight estimates that India’s share of the global generics market will have risen from 4% to 33% by 2007. Indian firms have chosen to take their existing product portfolios and target semi-urban and rural populations. which mandated patent protection on both products and processes for a period of 20 years. Local firms have slowly been investing more money into their R&D programs or have formed alliances to tap into these opportunities. this new patent legislation has resulted in fairly clear segmentation. As SMEs wrestled with the tax structure. taking advantage of their newly bestowed patent protection. companies are lured by the promise of hefty profit margins and the recognition as a legitimate competitor in the global industry. the outlook for small and medium enterprises (SME) is not as bright. This approach remains untouched by the new patent regime and looks to increase in the future. The excise structure changed so that companies now have to pay a 16% tax on the maximum retail price (MRP) of their products. However. Under this new law. The multinationals narrowed their focus onto high-end patients who make up only 12% of the market. Patents As it expands its core business. Jammu & Kashmir.
Indian firms have just recently started to leverage. lagging behind Western pharmaceuticals like Pfizer. pharmas in India also lack the academic collaboration that is crucial to drug development in the West. Even after the increased investment. Labor force India’s greatest strengths lie in its people. these foreign-trained scientists can transfer the benefits of their knowledge and experience to all of those who work with them[13.consumers and the industry at large. companies also have access to a highly developed IT industry that can partner with them in new molecule discovery. . The drug discovery process is further hindered by a dearth of qualified molecular biologists. Challenges All of these changes are ultimately good for the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Once there. This disparity is too great to be explained by cost differentials. making it difficult to compete in the wake of the new excise tax. English-speaking labor force that is the base of its competitive advantage. there has been a reverse brain drain effect in which scientists are returning from abroad to accept positions at lower salaries at Indian companies. In addition. SMEs have been finding it difficult to find the funds to upgrade their manufacturing plants. They have granted other concessions as well. With one of the largest and most genetically diverse populations in any single country. R&D Both the Indian central and state governments have recognized R&D as an important driver in the growth of their pharma businesses and conferred tax deductions for expenses related to research and development. However. which suffered in the past from inadequate regulation and large quantities of spurious drugs.25]. they have also exposed some of the inadequacies in the industry today. Due to the disconnect between curriculum and industry. Although molecular biologists are in short supply. Government support is not the only thing in Indian pharma’s favor. there are a number of talented chemists who are equally as important in the discovery process. whose research budget last year was greater than the combined revenues of the entire Indian pharmaceutical industry[13. 37]. India also boasts of well-educated. Reddy’s Laboratories spent only 5-10% of their revenues on R&D. India can recruit for clinical trials more quickly and perform them more cheaply than countries in the West. and it comes when advances in genomics have made research equipment more expensive than ever. but these operations were located in non-tax-free states. resulting in the closure of many facilities. Others invested the money to bring their facilities to compliance. India’s wealth of people extends benefits to another part of the drug commercialization process as well. Its main weakness is an underdeveloped new molecule discovery program. though. such as reduced interest rates for export financing and a cut in the number of drugs under price control. They force the industry to reach a level necessary for global competitiveness. market leaders such as Ranbaxy and Dr.
Biotechnology statistics Top 20 Biotechnology Companies in India. 75% of 2004-5 revenues came from biopharmaceuticals.[ edit]Biotechnology between pharmaceuticals and biotechnology Relationship Unlike in other countries. In 2004-5. Bio-tech there still plays the role of pharma’s little sister.0 7 Rasi Seeds 87 20.6 2 Serum Institute of India 565 129. but many outsiders have high expectations for the future. Of the revenues from biopharmaceuticals.[2. India accounted for 2% of the $41 billion global biotech market and in 2003 was ranked 3rd in the Asia-Pacific region and 11th in the world in number of biotechs. 2004 Ra nk Company Revenue Revenue 2004(USD milli 2004(Rs crore) ons) 1 Biocon 646 148.0 .2 5 Mahyco Monsanto 166 38. vaccines led the way. the Indian biotech industry saw its revenues grow 37% to $1.1 billion. Biologics and large-molecule drugs tend to be more expensive than small-molecule drugs. the difference between biotechnology and pharmaceuticals remains fairly defined in India.9 3 Panacea Biotec 217 50.9] The Indian biotech market is dominated by biopharmaceuticals. which saw 30% growth last year. and India hopes to sweep the market in biogenerics and contract manufacturing as drugs go off patent and Indian companies upgrade their manufacturing capabilities. comprising 47% of sales.3 6 Novo Nordisk 135 31.0 4 Venky's (India) Limited 188 43.
7 16 Wockhardt 67 15.4 17 Bharat Immunological & Biological Corp.3 18 Bharat Biological International 41 9.3 USD 1 = Rs 43.8 Aventis Pharma 84 19.6 10 Chiron Behring Vaccines 78 17.5 Source: BioSpectrum Top 20: A threshold crossed .9 12 Indian Immunologicals 72 16.4 19 Advanced Biochemicals 40 9.4 9 Bharat Serums 81 18.9 15 Eli Lilly and Company 68 15.1 14 Novozymes 69 15.1 20 Biological E 36 8. 53 12.9 11 GlaxoSmithKline 78 17.6 13 Shantha Biotechnics 70 16.
Pharmaceutical companies in both countries have recognized the potential effect that biotechnology could have on their pipelines and have responded by either investing in existing start-ups or venturing into the field themselves. the biotech industry could become the “single largest sector for employment of skilled human resource in the years to come.[2.. citing the success of India’s biotech industry as the reason for his own country’s own biotech opportunities. Indian firms account for 62% of the biopharma sector and 52% of the industry as a whole.” Of the $110 million invested in 14 biotech projects investment globally. The International Finance Commission.” British Prime Minister Tony Blair was similarly impressed. The top five companies were homegrown. animal testing was expanded to include large animals as part of the . According to Dr. In both India and the U. in many ways. and data from the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) seem to suggest that it is possible.S.46] The Association of Biotechnology-Led Enterprises (ABLE) is aiming to grow the industry to $5 billion in revenues generated by 1 million employees by 2009. Almost 50% of all biotechs are in or around Bangalore. The Indian biotech sector parallels that of the U. Both are dependent upon government grants and venture capitalists for funding because neither will be commercially viable for years.S.47] The newness of the companies explains the industry’s high consolidation in both physical and financial terms. India’s science minister launched a program that provides tax incentives and grants for biotech start-ups and firms seeking to expand and establishes the Biotechnology Parks Society of India to support ten biotech parks by 2010. Government support The Indian government has been very supportive. biotech is seen as a hot field with a lot of growth potential. Manju Sharma.[4. as well as in much of the globe. Since then. with only two firms breaking 100 million dollars in revenues. Relationship with IT Many analysts have observed that the hype around the biotech sector mirrors that of the IT sector.47] Comparison with the U. the IFC has given $43 million to 4 projects in India. Biotech colleges have been popping up around the country eager to service the pools of students that want to take advantage of a growing industry. Previously limited to rodents. At last count there were 265 firms registered in India. over 75% of which were incorporated in the last five years. called India the “centerpiece of IFC’s global biotech strategy.S. and the top ten companies capture 47% of the market.Most companies in the biotech sector are extremely small. there have been a number of dispensations offered by both the central government and various states to encourage the growth of the industry. It established the Department of Biotechnology in 1986 under the Ministry of Science and Technology. Both are filled with small start-ups while the majority of the market is controlled by a few powerful companies. former director of the Department of Biotechnology. the private investment arm of the World Bank. Malaysia is also looking to India as an example for growing its own biotech industry.[7.
and they are offering such goodies as exemption from VAT and other fees. Sibal returned to the U. India’s biotech firms share another problem with their pharmaceutical cousins: a lack of qualified employees. with special emphasis on biotech. visited five cities in the U.17] While little has been done about the latter half of the employee crunch. While this is not a problem. there needs to be better scientific and financial accountability. the ineffectual curriculum at many universities makes it doubtful as to whether he will be qualified to work in the field once finished.  Just two months later. high-quality labor. One estimate shows that 10% of upper-echelon biotech recruits have come from foreign countries. Biotech has the additional disadvantage of competing against IT for ambitious. marketing personnel and others. to unveil India’s biotech growth strategy at the BIO2005 conference in Philadelphia.15. which is a relatively young industry in India. Chief among them is a lack of funding. the minister of science and technology and ocean development. Foreign investment The government has also taken steps to encourage foreign investment in its biotech sector. there is also a shortage of people with a knowledge of biotechnology in related fields: doctors. As previously mentioned. to encourage investment in India. particularly for firms that are just starting out. it drives up cost in a country whose competitive advantage is based on cheap. Before these potential saviors will invest significant sums in the industry.minister’s initiative. This plan included a proposal to create a National Task Force that would work with the biotech industry to revise the curriculum for undergraduate and graduate study in life sciences and biotechnology. Government grants are difficult to secure. Far from ending with scientists. science-minded students but not being able to guarantee the same compensation. An aspiring researcher in India needs 7–10 years of education covering a range of specialties in order to qualify to work in biotech.S.[7. venture capitalists are reluctant to invest in firms that have not yet developed a commercially viable product.S. The government’s strategy . India hopes to solve its funding problem by attracting overseas investors and partners. India is slowly working towards these goals. and due to the expensive and uncertain nature of biotech research. An initiative passed earlier this year allowed 100% foreign direct investment without compulsory licensing from the government1. Challenges The biotech sector faces some major challenges in its quest for growth. The most likely sources of funds are government grants and venture capital. however. In April. programmers. States have started to vie with one another for biotech business. per se. Even if a student does choose to go on the biotech path. but it will be a while before they are up to the standards of Western investors. a delegation headed by the Kapil Sibal. financial assistance with patents and subsidies on everything ranging from investment to land to utilities. the government has addressed the problem of educated but unqualified candidates in its Draft National Biotech Development Strategy. lawyers.
By 2012. Dr. Reddy has long been a research-oriented firm.174 billion in revenues for a net profit of $160 million in 2004. It spent $75 million in R&D in 2004. Reddy's Laboratories Founded in 1984 with $160. Reddy’s was the first Asia-Pacific pharmaceutical outside of Japan and the sixth Indian company to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange.44 . preceding many of its peers in setting up a New Drug Development Research (NDDR) in 1993 and out-licensing its first compound just four years later. Anji Reddy is the chairman of Dr. Reddy’s is publicly traded. Dr. Arun Puri is the chairman and CEO Brian Tempest is the only non-Indian on the senior management team.” To this end. marketed by Bayer) approved by the U.38. and most of these products were already off patent. [ edit]Major players Laboratories Ranbaxy Ranbaxy is the leader in the Indian pharmaceutical market. Although Dr. market accounts for 36% of its sales. Ranbaxy hopes to be one of the top 5 generics producers in the world. much as they are in the U. Anji Reddy. These human resources will be further leveraged with a “Bio-Edu-Grid” that will knit together the resources of the academic and scientific industrial communities. Reddy’s revenues come from generic drugs. Dr. son-inlaw/CEO GV Prasad and son/COO Satish Reddy) holds a hefty 26% share in the company.also stated intentions to increase the number of PhD Fellowships awarded by the Department of Biotechnology to 200 per year. In order to strengthen its global position.S. Reddy acquired UK-based BMS Laboratories and subsidiary Meridian Healthcare.Reddy's. however. and it consolidated its position with the purchase of French firm RGP Aventis in 2003.39 Dr. Reddy’s has since outlicensed two more molecules and currently has three others in clinical trials. They currently have two molecules in Phase II trials and 3-5 in pre-clinical testing. taking in $1.000.S.11. Dr.S. It earned $446 million in fiscal year 2005. the Reddy family (including founder/chairman K. it keeps a dedicated research facility in Gurgaon staffed with over 1100 scientists. It was the first Indian pharmaceutical to have a proprietary drug (extendedrelease ciprofloxacin. Although 58% of Dr. 78% of Ranbaxy’s sales are from overseas markets. “to build a proprietary prescription business in the advanced markets. IMS Health estimated that Ranbaxy is among the top 100 pharmaceuticals in the world and that it is the 15th fastest growing company. the company was committed to WTOcompliance long before the 2005 bill took effect. and the U. a 43% increase over its 2003 expenditure. deriving 66% of this income from the foreign market. its offices in 44 countries manage manufacturing in 7 countries and distribution in over 100. FDA. Ranbaxy also has higher aspirations.
Chairman and Managing Director.000 per year. antisera." Instead. Nicholas Piramal is well-poised for the challenge of surviving in the aftermath of product patent protection. Cipla burst into the international consciousness in 2000 with Triomune. Hamied.18 |Dr. The Serum Institute earned Rs 565 crore ($130 million) in revenue in fiscal year 2005.14.36 crore (almost $150 million) in revenue for fiscal year 2004. Syngene and Clinigene. Cipla had been building a strong global presence. The company has respected intellectual property rights since its inception and refused to "support generic companies seeking first-to-file or early-to-market strategies. The Serum Institute is part of the Poonawalla Group. selling mainly to UN agencies and to the Indian government. It is the world’s largest producer of measles and DTP vaccines. but Biocon recently decided to become a research-oriented company with the goal of bringing a proprietary new drug to market. whose holdings . Yusuf K.33 Cipla Cipla is one of the oldest drug manufacturers in India.472 = $1) about 75% of which was derived in India.3.000. and it now distributes its 800-odd products in over 140 countries. Nicholas Piramal started its existence with the 1988 acquisition of Nicholas Laboratories and grew through a series of mergers. Biocon also has two wholly owned subsidiaries. plasma products and anticancer compounds. The company has formed a name for itself in the field of custom manufacturing. an AIDS treatment costing between $300 and $800 per year that infringed upon patents held by several companies who were selling the cocktail for $12." Eight months later it launched Insugen. Biocon is now the leading biotech in India. Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw]] is the Chairman and Managing Director of BiocoIrish chemicals company seeking to break into the Indian market. it decided to make its own intellectual property and opened a research facility last November in Mumbai with hopes of launching its first drug in 2010 at a cost of $100. and "its shares were oversubscribed by 33 times on opening day. Long before this news.Nicholas Piramal The company led by Asish Mishra grossing $350 million per year. it is the leader in domestic sales. The company went public in March 2004. It cites its 1700-person global sales force as another core strength. a bio-insulin that is its first branded product. that perform custom research and clinical trials. Nicholas Piramal gained a sales and marketing network spanning 90 countries34. with its acquisition of Rhodia’s inhalation anaesthetics business. Privately held Cipla holds a prominent spot in its home country as well. Cipla did not report having a research program. It is led by Dr. It initially made its money by producing enzymes.8. and its portfolio includes other vaccines. having just unseated GlaxoSmithKline for the first time in 28 years. acquisitions and alliances. Revenue in 2004 totaled $552 million (using Rs 43.31 ===Serum Institute of India=== The Serum Institute of India can make the enviable claim that 2 out of every 3 children in the world are immunized with one of their vaccines. bringing in Rs 646.24.
Chairman and Managing Director Orchid Pharmaceuticals :Mr. Rajendra Agarwal. Managing Director Intas Biopharmaceuticals :Dr. Chairman and Managing Director Ajanta Pharma :Yogesh Agrawal. Chairman Cadila Healthcare :Pankaj R. Bharat V. Subramaniam. Managing Director Green Apple Lifesciences Limited :Mitesh Mehta. B. Chairman AMN Pharmaceuticals :Amndip.include a horse stud farm and manufacturers of industrial equipment and components.1. Soshil Kumar Jain. Patel. Desh Bandhu Gupta. Narayanan. Chairman Reliance Life Sciences Pvt Ltd : Mr. Urmish Chudgar.V.4.40 Others Other important domestic companies Lupin Ltd :Dr. R. K. Chairman and Managing Director Nectar Lifesciences :Mr. Cyrus Poonawalla is the Chairman of the company. Dr. Khorakiwala. Managing Director Bharat Serums :Mr. Partha Saradhi Reddy. Chairman Wockhardt :Habil F. Chairman Zenbiz Life science Panacea Biotec :Mr. Sanghvi. Sanjiv Goyal. Chairman Macleods Pharma :Dr. Daftary. Chairman and Managing Director Hetero Drugs :Dr. Chairman Sun Pharmaceuticals :Dilip S. Chairman and Managing Director Torrent Pharmaceuticals :Sudir Mehta. President and CEO [ edit]See also Medicine in China Pharmaceutical industry in China Pharmacology Biotechnology Pharmaceutical marketing Pharmaceutical industry . V.
Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd.” Financial Times 18 August 2004: 15." The Financial Times (21 June 2005): 8. Cipla.cipla.com/content/BSTOP20/10506153. 22 July 2005. 27 July 2005 <http://www. [ National pharmaceuticals policy Opium and Alkaloid Works edit]References 1 Serum Institute of India. Clive. P.asp>. 8 Cipla.join biotech. 5 “Biotech development strategy to boost domestic. 9 Cookson. Dr. 28 July 2005 < http://www.drreddys. 13 Dyer. Biospectrum.Global Newswire – Asia Africa Intelligence Wire 31 May 2005. “Fat pay. yuppie lifestyle . “More global buys by pharma cos likely. 11 Dr. 15 June 2005. foreign investments: CII. "NRIs.” BioSpectrum 3:6 (June 2005): 24-32.com/>." The Economic Times 20 April 2005." Asia Africa Intelligence Wire 15 March 2005. 12 D’Silva.biocon. Lopamudra. 10 Datta.T." The Economic Times 23 April 2005.com/>. Darlington Jose.” The Hindustan Times 20 May 2005. 1 August 2005 <http://www. 16 “Government to allow 100% FDI in Biotech (Biotech will be exempted from the requirement of compulsory licensing) ” India Business Insight . expats fuel biotech boom in India. Jyothi. Reddy Laboratories Ltd.” Global Newswire – Asia Africa Intelligence Wire 21 February 2005. “An experiment in globalization: how India hopes to reshape the world drugs industry. 7 "BT has jobs but where are the takers?" Asia Africa Intelligence Wire 7 January 2005.” The Economic Times 28 May 2005. “Pharma SMEs gasp for breath as big companies move to better climes. 15 Ghatak. . "India to expand biotech sector. 6 “Biotech sector to be single largest job churner: expert. Jeetha. "Big Shot in Bangalore.com/>. (Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw ). Mary Ellen. 14 Egan. 17 Hector. not IT. 3 Biopharmaceutical and Biotechnology Company.” The Hindu Business Line (Internet Edition). Jeff and Khozem Merchant. Biocon.biospectrumindia. 4 “BioSpectrum 20: A Threshold Crossed. 26 July 2005 <http://www." Forbes 174:8 (18 October 2004): 88. 2 "50% of country's biotech firms based in Karnataka.
20 June 2005. 33 Nicholas Piramal India Limited. 20 “India industry: Desperate for quality healthcare services. 19 "Incentives for bio-tech units. 26 July 2005.com>. 1 August 2005 <http://www. 30 Malhotra. Vinish & Vandita Tewari.” Economist Intelligence Unit: Country ViewsWire. 27 Kripalani. “First Lady.com. 26 July 2005.” Nationwide International News (The Press Trust of India) 7 March 2005. 34 “NPIL buys Rhodia business for 7m [pounds sterling]. <http://www.” Manufacturing Chemist 76:2 (2005): 27-29. “IFC Committed to Support Indian Biotech Sector. Indian Pharmaceutical Sector: Big Pharma Opportunity. Manjeet. Oanh. 28 August 2003. “India's pharmaceutical industry: hype or high tech take-off?” Australian Health Review 28:2 (2004): 182-193." San Jose Mercury News 12 April 2005. Joseph.” International Finance Corporation: Press Releases South Asia. Lisa. K.” Newsweek International 11 October 2004: 39. Prabodh & Lofgren. “India enters a new era. Unni.” ACN: Asian Chemical News 11:475 (17 January 2005): 6. "NPIL sets ambitious growth targets." Asia Africa Intelligence Wire 2 July 2005. "Pharma Karma. Hemant N. 24 June 2005." Chemical Market Reporter 267:16 (18 April 2005): 32-33.htm> 24 Jarvis. 21 Indiainfoonline. World Trade Organization.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e. 29 Ludwina. . "Venture capitalists and biotech sector: Discovering the potential.” WTO: Understanding the WTO. 22 “India’s biotech strides prompts UK to hike funds in sector." Asia Africa Intelligence Wire 29 December 2004. 32 Na. "India's sales pitch to Silicon Valley. 28 July 2005." Business Week 39:29 (18 April 2005): 20.” Pharmaceutical Technology 27:1 (2003): 74-84.18 Hoovers Company Records – In-Depth Records: Cipla. Tougher patent protection laws are spurring rapid growth in new drug research across India. By Atul Rastogi and Abhimanyu Verma. Sudip. 26 Kathuria. 25 Joshi. “Analysis of the Indian pharmaceutical industry: with emphasis on opportunities in 2005. Hans.nicholaspiramal. Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe.wto. 31 Mazumdar. 28 Krishnan. 23 “Intellectual property: protection and enforcement. In Asia: India’s top biotech CEO begs to differ with those who say Singapore leads the field. Nicholas Piramal India Limited.
Karamjit. 46 “Vaccines push BioPharma sales.” BioSpectrum 3:6 (June 2005): 70-71. Caring". C H. 2.com. “Indian pharma’s mid-life crisis.pdf>.com/>. 2004): 56. 29 July 2005. ^ "Serum Institute of India | Manufacturer of Vaccines & immuno-biologicals . 2005: 50.” Business Today 27 February. Retrieved 8 Jun 2010. ^ "Indian biotech industry grew 17 percent in 2009-10: Survey".35 Pharmaceutical and Drug Manufacturers Homepage. India: Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 43 Sridharan. 26 July 2005 <http://www. 39 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.” Forbes (internet) 10 December 2001.pharmaceutical-drug-manufacturers. “Patents carve up drug market. “Pill factory to the world. “Net value: Tapping biotech know-how.zinnov. R. The Economic Times.seruminstitute. Economic Times. Retrieved 2010-0727. Retrieved 2010-07-27. 4. 36 Prasad.” Business Standard 29 July 2005. Retrieved 21 Jun 2010. ^ "Understanding the WTO . 3. [ edit]Reference 1. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. local drugmakers have built a thriving industry on pilfering patents. ^ "Nectar Lifesciences Ltd.” The Scientist 25 October 2004: 51-53. Andrew.Intellectual property: protection and enforcement". (2004). WTO. Seema. 21 June 2010. 40 Serum Institute of India. 5.ranbaxy.com>. Serum Institute of India. “India wants to be your biotech source. 44 Tanzer.000 crore.com/>. Retrieved 2010-07-27. The party ends in January. “India kicks the habit.: Nurturing. 37 “R and D spend of top 5 Indian pharmaceutical companies touches Rs1. "Pharmaceutical Outsourcing in India" <http://www.” Newsweek International (22 November. 47 Wilkie. 45 Unnikrishnan. Gurgaon. Pharmaceutical and Drug Manufacturers. et al. ^ "Pharma to topple IT as big paymaster". 30 July 2005 <http://www.” Asia Africa Intelligence Wire 17 February 2005. 38 Ranbaxy – Indian Pharma Research & Pharmaceutical Company India. . Enriching. 41 Singh.com/presentation/Pharmaceutical_Outsourcing_Overview. Annual Report. Neclife." The Economic Times 31 December 2004. 42 Singh. "Outlook improves for India's biotechnology sector. Girish Chandra. Seruminstitute.” The Edge Malaysia 16 May 2005.GMP Vaccine Manufacturer". 48 Zinnov. 29 July 2005 < http://www. Dana.com.
in. ^ "Welcome To Ajanta Pharma". Retrieved 2010-07-27. Rellife. natural products".com. Categories: Biotechnology | Clinical research | Healthcare in India | Pharmaceuticals policy | Pharmacology | Pharmacy | Pharmaceutical companies of India | Pharmaceutical industry of India • • • • • • Log in / create account Article Discussion Read Edit View history Top of Form Bottom of Form • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia Interaction Help About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact Wikipedia Toolbox Print/export Languages Català Deutsch Français . pharmaceutical company india.com. ^ "Reliance Life Sciences :: Reliance Industries :: Reliance Group". Retrieved 2010-07-27. pharmaceutical formulations.com. Retrieved 2010-07-27. Ajantapharma. Retrieved 2010-07-27. Greenapple. ^ "Welcome to Green Apple Lifesciences Limited". Retrieved 2010-07-27. Panacea Biotec. ^ "Bharat Serums and Vaccines .6. ^ "India : Pharmaceuticals Business. vaccines. pharma and biotechnology products". 11. 12. ^ amnpharmaceuticals. pharmaceuticals intellectual property. Amnpharmaceuticals. 8.com 7. Bharatserums. 10.co. 9. ^ http://macleodspharma. pharmaceuticals brand.com. pharma outsourcing india.plasma.com. "Pharmaceutical Companies in India". Retrieved 2010-07-27.
variable levies. These include purchases for and sales from food security stocks at administered prices provided that the subsidy to producers is included in calculation of AMS. voluntary restraint agreements etc. measured by the Total Aggregate Measure of Support (total AMS). Developed countries are required to reduce their export subsidy expenditure by 36% and volume by 21% in 6 years. Domestic Support For domestic support policies. no such subsidies can be granted in the future. Policies which amount to domestic support both under the product specific and non product specific categories at less than 5% of the value of production for developed countries and less than 10% for developing countries are also excluded from any reduction commitments. provided certain conditions are met. the total support given in 1986-88. trade distorting effects on production are excluded from any reduction commitments (‘Green Box’-Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculturewww. Ordinary tariffs including those resulting from their tariffication are to be reduced by an average of 36% with minimum rate of reduction of 15% for each tariff item over a 6 year period. It has also been stipulated that minimum access equal to 3% of domestic consumption in 1986-88 will have to be established for the year 1995 rising to 5% at the end of the implementation period. For developing countries the percentage cuts are 24% and 14% respectively in equal annual installment over 10 years. tariff reduction and access opportunities. in equal installment (from 1986 –1990 levels). Market Access This includes tariffication. Reduction commitments refer to total levels of support and not to individual commodities. Developing countries as were maintaining Quantitative Restrictions due to balance of payment problems. Also excluded for developing countries are investment subsidies that are generally available to agriculture and agricultural input subsidies generally available to low income and resource poor farmers in these countries. Export Subsidies The Agreement contains provisions regarding members commitment to reduce Export Subsidies. public stock-holding for food security purposes. The list of exempted green box policies includes such policies which provide services or benefits to agriculture or the rural community.wto. Policies which have no or at most minimal. The Agreement also specifies that for products not subject to export subsidy reduction commitments.org. should be reduced by 20% in developed countries (13. Developing countries are permitted untargeted subsidised food distribution to meet requirements of the urban and rural poor. Special safeguard provision allows the imposition of additional duties when there are either import surges above a particular level or particularly low import prices as compared to 1986-88 levels.SALIENT FEATURES The WTO Agreement on Agriculture contains provisions in 3 broad areas of agriculture and trade policy : market access. Developing countries are required to reduce tariffs by 24% in 10 years. . domestic support and export subsidies. subject to reduction commitments. were allowed to offer ceiling bindings instead of tariffication.3% in developing countries). Tariffication means that all non-tariff barriers such as quotas. minimum import prices. discretionary licensing. domestic food aid and certain de-coupled payments to producers including direct payments to production limiting programmes. need to be abolished and converted into an equivalent tariff. state trading measures. Special and Differential Treatment provisions are also available for developing country members.
rapeseed. about (-) 18% of the value of total agricultural output. and sugarcane. exporters of agricultural commodities do not get any direct subsidy. we have not undertaken any commitment in our schedule filed under GATT. The negative figure arises from the fact that during the base period. maize. jute. millets etc. which had been bound at zero or at low bound rates. the question of our undertaking reduction commitments did not arise. seeds. Non-product specific subsidy is calculated by taking into account subsidies given for fertilizers. gram. vegetables and floricultural products.52% of the total value of production.org/wto/online/ddf. Domestic Support India does not provide any product specific support other than market price support. 1999.7. cash compensatory support) during the implementation period. out of which 19 are included in our list of commitments filed under GATT.47% and non-product specific AMS as 7. international prices of all products was higher than domestic prices. India’s notifications on AMS are available at web site addresswww. The products are .24. The only commitment India has undertaken is to bind its primary agricultural products at 100%. During the reference period (1986-88 ).rice. except for tobacco and sugarcane.e. The total product specific AMS was (-) Rs. The calculations for the marketing year 1995-96 show the product specific AMS figure as (-) 38. wheat. processed foods at 150% and edible oils at 300%. water.442 crores during the base period. Soyabean (black). the total non-product specific AMS was Rs. During the reference period. (b) subsidies on cost of freight on export shipments of certain products like fruits. We have in fact indicated in our schedule of commitments that India reserves the right to take recourse to subsidies (such as. moong. for some agricultural products like skimmed milk powder. spelt wheat. rice. it did not have to undertake any commitments in regard to market access. jawar. and the bound rates have been raised substantially. barley. bajra. credit and electricity. toria. Since our total AMS is negative and that too by a huge magnitude.4581 crores. groundnut. We can further deduct from these calculations the domestic support extended to low income and resource poor farmers provided under Article 6 of the Agreement on Agriculture. As such.19. The only subsidies available to them are in the form of (a) exemption of export profit from income tax under section 80-HHC of the Income Tax Act and this is also not one of the listed subsidies as the entire income from Agriculture is exempt from Income Tax per se.869 crores i. maize. Export Subsidies In India. India had market price support programmes for 22 products.2001 MANDATED NEGOTIATIONS . tur.INDIA'S COMMITMENTS Market Access As India was maintaining Quantitative Restrictions due to balance of payments reasons(which is a GATT consistent measure). Of course. Revised on 4. negotiations under Article XXVIII of GATT were successfully completed in December. cotton. tobacco. Soyabean (yellow). and the product specific AMS is to be calculated by subtracting the domestic price from the international price and then multiplying the resultant figure by the quantity of production. urad. This still keeps our aggregate AMS below the de minimis level of 10%.wto.htm (G/AG/N/IND/1). the total AMS was (-) Rs. Taking both product specific and non-product specific AMS into account.
members have submitted 47 negotiating proposals. special and differential treatment to developing country members and the objective of establishing a fair and market oriented agricultural trading system. one on "Market Access" along with 11 other developing countries and another on "Export Credits for Agricultural Products" along with 9 other countries/group of countries. the negotiations on the Agreement on Agriculture have begun in January 2000. These negotiations are being conducted in special sessions of the WTO Committee on Agriculture (COA) at Geneva. rural development and rural employment as also to create opportunities for expansion of agricultural exports by securing meaningful market access in developed countries. In pursuance of the same. and Identifying further commitments necessary to achieve the long-term objectives of the Agreement. These proposals were drawn up and drafted based on inputs received from wide ranging consultations with various stakeholders and keeping in view India’s objectives in the negotiations. India also submitted its negotiating proposals to the WTO on 15th January 2001. export competition and food security. which were discussed in Seven Special Sessions of the CoA. Non trade concerns. domestic support. With the approval of the Cabinet Committee on WTO Matters. .wto. As the implementation period for developed countries culminated at the end of the year 2000. India also co-sponsored two papers.org) mandates that negotiations for continuing the reform process in agriculture will be initiated one year before the end of the implementation period. in the areas of market access. The following are the broad parameters for carrying out negotiations: Experience of member countries in implementation of reduction commitments till date. which are to protect its food and livelihood security concerns and to protect all domestic policy measures taken for poverty alleviation. During extensive deliberations in the WTO Committee on Agriculture and in the General Council. in the first phase of the negotiations. member countries had agreed to broadly adhere to the mandate of Article 20 of the Agreement.Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) (www. The effects of reduction commitments on World Trade in Agriculture.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.