The dispute over Russia's ban on the import of Indian rice, citing health safety concerns, is symptomatic of the issues that plague international trade in agricultural products. India and the US had till recently been locked in a similar row over the latter's ban on Indian mangoes, grapes and sea food. The tussle over the bar on importing US wheat into India is still going on. Other countries are also involved in protracted wrangles over tolerance limits for pathogens, pests, weeds, pesticide residues and other health-injurious substances in agro-products. The worst part of it all is that these issues crop up primarily in cases where the importing countries have set their own limits, different from the prevalent global norms, which the exporting countries find difficult to meet. As such, these act as non-tariff trade barriers. This is all the more so when importers go beyond health concerns and the established sanitary and phyto-sanitary (SPS) norms, and insist on measures like labour standards, transportation distances (on the plea of pollution) and agronomic practices and farm operations (like the hand-milking of bovines). | |
| From this viewpoint, the problem seems rooted in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the SPS accord, both of which permit governments to fix their own product standards to protect human, animal or plant health. Though both these pacts have specified that this proviso should not be used as a protectionist tool, the caution is seldom taken seriously unless challenged. Article 20 of GATT categorically states that self-determined norms should not be discriminatory in nature or used as disguised protectionism. The SPS accord goes a step further and stipulates that such standards and regulations must be based on science and should be applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life. |
| |
| A significant development on this front is that this issue has now begun to be debated in WTO fora. A paper submitted at last week's meeting of the WTO committee on SPS measures by Argentina, and supported by several developing countries, has urged members to agree on and adhere to international standards for pesticide residues and related aspects. If a country lays down tougher norms, it should supply scientific evidence to justify them. The Codex Alimentarius Commission on Food Safety, jointly with other United Nations bodies like the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO), has already formulated standards for most products that are traded internationally. There seems to be little reason for not sticking to these. If there is a problem with any of these standards, that can be looked into and modified to the satisfaction of both importers and exporters. The Doha accord, too, provides for a review of the SPS agreement every four years. This provision needs to be expanded to cover arbitrarily stipulated non-SPS norms as well, so as to ensure hassle-free and fair international trade. |
| |
|
| |
