WTO Agriculture Negotiations – Challenges and ... · WTO Agriculture negotiations – Challenges...

`

Lahore, 7 – 8 July 2006

Seminar proceedings

WTO Agriculture negotiations – Challenges and opportunities for Pakistan

This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union (EU) as part of an EU-funded Trade Related Technical Assistance (TRTA) programme with the Government of Pakistan. The International Trade Centre (ITC) is implementing the programme. The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of the implementing agency. Facts and figures set forth in this publication are the responsibility of the implementing agency and should not be considered as reflecting the views or carrying the endorsement of the EC, ITC, UNCTAD, or WTO. The factual details and in-country resources in the publication have been researched and compiled by the implementing agency. ITC has not formally edited this report.

Written by: ITC/DTSS/BAS

© International Trade Centre (UNCTAD/WTO) Palais des Nations, 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland Email: [email protected] http://www.intracen.org Publication No. BAS/TS/PAK/E/06/02 Distribution: UNRESTRICTED October 2006

ITC: Your Partner in Trade Development The International Trade Centre is the joint technical cooperation agency of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) for business aspects of trade development. ITC’s mission is to contribute to sustainable development through technical assistance in export promotion and international business development. ITC’s strategic objectives are:

Enterprises – Strengthen the international competitiveness of enterprises.

Trade support institutions – Develop the capacity of trade service providers to support businesses.

Policymakers – Support policymakers in integrating the business sector into the global economy.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.intracen.org/

Abbreviations

ADB Asian Development Bank AMS Aggregate measure of support AOA Agreement on Agriculture AVE Ad valorem equivalent CEP Closer economic partnership DDA Doha Development Agenda EC European Commission EHP Early harvest programme EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FTA Free trade arrangement/agreement GCC Gulf Cooperation Council GDP Gross domestic product HIC High income country IFI International financial institution IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IMF International Monetary Fund ITC International Trade Centre LDC Least developed country MIC Medium income country MINFAL Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock NAMA Non agricultural market access NFIDC Net food importing developing country NTB Non tariff barrier OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OTDS Overall trade distorting support PARC Pakistan Agricultural Research Council PKR Pakistani Rupees PSE Producer subsidy equivalent PTA Preferential trading arrangement RTA Regional trading arrangement SAARC South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation SAFTA South Asian Free Trade Agreement SBP State Bank of Pakistan SDT Special and differential treatment SME Small and medium enterprise SPS Sanitary and phytosanitary SSM Special safeguard mechanism STE State trading enterprise TPS Trade preference system TRIPs Trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights TRQ Tariff rate quotas TRTA Trade related technical assistance UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development WTO World Trade Organization

i

Contents

Abbreviations i Introduction 1

EC TRTA programme for Pakistan 1 The seminar 1 The negotiations 2 The role of business 3

Seminar report 5 Invitation 7 Programme 9 Presentations 13

Welcome and introductions 13 Mr. Fayyaz Bashir, Secretary of Agriculture, Government of the Punjab 13 Mr. Michael Dale, Counsellor and Head of Operations, European Commission Delegation to Pakistan, Islamabad 14 Mr. Bruce Shepherd, International Trade Centre, Geneva 15

Opening remarks 19 Mr. Sikandar Hayat Khan Bosan, Federal Minister for Food, Agriculture & Livestock 19

Economics and dynamics of agricultural trade liberalisation 21 Dr. David Blandford, Pennsylvania State University 21

Quantitative analysis of the negotiations 29 Dr. David Orden, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 29

Analysis of the negotiations: Market access proposals 40 Dr. H. Bruce Huff, Huff & Associates, Ottawa 40

Implications for Pakistan 46 Mr. Shezada Taimur Khusrow, Deputy Secretary (Planning), Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture & Livestock 46 Dr. Sohail Malik, Higher Education Commission of Pakistan Professor of Economics at the University of Sargodha 51

Commodity presentations 62 Cotton – Mr. Ibad Bader, Vice President, Pakistan Central Cotton Committee, Karachi 62

iii

Wheat – Mr. Nasir Khosa, Joint Secretary, Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture & Livestock 64 Wheat – Mr. Bilal Aslam Sufi, Chairman, Indo-Pak Flour Mills Association, and Head, Sufi Wheat Products (Pvt.) Ltd, Lahore 67 Sugar – Mr. Inayatullah Khan, Sugarcane Commissioner, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, Islamabad 71 Dairy – Mr. Safdar Hayat, Director, Farmers Association of Pakistan, Lahore 74 Rice – Mr. Chaudry Hamid Malih, President, Basmati Growers Association, Lahore 77 Questions and comments on the commodity presentations 79

Panel discussion 82 Dr. Sohail J. Malik, University of Sargodha 82 Mr. Inaamul Haque, WTO Adviser, Planning & Development Department, Government of Punjab 83 Questions and comments 85

Concluding remarks 88 Mr. Muhammad Ismail Qureshi, Federal Secretary of Food, Agriculture & Livestock 88 Mr. Michael Dale, EC Delegation to Pakistan 90

Part icipants 93

iv

Introduction

EC TRTA programme for Pakistan

This report presents the proceedings from the seminar entitled “WTO Agriculture negotiations: Challenges and opportunities for Pakistan”, held in Lahore, Pakistan, on 6 and 7 July 2006.

The seminar was held as part of the European Commission (EC) Trade-related Technical Assistance (TRTA) Programme for Pakistan, which the International Trade Centre (ITC) is implementing. The programme aims to enhance awareness among government officials, the business sector and civil society about the implications of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements on the national economy, and to assist Pakistan in building the necessary capacity to address issues resulting from its participation in the WTO.

The seminar was one of a series of seminars focusing on various aspects of the WTO negotiating framework – the others include Services (Karachi, May 2005), NAMA (Karachi, November 2006), and Trade Facilitation (end 2006).

The seminars involve both public and private sector stakeholders, and are designed to increase awareness of the negotiations and their progress, to look ahead to the challenges and opportunities that the negotiations may provide for both government policy and business practice. This enhanced knowledge will equip business leaders to play a more meaningful advocacy role with the government, with a view to contributing to the completion of the WTO negotiations. The seminars are intended to foster communication between business and government, leading to the formation of negotiating positions in line with national needs and inclusive of the real and concrete economic and commercial interests of the country.

Although the WTO negotiations were suspended in late July, WTO Members are hopeful that the break will be temporary and short. Therefore, it is still very important for all interested actors to take a close interest in the issues under negotiation. Indeed, calls for a swift resumption of the negotiations have since come from many quarters — ASEAN, the G20, the Cairns Group, the World Bank-IMF Finance Committee and many Presidents and Ministers around the world. Developing countries have been loudest in calling for a resumption of the negotiations, recognising that the costs of failure, and the missed opportunity to rebalance the multilateral trading system, would hurt them more than others.

The seminar

The WTO Agriculture negotiations are important for business actors involved in trade in agricultural goods because they will influence the global and national conditions of doing business. The negotiations encompass strengthened rules, and specific commitments on government support and protection for agriculture, in order to correct and prevent restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets. This will improve predictability and security for importing and exporting countries alike.

International Trade Centre 1

This seminar was designed to deepen the understanding of the commercial and economic implications of these negotiations, and of the emerging international trading system. Discussion was designed to bring out the new market access opportunities and threats for business through discussion with international and national experts, business leaders, academicians and trade policy analysts and negotiators.

The seminar programme covered:

• The state of play of the negotiations

• The likely results of the negotiations for important products and markets — specifically, cotton, wheat, sugar, dairy and rice

• The new market access opportunities that might emerge from the negotiations

• The challenges business might need to face in an open trading environment

• Factors the Government might need to consider in terms of its national and international trade policies, regulations and obligations

• How the government and business can best work together to make the most of the new environment.

The negotiations

The WTO Agriculture negotiations have their origins in the Agreement on Agriculture (AOA), negotiated during the Uruguay Round. In early 2002 these negotiations became part of both the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) and the overall package comprising all negotiating issues, called the “single undertaking”. A new phase of the DDA started in September 2004, and these negotiations entered a crucial phase from 2005.

The mandate for the Agriculture negotiations is set out in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. The long-term objective of the reform process – a fair and market-oriented trading system for agricultural products – is to be achieved through a reform programme consisting of both strengthened rules and specific commitments on support and protection. The comprehensive negotiations cover the three basic pillars contained in the AOA:

• Improvements in market access,

• Reduction, with a view to phasing out, of all forms of export subsidies, and

• Reduction of trade-distorting domestic subsidies.

Special and differential treatment (SDT) for developing countries is an integral part of the negotiations. The outcome should be effective in practice and enable developing countries to meet their needs, in particular in food security and rural development.

The negotiations also take note of the non-trade concerns (such as environmental protection, food security, rural development, etc) provided for in the Agriculture Agreement.

2 International Trade Centre

The Agriculture talks constitute an integral part – possibly the most important part – of the DDA negotiations. The negotiations, including Agriculture, form a single undertaking, i.e. the outcome of the talks will constitute a set of rights and obligations that Members must accept in their entirety. Accordingly, the balance of rights and obligations needs to be ensured across the entire package.

Because of this inter-linkage, progress in the Agriculture negotiations is seen as critical to unlocking progress in other negotiation areas. While some progress has been made, much remains to be done to conclude the negotiations. This was recognised in the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, which agreed to intensify work on all outstanding issues to fulfil the Doha objectives, and set a deadline for the establishment of modalities no later than 30 April 2006 and to submit comprehensive draft Schedules based on these modalities no later than 31 July 2006.

In the event, it was not possible to meet the 30 April deadline. A Ministerial meeting held at the end of June was unable to narrow the gaps on formulas for reducing tariffs and subsidies, various flexibilities, and other disciplines that would be in the “modalities” for agriculture and industrial goods (NAMA).

Members agreed that WTO Director General, Pascal Lamy, should consult intensively and widely in order to establish these “modalities”. Unfortunately, the Director General was unable to identify any significant changes in negotiators’ positions and the gaps remained too wide.

Faced with this situation, the entire negotiations were suspended in late July to enable serious reflection by participants. WTO Members expressed the hope that this “time-out” would be temporary and short since there was a need to put the negotiations back on track as soon as possible. They also said that the achievements of the negotiation so far should be preserved and built upon rather than unravelled. They agreed not to modify the mandate or split it allowing for selective progress.

The role of business

Business actors have a vital role to play in the Agriculture negotiations. A successful DDA will bring important changes affecting not just trade but also core agricultural policies, the conditions of protection and the support of agricultural production. All these changes directly affect the interests of business within, and even outside, the farm sector.

The stakes for business are high — developments in the WTO negotiations will have a huge impact on the way business is done in Pakistan. For example, improvements in market access, the reductions in subsidies and tariffs and the elimination of non-tariff barriers (NTBs), will all affect the trading environment. Therefore, business actors have a vital role to play in the Agriculture negotiations.

It is also important for business to follow closely the negotiating process. If business wants to be in a position to influence the outcome, they need to be aware of the details. Business needs to do its homework, on an industry basis, and to inform governments under what sort of rules it can do business.


Both sides gain to benefit from a constructive two-way dialogue on these issues. Business leaders need to be aware of international trading rules and their implications so that their businesses can adapt and grow in an ever more competitive environment. Governments, also, need to be up-to-date with the views of their business sectors when they are devising negotiating strategies and formulating trade policies. Trade policy and negotiations are about commerce, and business groups can provide information or insights on commercial issues that government officials do not have.


Seminar report

The seminar was designed to increase awareness of the WTO Agriculture negotiations and their progress, and to look ahead to the challenges and opportunities that the negotiations may provide for both government policy and business practice in Pakistan. The seminar was well attended, with approximately 80 participants, including international and national experts, business leaders, academicians and trade policy analysts and negotiators. The participants included around 15 women.

Following introductions by key stakeholders, day one was focused on analysing the negotiations from multinational, regional and national perspectives. The following day, presenters looked at the implications of the negotiations on key agricultural commodities of cotton, wheat, sugar, dairy and rice. A panel discussion followed, drawing out the challenges and opportunities for Pakistan, including the implications for Pakistan’s national trade policies and its multilateral negotiating position. The Federal Secretary of Food, Agriculture & Livestock and the representative of the EC Delegation to Pakistan made closing remarks.

The international experts set the scene in the substantive part of the seminar by presenting comprehensive overviews of the status of the negotiations, possible scenarios for Pakistan when these eventually concluded, and the need for Pakistan to continue to look at the details of the process. Commodity producers picked up these themes in presentations covering Pakistan’s cotton, wheat, sugar, dairy and rice sectors.

Discussion followed on issues related to production, dealing with subsidies and getting more government understanding of what producers need to become more efficient. Participants were concerned to ensure that Pakistan did not “miss out” on any potential benefits from an Agreement on Agriculture. In expressing this concern, participants recognized the need to improve both their understanding of the issues and their capacity to better dialogue with government negotiators to ensure the negotiators had a better understanding of business and producer concerns.

Participants were interested to ensure the competitiveness of both traditional and emerging export sectors. Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) issues came in for comment, as did the need for producers to be better informed about the requirements of importing authorities, and the desires of consumers. Pakistan’s capacity to market its exports also came in for much discussion.

In addition to these seminar proceedings, a national study of Pakistan’s agriculture sector has been published separately. The study, prepared by Dr. Sohail Malik as input to the seminar discussions, specifically focuses on the challenges and opportunities presented by the WTO Agriculture negotiations. Copies of both publications are available to download from http://www.accesspakistan.org.


http://www.accesspakistan.org/

Invitation


Programme


Presentations

Welcome and introductions

Mr. Fayyaz Bashir, Secretary of Agriculture, Government of the Punjab

[Edited transcript]

Honourable Minister of Food, Agriculture & Livestock; distinguished foreign delegates; national and international WTO experts; business leaders; ladies and gentlemen.

On behalf of the Punjab Government and the Agriculture Department, it is my privilege to welcome you to participate in this seminar on the WTO Agriculture Negotiations – Challenges and Opportunities for Pakistan.

We are grateful to the Ministry of Food, Agriculture & Livestock (MINFAL) and the International Trade Centre (ITC) for arranging this seminar under the European Commission Trade Related Technical Assistance (TRTA) Programme. The seminar will provide an excellent opportunity for business people, government officials and other provincial colleagues to listen to, and discuss, various aspects of the WTO Agriculture negotiations with the national and international WTO experts, so as to deepen our understanding of the commercial and economic implications of the negotiations and the multilateral global trading system.

Agriculture is the largest and most important sector of Pakistan’s economy, comprising almost 50% of exports and, directly or indirectly, contributing more than 50% of international trade. Therefore, the implications of the WTO agriculture negotiations are extremely critical for our economy. More favourable conditions, such as greater market access and better prices of agricultural products due to reductions in subsidies from developed countries, can greatly support Pakistan’s farmers and reduce poverty in rural areas.

The Government and private sector are fully aware of the importance of the WTO Agreements regulating the multilateral trading system. Pakistan fully supports the WTO. We are also closely following the WTO negotiations on agriculture, which are at a crucial stage at this moment. We hope the negotiations are successfully concluded, leading to a fair, market-oriented trading system for agricultural products.


Mr. Michael Dale, Counsellor and Head of Operat ions, European Commission Delegation to Pakistan, Islamabad

[Edited transcript]

Honourable Minister of Agriculture; Secretary of Agriculture, Government of Punjab; friends from ITC; honourable ladies and gentlemen.

I am very pleased to be here on this important occasion. I want to welcome you on behalf of the European Commission to this very important seminar, which comes at a critical time – not only for Pakistan but also for a very large number of developing countries involved in agriculture.

I would like to extend my thanks to ITC and the government partners who have organized this high-level seminar on the challenges and opportunities for Pakistan arising out of the WTO agriculture negotiations.

I am very glad that, under the TRTA, we have brought you a discussion on a key issue of paramount importance globally – especially to Pakistan, which is very involved in agriculture exports. The WTO negotiations are at a critical stage at this time. There is now a strong realization that real concessions on many sides are needed to enable a proper level playing field in the negotiations. As far as the EU is concerned – and I know this from our Directorate General for Trade – there needs to be real dialogue in order to establish real cuts. Thus, I think this seminar is very timely.

I believe that all of you in the export business, or who would like to be, should be involved in the negotiations: whatever comes out of the negotiations will affect, directly or indirectly, the way you do business. The EC is very concerned about its developing country trading partners. It has been supporting developing countries in trade negotiations, providing them trade related assistance financed by the successful TRTA programme. The TRTA was conceived to help countries like Pakistan deal with the technicalities of the multilateral trading system. I hope, with new programmes in the future, we can continue to provide support to businesses in Pakistan, and also to do better business with our trading partners.

I hope that one thing this seminar will do is “demystify” these negotiations. Not everyone can understand the WTO negotiations. However, the outcome of the negotiations will affect us all. Thus, it is vital that people are aware of what is going on so they can provide more input to these negotiations.

I am very happy that the EC can support this seminar. I hope you will be able to stay until the end. The programme will bring a lot of inputs from specialists. I know we are dealing with complex and technical matters, so I hope that our experts will make their presentations in a way that we can follow them. In this type of seminar, it is important for everybody to understand what is going on and how he or she can contribute.

I look forward to a very positive dialogue, especially with regard to the question and answer sessions.


Mr. Bruce Shepherd, International Trade Centre, Geneva Bruce Shepherd is a New Zealand national currently working as Senior Business Advisory Services Officer in the Division of Trade Support Services at the International Trade Centre (ITC) in Geneva. During his time at ITC, Mr. Shepherd has been involved in developing tools for use by small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to improve their export competitiveness, working with ITC partners to improve the provision to export development services to SMEs, and delivering trade related technical assistance to ITC partner countries.

Before joining ITC, Mr. Shepherd had assignments in both the trade promotion and trade policy arenas, with postings in the Middle East as New Zealand Trade Commissioner to the six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, and in the Pacific as New Zealand Deputy High Commissioner in Tonga.

Mr. Shepherd has specific interests in export development, trade promotion, market development and international trade issues. In addition to his work offshore, Mr. Shepherd has worked closely on indigenous economic development issues in New Zealand and retains strong linkages to developments in this area.

The Honourable Mr. Sikandar Hayat Khan Bosan, Minister of Food, Agriculture & Livestock; Mr. Muhammad Ismail Qureshi, Federal Secretary of Food, Agriculture & Livestock; Mr. Michael Dale, Counsellor and Head of Operations, EC Delegation to Pakistan; Mr. Fayyaz Bashir, Secretary of Agriculture, Government of Punjab; Distinguished guests; Ladies and gentlemen.

I am very pleased to be here today to welcome you – on behalf of the International Trade Centre – to this seminar on the WTO agriculture negotiations.

The seminar is entitled “WTO Agriculture Negotiations – Challenges and Opportunities for Pakistan”.

Despite the lack of agreement in Geneva a week ago – or perhaps because of it – the next two days provide us with a very well-timed opportunity to deepen our understanding of the commercial and economic implications for Pakistan of these negotiations, and of the evolving multilateral trading system.

The seminar has brought together international and national experts, business leaders, academics, trade policy analysts and trade negotiators, to consider and discuss:

• What new market access opportunities might emerge from the negotiations?

• The challenges business might need to face in an open trading environment?

• What might the Government of Pakistan need to consider in terms of its national and international trade policies, regulations and obligations?

• How the government and business can best work together to make the most of the new environment?

This seminar is one of a number on various aspects of the WTO negotiations, taking place as part of a Trade Related Technical Assistance (TRTA) programme for Pakistan, funded by the European Union.


The EC TRTA programme started in September 2004 with the objective of assisting Pakistan to foster its integration into the world economy and to contribute to Pakistan’s development through the achievement of trade-related conditions for sustained and stable economic growth.

Through this programme, the International Trade Centre (ITC) is working with Pakistan to enhance awareness and assist in building its capacity to benefit fully from participation in the WTO Agreements.

ITC is the technical cooperation agency of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) for operational and enterprise-oriented aspects of international trade development.

ITC is also the UN’s focal point for technical cooperation in trade promotion – we work with developing countries and economies in transition to set up effective trade promotion programmes to expand their exports and improve their import operations.

In other words, our focus is on business.

Business needs to be aware of WTO rules and their implications, so that their businesses can grow and thrive in an ever more competitive environment.

Governments need to be up-to-date with the views of their business sector when devising negotiating strategies and formulating national positions in WTO trade discussions.

An important part of ITC’s work involves:

• Ensuring that businesses have good access to useful and up-to-date information about the multilateral trading system, and

• Promoting an informed and useful dialogue on trade between governments and their business communities.

Establishing and supporting effective consultations between the government and the private sector on trade issues is also a goal shared by the EC.

The Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration talked about ITC’s role in providing a platform for business to interact with trade negotiators, and practical advice for [SMEs] to benefit from the multilateral trading system …”

This seminar is a perfect example of such a platform for interaction to take place.

Business should play a vital role in the Agriculture negotiations. Successful negotiations will bring important changes, affecting not just trade but also core agricultural policies, the conditions of protection and the support of agricultural production. All these changes directly affect the interests of farmers and other business within, and even outside, the farm sector.

If business wants to be in a position to influence the outcome of the negotiations, they have to be aware of the details. This enhanced knowledge will equip farmers and business leaders to play a more meaningful advocacy role with the government, with a view to contributing to the completion of the negotiations.


I won’t talk in detail about the Agriculture negotiations themselves – I’ll leave that to the experts we’ve brought together for the seminar.

However, it is worth mentioning that the Agriculture negotiations are an integral part – some say the most important part – of the Doha Development Agenda negotiations.

This is because the negotiations, including Agriculture, form a single undertaking – that is, the outcome of the talks will constitute a set of rights and obligations that Members must accept in their entirety.

Because of this link, making progress in the Agriculture negotiations is seen as critical to making progress in other negotiation areas. And, as we have seen, achieving this progress has not been easy.

This difficulty in finding agreement was again obvious a week ago in Geneva when, after several days of intensive meetings, Ministers and officials were unable to narrow the gaps on formulas for reducing tariffs and subsidies, various flexibilities, and other disciplines that would be in the “modalities” for agriculture and industrial goods (NAMA).

Members agreed that WTO Director General, Pascal Lamy, should consult intensively and widely in order to establish these “modalities”. The consultations are based on the draft texts in agriculture and non-agricultural market access.

No deadline was set – the Director-General will report back to the members as soon as possible. WTO Members remain committed to completing the negotiations by the end of the year.

I am sure that Pakistan’s trade policy officials and negotiators will continue to be actively involved in this work over the coming months. In doing so, there is no doubt that they will benefit from the presentations and discussion on the challenges and opportunities for Pakistan that will take place in this seminar over the next two days.

I look forward to a productive and informative two days.


Opening remarks

Mr. Sikandar Hayat Khan Bosan, Federal Minister for Food, Agriculture & Livestock

[Edited transcript]

Mr. Bashir; Mr. Dale; distinguished ladies and gentlemen.

It is a great privilege for me to address such a diverse group of people, including national and international experts, business leaders, trade policy analysts and negotiators, looking at the WTO agriculture negotiations and their challenges and opportunities for Pakistan. I understand that bringing together such a wide range of knowledgeable people requires tremendous coordination and allocation of resources. I am grateful to ITC and the TRTA for initiating this activity and hope that all stakeholders will benefit from this two-day session with the national and international experts.

It is widely recognized that the agriculture negotiations are pivotal to the overall Doha Development Agenda. Without a successful conclusion of the agriculture negotiations, there will be no agreement. Pakistan has been a strong supporter of the multilateral negotiations. Reductions in agricultural support and protection are expected to benefit Pakistan’s producers through higher and more stable global commodity prices. Pakistan’s agricultural exports will benefit from improved market access. Realizing that the real benefits will come from “market access”, we are pursuing our interests without compromising the other pillars of the negotiations.

For Pakistan, higher global prices expected as an outcome from the WTO negotiations are viewed as very important to the reduction in rural poverty. As an example, an Asian Development Bank (ADB) study estimates that just a 20% increase in cotton prices would move 2 million people out of poverty in Pakistan. Pakistan is well aware that the growth markets in the 21st century are in developing countries. Population and income growth in developing countries will greatly exceed those in OECD countries. Similar quality and food safety standards in developing countries make it easier for Pakistan to supply these markets. Pakistan is conscious that, as part of the WTO negotiations, market access must also be improved in developing countries to accelerate the growing South-South trade.

We have already made the difficult internal adjustments on market access. Pakistan has lowered its applied tariffs on most agriculture and food products to the range of 0%–25%. As a result, Pakistan stands ready to take advantage of the reductions in support and protection in other countries coming out of the Doha Round. Pakistan has worked in the WTO to ensure that any agreement will not restrict Pakistan’s ability to introduce new policies and programmes for the agriculture sector. A new agreement will not limit the introduction of any ‘Green’ or non-trade distorting programmes for the agriculture and food sector in Pakistan. Even for the more trade distorting, or Amber-type programmes, Pakistan would have the ability to spend up to 20% of the value of its agricultural production.


Pakistan is a small player in the international agriculture market. We have been able to leverage our limited influence within the WTO through membership of a number of negotiating groups, including the G-33, the G-20 and the Cairns Group.

The Doha negotiations have made considerable progress. They have achieved a consensus among countries in a number of areas that only a short time ago would have been considered impossible. In Hong Kong, countries agreed to eliminate all export subsidies by 2013. Also in Hong Kong, there was agreement by developed countries to allow duty-free and quota free access on most products to the poorest countries. There is relatively close agreement on the process and level of tariff cuts. Failure of the round will mean that gains made so far for developing countries will disappear or will lead to more FTAs and PTAs at the cost of multilateralism.

Unfortunately, there are many differences that remain. At the WTO meeting in Geneva last weekend, Ministers were not able to resolve these differences. There is agreement to continue the negotiations process. The differences among countries are considered “bridgeable”. All countries recognize the importance of an agreement and do not want the Doha Round to fail. The Director-General of the WTO has been asked to undertake a consultative process with the members with the expectation that there may be an agreement reached before the end of this month. All members remain committed to completing the negotiations by the end of 2006.


Economics and dynamics of agricultural trade l iberalisat ion

Dr. David Blandford, Pennsylvania State University David Blandford is a Professor, and former department head, in the Department of Agricultural Economics & Rural Sociology at the Pennsylvania State University.

Born and educated in the United Kingdom, Dr. Blandford was formerly a division director at the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD) in Paris and a professor at Cornell University. He has twice served as chair of the International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium – an organization composed of researchers from government, academia and industry.

Dr. Blandford teaches courses in agribusiness at Penn State and conducts research into food, agricultural and environmental policy, and international trade.

Economics and dynamics of agricultural trade liberalization

David BlandfordProfessor of Agricultural EconomicsThe Pennsylvania State University

WTO Agricultural Negotiations – Challenges and Opportunities for Pakistan

Lahore, 7-8 July 2006

The coverage of this presentation

• Current status of the Doha Round negotiations• The next steps• Likely outcomes

The draft modalities on agriculture

• Circulated by the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture on June 22 with a corrigendum on June 29

• Numerous items in square brackets (yet to be agreed) and with contradictory provisions

• This presentation will try to summarize the main elements

The main agricultural issues

• Market access – tariffs and tariff-rate quotas• Export competition – export subsidies, export

credits, state-trading exporters, food aid• Domestic support – amber, blue and green box

measures• Special and differential treatment for developing

countries – smaller reductions in tariffs and domestic support, longer implementation period, other special provisions (e.g., exemptions for least-developed countries)

Market Access

Tariff reductions

• Tariff bands – bound tariffs to be grouped under four bands

• Linear reductions – higher percentage cuts for higher bands


Tariff reductions – proposals for developed countries

42-90Over 60-90

35-85From 40-60 to 60-90

30-75From 20-30 to 40-60

20-65Up to 20-30

Reduction percentageSize of current tariff (ad valorem percentage)

Tariff reductions – proposals for developing countries

30-90Over 60-150

30-90From 40-100 to 60-150

20-75From 20-50 to 40-100

15-65Up to 20-50

Reduction percentageSize of current tariff (ad valorem percentage)

Tariff reductions

• Tariff bands – bound tariffs to be grouped under four bands

• Linear reductions – higher percentage cuts for higher bands

• Tariff cap – 75-100 percent for developed countries; 150 percent for developing countries

• S&D – possible lower cuts for developing countries with uniformly low tariffs

Tariff reductions and the US

US Tariff Profile Under EU and US Proposals (excludes two initial tariffs of >400%)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Perc

enta

ge ta

riff

InitialUS EU


Tariff reductions and the EU

EU Tariff Profile Under EU and US Proposals (excludes 1 initial tariff of >400%)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Perc

enta

ge ta

riff

InitialUSEU

Tariff reductions and the EU

Implications for Selected Product Categories

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Meat (0

2)

Dairy (

03)

Cereals

(10)

Oilsee

ds (1

2)

Sugar

(17)

Cereal

Preps (

19)

Ave

rage

per

cent

age

tarif

f

Initial DutyUruguay roundEU proposal


Sensitive products

• Smaller tariff cuts – will apply to some percentage of tariff lines (1-15%), with perhaps more lines for developing countries and smaller reductions

• TRQs will increase– based on formula related directly to the size of the current quota,

or the quota as a percent of consumption, or the quota as a percent of current imports

– inversely with size of tariff reduction

• In-quota tariffs – might be reduced • One result - a sensitive product could face a greater

potential increase in imports than an ordinary product

Special products

• For developing countries – but criteria to be applied in designating these are unclear (“food security, livelihood security and rural development needs”?)

• Percentage of tariff lines with no or a low reduction – size of reduction unclear, also TRQ expansion requirement unclear

Market access – other

• Tariff escalation – additional reductions may be required for some processed product tariffs

• Tariff simplification – might be some requirements • Special agricultural safeguard – might be

eliminated but special safeguard mechanism will be introduced for developing countries (all products?)

• Preference erosion – range of options suggested to address this

Market access – bottom line

• Significant impact on trade – would require high reduction percentages, particularly on higher tariff bands and low tariff caps, small percentage of lines for sensitive and special products, significant increase in TRQs for sensitive products

• Modest impact – more likely due to inevitable compromise on these issues

Export competition

Export subsidies and equivalent measures

• Elimination of export subsidies by end of 2013 –substantial elimination by 2010, longer period to apply to developing countries

• Equivalent measures – export credits, credit guarantees and insurance programs and operations of exporting state trading entities (STEs) to be subject to disciplines to eliminate subsidy elements

Food aid

• Emergency short-term aid – the focus is on preserving this (a “safe box” for emergency aid)

• Commercial displacement – the other primary focus is on eliminating this

• Disciplines – e.g., elimination of in-kind aid, monetization proposed

Export competition – bottom line

• Significant achievement – phase-out of direct export subsidies

• Issues – agreement on disciplines for equivalent measures and monitoring their enforcement will be problematic


Domestic support

Domestic support disciplines

• Amber Box – primary focus on the most trade-distorting forms of support

• Uruguay round approach – limited the total Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS), i.e., Amber Box excluding de minimis (product and non-product specific support falling below agreed thresholds)

• Doha approach – limits on Overall Trade Distorting Support (OTDS) and its components

• OTDS – the sum of Total AMS, de minimis, and Blue Box support

• Blue Box – direct payments that are made under production limiting programs or that are based on, but do not require, production

The new disciplines

• Reduction in the OTDS – use of bands with larger reductions for higher bands

OTDS reductions – proposals for developed countries

31-70Less than $US 10 billion

53-75Between $US 10 and 60 billion

70-80Greater than $US 60 billion

Reduction percentageSize of current OTDS

The new disciplines

• Reduction in the OTDS – use of bands with larger reductions for those in higher bands

• Reduction in Total AMS – similar approach

AMS reductions – proposals for developed countries

37-60Less than $US 15 billion

60-70Between $US 15 and 25 billion

70-83Greater than $US 25 billion

Reduction percentageSize of current AMS

The new disciplines

• Reduction in the OTDS – use of bands with larger reductions for those in higher bands

• Reduction in Total AMS – similar approach• Product-specific AMS caps – to prevent support

reallocation• Reduced de minimis allowances – maybe cut from 5% to

2.5% of production values• Cap on Blue Box payments – 5% of total production value

maybe with a required reduction to 2.5% for developed countries and possibly product-specific caps

• Developing countries – lower reduction percentages and less stringent caps



EU Domestic Support Reductions

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

OTDS AMS PSDM NPSDM Blue

Bill

ion

Euro

s Base "permitted"Actual 99-01EU proposalUS Proposal2008 est.


US Domestic Support Reductions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

OTDS AMS PSDM NPSDM Blue

Bill

ion

Dol

lars Base "permitted"

Actual 99-01EU proposalUS Proposal2008 est.



Recent US Expenditures on Price-related Support

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006E

Bill

ion

dolla

rs

Price support loansCounter-cyclical payments

US proposal blue cap $6.03b

The Green Box

• Range of modifications suggested - to make the Green Box more “development friendly” and to tighten the conditions applied to measures used mainly by developed countries, e.g., direct payments

• Minimally distorting measures – there are likely to continue to be problems, e.g., in satisfying Green Box criteria under environmental programs

Domestic support – bottom line

• Broadening of disciplines – the OTDS takes in more elements of support, but also expands allowable support for many countries

• Impact – difficult to predict whether limitations will be effective constraints, market access provisions (tariff cuts) could have a greater impact

• Future litigation – Green Box issues could be a major source of this!

Cotton

Cotton

• Market access – duty and quota free access to be granted (at a minimum) by developed countries on exports from least developed countries (applies to raw, carded or combed cotton)

• Export competition – export subsidies to be eliminated in 2006 for developed and 2007 for developing countries

• Domestic support – may be a higher reduction percentage for AMS or OTDS and special caps, with differential values for developing countries


Current state of play and prospects for the future

The current position and next steps

• WTO Director General Pascal Lamy announces on July 1 that after three days of Ministerial meetings “we are now in a crisis situation” due to lack of progress in finalizing the modalities

• Members are “committed to completing the negotiations by the end of the year”

• Lamy to act as a catalyst with G-6 (Australia, Brazil, EU, India, Japan, US) likely to play a key role as representatives of various positions

• The likely outcome?


Quantitative analysis of the negotiations

Dr. David Orden, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University David Orden is Senior Research Fellow in the Markets, Trade & Institutions Division at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), and Professor of Agricultural and Applied Economics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He is engaged in active research and public policy education programs on the economics and political economy of domestic support policies, international trade negotiations, and technical barriers to trade.

Dr. Orden has been a Visiting Fellow at the University of New South Wales in Australia, Chairman of the International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium, and Visiting Professor at Stanford University. Dr. Orden has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Minnesota.

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Two Opportunities to Deliver on the Doha Development PledgeIFPRI Research Brief 6, July 2006

Presented at the workshop on WTO Agriculture Negotiations: Challenges and Opportunities for PakistanLahore, July 7-8, 2006

Study completed at IFPRI by Antoine Bouët, Simon Mevel and David Orden

Page 2INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Trade policy and developing countries

Complexity and high level of distortions affecting international agricultural tradeLower tariffs in manufacturing (but relatively high in textiles and apparel) Heterogeneity among developing countries• applied protection• access to the world market• net food importing/exporting countries



Current tariffs imposed and faced by exports

-4.0%

0.0%

4.0%

8.0%

12.0%

16.0%

-10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0%

Applied duty on imports relative to world average

App

lied

duty

on

expo

rts re

lativ

e to

wor

ld a

vera

ge

Malawi

Zimbabwe

India

Uruguay

Brazil

Argentina

Tunisia

Morocco

Tanzania

Bangladesh

China

ThailandColombia

EUUSA

Singapore

Canada

Madagascar Philippines

Chile

Mexico

Venezuela

Mozambique

ZambiaPeru

Malaysia

Australia/NZ


Modeling trade liberalization impacts

MIRAGE model (CEPII – Paris)• multi-sector, multi-region computable general

equilibrium• dynamic set-up with exogenous technology• MacMap-HS6 and GTAP6 data bases

Our application • country disaggregation focused on developing

countries • commodity application focused on agriculture• results reported for 2019 assuming

implementation begins in 2006


Pre-Hong Kong analysis

Compared results from “Ambitious” and “Unambitious” outcomes based on pre-Hong Kong proposals from the US and the EUMeasure what is at stake in the negotiation


Pre-Hong Kong results

Wor

ld p

rote

ctio

n

Rea

l inc

ome

gain

Wor

ld tr

ade

Full trade lib'n -5.4% $ 157 bln 12.1%Ambitious scenario -2.2% $ 103.7 bln 4.1%

(41%) (66%) (34%)Unambitious scenario -1.4% $ 41.5 bln 2.0%

(26%) (26%) (16%)


Pre-Hong Kong assessment

A Doha agreement within proposals on the table is potentially beneficial for developing countriesCritical issues include• tariff and subsidy binding reduction rates have to

be high• developing countries have to liberalize • likely outcomes more beneficial for middle income

countries than LDCs• for LDCs to benefit from a trade agreement specific

actions are needed to address problems arising from less preferential access, net food importing countries, and broad development needs



June 2006 analysis

Design a central scenario based on US, EU and G20 offersMeasure the gains for developed and developing countriesIdentify specific development-oriented additional opportunities• 100% free OECD access for LDCs • 1% Special and Sensitive Products


Central scenario - Assumptions

Agricultural market access• Tariff reductions

G20 thresholds; EU reduction coefficientsDeveloping country coefficients 1/3 less

• Ad valorem equivalents2005 WTO formula

• Tariff caps150% for developed and 300% for developing

• Sensitive/Special Products5% of agricultural tariff lines exemptedTariff reduction 50% less, no caps TRQ expansion using European formula



Manufacturing market access• Swiss formula with 10% coefficient for developed, 25% for

developing

No agricultural or manufacturing liberalization for LDCsNo services liberalization

Export Subsidies• Eliminated in 2013

Domestic Support• Applied levels not reduced



97% duty-free access to OECD for LDCs in 2008

Market access implementation• 5 years for developed countries • 10 years for developing countries



Sensitive Products Selected according to political economy model

United States: Dairy, Rice, Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, Sugar, Processed Foods, Other

Japan: Meat, Dairy, Grains, Rice, Beans, Sugar, Processed Foods, Other

European Union: Meat, Dairy, Bananas, Rice, Sugar, Processed Foods, Other



Products exempted from LDC free accessSelected according to political economy model

95 products chosen by each non-EU country

United States: 84 Textiles and Apparel Products, Sugar

Japan: Rice, Fishery Products, Processed Food, Footwear and Apparel

European Union: No exemptions because of EBA


Central scenario – Tariff Cuts

Applied Tariffs 2005-2015

26.3%3.6%4.9%Industry

Percent Decrease

2015 Tariff Rate

2005 Tariff Rate

17.8%56.3%68.5%Rice

18.7%42.6%52.4%Sugar

18.7%14.8%18.2%Agriculture


Applied Tariffs by 2015

Low Income Countries group includes LDCs plus other developing countries in regions with a large share of LDCs

Central scenario – Tariff Cuts (Rates)

32.5%10.3%Low Income Countries

25.3%19.1%Middle Income Countries

23.5%31.0%High Income Countries

Decrease in tariffs faced on exports

Decrease in tariffs placed on imports



Real world income increases by $54.5 billion (+0.13%)

• This is 25% of the gains from full trade liberalization

• Effect on real world income is close to the unambitious scenario in the pre-Hong Kong analysis

Central scenario – Real Income


1.9%39.6%58.5%Share of World Real Income Gain

$1.03$21.66$31.98Real Income Gain ($Billion)

Low Income

Countries

Middle Income

Countries

High Income

Countries1.2%18.7%80.0%Share of Initial

Real World Income

Central scenario – Real income


Central scenario – Trade

Exports increase (volume - %) ; HICs

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Australia/New Zealand Developed Asia European Union United States




Exports increase (volume - %) ; MICs

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Argentina Brazil China India



Exports increase (volume - %) ; MICs

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

Malaysia Mexico Morocco Pakistan



Alternative Scenario 1100% Free Access to OECD for LDCs

Results

Real world income increases by $69 billion, +$14.5 billion more than under the central scenario

• Nearly 50% of the $14.5 billion increase captured by LDCs

100% Free Access: $8.0 billion real income gain

• Nearly 50% of the $14.5 billion increase captured by Developed Asia


Results

Progressive reform

• High income countries: +0.12% increase in real income

• Middle income countries: +0.24% increase in real income

• Low income countries: +1.14% increase in real income



+1.8%-0.3%Zambia

+1.0%+0.4%Uganda

+3.2%+0.5%Tanzania+6.0%+2.7%Rest of SSA

+1.3%-0.7%Mozambique+15.0+3.2Malawi

Percent change in export volume

+0.7%-4.9%Madagascar

+16.0%+5.6%Developing Asia

+13.5%+2.4%Bangladesh

100% Access for LDCsCentral Scenario





-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

Bangladesh Developing Asia Madagascar Malawi

Scenario Central



-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

Bangladesh Developing Asia Madagascar Malawi

Scenario Central SC + Full free access




-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Mozambique Rest of SubSaharan Africa

Tanzania Zambia

Scenario Central



-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Mozambique Rest of SubSaharan Africa

Tanzania Zambia

Scenario Central SC + Full free access



Alternative Scenario 21% Special/Sensitive ProductsResults

Real world income increases by $62 billion, +$7.5 billion more than under the central scenario

• Supplementary real income gains spread across high, middle and low income countries

• Gains of middle and low income countries are larger than with 5% Special/Sensitive Products, but distribution of gains is not more progressive


Alternative Scenario 20% Special/Sensitive Products

Results

Eliminating Sensitive/Special Products completely yield additional gains: world income increased by $95.1 billion, +$40.4 billion compared to the central scenario

• These larger gains are distributed across developed and developing countries, again with largest gain for Developed Asia


Assessment

The relatively unambitious Doha Central Scenario is beneficial for developing countries, but not enough

To increase their gains from the Doha Round developing countries should participate in reforms and obtain more in exchange

Two development-oriented proposals are considered


Assessment

100% free access to OECD markets provides larger gains to developing countries because

• It is targeted to LDCs

• It includes agricultural and non-agricultural products

• It brings tariffs to zero for LDC exports to OECD

A disadvantage of this proposal is that it is not multilateral


Assessment

Fewer Sensitive/Special Products also yields gains and has the advantage of being a multilateral step toward lower trade barriers

The impacts of fewer Sensitive/Special Products are limited because• Only agricultural products are affected

• Tariffs fall just to the relatively unambitiouslevels of the central scenario

• A number of products remain highly protected with even 1% Sensitive/Special Products



Domestic Support – U.S. Case(billion dollars)

239.612.06.0

241.212.16.0

Value of U.S. Agricultural ProductionFive (5) Percent of ValueTwo and one-half (2.5) Percent of Value

2.51.50.4 4.4

1.01.50.42.9

Amber Box AMS (Non-Product Specific)Countercyclical PaymentsCrop Insurance SubsidiesOther subsidiesSubtotal

7.65.1

12.7

1.25.16.3

Amber Box AMS (Product Specific)Commodity Support Payments Price Support Programs (dairy, sugar)

Subtotal

5.35.3Green Box

Income Support Direct Payments

20052004

YearCategory


Simulated effects of increased prices on poverty among cotton farmers in Pakistan

0.200.200.170.180.210.2140%

0.230.240.210.220.240.2430%

0.280.280.320.27

0.400.500.36

0.320.2720%

0.330.330.390.390.310.3110%

With Cotton Price Increase of:

Base

Percent of Households (As Proportion)Incidence of poverty

5,9275,8398,4308,3054,9304,857Income Gain from a 10% Cotton Price Increase

75,84875,01375,942Base HH Expenditures (PRs)

Supply Response

Fixed Supply

Supply Response

Fixed Supply

Supply Response

Fixed Supply

PakistanSindhPunjab


References:

Antoine Bouet, Simon Mervel, David Orden. Two Opportunities to Deliver on the Doha Development Pledge. IFPRI Research Brief No. 6, July 2006.

David Orden, Abdul Salam, Reno Dewina, Hina Nazli and Nicholas Minot. Impact of Global Cotton Markets on Rural Poverty in Pakistan. ADB Pakistan Poverty Assessment Update, Background Paper 8, February 2006.


Analysis of the negotiations: Market access proposals

Dr. H. Bruce Huff, Huff & Associates, Ottawa Since 1998, Bruce Huff has operated an economic consulting company, based in Ottawa, Canada. Formerly, he was a senior manager and policy advisor with Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada. He has also served as head of Trade Policy in the Agriculture Division of the OECD in Paris. He has been a faculty member in the Agricultural Economics Department at the University of Guelph, and a visiting scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna, Austria.

Dr. Huff has served as an advisor on trade negotiations for the governments of Mexico, Brunei, Syria, Pakistan and Canada. He has conducted agricultural policy studies for several international organizations, including the OECD, The World Bank, the Commonwealth Secretariat, UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the International Trade Centre. For the past year, Dr. Huff has served as a Trade Policy Advisor to the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock in Pakistan.

Dr. Huff holds a Ph.D. degree in agriculture economics from Michigan State University. He was named a Fellow of the Canadian Agriculture Economics Society in 2002.

Market Access Proposals

H. Bruce HuffHuff and AssociatesOttawa

Status of Negotiations: Basic Information

Framework Document July 2004 most comprehensive statement of agreementHong Kong Ministerial: additional agreementsChair’s modalities June 22Assessment– Own analysis– Published/unpublished reports

Importance of Market Access

Studies show that it is most important pillarAffects most of the 149 WTO countriesAffects both supply and demand forcesTariffs high in agriculture (many mega tariffs)Tariff Rate Quotas affect production and trade

Most Complex Pillar

Tariff Rate Quotas involve 3 componentsMany exemptions permitted for

– Sensitive and Special Products– Least developed countries– Special Safeguard

Higher rates of reductions sought for – Tariff escalation– Tropical Products– PreferencesLink between expansion of TRQ volume and Sensitive

Products


Bound versus Applied Tariff Rates

The WTO negotiations affect bound ratesMany countries have applied rates well below bound levelsPakistan’s applied rates are 0-25%Pakistan’s bound rates are generally 100% Tariff overhang generally large in developing countries, zero in EU, US

Proposals for Tariff Reductions

Wide range of proposals (EU, US, G-20)All use a tiered formula: larger cuts for larger tariffs (July Framework)No agreement on tiers, nor on size of cutsUS looking for large cuts vs. EU small cutsAppears that G-20 proposal would be acceptable for both tiers and size of cuts

G-20 Proposal for Tariff Reductions

40%>13075%>75

35%80-13065%50-75

30%30-8055%20-50

25%0-3045%0-20

Linear CutsThresholdsLinear CutsThresholds

Developing countriesDeveloped countries

Impact of Agricultural Tariff Cuts

Looked at 32 developing countries (G-20+) and 6 developed countries Impact of reductions on average for group

Developing Developed – EU proposal 30% 45%– G-20 Proposal 60%– US Proposal 50% 74%

32%

Impact of Tariff Cuts

For many developing countries Bound rates would remain above Applied Rates (overhang)For Pakistan, under G-20 proposal, Bound rates would be mainly 65% while applied rates would be 0-25%The numbers in the previous slide are upper

limits, there are many exemptions requested

Tariff Caps

Propose that tariffs be capped at 100 percent for developed; 150 percent for developingFor G-20 tariff reduction proposal would only effect tariffs >400% for developed, 216% for developingNot clear if applies to Sensitive, Special Products

Sensitive Products Proposals and Implications

Number of Sensitive Products proposed– 1-15 percent of tariff lines

Benefits to highly skewed tariff structure 1% Sensitive Products reduces tariff cuts by 0% in Brazil, India, and 7% in Canada, US, Japan, Egypt.8% Sensitive Products reduces tariff cuts by 30% in Canada, 24% in Japan8% Sensitive Products reduces tariff cuts by 2-3% in Brazil, India

Expansion of Tariff Rate Quotas

TRQs set at 5% domestic consumptionExpansion linked to size of tariff reduction for Sensitive Products (compared to normal)Three Alternative Formulae proposedWidely differing levels of TRQ expansionEU proposal is smallest, US is the largest


Figure 1. TRQ EXPANSION: Exact Economic Formula versus Falconer’s 3 Formulas BEEF MEAT

150119

697

268

184

898

140

1054

83

488

106

339

38

490

661418

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

EU Canada United States

'000

tonn

es

Current TRQ Current ImportsExact Economic Formula First Falconer FormulaSecond Falconer Formula (USA) Third Falconer Formula (EU)

25

69

241

5345 49

259

145

48

172.0

19

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

EU Canada

000'

s to

nnes


Figure 2. TRQ EXPANSION: Exact Economic Formula versus Falconer’s 3 Formulas

CHICKEN MEAT


1117

2009

1111

685

539

1183

743

1600

782

1120

76136

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

1800

2100

EU United States

'000

tonn

es



SUGAR

84

682755

648

12

532 477

59

1753

7219

63

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

EU JapanCurrent TRQ Current ImportsExact Economic Formula First Falconer FormulaSecond Falconer Formula (USA) Third Falconer Formula (EU)


RICE


2982

13736

11312087

4800

1025

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

EU

'000

tonn

es



Wheat

Special Products

Developing countries permitted to identify up to 20% of tariff linesSelection based on food security, livelihood security, and rural development (very general)Tariff reductions required

– First 50% is zero– Next 25% is 5%,– Next 25% is 10%

Would result in limited new market access in any developing country.

Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM)

Protect against import surges and low international pricesEncourage countries to make larger tariff reductions Aimed at products where tariffs are cut Trigger mechanism uses three year moving average of both prices and import volumes.Volumes exceeding 30%; prices falling by 30% of average could trigger SSMAdditional duties would remain for 12 months Duties could revert to previous bound level or increase 60%

Tariff Escalation

Processed products tariffs higher than unprocessed Results in high protection for food processingElimination provides more jobs in rural areasFood processing brings more investment and new technologyOptions for elimination

– Food chain– Higher tariff cuts for processed foods

Tropical Products

Seek greater liberalization of tropical products86 tariff lines (HS-4) identified (e.g., citrus, fruits, vegetables)Many of Pakistan’s non-tradition exportsProvides additional growth opportunities


Preference Erosion

Many developing countries have tariff preferences (mainly sugar, bananas)Lower general tariff reduces value of preferencePreference holders seek greater tariff cut or compensation Pakistan does not have any preferences

Cotton

Tariffs on cotton are generally smallDeveloped (and developing) would provide duty-free and quota free access to all Least Developed Countries (Hong Kong)Pakistan would benefit if extended to all developing countries

Negotiating Priorities for Pakistan

Seek large tariff cuts (applied tariffs will remain below bound rates)Limit exemptions: Sensitive (mega tariffs)Limit exemptions in other developing countries as future growth in these marketsTariff caps on Sensitive/SpecialLarge expansion in TRQs (end date)Improve administration of TRQs

Overall Assessment

G-20 proposal on tariff reductions provides significant reductions to bound tariffsOverhang would remain in many countriesExemptions widespread

– Sensitive Products likely 8% tariff lines– Special Products exempt from much reduction– SSM protects against big adjustments

Overall impact would be modest, improvements mainly limited to small number of developed countries No incentive for South-South trade


Implicat ions for Pakistan

Mr. Shezada Taimur Khusrow, Deputy Secretary (Planning), Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture & Livestock

Regional Trading Regional Trading AgreementsAgreements

&&Implications for PakistanImplications for Pakistan

Shahzada Taimur KhusrowShahzada Taimur KhusrowDeputy SecretaryDeputy Secretary

MINFALMINFAL

2

Surge in RTAsSurge in RTAsNearly 293 in operation and notified with the WTONearly 293 in operation and notified with the WTOGATT Article 24 allows regional trading or Customs Union GATT Article 24 allows regional trading or Customs Union with the condition that it should not make trade more with the condition that it should not make trade more restrictive to non membersrestrictive to non membersRegional trading arrangements support multilateral trading Regional trading arrangements support multilateral trading as both promote freer trading and removal of trade as both promote freer trading and removal of trade barriersbarriersGATS Article 5 allows developing countries to enter into GATS Article 5 allows developing countries to enter into regional or global arrangement for reduction or elimination regional or global arrangement for reduction or elimination of tariffs and non tariff barriersof tariffs and non tariff barriersWTO Regional Trade Agreements Committee examines WTO Regional Trade Agreements Committee examines regional groups to assess whether they are consistent regional groups to assess whether they are consistent with WTO ruleswith WTO rules

3

PTAs and AgriculturePTAs and AgricultureNegotiations mostly on market access, i.e tariff reduction, Negotiations mostly on market access, i.e tariff reduction, not on domestic support or export subsidies as in not on domestic support or export subsidies as in multilateral negotiationsmultilateral negotiations

Market access negotiationsMarket access negotiationsExclude some sectors Exclude some sectors Extended time for adjustmentExtended time for adjustment

Agriculture issue: affects choice of better trading partnerAgriculture issue: affects choice of better trading partner

Market access negotiations start with applied tariffs in Market access negotiations start with applied tariffs in PTAsPTAsMost FTAs or PTAs do not go substantially beyond WTO Most FTAs or PTAs do not go substantially beyond WTO provisions in safeguard and nonprovisions in safeguard and non--tariff measurestariff measures

4

PTAs and Multilateral TradePTAs and Multilateral Trade

PositivePositive::Removal of sensitive sectors: allows some negotiations Removal of sensitive sectors: allows some negotiations to move forward, avoids stalling of agreement, puts to move forward, avoids stalling of agreement, puts focus on sectors where there is mutual benefitfocus on sectors where there is mutual benefitExtended adjustment: prepares political economy about Extended adjustment: prepares political economy about workability of a liberalized environment; eventual workability of a liberalized environment; eventual incorporation laterincorporation later

NegativeNegative::Distraction from multilateral effort; thin negotiating Distraction from multilateral effort; thin negotiating resourcesresourcesDifferent sensitive agricultural sectors means difficulty in Different sensitive agricultural sectors means difficulty in future harmonization of PTAsfuture harmonization of PTAs

5

Effect of FTAs on TradeEffect of FTAs on Trade

Past studies show that FTA is a building block, not a Past studies show that FTA is a building block, not a stumbling blockstumbling block

Both intraBoth intra-- and inter trade grew over a period of timeand inter trade grew over a period of time

Increase in most FTAs shows that intraIncrease in most FTAs shows that intra--trade came trade came mostly from industry, not from agriculturemostly from industry, not from agriculture

Agriculture is widely protected because of politicalAgriculture is widely protected because of political--economy sensitivityeconomy sensitivity

7

FTA ExperiencesFTA Experiences

FTA and PTAs helped accelerate the bringing down FTA and PTAs helped accelerate the bringing down of tariff barriers. In most cases tariffs are within 0of tariff barriers. In most cases tariffs are within 0--5%5%

RTR showed agriculture tariff barriers remain RTR showed agriculture tariff barriers remain relatively high visrelatively high vis--àà--vis developed countriesvis developed countries


8

FTA ExperiencesFTA Experiences

Countries with low tariff barrier in agriculture have Countries with low tariff barrier in agriculture have many nonmany non--tariff measures on agriculture productstariff measures on agriculture products

FTAs allow liberalization of agriculture, with extended FTAs allow liberalization of agriculture, with extended timetable and several exclusions, and a high number timetable and several exclusions, and a high number of sensitive productsof sensitive products

FTAs proved to be a building block for total trade, FTAs proved to be a building block for total trade, even for agricultural tradeeven for agricultural trade

10

MINFAL InitiativesMINFAL Initiatives

Since 2005 MINFAL has been actively participating in Since 2005 MINFAL has been actively participating in FTA negotiationsFTA negotiations

To take offensive and defensive positions on To take offensive and defensive positions on Pakistan’s 1138 agriculture item of HS Chapter 1Pakistan’s 1138 agriculture item of HS Chapter 1--2424

Positions are adopted on the basis of:Positions are adopted on the basis of:Agriculture productivityAgriculture productivityDomestic demand and supplyDomestic demand and supplyFuture growth potentialFuture growth potentialExport potentialExport potentialComparative and competitive advantageComparative and competitive advantage

11

Pakistan Position OffensivePakistan Position OffensivePositions adopted on basis of reciprocity and Positions adopted on basis of reciprocity and Pakistan wants market access for its agricultural Pakistan wants market access for its agricultural products at the same timeproducts at the same timePakistan fully compliant with its commitments under Pakistan fully compliant with its commitments under AoA AoA

No import licensing requirementNo import licensing requirementNo controls over the allocation of foreign exchangeNo controls over the allocation of foreign exchangeNo quota commitment has been made, as agriculture No quota commitment has been made, as agriculture products are not subject to any quota restrictionsproducts are not subject to any quota restrictionsNo regulatory import duty is livable on agricultural productsNo regulatory import duty is livable on agricultural productsPakistan has bound tariff on all 1138 items. Binding on Pakistan has bound tariff on all 1138 items. Binding on agriculture items is 100%. On some items it is 150%agriculture items is 100%. On some items it is 150%

12

Pakistan Position OffensivePakistan Position OffensiveThe existing maximum tariff is 25% on agricultural The existing maximum tariff is 25% on agricultural products, except seed oils, and the number of slabs products, except seed oils, and the number of slabs reduced from 5 to 4reduced from 5 to 4No nonNo non--tariff measures on import of agriculture tariff measures on import of agriculture products, except for certain items maintained under products, except for certain items maintained under general safeguard and exception provision under general safeguard and exception provision under GATT Article XXGATT Article XX

13

Pakistan Position OffensivePakistan Position OffensiveAgricultural producers in Pakistan are provided a Agricultural producers in Pakistan are provided a notional type of Minimum Support Pricenotional type of Minimum Support Price

This is a component of AMS, which at present is negativeThis is a component of AMS, which at present is negative

Practically, implementation of the support price Practically, implementation of the support price policy has been restricted to wheat only. policy has been restricted to wheat only. Announcement of rice, cotton and sugarcane prices Announcement of rice, cotton and sugarcane prices are indicative pricesare indicative prices

Can provide support to extent of Can provide support to extent of RsRs 100 billion100 billion

Budgetary and hidden subsidies on inputs such as Budgetary and hidden subsidies on inputs such as fertilizer, pesticides, agriculture credit have been fertilizer, pesticides, agriculture credit have been phased outphased out

18

Coverage of Agriculture in PTAsCoverage of Agriculture in PTAsImportant features of AsiaImportant features of Asia--Pacific RTAs are:Pacific RTAs are:

Depth of tariff cuts offered is limitedDepth of tariff cuts offered is limitedNumber of concessions and actual trade coverage is very Number of concessions and actual trade coverage is very lowlowMost agricultural products are in the negative lists of the Most agricultural products are in the negative lists of the respective countriesrespective countries

Agriculture remains the sector with the lowest degree Agriculture remains the sector with the lowest degree of liberalizationof liberalization

SAEsSAEs possess conditions possess conditions -- such as presence of such as presence of higher tariffs, other protective taxes and NTBs, and higher tariffs, other protective taxes and NTBs, and geographical closeness geographical closeness -- that provide potential for that provide potential for agricultural trade liberalization within the regionagricultural trade liberalization within the region

19

Current initiativesCurrent initiatives

Initiatives in progress:Initiatives in progress:SAFTASAFTADD--88OIC OIC GCCGCCMERCOSURMERCOSUR

20

South Asian Free Trade South Asian Free Trade Arrangement (SAFTA)Arrangement (SAFTA)

SAFTA Agreement signed at Islamabad on SAFTA Agreement signed at Islamabad on 6 January 20046 January 2004

Article 7 of the Agreement contains modalities of Article 7 of the Agreement contains modalities of tariff reduction:tariff reduction:

No tariff reduction on items in the Sensitive ListNo tariff reduction on items in the Sensitive ListNonNon--LDCs (Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka) shall reduce LDCs (Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka) shall reduce tariffs to 0tariffs to 0--5% for LDCs (Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, 5% for LDCs (Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives) within 3 years (2009)Maldives) within 3 years (2009)


21

SAFTASAFTA

Tariff reduction by NonTariff reduction by Non--LDCs for NonLDCs for Non--LDCs LDCs

Reduction in two phases:Reduction in two phases:PhasePhase--I (2006I (2006--2008)2008)

Existing tariff rates above 20% to be reduced to Existing tariff rates above 20% to be reduced to 20% within 2 years20% within 2 yearsTariffs below 20% to be reduced on margin of Tariffs below 20% to be reduced on margin of preference basis of 10% per yearpreference basis of 10% per year

PhasePhase--II (2008II (2008--2013)2013)Tariffs to be reduced to 0Tariffs to be reduced to 0--5% within 5 years5% within 5 yearsSri Lanka Sri Lanka –– 6 years (2014)6 years (2014)

22

SAFTASAFTA

Tariff Reduction by LDCs for all SAARC Members Tariff Reduction by LDCs for all SAARC Members

Reduction in two phases:Reduction in two phases:PhasePhase--I (2006I (2006--2008)2008)

Existing tariff rates above 30% to be reduced to 30% Existing tariff rates above 30% to be reduced to 30% within two yearswithin two yearsTariff below 30% to be reduced on margin of Tariff below 30% to be reduced on margin of preference basis of 5% per year. preference basis of 5% per year.

PhasePhase--II (2008II (2008--2016)2016)Tariff to be reduced to 0Tariff to be reduced to 0--5% within 8 years5% within 8 years

23

SAFTA: Negotiations on SAFTA: Negotiations on AnnexesAnnexes

Committee of Experts(COE) comprising members of Committee of Experts(COE) comprising members of all SAARC countries was entrusted to finalize:all SAARC countries was entrusted to finalize:

Sensitive list on which no tariff concessions would be Sensitive list on which no tariff concessions would be givengivenRules of OriginRules of OriginTechnical Assistance to the LDCsTechnical Assistance to the LDCsMechanism for compensation of revenue loss (MRCL) Mechanism for compensation of revenue loss (MRCL) for LDCs for LDCs

Pending Annexes of the Agreement were finalized in Pending Annexes of the Agreement were finalized in 12 rounds of COE Meetings12 rounds of COE Meetings

Agreement took effect on 1 January 2006Agreement took effect on 1 January 2006

28

Road Map for SAFTA Road Map for SAFTA ImplementationImplementation

From 1 January 2006 only Technical Assistance will From 1 January 2006 only Technical Assistance will bebe implementableimplementable

The Sensitive List and Rules of Origin became The Sensitive List and Rules of Origin became operational from July 2006 (Nepal operational from July 2006 (Nepal -- August 2006)August 2006)

MCRL would operate after one year (July 2007)MCRL would operate after one year (July 2007)

As per decision of the 12th COE Meeting, Sensitive As per decision of the 12th COE Meeting, Sensitive List can be reviewed on unilateral/bilateral basis to List can be reviewed on unilateral/bilateral basis to reduce the listreduce the list

Lists are not yet finalLists are not yet final

31

Implications of Agreement for Implications of Agreement for SAARC CountriesSAARC Countries

Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka, India, PakistanIndia, Pakistan

Though a Regional Agreement, has direct linkage Though a Regional Agreement, has direct linkage with bilateral trade and economic relations of SAARC with bilateral trade and economic relations of SAARC countriescountriesAgreement envisages:Agreement envisages:

Improvement and liberalization of regional tradeImprovement and liberalization of regional tradeWill provide positive enabling environment to:Will provide positive enabling environment to:

Free flow and exchange of goodsFree flow and exchange of goodsEliminate all tariff and nonEliminate all tariff and non--tariff barrierstariff barriersNonNon--maintenance of any type of negative list of tradable maintenance of any type of negative list of tradable goodsgoods

33

Summary of Major FindingsSummary of Major Findings& Conclusions& Conclusions

The dependence of a higher proportion of the population on The dependence of a higher proportion of the population on agriculture, continuous decline of farm income, and changes agriculture, continuous decline of farm income, and changes in terms of trade in agriculture, have led many in terms of trade in agriculture, have led many SAEsSAEs to to maintain relatively higher tariff rates for agricultural productmaintain relatively higher tariff rates for agricultural products s than those for nonthan those for non--agricultural productsagricultural products

Trade barriers in agriculture are mostly based on Trade barriers in agriculture are mostly based on ad ad valoermvaloerm tariffs but specific tariffs and TRQ have been used tariffs but specific tariffs and TRQ have been used to protect sensitive (or high trade potential) agricultural to protect sensitive (or high trade potential) agricultural commoditiescommodities

The number of agricultural products covered in trade The number of agricultural products covered in trade negotiations is very limited and the items negotiated have littlnegotiations is very limited and the items negotiated have little e significant trade interest to the contracting partiessignificant trade interest to the contracting parties

34


Though FTAs, institutional developments to trade have Though FTAs, institutional developments to trade have included limited concession for agricultural productsincluded limited concession for agricultural products

SAEsSAEs have reported favourable economic growth and intrahave reported favourable economic growth and intra--regional trade expansion during the past decaderegional trade expansion during the past decade

Growth is attributed to multilateral trade liberalization as welGrowth is attributed to multilateral trade liberalization as well l as regional and bilateral trade agreementsas regional and bilateral trade agreements

Development of agricultural trade within the region during the Development of agricultural trade within the region during the past decade and prevalence of higher tariff protection indicate past decade and prevalence of higher tariff protection indicate potential for expansion of agricultural tradepotential for expansion of agricultural trade

There is a potential for improving agricultural trade in the There is a potential for improving agricultural trade in the region; India and Bangladesh can provide more opportunities region; India and Bangladesh can provide more opportunities to promote regional agricultural tradeto promote regional agricultural trade

35


A reduction in competitiveness of agricultural production has A reduction in competitiveness of agricultural production has been experienced by Bangladesh and Sri Lanka due to been experienced by Bangladesh and Sri Lanka due to exchange rates appreciationsexchange rates appreciations

These countries have recourse to alternative methods, such These countries have recourse to alternative methods, such as use high para tariffs, to provide additional protection to thas use high para tariffs, to provide additional protection to the e domestic producersdomestic producers

Thus reduction of specific tariffs, removal of Thus reduction of specific tariffs, removal of TRQsTRQs, improving , improving market access for products with considerable export market access for products with considerable export specialization and changing sensitive and negative lists of the specialization and changing sensitive and negative lists of the SAEsSAEs, have been identified as key issues for regional and , have been identified as key issues for regional and multilateral trade negotiationsmultilateral trade negotiations

This will help to envisage substantial trade development in the This will help to envisage substantial trade development in the regionregion


36

PTA with DPTA with D--88DD--8: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, 8: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia,

Nigeria, Pakistan, and TurkeyNigeria, Pakistan, and TurkeyDraft text adopted at the technical level on 6 January Draft text adopted at the technical level on 6 January 2006 at Islamabad2006 at IslamabadCoverageCoverage

8% of tariff lines with MFN tariff above 10%8% of tariff lines with MFN tariff above 10%

Modality of tariff reduction:Modality of tariff reduction:MFN tariff above 25% shall be reduced to 20%MFN tariff above 25% shall be reduced to 20%MFN tariff above 15%MFN tariff above 15%--25% shall be reduced to 15%25% shall be reduced to 15%Tariff above 10%Tariff above 10%--15% shall be reduced to 10% 15% shall be reduced to 10%

Phased out period:Phased out period:By LDCs (Bangladesh) 6 yearsBy LDCs (Bangladesh) 6 yearsBy NonBy Non--LDCs (7 countries) 4 yearsLDCs (7 countries) 4 yearsRules of Origin Rules of Origin –– to be negotiatedto be negotiated

37

Other initiativesOther initiatives

Trade Preferential System (TPS) with OICTrade Preferential System (TPS) with OICNegotiations in progressNegotiations in progress

Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)Agreement signed in August 2004 envisaging Agreement signed in August 2004 envisaging establishment of Free Trade Area with Pakistanestablishment of Free Trade Area with PakistanFirst Round of negotiations dueFirst Round of negotiations due

MERCOSURMERCOSURNegotiations to begin during visit by Minster of Negotiations to begin during visit by Minster of Commerce on 20th July 2006Commerce on 20th July 2006

Bilateral AgreementsBilateral Agreements

39

Current initiativesCurrent initiatives

Initiatives concluded:Initiatives concluded:FTA with Sri LankaFTA with Sri LankaEHPsEHPs with China and Malaysiawith China and MalaysiaPTA with IranPTA with Iran

Initiatives in progress:Initiatives in progress:FTAs with China, Malaysia, Singapore, Laos, Nepal, FTAs with China, Malaysia, Singapore, Laos, Nepal, BangladeshBangladeshCEP with IndonesiaCEP with IndonesiaJoint Feasibility Study for FTA with ThailandJoint Feasibility Study for FTA with Thailand

40

FTA with Sri Lanka FTA with Sri Lanka ––Main featuresMain features

Covers goods as well as servicesCovers goods as well as services

Three main categories of tariff linesThree main categories of tariff linesA no concession list A no concession list –– where MFN tariff will be where MFN tariff will be maintainedmaintainedImmediate concession list Immediate concession list –– elimination of tariff elimination of tariff immediately after entry into force of the agreementimmediately after entry into force of the agreementOn remaining tariff lines On remaining tariff lines –– elimination of tariff in elimination of tariff in phasesphases

48

PTA with ChinaPTA with ChinaPTA signed with China in November 2003, PTA signed with China in November 2003, operational since 1 January 2004operational since 1 January 2004

In December 2004, during Prime Minister’s official In December 2004, during Prime Minister’s official visit to China. it was announced to initiate extension visit to China. it was announced to initiate extension of PTA, Joint Feasibility Study on FTA and to of PTA, Joint Feasibility Study on FTA and to negotiate an Early Harvest Programmenegotiate an Early Harvest Programme

On 5 April 2005 (during the visit of the Chinese On 5 April 2005 (during the visit of the Chinese Premier) it was announced:Premier) it was announced:

Completion of Joint Study and commencement of FTA Completion of Joint Study and commencement of FTA negotiations, andnegotiations, andFinalisation Finalisation of Early Programmeof Early Programme

58

FTA with MalaysiaFTA with Malaysia

Negotiation on bilateral FTA initiated on 18 April Negotiation on bilateral FTA initiated on 18 April 20052005

An Early Harvest Programme (EHP) was negotiated An Early Harvest Programme (EHP) was negotiated and the Agreement signed on 1 October 2005 at and the Agreement signed on 1 October 2005 at Kuala LumpurKuala Lumpur

Cabinet ratified the AgreementCabinet ratified the Agreement

EHP operational with effect from 1 June 2006EHP operational with effect from 1 June 2006

64

CEPT with IndonesiaCEPT with IndonesiaJoint statement on CEPT was signed on 21 August 2003Joint statement on CEPT was signed on 21 August 2003

First meetings on CEPT held in Islamabad on 25First meetings on CEPT held in Islamabad on 25--26 October 26 October 20042004

The CEPT will include measures on:The CEPT will include measures on:Areas of Economic CooperationAreas of Economic CooperationPTAPTALiberalization on trade in goods, services and investmentLiberalization on trade in goods, services and investment

Pakistan has expressed desire for early negotiation of EHPPakistan has expressed desire for early negotiation of EHP


65

PTA with IranPTA with Iran

PTA signed in March 2004PTA signed in March 2004

During Second Technical Meeting at Tehran, both During Second Technical Meeting at Tehran, both sides agreed on concession lists and Rules of Originsides agreed on concession lists and Rules of Origin

Tariff reduction (average):Tariff reduction (average):Pakistan Pakistan 338 items338 items 18%18%IranIran 309 items309 items 18%18%

Rules of Origin Rules of Origin –– 50% value addition50% value addition

66

Laos DPRLaos DPR

Cabinet has approved to initiate negotiations with Cabinet has approved to initiate negotiations with LaosLaos

Date of the meeting is being fixed through diplomatic Date of the meeting is being fixed through diplomatic channelschannels

67

BangladeshBangladesh

First round of negotiations were held in Dhaka in First round of negotiations were held in Dhaka in November 2003November 2003

Finalisation of negotiation is expected by the end of Finalisation of negotiation is expected by the end of 20062006

68

NepalNepal

Cabinet has approved negotiations with NepalCabinet has approved negotiations with Nepal

Date of first meeting is being fixed through diplomatic Date of first meeting is being fixed through diplomatic channelschannels

69

SingaporeSingaporeComprehensive in natureComprehensive in nature

Initiative includes:Initiative includes:GoodsGoodsServicesServicesInvestmentInvestmentTelecommunicationsTelecommunicationsInformation TechnologyInformation TechnologyGovernment procurement, etcGovernment procurement, etc

Two rounds of FTA negotiations have been heldTwo rounds of FTA negotiations have been held

Excellent progress so far.Excellent progress so far.

Expected to complete negotiations in 2006Expected to complete negotiations in 2006 70

ThailandThailand

Joint Study Group has been constitutedJoint Study Group has been constituted

First meeting was held at IslamabadFirst meeting was held at Islamabad

Terms of reference for the Study were agreed:Terms of reference for the Study were agreed:The Study would be completed within 6 months, up to The Study would be completed within 6 months, up to December 2006December 2006

An Early Harvest Programme (EHP) to be negotiated An Early Harvest Programme (EHP) to be negotiated simultaneouslysimultaneously


Dr. Sohail Malik, Higher Education Commission of Pakistan Professor of Economics at the University of Sargodha Sohail Jehangir Malik is Higher Education Commission of Pakistan Professor of Economics at the University of Sargodha, and Advisor to the Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund. He is also Chairman Innovative Development Strategies (Pvt.) Ltd. of Pakistan and President of the Agricultural Assessments International Corporation of USA.

Dr. Malik has 30 years of international experience in development economics and agriculture policy research and support. Most of his career has been with the International Food Policy Research Institute and the World Bank in Washington DC, and the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics in Islamabad. He has published extensively in the areas of poverty, rural development, rural finance and agriculture policy and trade with an emphasis on the implications of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.

Dr. Malik has a PhD in Econometrics from the University of New England in Australia.

Agriculture in Pakistan and the Doha Development Agenda

Opportunities and Challenges

Purpose

• In view of Pakistan’s interest in the ongoing WTO negotiations on the AoA– Describe the agriculture sector in Pakistan– Define the opportunities and challenges

presented by the DDA

Why this interest in the WTO?

• Because, theoretically, globalization …– Opens up markets and ensures competition– Removes inefficiencies and leads to greater

growth.– Ensures specialization takes place in areas of

comparative advantage.• For labor abundant economies such as

Pakistan this means increased employment as well as growth

Objective of the presentation

• To present some background information to act as a discussion starter.

• To get feedback from this august collection of stakeholders on this important issue of national concern

• To combine this feedback into a useable policy paper for Pakistan’s negotiators and policymakers

What is in the paper?

• Review of Agriculture's role and importance in Pakistan’s economy

• Review of Agriculture’s role in Pakistan’s trade and experience with the WTO regime

• Pakistan’s policy response to the changing scenario

• Pakistan’s involvement in WTO negotiations on the AoA

• Some thoughts on the real challenges and opportunities

Importance of Agriculturefor Pakistan

• Agriculture contributes– On average, nearly one-fourth of total GDP (22 % in

2005-06)• Agriculture accounts for

– 45 % of the labour force• Livelihood contribution

– 66 % of rural population – directly or indirectly• Contribution to exports

– 68 % of the country’s exports are agro-based


Crops of Pakistan

• Total area 79.61 million hectares – about 29 % cropped – Cropped area increased from 11.6 million hectares

in 1947 to 22.94 million hectares in 2004• Wide variety of crops grown in all parts of

Pakistan– Four major crops (wheat, rice, cotton, and

sugarcane), contribute on average 32 % to overall Agriculture value added

– Minor crops account for 12.3 % of value added

Crops of Pakistan - Classification• Food crops: Wheat, Rice, Jowar, Maize, Bajra, Barley• Cash crops: Sugarcane, Cotton, Tobacco, Sugarbeet,

Jute, Guarseed• Pulses: Gram, Mung, Mash, Masoor, Mattar, other

pulses• Oilseeds: Rapeseed and Mustard, Seasamum,

Groundnut, Linseed, Castorseed, other oilseeds• Vegetables: Potatoes, Tomatoes, other vegetables• Fruits: Mango, banana, citrus, dates, apple, apricot,

other fruits• Condiments: Chilies, Onion, Garlic, Coriander, Turmeric,

Ginger

Livestock in Pakistan

• Livestock is an important and growing sector in Pakistan – about 10.3 % of the overall GDP – includes: milk, beef, mutton, poultry meat, wool,

hair, bones, fats, blood, eggs, hides and skins• About 30-35 million rural people engaged in

livestock activities• Contributes 50 % to agricultural value added

which is higher than crop sector (47.4 %)• Livestock sector registered an average growth

rate of 2.8 % during 2001-05

Investment in Agriculture

• Investment in agriculture has been low in public as well as private sector

• Agriculture has not received its due share in Public Sector Development Programmes(PSDP)


0 .0 0

5.0 0

10 .0 0

15.0 0

2 0 .0 0

2 5.0 0

3 0 .0 0

3 5.0 0

4 0 .0 0

% sh

are

Private Public

Declining trends in the share of public and private investment in agricultural sector (%)



2.89

1.58

1.30

0.90 0.870.66

0.28 0.360.55

0.13

0.59

0 .00

0 .50

1.0 0

1.50

2 .00

2 .50

3 .00

3 .50

199 2 -93 1993 -9 4 199 4 -95 1995-96 1996 -97 1997-9 8 1998 -99 1999 -00 2000 -01 2001-02 2002 -03

% sh

are

Percentage share of agriculture in Public Sector Development Programmes

Agriculture in Trade – Exports

• Pakistan’s share in international trade has declined from 0.26 % in the 1960s to 0.12 % in 2004

• Although Pakistan’s total exports are on the rise in recent years


Agriculture in Trade – Exports

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

PakistanWorld

Cotton Exports – Trends for Pakistan and the World

Agriculture in Trade – ExportsPakistan’s % Share in Global Export of Cotton

012345678

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Years

Shar

e

Share of export


Agriculture in Trade – ExportsRice Exports – Trends for Pakistan and the World

0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000700,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

02,000,0004,000,0006,000,0008,000,00010,000,00012,000,000

PakistanWorld

Agriculture in Trade – ExportsPakistan’s % Share in Global Export of Rice

0

2

4

6

8

10

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Years

Shar

e

Share of export


Agriculture in Trade – ExportsFruit and Vegetable Exports – Trends for Pakistan

and the World

020,00040,00060,00080,000

100,000120,000140,000160,000180,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

0

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

120,000,000

PakistanWorld

Agriculture in Trade – ExportsPakistan’s % Share in Global Export of

Fruit and Vegetables

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Years

Shar

e

Share of Export


Agriculture in Trade – ExportsMilk Exports – Trends for Pakistan and the World

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

02,000,0004,000,0006,000,0008,000,00010,000,00012,000,00014,000,00016,000,00018,000,00020,000,000

PakistanWorld

Agriculture in Trade – ExportsPakistan’s % Share in Global Export of Milk

00.0050.01

0.0150.02

0.0250.03

0.0350.04

0.045

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Years

Shar

e

Share of export


Agriculture in Trade – Imports

• Pakistan is a net food importing developing country (NFIDC)

• Major food import items: edible oils, tea, sugar and wheat

Agricultural Trade Liberalization by Pakistan

• Significant liberalization in agricultural trade– There are no Non-Tariff Barriers– Pakistan has bound its agri tariffs mostly at

100 % level in ad valorem terms – Applied rates however are not more than 25 %– On edible oils, tariffs are applied in specific

duties terms (AVE is about 30-45 %)

Liberalization by Pakistan (binding level for selected items)H .S. C o de

Item C eili ng b indin g(A d . V a l.)

0 90 2 .0 0 00 0 90 2 .4 0 00

T ea o f a ll so rts 15 0

1 00 1 .0 0 00 1 00 1 .9 0 00

W h eat 1

1 00 5 .0 0 00 1 00 5 .9 0 00

M ai ze (co rm ), S eeds, o ther 15 0

5 10 1 .1 0 00 G reas y in cludin g w a sh ing w oo l 3 0

5 10 1 .1 0 00 Sh orn w oo l 3 0

5 20 1 .0 0 00 C o tto n, no t ca rded o r co m bed 10 0

5 20 3 .0 0 00 C o tto n W a ste 10 0

0 80 5 .1 0 00 F ruit (ora ng es) 10 0

1 30 2 .3 0 00 V eg etab le sa ps & ex tra cts 10 0

1 00 6 .0 0 00 1 00 6 .4 0 00

R ice , H usk ed, S em i, w ho lly m ill ed, bro ken

10 0

5 0

Liberalization by Pakistan (use of subsidies)

Cushion available to Pakistan:• Amber box – de minimis (10 % product specific

plus 10 % non-product specific)• S&D under Article 6.2 – investment/input

subsidies for LIRP countries and subsidies for diversification from growing illicit narcotic crops

• Green box – general services, natural disasters, public stockholding for food security, etc

Liberalization by Pakistan (use of subsidies)

Actual Use:• Amber Box – very minimal – Pakistan AMS

has always been negative• S&D under Article 6.2 – only once for

fertilizer • Green box subsidies – on general services

and public stockholding


Pakistan’s policy response

The Government is giving specific emphasis in its future policy framework at the planning level to the opportunities and challenges emerging from the DDA

Policy response

• Focus of Agricultural Policy:– Sustainable food security– Increasing productivity– Commercial agriculture– Income diversification, and– Export orientation

Policy response

• Focus of Medium Term Development Framework (MTDF):

– Improvement in agriculture research, extension services, plant protection, irrigation, drainage and reclamation, on-farm water management and agricultural marketing, to cope with the challenges of the WTO

Policy response

• The Agricultural Policy and Perspective has the following as its priority:– Provide domestic support and export subsidies

where provisions are available in AoA– Pressurize developed countries to eliminate all

sorts of domestic and export subsidies and provide increased market access to Pakistan’s agricultural exports

– …

Policy response

– …– Improve quality and standards of agricultural

commodities according to WTO SPS and TBT Agreements

– Provide Green box subsidies, which include Government storage, pest and disease control, training services, extension and advisory services, infrastructure services and facilities for food security

Pakistan’s role in the negotiations

• Actively involved in the negotiations on AoA since the start of the process in 2000

• Pakistan made various negotiating proposals in Phase-I [Dev. Box, market access, Green box]

• In Phase-II, Pakistan also made a number of proposals and non-papers

• Pakistan’s proposals have generally been joint proposals with other developing countries

Pakistan in the negotiations

• Pakistan is a member of:– G20 – Offensive on MA, DS & EC – G33 – Defensive (SP/SSM)– Cairns Group – Interest in Agricultural Exports,

asking for reduction in protection and support

Pakistan in the negotiations

• An active and efficient Mission in Geneva– Participation in WTO and other Orgs,

Coordination with other Missions, Coalition and consensus building among likeminded Members, constant two-way communication and contact with Islamabad.

• Increasing Islamabad involvement– Based on increasing public-private, NGO,

stakeholders’ coordination


The current state of play in the WTO negotiations has been covered in details

by previous speakers

Negotiations – Market access

• Pakistan’s interest – Defensive or Offensive?– Market access improvement is obviously in our

favour– Less requirement to liberalize further – water in

bound and applied tariffs– Pakistan therefore should go for as much reduction

as possible– If deeper reduction (of benefit to Pakistan) reduces

water greatly then SP and SSM should be stressed– Excessive SDT may not be in favour of Pakistan

Negotiations – Domestic support

Pakistan’s interest:• Reduction in DS by major providers will

benefit PAK farming sector• There is a debate in Pakistan on whether

Pakistan should focus more on this pillar or on Market Access – overwhelming evidence that the gains from increased market access are much larger!!

Negotiations – Export competition

Pakistan’s interest:• Pakistan has always been supportive of

elimination of export subsidies in view of expected advantages for its farming communities

• With the expected increase in global prices due to elimination of subsidies, Pakistan, as a NFIDC, may face problems

Let us now talk about the larger opportunities and challenges for

Pakistan’s Agriculture arising from the DDA

World Trade Organization

• Has formalized the global trading system• Has provided, in principle, a structured

framework for ensuring a level playing• And a mechanism for dispute resolution• The WTO Agreement on Agriculture has a

direct bearing on Pakistan’s poverty reduction efforts

Pakistan’s Agricultural trade potential

• Why have we not been able to take advantage of Pakistan’s potential in Agricultural trade?– Inadequate research and extension– Structural problems within Pakistan's agriculture

economy– The disconnect between policy and implementation– Barriers encountered in accessing export markets– Competition from other countries' exporters

Challenges to increased market access

• Despite the WTO AOA several challenges to increased market access still exist:– exceptionally high tariffs on products of export

interest of developing economies– tariff escalation impacting adversely the exports

of value added products– subsidies on agriculture sector– indiscriminate use of anti-dumping and

countervailing duties, etc


Bigger challenges

• For Pakistan, the bigger challenges are:– Significant lack of lack of capacity to analyze

emerging issues in WTO agreements and implications for Pakistan

– General knowledge of the Agreement and its provisions is high among officials, traders and non-governmental organizations

– However, detailed practical understanding of the Agreements and the consequences, particularly for market access, is lacking

Challenges include

• Very few institutions in Pakistan where stakeholders can interact on WTO issues

• Most positions taken on WTO issues lack an empirical research basis and are most often based on assumptions

• There is inadequate data and even more inadequate analytical capacity

• A clear policy perspective emerging through consultations is necessary before the country commits itself to any position at the international level

Competitiveness needs improvement first

• Before Pakistan even begins to take advantage of opportunities that the WTO offers, it needs to improve its competitiveness by:– Setting out a clear national competitiveness

strategy– Improving the general business climate– Upgrading Pakistan’s technological capacity– Promoting skills development

Maximising the opportunities

• Maximising the opportunities is: – Predicated on increased efficiency arising out

of the international competition• This requires constantly seeking to improve skills

and human capital– Investment in quality control and standards– A move towards a new way of doing business– Ability to recognize the process produces both

winners and losers and being equipped to do something about it

Dr.Malik’s study, “Agriculture in Pakistan and the Doha Development Agenda: Challenges and opportunities”, commissioned by ITC and on which this presentation is based, has been published by ITC (September 2006). Copies are available from www.accesspakistan.org.


http://www.accesspakistan.org/

Commodity presentations

Cotton – Mr. Ibad Bader, Vice President, Pakistan Central Cotton Committee, Karachi

Pakistan’s share in world cotton

3rd14.0Cloth export

3rd7.0Cloth production

2nd26.0Yarn export

3rd9.0Yarn production

3rd10.0Consumption

4th9.6Production

RankPercent

What cotton and textiles mean to Pakistan

• Life line of the national economy• 2004-05:

– Gross exports = $14.41 billion– Cotton/textiles exports = $ 8.68 billion– Cotton/textiles as %

of total exports = 60%

Cotton/textiles share in Pakistan exports (2004-05)

Cotton Yarn8%

Cotton Cloth14%

Bed w ear10%

Towels3%

Others39%

Other Madeups4%

Raw Cotton1%

Silk & Synthetic2%

Knit wear11%

Garments8%


Export patterns

+ 6+ 9Ready made garments+ 0.5+ 15Towels+ 2+ 38Bedwear+ 15+ 7Knitwear+ 5+ 0.5Cotton cloth- 2+ 33Yarn

Unit value(US$/ton)

Volume(metric tons)

Growth in 2005-06 over 2004-05Commodity

Source: Federal Bureau of Statistics (Jan-June 2006 estimated)

Major export markets (2004-05)

• Over 75% of yarn exported to only six destinations

• About 75% of cotton cloth exports to only 10 destinations

Challenges

• Establishing credibility through uniform and timely delivery

• Improving quality and matching buyers’ demands

• Economising the cost of doing business• Exploring new export destinations

Opportunities

• Greater market access• Better unit values• More prospects for value addition• Scope for investment, job creation and

poverty alleviation

Raw cotton quality improvement

• Foremost prerequisite• Improvement measures include:

– Implementation of legislation– Improving cotton grading, classification and

testing facilities in major growing districts– Improving ginning machines/processes– Introducing pricing and marketing based on

quality – Launching contamination free production

campaigns

Cotton Vision 2015 -Objectives

• Matching cotton production to textile industry demand

• Assured supply of cleaner, uniform, graded and contamination free to domestic textile industry

• Higher recovery rate – more yarn• Improved reputation on world markets• Substantial additional forex earnings from

better unit values

Cotton Vision 2015 - Targets

92% (from current average of 84%)

:Improved yarn recovery rate (through clean/ contamination free cotton production)

5

0.60 million bales:Exportable surplus4

20.10 million bales:Mill consumption 3

1,060 kgs (from current estimate of 706 kgs)

:Yield/hectare2

20.70 million bales:Cotton production1


Wheat – Mr. Nasir Khosa, Joint Secretary, Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture & Livestock

Key Elements of the Future Food Key Elements of the Future Food Security Policy, Security Policy,

WTO Negotiations WTO Negotiations and and

Implications for WheatImplications for Wheat

Presented By Presented By NasirNasir KhosaKhosa

Joint Secretary MINFAL Joint Secretary MINFAL

SequenceSequence

Key elements of the future food security Key elements of the future food security policypolicyAgriculture as a profitable enterprise for the Agriculture as a profitable enterprise for the farmersfarmersPrice stability /affordability from the Price stability /affordability from the standpoint of consumersstandpoint of consumersThe current situationThe current situationWorld production and tradeWorld production and tradeWTO negotiations: Implications for wheat WTO negotiations: Implications for wheat

Key ElementsKey Elements

Clear distinction between GMP and Clear distinction between GMP and procurement priceprocurement priceDistinction between strategic and operational Distinction between strategic and operational reservesreservesIntervention into the market to maintain a Intervention into the market to maintain a price bandprice bandCarefully targeted food subsidy program for Carefully targeted food subsidy program for the poorest of the poorthe poorest of the poorA strong crop forecasting and information A strong crop forecasting and information systemsystem

Strategic ReservesStrategic Reserves

DefinitionDefinitionWhat should be the size?What should be the size?Factors?Factors?LocationLocationManagement responsibilityManagement responsibility

Operational StocksOperational Stocks

Routine operations by public sector Routine operations by public sector agencies (release through flour mills)agencies (release through flour mills)Scarcity months (Oct to April)Scarcity months (Oct to April)Stabilize price between harvest and lean Stabilize price between harvest and lean monthsmonthsWithin a year (and not between years)Within a year (and not between years)Gradually to be reducedGradually to be reducedRestructuring of public sector agencies Restructuring of public sector agencies

Profitability of FarmersProfitability of Farmers

Support priceSupport priceNo ban on movementNo ban on movementNo coercive measuresNo coercive measuresDistinction between GMP and market priceDistinction between GMP and market priceCost of inputsCost of inputsCascading pricesCascading prices


Enhanced Role of Enhanced Role of thethePrivate SectorPrivate Sector

Purchases / procurementPurchases / procurementImports & exportsImports & exportsCash margin facilities from SBPCash margin facilities from SBPNo segmented approach No segmented approach –– one wheat one wheat market in the countrymarket in the countryStorages, etc.Storages, etc.

Price Stability /AffordabilityPrice Stability /Affordability

Support priceSupport priceLinkage with the issue priceLinkage with the issue priceInternational pricesInternational pricesConsumersConsumersImportsImports

Determination of Issue PriceDetermination of Issue Price

Impact on inflationImpact on inflationIncidental costsIncidental costsAmount of subsidyAmount of subsidyShould not result in hoarding /profiteeringShould not result in hoarding /profiteeringShould not serve as a disincentive for Should not serve as a disincentive for wheat traderswheat tradersGovernment to act as one of the players in Government to act as one of the players in the marketthe market

Food Aid Programs for Food Aid Programs for UnderUnder--PrivilegedPrivileged

Geographical targeting?Geographical targeting?Targeted families? Income?Targeted families? Income?Distribution mechanismDistribution mechanismIdentification of deserving familiesIdentification of deserving familiesSelection of appropriate sale pointsSelection of appropriate sale pointsCoordination between District Governments Coordination between District Governments and elected representatives of Provincial & and elected representatives of Provincial & National AssembliesNational AssembliesSubsidy lesser than the effort involvedSubsidy lesser than the effort involved

Current SituationCurrent Situation

Carry over from previous yearCarry over from previous yearProcurementProcurementStocksStocksPrivate sector purchasesPrivate sector purchasesIssuance through mills and requirement of Issuance through mills and requirement of deficit areasdeficit areasExportable surplus?Exportable surplus?

World ProductionWorld Production

20042004200520052006 (forecast)2006 (forecast)

Europe?Europe? Near East Asia?Near East Asia?CIS?CIS? Far East Asia?Far East Asia?N & C America?N & C America? Africa?Africa?South America?South America? Australia?Australia?

World TradeWorld TradeImports & exportsImports & exportsImportersImporters

South AsiaSouth AsiaIndia?India?Bangladesh?Bangladesh?Sri LankaSri Lanka??

UAE & AfghanistanUAE & Afghanistan

AfricaAfricaAlgeria?Algeria?Egypt?Egypt?Morocco?Morocco?Kenya?Kenya?Nigeria?Nigeria?Sudan?Sudan?

World TradeWorld Trade

ExportersExportersAustralia?Australia?Argentina?Argentina?Canada?Canada?EUEU--25?25?USA?USA?

Closing Stocks?Closing Stocks?2006/07 (forecast)2006/07 (forecast)


WTO Issues Relating to WheatWTO Issues Relating to WheatReduction in subsidies by the developed countriesReduction in subsidies by the developed countries

Effect on prices in international marketEffect on prices in international marketIncentives for the farmersIncentives for the farmers

Challenges for PakistanChallenges for PakistanGenerate more surplusesGenerate more surplusesCapacity to export efficientlyCapacity to export efficientlyContinuity of policiesContinuity of policies

Market Access/ TariffsMarket Access/ TariffsExport Competition Export Competition Role of state trading agencies to be curtailed Role of state trading agencies to be curtailed –– no no monopolies monopolies ––hidden subsidieshidden subsidiesAWB/ CWBAWB/ CWBNonNon--emergency food aidemergency food aidDomestic SupportDomestic Support


Wheat – Mr. Bilal Aslam Sufi, Chairman, Indo-Pak Flour Mil ls Association, and Head, Sufi Wheat Products (Pvt.) Ltd, Lahore

[Edited transcript]

WTO and its implicat ions for wheat in Pakistan

Theory and pract ice

The World Trade Organization (WTO) presents both challenges and opportunities for Pakistan. Its Agreements spell out the principles of liberalization and permitted exceptions. Agriculture is said to be the most controversial area of the world trade. The Marrakech Agreement promised that adverse impacts on developing countries’ food security would be taken care of. However, developing countries soon realized that the major developed countries, while forcing them to open up their markets, maintained their protectionist policies by using various measures that allowed continuation of subsidies and direct grants to their farmers.

International organizations, like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB), are leaving very little space for developing countries to exercise independent economic decision-making. The WTO cannot please all and some countries are seen to have gained more than others. Major trading partners are not changing their attitude towards the situations in developing countries. There is a perception that all important decisions are taken by an exclusive club of rich nations and then imposed on poor nations in undemocratic and non-transparent procedures, such as "Green Room” meetings in Seattle and the "Friends of the Chair" phenomenon of Doha. This leads to resentment among civil society and consumer rights activists in the south. The lack of agreement on common goals and rich vs. poor fight has resulted in biased decisions during different rounds of negotiations.

The WTO says that the multilateral trading system should be free, predictable, more competitive and more beneficial for less developed countries. However, in practice, the benefits of WTO-led trade liberalization have tended to accrue more to developed and richer nations and there is no apparent relief for less developed countries. A body for negotiating rules for trade appears useless when those countries who are actively involved in the process get more chances to mould these rules in their own favour. These countries have devised their way out and do not seem to follow the principle of the same rules for everyone. Its Members run the WTO and all major decisions are taken by membership as a whole, normally by consensus. To arrive at a consensus and to convince reluctant countries, powerful countries use all means. The USA and EU are clearly misusing their veto powers in the World Bank, IMF and even in the ADB to impose their own agendas on developing countries.

Pakistan's ro le

In agriculture, especially, Pakistan should have a proactive agenda. All developing countries need to balance their activities in the WTO with research and should formulate their positions. Once their own agenda is set and research-based positions are taken, it is easy for them to focus on commodities and establish alliances and networks. These alliances can proactively face the northern agenda, rejecting that which is not in their national interests. Pakistan has


joined groupings like the G-20 to make maximum use of the rights given to developing countries under the "Green box".

There are important implications for Pakistan's agricultural sector in terms of output as well as employment. In the area of Domestic support, Pakistan is not providing a substantial subsidy to agriculture. Nor were there export subsidies in the base period. Therefore, the AOA is not affecting internally the agricultural sector in Pakistan. However, I would like to analyze the situation in a multilateral trading system where domestic economies are highly integrated with global economies. It is important for us to recognize that besides such agricultural resources, and diverse ecological zones, Pakistan is endowed with abundant manpower and an extensive irrigation system that makes our farmers competitive in the international market.

Impl icat ions for wheat

Wheat is very important to Pakistan and occupies a central position in our agricultural policies. At present, it contributes 14% to value added agriculture and 3.2% to GDP. Wheat is the major staple food for about 160 million people. The wheat production system of Pakistan is one of the most dominant, with cropping covering an area of 8.3 million hectares. Total average production for the last 5 years is around 20.5 to 21 million tons. A major portion (62%) comes from Punjab followed by Sindh. At present, we are able to export 1.5 million tons of wheat or wheat products.

To sustain such a position, government policies focus on measures to control or minimize the costs of production at a sustainable level while also maintaining quality, to enable crops to survive and compete in the international market under the WTO regime. Wheat producers in Pakistan are “disprotected”, or implicitly taxed, via depressed prices instead of international prices. For wheat, the rate of “disprotection” between 1990-91 and 1999-2000 was 27%. Pakistani farmers should receive international prices for their commodity to encourage expansion of their crops. In wheat production, the cost of domestic resources was $0.86 to save $1.00 in terms of wheat imports, which also implies a comparative advantage in wheat production as an import substitute. Therefore, wheat in Pakistan is likely to have great production growth once distortion in output and input markets is removed and the domestic price catches up with international markets. Overall, estimates of economic incentives and efficiency imply that, with true globalization, wheat growers can gain significantly by increasing their production. The policy for wheat should be to increase wheat production in the country, in order to earn foreign exchange.

Analysis of domestic support through producer subsidy equivalents (PSEs) indicates that the wheat crop has been implicitly taxed in comparison with selected countries. The Uruguay Round Agreement suggested that a reduction in domestic support and export subsidies for wheat would see a decline in artificially inflated production by developed countries. So, in a true sense of the Agreement, a decline in the supply of the agricultural goods like wheat from developed countries and improved market access for developing countries will very likely cause the production of wheat in Pakistan to become more profitable. Pakistan will benefit if world prices rise as a result of reduction of domestic support in other countries. This will not only increase Pakistan's share in the world market but will also strengthen the incentive structure for increasing production. Therefore, Pakistan's farmers have the potential to benefit from increased market access, especially due to the economic efficiency and incentive structures prevailing in wheat production. A well-equipped, modernized flour milling industry is available to help the farmers by purchasing 70% of production on the domestic market.


An important prerequisite is that farmers should be given the opportunity to respond to market signals and the AOA should reduce excessive levels of domestic support and export subsidies in developed countries. However, the ability of a country to maintain or expand its world market share depends on its ability to fulfil the demands of the world trading system, not only in terms of competitive prices but also in terms of the quality and safety standards of their exportable products. Countries are imposing internationally high food standards and developing countries are finding it extremely difficult to match the high SPS standards adopted by developed nations.

What to do?

For Pakistan, the maximum use of Green box measures, like domestic food aid programmes, public stock holding programmes, pest and disease control programmes for food security, and agricultural research programmes, are important. Another decisive option for Pakistan would be to select optimum cropping patterns as a prerequisite to efficient utilization of available land, water and capital. Farmers’ profits cannot be maximized without optimal cropping patterns. The agricultural sector can then generate higher employment through its strong backward linkages (e.g. increased purchase of farm inputs, such as chemical, fertilizers and machineries) and forward linkages (e.g. supplying food and raw material to the non-agriculture sector).

However, there are some internal structural constraints that may prevent the agricultural sector from fully realizing the gains from agricultural trade liberalization. These are:

1. Agricultural land holdings are, on average, very small. These lands are often un-irrigated and heavily dependent on monsoon rains.

2. Because of low levels of capital and relatively low intensity of farm inputs, farm productivity remains low.

3. A significant proportion of farmers are engaged in subsistence farming. As a result, their ability to participate in international trade is quite marginal. The supposed benefits of a free trade regime are likely to bypass these farmers.

4. Small and medium farmers also face problems in marketing their produce themselves. Although at farm level Pakistan is competitive in a number of crops, including wheat, at the port most of these crops lose their international competitiveness as the existence of middlemen always push the prices up.

5. The extent of post-harvest losses and quality degradation of stored wheat is very high in Pakistan. In an open trading regime with the advent of commercialization of the agricultural sector in Pakistan, increased private investment will flow into this sector. In such a scenario, bigger farmers might shift to more capital-intensive cultivation, leading to a decline in the demand for agricultural workers.

6. In addition to internal structural factors, the widespread existence of tariff escalations also hinders the export of agricultural goods by developing countries like Pakistan. Tariffs in most developed countries increase with levels of processing. This escalation discourages exports of value-added commodities and locks developing countries into a cycle of producing and exporting primary products. But diversification for small and medium farmers is very difficult. Diversification is also crucially dependent on food


security and, in the case of wheat, unless a basic cushion of food security is assured, it will be extremely risky for small and medium farmers to diversify into non-food grains crops. Furthermore, as the export competitiveness of agricultural commodities is derived from the interaction of complex domestic supply parameters, policy regimes and external market conditions, it is subject to frequent change. International wheat prices are much more volatile than domestic prices in Pakistan. This factor will alter the risk perception and introduce a speculative element to agricultural prices. This is likely to have serious implications for food security and livelihood in countries like Pakistan.

7. Inadequate wheat research and extension programmes do not allow Pakistan to fully benefit from the WTO.

8. The provinces are not implementing some federal government wheat polices.

9. The consistency and continuity of wheat polices are not assured. At one time the liberalization and privatization of wheat business was enforced, while at other times public sector policies have been adopted.

10. Competition through unethical means also restricts the export of wheat from Pakistan.

Conclusion

Initial expectations from the AOA have not yet been realized because of high tariff and non-tariff barriers, and most developed countries not allowing developing countries to reap the full benefits of agricultural trade liberalization. The Government of Pakistan should take responsibility for creating or improving the rural infrastructure; the WTO imposes no ceiling on government expenditure incurred in building or improving rural infrastructure, as these come under "Green box" categories of subsidies in the AOA. Increased private and public expenditure on rural infrastructure can help to make the agricultural sector more internationally competitive in the medium to long run in Pakistan.

The Government must develop a comprehensive strategy, which should have the blessing of all parties concerned with the trade of wheat and other commodities, to enable the challenges of globalization to be transformed into opportunities. Judicious use of available resources, guided by an appropriate combination of government policies and market resources, is imperative to increase productivity and profitability at the farm-level to sustain this vital production system in Pakistan. The industry will support all such measures and policies. The negotiations should continue with an offensive, dynamic, reasonable and scientific approach from Pakistan, because the process of reforming and implementation is always of value.


Sugar – Mr. Inayatullah Khan, Sugarcane Commissioner, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, Islamabad

Area, production and yield of sugarcane

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

1947-50 1950-55 1955-60 1960-65 1965-70 1970-75 1975-80 1980-85 1985-90 1990-95 1995-00 2000-05 2005-06

Years

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Production (million tons)

Area (million ha)

Yield (t/ha)

Area, production and yield of sugarcane

48.649010.61009.5Average

48.844292.0907.02005-06

47243.5

53420.0

52055.8

48041.6

Production (000 Tons)

966.4

1074.8

1099.6

999.7

Area(000 Ha)

49.0

50.0

47.3

48.1

Yield(Tons/Ha)

Years

2002-03

2001-02

2003-04

2004-05

Cane and sugar yield of main sugarcane growing countries of the world

6.8210.664.4World average

3.548.849.0Pakistan

6.649.966.9India

9.2211.679.5Mexico

9.2611.580.5Colombia

9.3811.780.2U.S.A.

9.9114.568.4Brazil

12.7411.5110.8Egypt

13.8513.8100.4Australia

Sugar yield (t/ha)

Sugar recovery (%)

Cane yield (t/ha)Country

Source: FAO Production Year Book, 2002


0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

Australia Egypt Brazil U.S.A. Colombia Mexico India Pakistan World Avg.

Years

(% &

t/h

a)

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0Sugar Recovery (%) Sugar yield (t/ha) Cane yield (t/ha)

Cane and sugar yield of main sugarcane growing countries of the world

Development of Pakistan sugar industry (1947 – 2005)

Punjab = 39 Operational 38Sindh = 32 Operational 28NWFP = 6 Operational 5

71

5.577Total

361987-2004

Punjab = 20Sindh = 16NWFP = 5

1.241Up to 1986

2Up to 1950

Capacity (million/tons)

No. of mills established

Period

Cane production and crushing by sugar mills

3.374.636.948.9Average

2.96832.147.22004-05

2.668.230.244.32005-06

4.08143.653.42003-04

3.78041.852.02002-03

3.27636.748.02001-02

Sugar made (tons)

Utilization % by mills

Cane availability

to mills (million tons)

Cane production (million tons)

Year

Cane availability vs. capacity of existing mills

3.25 vs. 6.1(-47%)

36.7249.02Pakistan

--0.03Balochistan

0.12 vs. 0.351.484.70NWFP

1.01 vs. 2.2210.7912.09Sindh

2.12 vs. 3.5024.4532.20Punjab

Sugar made(Av. last 5 yrs) vs. capacity

Cane crushed( Av. last 5 yrs)

Production(million tons)

Provinces

(Average 2001-02 to 2005-06)

Current position

• Existing capacity 6.1 million tons• Cane requirement 70.0 million tonsFor 100% capacity• Available cane 37.0 million tons• Shortfall 33.0 million tons


Sugar production vs. consumption

010

2030

4050

6070

8090

1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

EastWestNorth

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Years

(mill

ion

ton

s)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Cane ProductionSugar production

Sugar Cane

Sugar consumption

Implications for sugarcane and sugar sector

• Price of sugarcane• Competition with short duration and low delta

crops, like maize and sunflower• Climate• Water• Varieties• Sugar mills

Price of sugarcane

• The price of sugarcane is directly related to its production. If the price was fixed by the Government it would have a positive impact on the production of sugarcane

• Market forces mean that, In years of high yield, farmers receive a lower price and thus shift to other crops

• MINFAL used to fix sugarcane price up to 2001-02. However, each province is now authorized to fix a minimum price of sugarcane.

Achieving self-sufficiency in sugar production

• Various steps are being taken to achieve self-sufficiency in sugar production

• With an increase in domestic demand, sustainable self-sufficiency is linked with:– Vertical improvement in sugarcane sector– Improving industry efficiency – Supplementing sugarcane with low delta

sugar beet crops– Enhancing farmer’s profitability


Dairy – Mr. Safdar Hayat, Director, Farmers Association of Pakistan, Lahore

[Edited transcript]

The Farmers Association of Pakistan represents different farming sectors, including cotton, rice, and dairy. Today I am here to represent the dairy sector.

Pakistan’s dairy sector

Currently, we produce around 31.26 million metric tons of milk, or about 31.26 billion litres. The vast majority of our 54 million dairy animals are buffalo. Around 95% of dairy animals are with subsistence farmers. Commercial farming activity is still very low in Pakistan. I will explain the reasons behind this.

Although buffalo has not been considered a successfully dairy animal, its milk is superior to that of cows. Research conducted by the Indian and Philippines dairy industries have shown that buffalo milk has less cholesterol and more calcium, as well as healthier lipids (e.g. more high-density lipoproteins (HDL) compared with low-density lipoproteins (LDL)). Most buffalos are located in Asia, mainly in developing countries.

In Pakistan we have the best breeds of dairy buffalo and around 14 milk-processing plants. Only about 3% of buffalo milk is processed. The majority of the milk is ultra heat-treated; very little of this milk gets into the market as fresh pasteurized milk. Around 95% of the milk imported is open or raw milk, which is the consumer preference in Pakistan. Fresh pasteurized milk will not be accepted until a proper market is developed.

WTO and the dairy industry

One of the objectives of the WTO is the expansion of markets. A level playing field should be provided so that all countries can compete in the international market. Another important feature of the WTO is that it included an Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) for the first time in world trade negotiations. In 2001, the Doha Declaration was adopted and countries committed to giving modalities under which tariffs would be cut and market access provided. However, we have seen that so far WTO Members have not been able to agree on these modalities. Basically, developed countries are showing resistance to giving up support. This support is affecting our dairy industry, keeping farmers at subsistence level rather than enabling them to go into commercial activity. This is not only the case in Pakistan, but also in other developing countries that have a strong dairy sector.

Market access

Economic activity is generated when there is profitability in a business. If there are no profits, nobody is going to start commercial activities. Subsistence farming is continuing in our country and in most developing countries. In India, there is a very good system of collecting milk (AMUL) in order to provide hygienic milk to the customers. However, Indian dairy farmers they generally still living in very poor conditions. AMUL might be a successful model for the collection and distribution of hygienic milk, but it has not proved successful in promoting commercial activity at the farm level. Market access is the biggest barrier. For example, the EU applies a 150% tariff barrier on butter and 50% on whole milk powder (this


also applies to New Zealand, Canada and the US). With these barriers, it is impossible to start commercial activity, even for those countries doing their best to export their milk to potential markets. It is basically the paying customers that are important for producers. In Pakistan, we know that the consumers are going to pay up to a certain level. After that, we have to rely on export markets. However, we cannot enter export markets if we have high tariff barriers.

Export subsidies

Developed countries claim that we are giving domestic support to our farmers. However, what we have seen is that, whatever the structure of domestic support in their country, the amount of milk being produced is greater, e.g. in the EU, demand is 100 litres, while production is 110 litres. The extra milk is dumped into the international market with export subsidies, which may amount to €1.5 – €2 million. This distorts the international market and pulls subsidized milk into developing countries, such as Pakistan and India, suppressing the local market. As we know, if prices go higher, farmers will have incentives to produce more milk and buy more animals. As a consequence, they will start to improve their breeds and put more money into services, e.g. animal health. However, when subsidized milk enters the market, the opposite occurs – the price of milk goes down. This slows economic activity in the country.

Domestic support

The domestic support given in Pakistan is under the “Green box”. There are three boxes: Blue, Green and Amber. We believe that many developed countries still have subsidies that are under the Amber box. There is no transparent modality provided within the WTO for developed countries to reduce domestic support or shift support from the Amber to the Green box. Even if support was shifted from the Amber to the Green box, there are many loopholes in the Green box. Thus, developed countries could provide support to their farmers without violating WTO rules, while still distorting international trade.

Impl icat ions of AOA for Pakistan

As dairy farmers, we believe that these are the main reasons why our farming is still subsistence and commercial dairy activities have not started yet. No matter how many incentives the government gives to farmers; if these issues are not dealt with the situation will not improve. The situation will only change if the WTO is implemented in its true spirit, with the commitment of all WTO Members. Pakistan has huge potential to upgrade and become competitive in the international market, as we have in the textiles sector. Countries, such as Pakistan, India and China, became major players in the world market following the decision by WTO Members to cease quotas and providing most-favoured-nation (MFN) status to different countries.

I believe that the dairy farmers Pakistan, India and other developing countries, which have very good dairy breeds, have the opportunity to become middle players in the international market. However, due to the reasons mentioned above, we still do not have the export potential. I do not think Pakistan is ready for exports: for example, we are not yet ready to address the SPS issues, and we do not have good record keeping. But things will start changing if there is an incentive. It will be a gradual process. We cannot implement all these things immediately. If there is the commitment, we will have a timeframe to address these issues and be in a position to export, as we did in the textiles sector.


Some issues are being addressed right now. For example, the Government – at both federal and provincial levels – and farmers are working to improve storage and infrastructure. Farmers are also taking more interest. We are developing infrastructure facilities, transportation facilities and the processing industry.

Finally, I want to refer to the role of cooperatives. When farmers operate, maximum benefit goes to the farmers; when the private sector operates, maximum benefit goes to the private sector. This is the situation that prevails in the EU. In England, cooperatives are processing milk and directly marketing it to the consumers. In our case, the Government is taking excellent steps. Hopefully, cooperatives will also be formed and the private sector will also take more initiatives.


Rice – Mr. Chaudry Hamid Malih, President, Basmati Growers Association, Lahore

WTO Agriculture Negotiations:Challenges and Opportunities for Pakistan

7-8 July 2006Lahore

Registration of Basmati as a Geographical Indication

A Presentation byCh Hamid Malhi

President Basmati Growers Association

Basmati a GI

• Nothing contained in this presentation or said during the course of this talk shall be construed in any manner to mean or suggest any change, amendment or contradiction of the application for registration of Basmati as a GI, under Section 82 of the TMO, by Basmati Growers Association, but only to the extent of strengthening and supporting the said application and nothing else

Basmati a GI

Definition of GIsArticle. 22.1 - TRIPS

• (1)----“Indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin.”

Basmati a GI

Definition of GIsArticle. 22.1 - TRIPS

• (2)In respect of geographical indications, Members shall provide the means for interested parties to prevent;

• a.---------which misleads the public as to the geographical origin of the good;

• b, any use which constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of article 10bis of the Paris Convention,1967.

Basmati a GI

Requirements of GIs• Indication• Originating in …• Territory, region or locality• Given quality • Reputation• Other characteristic• Linkage to the geographical origin

Basmati a GI

• Historical evidence• What is Basmati• Area of Basmati (the flood plains of Punjab)• Identification by KSKR Farm----------1926• Basmati-370-------------------------------1933• Basmati Pak/ B-6129/Kernel B---------1969• Basmati-385-------------------------------1985


Basmati a GI

• Private sector rice exports---------------1988• Super Basmati-----------------------------1996• Basmati-2000------------------------------2000• Basmati Zone Notification---------------2001• EU issue, the deadline ----30-06-2005/2006• The Basmati GI application--------Dec 2005• The Indian tactics - APEDA

Basmati a GI

The Super Basmati Issue• The EU abatement• The Indian opposition• Joint registration idea• Lok Sabha speech by minister• Notification for export MoC India, 24th May• A blatant infringement• Bio piracy• Unfair competition

Basmati a GI

The Domestic Issues• GI awareness campaign• Identification of GIs• Capacity building of farmer organisations• Registration of GIs• GI management and infrastructure

development


Questions and comments on the commodity presentations

[Edited transcript]

Sugar

Q: Production of sugar cane has dropped in the past 5 years, as well as imports of sugar and water consumption of sugar cane. In comparison, production of wheat has increased and there is increased capacity for exports. Given this, is it a wise decision to produce sugar cane?

Pakistan’s total requirement for sugar is 3.9 million tons. Our installed capacity is more than that, but we should produce at least 4 million tons of sugar in order to be self-sufficient. Last year we only produced 2.5 million tons. Prices in the international market rose abruptly from US$296 in November to US$428 in January. But we should still aim to produce 4 million tons in order to meet domestic demand.

C: As a practical farmer, I would like to make a suggestion. Sugar cane is watered more than 20 times a year. This is very costly. Punjab farmers are spending Pakistan Rupees (PKR) 60 billion a year on watering their crops, without any assistance from the Government. I think the focus on sugar cane and the sugar industry should be given a second thought. I think this water and the soil that is good for sugar cane should be used for other productive products, particularly dairy products. Moreover, just $2 billion from exports should be given for sugar imports.

Q: We have seen a surplus of sugar cane in Pakistan, at a time when the price was PKR 40 and we received PKR 28. The price of sugar and sugar cane is still very unstable. The system in place right now is not effective and does not protect farmers. On the other hand, monopolies and cartels are stealing millions. Even the cane boards, which control the private sector, are not functioning effectively. Large producers are made members of the cane board.

If we have a surplus in sugar cane and we produce sugar, why do we not have a policy that gives farmers a good price? Farmers see the price driven by market forces, which are out of control. Governments neglect to take control of the market. Do you have a solution for this problem?

The Government is aware of this role and we are already in contact with the regional government to propose some amendments to the Sugar Control Act in order to make it more efficient. The idea is to take all farmers’ concerns into consideration, e.g. start of crushing season, quality premium. All these will be properly addressed and implemented in the Sugar Control Act.

Q: Why is the Government not considering a quality-based payment for sugar cane? Could this be one of the solutions to improving productivity as well as increasing production?

I agree this is an important issue: currently the payment for sugar cane is based on quantity, which does not encourage high quality sugar. MINFAL has created a special committee and we have been working on it. We have agreed on a suitable solution, for fixing the price on the

International Trade Centre Page 79

basis of quality and not quantity. I hope something will be in place for the beginning of the coming season.

Q: As farmers have mentioned, these crops are using more water and covering a greater area. Is there any policy to reduce the area of sugar crops, so we can save more water?

Why are we growing sugar cane? We have about 71 sugar mills in operation in Pakistan. Hundreds of thousands of people are working in this industry. The sugar industry does not only produce sugar; it also is used for other products, e.g. Brazil is producing ethanol. We have not started producing ethanol. Sugar cane is also important for the sugar industry, but does require a heavy investment. The Government is trying to introduce sugar beet, which is 12-month crop and only needs one-third of the water of sugar cane. So the Government is introducing policies to reduce our future dependence on sugar cane crops in order to save water and increase farmers` profitability.

Q: Explain the increase in sugar consumption.

Why we are eating more sugar? We consume between 22 and 23 kg per capita, which makes our total consumption more than 3.8 million tons per annum. This amount is high compared to India, where consumption is currently between 16 and 17 kg per capita. I agree that we must reduce our consumption. Reducing our consumption by 1 kg per person means a reduction of 100 tons of sugar. If we could reduce our consumption, we would not need to import sugar.

Dairy

Q: Pakistan is the third largest milk producing country, and has indigenous breeds. Is there room for an effective milk collection and processing system, and cooperative dairy farming?

Milk is being produced in both urban and rural areas. In urban areas, milk collection is not difficult – roads are in place and the market is accessible. Some rural areas are also accessible because they have road networks. In some cases, consumers travel to rural areas in order to buy cheap milk. However, there are certain areas that are inaccessible but where there are large numbers of animals and large quantities of milk produced. In other words, they have very good potential. Thus, government intervention is needed to provide road infrastructure to these areas.

As far as cooperative dairy farming is concerned, we have seen that there must be motivation in order to be successful. Therefore, the focus should be on how to motivate farmers. Firstly, if they have a common interest, they will start to cooperate. Secondly, education levels need to be improved because cooperatives run well when there is good harmony among the people, trust and confidence. I believe there is a huge potential for cooperatives. There are many areas from which we can collect milk, provided there is infrastructure. On the other hand, we have discussed this issue with different exporters and scientists who say we need to have a genetic make up, which could be claimed to be present in the breed. In this regard, the experts will give the answer.

Rice

Q: India is exploiting our Basmati rice in the international market. What is the Government of Pakistan doing on this regard?


The Government realized that our Basmati rice needed protection. The Ministry of Commerce, MINFAL, and the Department of Agriculture of Punjab have all worked on this and we must given them due credit. Different plans of action and strategies to address the situation are being discussed with all stakeholders. Action should be taken in the very near future; I am talking about days. The Government is very sensitive about the issue, specially the Ministry of Commerce. We are working closely together to put in place protection for Basmati.

Q: Basmati rice is an indigenous crop. Is there a strategy for production of organic rice too?

All plants are organic. To be very specific, what you want to know is whether we are going to go into Basmati production, without fertilizers and pesticides. We can have small areas set aside for organic production. Today, India is selling non-Basmati, at US$900 per ton while we are selling Basmati aromatic at US$550 per ton on average. This has more to do with marketing efforts and strategies, rather than whether it is organic. I do not disagree with organic rice, but new and better varieties, e.g. from the Basmati green areas, need less intervention of pesticides. If proper research is done, and if we work together, I think all Basmati is going to be organic within the next 10 years.


Panel discussion

[Edited transcript]

Dr. Sohail J. Malik, University of Sargodha

I will try to summarize my understanding of the discussions and give some perspective from my point of view of the importance of this interaction. I think there are two important aspects that must be highlighted. You have been briefed by some of the top international authorities on the WTO Agriculture negotiations and their impact, so what you got was very up-to-date. It was a very lucid exposition of what has become a very complex set of negotiations. This is very relevant for most of the audience, farmers and exporters, who are being affected by the WTO negotiations. Is very important to put this into the context of the larger debate. Do not forget that negotiating means setting up lobbies. There are a lot of tactics going on, as well as interests at stake.

There is a fear that the WTO is something horrible, which is here to hurt and harm developing countries. It is a strong perception. In many cases, it is probably true. The process of competition, which makes it necessary to be more efficient in order to be able to compete in the global world, is underlying this perception. Competition means there will be winners and losers. If you want to be a winner, you have to do certain things that may seem painful compared to the older way of doing business. Before you did not have to care about maximizing. As you reach the frontiers, the ability to get that extra efficiency becomes more difficult. The market has its own culture, which is not sentimental and we have to understand that. Most of us are sentimental people and we do not like the cruelties of the market. We have not yet resolved this contradiction, so it is very important to get as much information as possible.

You have to be able to put into perspective who are the main players in this game. This is related to a course on game theory that I used to teach, which deals with decision-making. In this game you have to know who are the key players. You play the game only if you are going to add value and if you know the rules of the game. If you do not know the rules or do not understand them, you should not be in the game or you will loose. Thus, you have to decide on what level you want to play. In Pakistan right now, we need to know who are the players and what is at stake, and how we can add value in terms of our participation in the process. We need to know the rules, tactics and scope.

For some, the results might seem depressing, e.g. the fact that there will only be US$1.5 billion additional increase of welfare for developing countries. Pakistan and India alone have a combined population of 1 billion; that is US$1.00 per head. I want to add two aspects. One is that you can get additional value with very little investment. The second is that the process is forcing you into a new way of doing business. It is forcing you to be more efficient, to comply with standards and to meet with the requirements of other markets. Those gains are much larger, in terms of additional benefits. If you believe globalization is that way to go, the WTO can act as leader of the process.

There have been several studies about globalization and property reduction and very famous economists have been involved in this debate. The results are mixed. What you find is that


those countries that successfully entered into globalization shared some important characteristics, e.g. flexibility of policies on exchange regimes, and the ability to adapt very quickly and to put emphasis on large-scale development. In terms of poverty reduction, these countries place emphasis on safety nets for those people who will be marginalized. Some marginalization is inevitable in this process, although it is possible to minimize the percentage of people that get marginalized. There is also another fear, that if you do not participate you get marginalized automatically. So when you start evaluating how you are going to face it, there is the potential to maximize some gain out of it. Looking at it positively, the things you have to do are also things that are focused on improving your efficiency, adding to your productivity and growth. The process also places a lot of emphasis on the government to direct public expenditure into key areas, such as welfare. For example, the need to have skilled workers adds to public welfare. The characteristics of agriculture in Pakistan exist irrespective of whether we participate in the WTO or not. Thus, our participation forces us to speed up the process.

At a second level, are the issues that have been faced by various sectors and commodities that confirm the level of information required for policy making. The WTO is a forum where you participate only through your government. Mr. Khosa, from the Ministry of Agriculture, has been in this seminar listening to you for two days. I am sure he does that on a regular basis, as well as the other members of the Government. Now they will be much better informed on these issues, they will know which are the real needs and how to maximize efficiency. The Government’s positions should reflect our own considerations and focus on how we can maximize gains out of this process.

Mr. Inaamul Haque, WTO Adviser, Planning & Development Department, Government of Punjab

It is a great pleasure for me to attend this seminar and share with you my views on the challenges and opportunities for Pakistan. If you want to see clearly which are the challenges and opportunities for Pakistan, which are our national interests and our multilateral positions, you need to know few things. One, there is a need to be clear on what we are seeking. We also have to leave aside our ideological baggage. Not only developing countries, also developed countries have their own baggage, mainly on their perception of agriculture. Excessive importance is given to agriculture.

We cannot deal with these unless we get out of this frame in order to see which are the key challenges and opportunities. When it comes to agriculture, let us remember that it became the subject of international disciplines only 11 years ago; 11 years is a very short period. We also have to realize that there is still no definition of developing countries, e.g. Singapore and Ghana are both developing countries. There are also divisions between South and North, but these divisions are not so rigid as in other institutions.

Pakistan is member of the G 20, which was formed by developing countries with an interest in agriculture. We are member of the G 33 because we are also a net food importing country and we want to see that our interests are protected. We are also member of the Cairns Group, which is composed of aggressive agricultural exporters. Pakistan is not an aggressive exporter of agricultural products. However, we find a lot of barriers not only in developed countries but also in developing countries.


Our task is to reconcile our interests with the interests of other groups. We have to handle this matter very carefully. But, we also have to see that our interests are protected. After Hong Kong, some of the LDCs were very unhappy with Pakistan, e.g. Bangladesh. They think we were responsible for not obtaining full market access, 100%, from the US. Even if we were not responsible, we are accused of it. It is a delicate thing. What we should do? First we have to solve this issue at home. People are not aware of the factors and negotiating issues of the WTO, as well as what are the demands and the limits. Yesterday somebody told me you must come to talk about the new colonialism, which is being protected by the WTO. I was amazed. I told this person that there could be different points of view. We have to get out of this mental frame in order to be able to respond to the coming challenges. This is what I have been propagating in every forum. History teaches us that the smart become strong. Thus, you have to know how to go ahead and to take the best out of the situation. If this is the spirit, we should expect a modest, but not an insignificant, outcome of the Doha Development Agenda.

Trade negotiation rounds take several years. You should be aware that you might not be able to achieve what you consider is the ideal situation. We must keep trying and have faith in multilateralism. What is the incentive for developing countries? The WTO is only a bargaining forum. Unless you give something, you will not receive anything from other countries. In NAMA, Pakistan has come up with a formula, which now is used as a basis for the negotiations. We also have to make some concessions on NAMA in order to gain something on agriculture. In agriculture, market access is the name of the game. We have to focus on market access. Considering the interests of Pakistan, domestic support is not so important compared to market access. We must also realize what are the constraints of other countries.

What is the imperative? We should push reforms to a strategic objective. In this regard, we should look to market access and expansion of exports. It is important that we produce a surplus. In the case of milk, Pakistan is the fifth largest producer of milk and our share of exports is 0.041%. Production has to meet certain standards. More public investment is also needed. Public investment has gone down. In Punjab, we have reversed that trend but it should be reversed across the country. These challenges do not have to be resolved abroad; there are key challenges that we have to face inside the country.

Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to the TRTA and the ITC for the wonderful contribution they are making to capacity building. Now we have many people that understand the mechanics and complexities of international trade. The task is to increase the number of people and to expand the knowledge in order to enhance our contribution from the inside.


Questions and comments

Geographical indicat ions

Q: There is no one formula for the registration of GIs in the world; each country has its own regulations. However, is it possible, within the WTO to have a unique formula, e.g. if we have a GI registered in Pakistan, we do not have to go each particular country where there are prospective importers of the GI to register it. The WTO negotiations will be helpful in order to have just one set of rules for the world.

A1: There are different methods for the registration of GIs, e.g. Pakistan follows one regime while the EU follows a different regime. Even if this is consolidated into one regime for registration, it will be necessary to follow the domestic track in the medium term.

A2: First, we must have full registration of GIs. We are working on it. Universal registration is one way to do it, but we are not yet at that point. I must emphasize that GIs need a lot of understanding, so it is necessary to create our own capacity. It is necessary to identify the particular problems of the registration of GIs. In addition, it is necessary to identify the markets of interest for us and to speak with those countries in order to have our products registered there as soon as possible.

Research requirements & competi t iveness

Q: We have seen that, in some cases, we are losing productivity on some commodities rather than enhancing it. Would it be possible to establish a national institute on scientific research and technology that could coordinate with the different regions, e.g. for rice, cereals and others? Currently, there is no institution like that.

A: I think you have raised an important issue; this is one of the ways in which we can improve a lot. The Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (PARC) has received money from abroad to look at priority areas, and this one is clearly one of those.

Q: We need to achieve a surplus in exports. Priority should give to the dairy sector. Does the Government consider the dairy sector needs modernization in order to improve its exports?

A: Pakistan is the fifth largest producer of milk. However, we are not producing for export. The same happens with other products. Regarding the dairy sector, it is necessary to improve pasteurization, to observe more hygienic standards, as well as to set up more modern collection centres. At the moment, production is low. Many things have been done already, but much more is needed yet.

In addition, it is important to consider that we have always seen Pakistan in terms of production. In order to improve productivity it is necessary to increase valued added, to do marketing and improve infrastructure, among others. At this stage we must look at both markets – domestic and export. You should start by focusing on the domestic market then, from there, start exporting. This is an area of great interest for Pakistan and it has a lot of potential. At the Government level, we have created an institution to give support. Pakistan has a good future ahead, but we have to do it on a sustainable basis, not only in the short-term but mainly for the medium- to long-term.


Q: My question is related to the improvement of competitiveness. What steps have been taken to increase research studies on agriculture? What kind of education do we need in order to be more competitive?

A: Firstly, we need a clear strategy for agriculture, which has already been delineated. In this regard, we know now that Pakistan is not just crops; we want diversification, value added. Secondly, it is necessary to understand that the ‘green revolution’ dynamics have changed. Research on this will be needed and we have to make this adjustment. Thirdly, water is becoming increasingly scarce. Therefore, we have to move from high delta to low delta crops.

It is important that we are able to do research in order to respond to that. This means we need the best people on our side and economic recourses for that, as well as the required infrastructure. We are trying to develop a research mechanism inside the national agenda. This is clearly the strategy in agriculture. There must be coordination between all research institutions. Moreover, there must be connection between the researchers and the farmers, because currently there is a gap between them. We need to provide these institutions with the money and the autonomy to take decisions by themselves. In sum, we need to make adjustments in the new context of agriculture.

Other issues

Q: Which are the criteria for granting credits, and for water distribution?

There is no more direct credit. Currently, there is only market driven credit. Institutional credit is available too, which is cheaper.

Regarding water distribution concerns, this is a very complex issue. The provinces determine the distribution of water, according to certain formulas. The objective is to have an effective use of water. There is a mega project of PKR 66 billion focused on improving the watercourses. There is also a project on high efficiency irrigation. The pricing of water is a complex issue, but we are aware of it.

Q: What steps are being taken to protect our local dairy breeds, e.g. Kundhi, in the field of intellectual property rights (IPRs)?

As mentioned before, geographical indications (GIs) are not restricted to rice; they can also cover other commodities. However, first it is necessary to have national legislation. The Government has been working on GI legislation for the past four years. It is now in the process of consultation; the Ministry of Commerce is the focal point for that process.

It is necessary to take into consideration two things. First, once the GI legislation is in place, you can obtain protection retrospectively. Second, if you add value to a product, e.g. genetically improved livestock, you must document it in order to get this innovation protected. It is responsibility of the private sector to take this initiative. The Government will provide the policy instrument, but at the end of the day it is responsibility of the private sector.

Q: How is capacity being built for analyzing the implications of the WTO negotiations?

Previously, apart from Ministry of Commerce, there were no other people aware of WTO issues and their implications. This is changing now, e.g. if there is a particular matter that concerns agriculture, the Ministry of Agriculture will also be involved.


Is very important that the private sector is aware of all these areas because it is necessary to work together. This forum gives us the opportunity to talk to each other. We must have the best people to come and talk about these issues. In sum, we recognize the need to build our capacity. Pakistan should take full advantage of all the opportunities provided by the negotiations.


Concluding remarks

Mr. Muhammad Ismail Qureshi, Federal Secretary of Food, Agriculture & Livestock

[Edited transcript]

You have had two full and intense days of discussion on the WTO negotiations and their impact, globally and for Pakistan. I am sure that you have a much better understanding of the issues and challenges from the negotiations to revise the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.

We have a better appreciation of the progress and the difficulties in the negotiations. Dr. Blandford provided some unique insights into the mysteries of the process of the negotiations, and the constraints of some of the key players. Dr. Orden provided the analytical evidence that the outcome of the Doha Round is important for all countries. Dr. Huff outlined some of the complexities with the market access pillar and showed why negotiating such agreements are time-consuming.

We have examined the implications and opportunities for Pakistan, first from the presentation by Dr. Malik, then with the commodity presentations by Mr. Badir, Dr. Sufi, Mr. Khan, Dr. Hayat and Mr. Malih. Finally, there were some reflections by the expert panel.

Pakistan has taken a balanced position in the WTO negotiations. Pakistan has taken into consideration market access concerns and has a good defensive position. People keep asking me why Pakistan joined the Cairns Group; or in other words, why have an offensive interest? The Cairns Group is the club for exporting countries, while Pakistan is a net importing country. So there seems to be a contradiction. The reason is Pakistan does not want to remain a net importing country. Pakistan has a lot of potential in agriculture; for example, we have the people and excellent land. Furthermore, the markets around us are huge. Pakistan is well placed to take advantage of them. As mentioned before, Pakistan is the second cheapest country, after New Zealand, in terms of costs of dairy production.

The current negotiations reflect that some process has already been made. Firstly, I would like to explain the position of Pakistan on NAMA. Pakistan is a major exporter of textiles and clothing. Actually, 60% of our total exports are textiles and clothing. This is both good news and bad news; bad news in the sense that we are not diversified. If we are hit on textiles, we are hit very hard. Thus, it is important to continue to protect our textiles industry but, at the same time, to diversify. Agriculture offers us the best chances for diversification.

How are we trying to position ourselves for the future? This is linked to our strategy on agriculture. We should invest more in research, livestock, fisheries and increasing productivity. This is fundamental for Pakistan and there will be clear benefits for farmers. One of the advantages of liberalization is that commodity prices should go up. Currently, subsidies are keeping prices high. If some of the subsidies are addressed, even partially, our agriculture will be able to adjust and position itself well in some products.


I would like to thank all the participants, including my colleagues from the Government, the private sector and outside, in order to respond to the challenges and opportunities for Pakistan’s agriculture sector.


Mr. Michael Dale, EC Delegation to Pakistan

[Edited transcript]

First of all let me thank all the organizers. They did an excellent job; I personally gained much more than I was expecting.

I would like to focus on some of the comments made yesterday. One of the key things is related to what many people call “negotiating for a level playing field”. I do not think there has been or ever will be a level playing field. Instead, the key thing is to try to reduce the tilt as much as possible. The results of the negotiations will inevitably be a trade-off. However, I don’t think there will be big trade offs. We live in a world of minorities and not majorities. Minorities are based on political and personal interests. As we all know, it is the trade off between these minorities that will allow things to move forward. I am relatively hopeful that, sooner or later, we should get an agreement, whatever it is.

What should come from a forum like this? It is fantastic that we were able to bring together key people from the Government and the private sector in order to talk about these issues. It is very important to be able to have a dialogue between partners; this sometimes seems to be lacking in Pakistan. People talk a lot about public-private partnerships, but they rarely put this into practice. In the context of the WTO negotiations, it is very important that the negotiators know what it is happening on the ground. This means bringing people to talk around the table in an honest way. So I hope one of the key things that will come out of this seminar will be the setting up of a “real time” dialogue. This will allow people, like Mr. Qureshi, to know exactly what is going on and how people feel. This is important, because he is not negotiating for himself, but instead for the farmers of Pakistan. He needs to know what they think.

Secondly, I would like to refer to the consequences for Pakistan of the WTO negotiations. There will be major changes to the way people do business in the agriculture sector. You will know that the principal tool of a farmer is his personal computer (PC). People have to see agriculture as a business. Competitiveness is such an important thing; it is necessary to know what is worthwhile and what is not. Somebody mentioned that one of the challenges for farmers in the sugar sector is to start producing other things. Usually farmers are very conservative, but they have to keep their families’ heads above water. If that means changing from wheat to livestock or whatever, they have to be able to do that.

We have heard that in Pakistan there are 160 million people and, in 10 years, there will be 200 million people. This means that in 10 years you will have another 40 million people to feed. This has enormous implications for the way you do business and the sort of things you will be growing in 10 year’s time. Thus, policy objectives need to be realistic, based on strategies and performance indicators. Is not possible to have a policy without a strategy, as well as financial and human resources. A proper policy framework is in Pakistan’s interest.

On the other hand, we have to be aware that we live in a consumer society, whether we like it or not. It is the consumer who determines what you will grow, how and when, as well as the price of your product. If you do not listen, then you are out of business. This is market information. No matter what are you producing, you have to take account of this information.

There should be coordinated work through federal to provincial government levels, as well as between the government and the private sector. Somebody mentioned cooperatives; this is


important. Governments cannot deal with individuals; they have to deal with groups. People from the public and private sectors need to work together as a team in order to make things happen.

There is also a capacity building challenge. In fact, capacity building is one of the mandates of this 3-year TRTA programme. It is also something we would like to continue in new programmes. It is important to have better exporters, but also good national producers. In Europe the consumer dictates what he/she wants, and I am sure the same will happen here.

Finally, I would like to thank you all for your participation. I think we still can do more and that this kind of dialogue should continue.


Participants

Approximately 80 people participated in the seminar, of which up to 15 were women. However, not all participants registered their names and contact details. Those known to have participated are listed below. Participant Contact details

Fakhar Naseem Afzal General Manager, Millac Foods Pvt. Ltd.

75/10-A, Arif Jan Road, Lahore Cantt Tel. 042-666 2960 / 666 9264 Cell 0333-427 2001 Email [email protected]

Syed Taqweem Ahsan President, Anjman-e-Kashitkaran

Village & P.O. Bhulair No. 119, Distt. Sheikhupura, Via Sangla Hill Tel. 0467-700 359 Cell 0300-761 8359

Imran Akram Lecturer, University Law College, University of the Punjab

Tel. 042-923 1161 Cell 0333-466 5373 Email [email protected]

Dr. Iftikhar Ali Deputy Secretary (Technical), Livestock & Dairy Development Department, Government of Punjab

Civil Secretariat, Lahore Tel. 042-921 0531

Saeed Ahmed Alvi Secretary, Commerce & Investment Department, Government of Punjab

Ground Floor, Lahore Trade Centre LCCI Building, 11-Aiwan-e-Tijarat Road, Lahore Tel. 042-920 3641 Fax 042-920 3642 Email [email protected]

Shahrukh Arbab Secretary, Agriculture Livestock and Cooperatives Department, Government of NWFP

Chief Minister Secretariat, Peshawar, NWFP Tel. 091-921 0711-13 Fax 091-921 0707 Email [email protected]

Dr. Muhammad Arshad Conservator of Forests, Monitoring & Evaluation Cell, Forests Department, Government of Punjab

Lahore Tel. 042-920 0789

Ahmed Irfan Aslam WTO Unit, Ministry of Food, Agriculture & Livestock

Block-B, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad Tel. 051-920 1670 Email [email protected]

Dr. Babur Ehsan Bajwa Technical Manager, Pakistan Horticultural Development and Export Board

2nd floor, 126-Y Commercial Area, Phase III, DHA Lahore 54792 Tel. 042-111 111 742 Email [email protected]

Dr. Ehsan Elahi Bajwa Director, Post Harvest Research Centre

Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad Tel. 041-265 1370 Fax 041-265 3874 Cell 0300-666 4950 Email [email protected]

Ms. Sami Bajwa Management Associate, Small & Medium Enterprise Development Authority

8th Floor, LDA Plaza, Egerton Road, Lahore Tel. 042-630 4926-7 Email [email protected]










Participant Contact details

Abdul Salam Baloch Secretary, Livestock and Dairy Division, Government of Balochistan

Civil Secretariat Quetta, Balochistan Tel. 081-920 2243 Cell 0300-381 6442

Abdul Ghafoor Bhatti Cane Commissioner, Food Department, Government of Punjab

Lahore Tel. 042-921 0294 Fax 042-921 0520

Ms. Madiha Butt Research Executive, Aftab Associates (Pty) Ltd

5-E/1 Gulberg III, Lahore Tel. 042-587 1131-6 Fax 042-576 2483 Email [email protected]

Salik Javaid Butt Research Officer, Agriculture Department, Government of Punjab

Agriculture House, 21 Davis Road, Lahore Tel. 042-920 3501 Fax 042-920 3504 Cell 0300-844 9866

Shahid Pervaiz Butt Joint Director of Industries, Directorate of Industries, Government of Punjab

Poonch House, Multan Road, Lahore Tel. 042-921 1531, 921 2752 Fax 042-921 2753 Cell 0333-425 6059 Email [email protected]

Zahid Hussain Gardezi Chief Executive, Samza Fruit Farms President, Mango Growers Association Pakistan

Al-Murtaza, 12-B, Syed Muhammad Kaswar Gardezi Road, Multan Tel. 061-451 3102 Fax 061-451 7526 Cell 0300-636 2003 Email [email protected]

Dr. Zulfiqar Ahmad Gill Professor of Development Economics, University of Agriculture

Faisalabad Email [email protected]

Mr. Inaamul Haque Adviser WTO, Planning & Development Department, Government of Punjab

Civil Secretariat, Lahore Tel. 042-921 0491 Fax 042-921 0110 Email [email protected]

Arshad H. Hashmi Manager, Small & Medium Enterprise Development Authority

8th Floor, LDA Plaza, Egerton Road, Lahore Tel. 042-630 4926-7 Email [email protected]

Dr. Zafdar Hayat Director, Farmers Association of Pakistan

11/19-B, Link Shami Road, Lahore Tel. 042-665 0653 / 668 0041 Fax 042-668 2042 Cell 0300-848 2478 Email [email protected]

Muhammad Ijaz Hussain Chief WTO, Planning & Development Department, Government of Punjab

Civil Secretariat, Lahore Tel. 042-921 0477

Aizad Imdad Research Officer, Planning & Development Department, Government of Punjab

Civil Secretariat, Lahore Tel. 042-921 0078 Email [email protected]











Arooj Irshad Research Officer, WTO Cell, Planning & Development Department, Government of Punjab

Civil Secretariat, Lahore Tel. 042-921 0078 Email [email protected]

Ch. M. Maqsood Ahmad Jatt Al-Maqsood Traders

Sabzi Mandi, Okara Tel. 044-252 5740 / 251 2841 Cell 0333-698 2641

Dr. M. Siddique Jawaid Chairman, Department of Agri Economics, University of Agriculture

Faisalabad Tel. 041-920 0161-70

Naveed Khaliq Managing Director, Space Age Group

Gulberg, Lahore Fax 042-516 2996 Cell 0345-421 4808 Email [email protected]

Inayatullah Khan Sugarcane Commissioner, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock

Block-B, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad Tel. 051-920 1270 Fax 051-922 1246 Email [email protected]

Mr. Nasir Khosa Joint Secretary, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock

Block-B, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad Tel. 051-920 2369 Cell 0333-522 1313 Email [email protected]

Shahzada Taimur Khusrow Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock

Block-B, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad Tel. 051-920 1870 Cell 0333-520 0969 Email [email protected]

Tariq Mahmood Deputy Director (E&M), Fruit and Vegetable Division Project

Directorate of Agriculture, Economics & Marketing, 21 Davis Road, Lahore Cell 0333-443 3510

Mr. Chaudhry Hamid Malik President, Basimati Growers Association

Farmers Association of Pakistan Tel. 042-630 3373 Email [email protected]

Dr. Sohail Jehangir Malik Professor of Economics, University of Sargodha

Tel. 051-285 3081 Email [email protected]

Ch. Hamid Malki Director, Farmers Association of Pakistan

5/45, Habib Ullah Road, Lahore Tel. 042-630 3373 Cell 0300-436 8022 Email [email protected]

Asif Maqbool Lecturer, Agriculture Economics & Rural Sociology, Agriculture University

Faisalabad Tel. 041-920 0161-69 Cell 0300-669 1858 Email [email protected]

Ms. Aisha Humera Moriani Section Officer, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock

Block-B, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad Tel. 051-920 9253 Fax 051-921 0616

Rana Iftikhar Muhammad Secretary General, Anjman-e-Kashitkaran

27-A, Civil Line Near SP Chowk Khanewal Tel. 065-255 1377 Cell 0300- 632 8213












Ahmed Mukhtar Section Officer, Ministry of Commerce

Block-A, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad Tel. 051-920 4716 Fax 051-921 3785 Email [email protected]

Rehana Nazir Sufi Wheat Products (Pvt) Ltd.

C/o Flour Milling News Pakistan, 37 Ferozpur Road, Lahore Tel. 042-581 2391-92

Tajjammul Hussain Nisar Provisional Coordinator, Agri Business Development & Facilitation Project

4-Lyton Road, Lahore Cell 0333-239 8176 Email [email protected]

Dr. Syed Wajid H. Pirzada Chief WTO Unit, Ministry of Food, Agriculture & Livestock

38-W Khalid Plaza, 3rd floor, Jinnah Avenue, Islamabad Tel. 051-920 6470-1 Fax 051-920 6472 Email [email protected]

Shahid Farooq Puri 2 Waris Colony, Okara Tel. 0442-550 299 Cell 0300-402 9787 Email [email protected]

Dr. Muhammad Abdul Quddus Senior Research Economist, Punjab Economic Research Institute, Planning and Development Department, Government of Punjab

48-Civic Centre, Johar Town, Lahore Tel. 042-518 8603 Fax 042-518 8602 Email [email protected]

Dr. Abdul Hayee Qureshi Senior Scientific Officer, Social Services Division

PARC, Islamabad Tel. 051-920 2548 Email [email protected]

Eng. Dr. Muhammad Rafiq-ur-Rehman Director General, Agriculture (Field), Department of Agriculture, Government of Punjab

21 Davis Road, Lahore Tel. 042-920 0705 Fax 042-920 0759

Irfan Rasool Research Officer, WTO Cell, Agriculture Department, Government of Punjab

Agriculture House, 21 Davis Road, Lahore Tel. 042-920 3501 Fax 042-920 3504 Cell 0321-476 9940 Email [email protected]

Muhammad Riaz Vice Chairman/Director, Pakistan Flour Mills Association / Data Flour Mills

Bund Road, Chowk, Darghoawala, Lahore Tel. 042-655 3445 / 655 3293-94 Cell 0300-845 0091

Amjad Saleem Chief WTO Cell, Agriculture Department, Government of Punjab

Agriculture House, 21 Davis Road, Lahore Tel. 042-920 3501 Fax 042-920 3504 Cell 0300-882 1071 Email [email protected]

Ch. Javed Saleem President, Punjab Livestock, Breeders’ Association

Suite No. 10, First Floor, Davis Hytes, Davis Road, Lahore Tel. 042-631 2717 Fax 042-637 0901 Cell 0300-947 1630

Abdul Sattar Chief Executive, Good Luck Flour Mills

Mohalanwal Road, Lahore Tel. 042-754 0964-65











Dr. Ibad Badar Siddiqui Vice President, Pakistan Central Cotton Committee

Moulvi Tamizuddin Khan Road, Karachi Tel. 021-920 5991 / 920 2590 Fax 021-920 5941 Email [email protected]

Dr. Bilal Aslam Sufi Chairman, Indo-Pak Flour Mills Association Sufi Wheat Products (Pvt) Ltd

Lahore Tel. 042-581 2391-92 Email [email protected]

Geoff Walker Chief Executive Officer, Pakistan Dairy Development Company

State Cement Corporation Building, Township Kot Lakhpat, Lahore Tel. 042-613 2368 Cell 0334-422 8774 Email [email protected]





WTO Agriculture Negotiations – Challenges and ... · WTO Agriculture negotiations – Challenges...

Documents

Transcript of WTO Agriculture Negotiations – Challenges and ... · WTO Agriculture negotiations – Challenges...