Indian animal rights NGO calls for inclusion of animal welfare standards in WTO agenda
The Statesman carries a report that an Indian NGO has welcomed statements from EU officials about including animal welfare as a non-trade concern in WTO agreements. The report:
Animal activists in India have welcomed a move by the European Union (EU) to push for inclusion of animal welfare in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) multilateral trade negotiations. They have said that they will pursue the goal of welfare of animals including stray animals that are subjected to untold sufferings.
Hailing the EU move as the right one, Citizens for Animal Rights (CFAR), New Delhi, said that the inclusion of animal welfare standards in WTO agenda is urgently needed to effectively enforce animal standards worldwide, and to improve the appalling condition of slaughter houses in many countries, including India. India should take the lead in promoting animal welfare as the land of Ahimsa, they said.
Animal welfare concerns are being increasingly recognised in food production around the world, but they must be formalised within the WTO trade agreements, according to several senior representatives of the EU who spoke at a recent Brussels conference on "Global Trade and Farm Animal Welfare". Czech agriculture minister Mr Petr Gandalovic, the new chair of the EU Farm Council, explained that the next six months will see a strong focus on European animal welfare standards, including new slaughter rules.
EU health commissioner Miss Androulla Vassiliou also highlighted the growing importance of animal welfare issues as live animals and animal produce are traded across the world, arguing for their inclusion as a "non-trade concern" in WTO agreements. She said: “Animal welfare is gaining rapid momentum, not only in the EU but worldwide”. The importance of animal welfare in ensuring the quality and safety of meat was also highlighted, as well as the goal of minimising animal suffering.
Its interesting to see another example of an Indian NGO engaging with WTO issues. However, I am not sure (from the above report) as to whether the Indian NGO really understands this issue. They seem to be talking about welfare of animals in all circumstances including stray animals and their concerns are more appropriately addressed by domestic regulation on domestic treatment of animals. The EU officials on the other hand want to make this a WTO issue and bring in a WTO rule that allows countries to prevent imports on the ground of animal welfare. The issue is whether such a new emphasis on animal welfare is needed in the WTO treaties. Isn’t GATT article XX sufficient to allow for measures on the ground of animal welfare, in as much as it would be necessary to protect public morals or to protect animal life or health? The SPS agreement also allows for measures for the protection of animal life or health. Such measures can include regulation of processes and production methods. The SPS agreement would also arguably allow for otherwise trade-restrictive domestic regulation necessary for humane animal welfare standards.
And with the Doha round floundering and increasing trade protectionism all-round, measures based on animal welfare might be the subject of new battles over non-tariff barriers in the livestock farm sector. The EU’s proposed ban on seal products on animal welfare grounds is already causing friction with Norway and Canada. See a report.
New blog category added for posts on recent Indian safety measures against Chinese toy imports
Due to the continuing interest in the discussion on the recent Indian measures against imports of toys from China on safety considerations (first the ban and then its revision to new mandatory safety standards), I have created a new blog category Indian safety measure for Chinese toys where all posts and comments on this issue can be accessed. I hope this will facilitate retrieval of information for those interested.
China criticizes new Indian mandatory standards for Chinese toys before TBT Committee
The Economic Times reported yesterday that China has raised the issue of the mandatory safety standards imposed by India on imported Chinese toys before the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade.
In its complaint to the WTO, China has alleged that India’s quality checks violate the condition of “national treatment” laid down under WTO’s trade rules as they did not apply to toys manufactured in India or imported from any other country.
In its submission to the WTO committee on technical barriers to trade, China pointed out that since the restrictions apply only to Chinese toys, it could be viewed as a general ban on and a discriminatory measure against Chinese toys.
This breached a series of fundamental principles embodied in the WTO agreement, including that of most favoured nation treatment (every member country will be treated on a par with other member countries), and national treatment (product from a member country will be given the same treatment as that given to a product made locally), along with provisions of technical barriers to trade (TBT) agreement.
China also pointed out that India did not inform WTO about the restrictions, a procedure necessary under the transparency obligations of TBT agreement.
“China strongly requests that India revoke its discriminatory and WTO-inconsistent restriction on Chinese toys immediately,” the submission stated.
So China is alleging that even the revised Indian notification violates both MFN and national treatment. Further, it violates the notification requirement in the TBT agreement. For more background, see earlier posts on this subject under the category –public health. See http://indiainthewto.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/indian-government-relaxes-ban-on-chinese-toy-imports/
Why did the Indian government not use Clause 2.10 of the TBT agreement permitting the issue of safety standards in urgent cases with post-facto notification to the WTO secretariat and other members? Such a notification requires the statement of objectives and the rational for the standards. India will probably argue that these are international standards not requiring notification, but the application of these standards exclusively to imports from China does raise potential violations of MFN and NT.
The Indian authorities could have avoided a lot of trouble if only they had also followed the letter of WTO rules in this matter. The flexibility to take action against imports for safety reasons is fully available, but the Indians seem to have messed up on procedure. Is this an example of lack of capacity in Indian government institutions to use the WTO rules effectively? Why do they not consult lawyers more?
The Hindu meanwhile has an interesting take on the matter:
China is likely to convey its concern to India over New Delhi trying to restrict import of Chinese goods, even though Beijing has not "yet" dragged its neighbour to the World Trade Organisation on the issue.
Chinese Vice Minister of Commerce Zhong Shan is expected to convey his country’s strong resentment over India resorting to protect its industry against imports from China, when he meets Commerce Secretary G K Pillai here this week, sources said.
"We have nothing on this yet," WTO spokesperson said in an e-mail from Geneva when asked whether China has lodged any formal complaint against India. China was upset over India slapping a ban on import of Chinese toys on January 23, which was partially eased within six weeks, provided the toys conformed to international health and safety standards.
The official Chinese media had reported that the country was mulling to drag India to WTO for contesting the ban. However, Mr. Pillai is expected to confront Mr. Zhong with data showing surge in imports from China.
While the bilateral trade has seen a sharp rise in the fiscal 2008-09, it is highly skewed in favour of China. In 2007-08, India’s exports to China stood at USD 10.83 billion, while imports was USD 27.11 billion.
So why would Indian Commerce Secretary talk to the Chinese about surging imports in a matter to do with safety issues? To be fair, the discussions between the Indian Commerce Secretary and the Chinese Vice Minister of Commerce will likely cover all the recent trade tensions between the two countries. And the discussion of import surges will probably feature in that context.
leave a comment