[Reader-list] Fwd: [caravan99] GM Crops + WTO Kenya Mini-ministerial
Rob van Kranenburg
kranenbu at xs4all.nl
Wed Mar 9 15:12:44 IST 2005
>From: IndianSocietyFor SustainableAgriculture <indiansocietyag at yahoo.co.in>
>To: unamity at yahoo.co.uk, webmaster at globalexchange.org, 50years at 50years.org,
> bankboycott at econjustice.net, caravan99 at lists.riseup.net,
> its at notoncnn.com, pma at xtra.co.nz, info at actforchange.com,
> info at marchforjustice.com, info at moveon.org,
> melbourneanarchists at lists.riseup.net, webeditor at imedia.ru,
> Peace at renaissancealliance.org, pga_europe_resistance at squat.net,
> planetrescue at wildmail.com, tpa at lists.riseup.net,
> wef-announce at lists.riseup.net, APFN at apfn.org,
> celine.charveriat at oxfaminternational.org,
> Hans.Engelberts at world-psi.org, agonzales at wwfint.org, sporter at ciel.org,
> aileenkwa at yahoo.com, thormeku at twnafrica.org
>Cc: daniela.perez at igtn.org, tebtebba at skyinet.net, pannequin at ifdc.org,
> jfederico at ciel.org, news-feedback-in at google.com, ratnakar at sawtee.org,
> ratnakar at hqsawtee.wlink.com.np, jeaton at ca.inter.net, stella at mcn.org,
> SIUHIN at aol.com, sysop at zmag.org, franca.damico at biodiv.org,
> erie.tamale at biodiv.org, singh at southcentre.org,
>bridges_weekly at ictsd.ch,
> americas at irc-online.org, editors at ibon.org, smartikke at worldwatch.org,
> sunstwn at bluewin.ch, info at grain.org, A.BENAVENTE at CGIAR.ORG,
> adapt at pei.aibn.com, cjsfpa at sfu.ca, cca_toronto at hotmail.com,
> ahigginbottom at blueyonder.co.uk
>
>
>In This NEWS Bulletin :-
>***************************************
>
>1. Govt's Economic Survey Comments On GM Oilseeds
>2. Can WTO's Kenya Mini-ministerial Break The Impasse ?
>--------------------------------
>Can India afford to grow transgenic crops?
>
><http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=83863>http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=83863
>
>ASHOK B SHARMA
>Posted online: Monday, February 28, 2005 at 0000 hours IST
>
>NEW DELHI, FEB 27: An assessment done by the Economic Survey
>2004-05 on the status and future of agriexports in India has raised
>a pertinent question as to whether India can afford to grow
>transgenic crops.
>
> Referring particularly to the
>exports of oil meals from India, the survey said that its growth has
>increased and sustained on account of its non-GM nature.
>
> India has not yet approved any
>genetically modified (GM) oilseed crop for cultivation. GM mustard
>seed varieties, which were developed by PrvoAgro, were not approved
>by the regulatory authority.
>
> The Economic Survey, which is an
>annual report prepared by a team of experts in the government, said:
>Indian oil meals command a premium because of their non-GM nature.
>
> It noted that the demand for Indian
>oil meals is increasing as the world market is flooded with oil
>meals of GM oil seeds.
>
> The survey said that the export of
>oil meals gained substantially both in terms of volume and share
>during 2002-03. The growth was also sustained during the first half
>of 2004-05, because of the increasing demand for Indian oil meals in
>the world market. Oil meals are used as poultry and cattle feed.
>
> Exports of oil meals increased
>phenomenally from 18,96,521 tonne in fiscal 2002-03 to 33,23,025
>tonne in fiscal 2003-04. Even in the first nine months of the fiscal
>2004-05, the exports of oil meals marked an increase.
>
> India imports a substantial quantity of
>vegetable oils to meet domestic needs. The exports of oil meals
>partly offsets the foreign exchange outgo on account of imports of
>vegetable oils.
>
> In the first six months of the fiscal
>year 2004-05, imports of vegetable oils (for edible purpose) was
>valued at $1,235.60 million, consisting of 69.10% of the total
>agricultural imports.
>
> Generally, annual imports of edible oils
>are to the tune of $1,800 odd million and constitute around 72% of
>the total agricultural imports.
>
> Comparatively, exports of oil meals in
>the first six months of the 2004-05 fiscal year beginning April,
>2004 was $298.40 million, constituting 8.5% of the total
>agricultural exports.
>
> In 2003-04, exports of oil meals was to
>the tune of $728.70 million, constituting 9.7% of total agricultural
>exports.
>
> The vegetable oil industry has estimated
>imports of edible oils as per each oil year, which begins from
>November 1. According to industry data, 43,96,587 tonne of vegetable
>oils (for edible purpose) was imported in the oil year 2003-04.
>Imports of non-edible oils was 2,35,163 tonne.
>
> In the first two months of the current oil
>year 2004-05, the imports have shot up to 6,29,731 tonne as compared
>to 5,15,143 tonne in the first two months of the previous oil year.
>
> According to industry data, exports of oil
>meals increased phenomenally from 18,96,521 tonne in fiscal 2002-03
>to 33,23,025 tonne in fiscal 2003-04. In the first nine months of
>the fiscal 2004-05, the exports of oil meals also marked an increase.
>
> The exports of oil meals in the period April
>2004 to December 2004 was 1,948.631 tonne as compared to 1,612,350
>tonne in the first nine months of the previous fiscal year.
>
> Indian oil meals are generally exported to
>Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, China, Japan, Vietnam,
>Indonesia, The Philippines, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, Mauritius,
>Bangladesh, Pakistan, Kenya, Egypt, Dammam, UAE, Baharain, Oman, Abu
>Dhabi, Jebel Ali, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq and Sharjah.
>
> Apart from these traditional export
>destinations, Indian oil meals have found their way into the
>European Union, on account of the non-GM character.
>
> Italy has emerged as one of the main importers
>of Indian oil meals. Indian oil meals are also re-exported to Europe
>from Abu Dhabi (in Dubai) and Singapore. The European Union has
>recently allowed imports of two varieties of transgenic corn, but
>its acceptance by the public is very low.
>---------------------------------------------
>FARM FRONT Column
>
>Will Kenya mini-ministerial break impasse in WTO talks
>
><http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=83871>http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=83871
>
>ASHOK B SHARMA
>Posted online: Monday, February 28, 2005 at 0000 hours IST
>
>
> Several working groups of the World
>Trade Organisation (WTO) were engaged this month for working out
>modalities for implementation of the package agreed upon in July,
>last year.
>
> The discussions were mostly mired with
>difference and there was no concrete outcome. It is expected that
>the WTO mini-ministerial meeting scheduled early next month in Kenya
>may break the impasse.
>
> Negotiations on agriculture, services and
>non-agricultural market access (NAMA) are likely to figure
>prominently in the Kenya mini-ministerial. The February discussions
>took place in the backdrop of the European Union (EU) reinstating
>its export subsidies for wheat and the World Intellectual Property
>Organisation (WIPO) trying to push its agenda for harmonisation of
>patent laws at the Casablanca meet.
>
> The EU reinstating export subsidy on wheat
>on February 3 strongly defended as compensation for strengthening
>of the euro vis-a-vis dollar and this measure is set to cover 2
>million tonne of wheat. The EU had suspended its export subsidy on
>wheat since 2003. The reinstating of European export subsidy on
>wheat has taken place when modalities are being worked out to
>implement the July package which calls for phasing out of export
>subsidies within a given time frame.
>
> The EU is also in a mood to make some
>compromise with USA on the issue of its moratorium on genetically
>modified crops, the dispute which is before the WTO dispute
>settlement body. If such a compromise takes place, either in open or
>in secret, these two major blocs will come more closer in defending
>their professed agenda in global trade.
>
> The developed countries are also trying to
>push their agenda for harmonisation of patent laws, which may
>ultimately result in erosion of member countrys sovereignty. The
>February discussions on agriculture differences arose on converting
>specific tariffs to ad valorem equivalents (AVEs).
>
> EU, G-10 group of net-food importing
>countries, including Switzerland and Japan currently have tariffs
>based on quantity of imports rather than AVEs. These countries
>wanted flexibility to make their own calculations arguing that
>tariffs are a highly politically sensitive issue.
>
> The developing countries including China,
>India, Brazil, The Philippines, Indonesia, Peru, Uruguay, Argentina,
>New Zealand, Thailand, Costa Rica, Chile, Nicaragua said that such a
>concession would allow the developed countries to manipulate figures
>for the subsequent formula for tariff reduction. Generally,
>developing countries have AVEs. Tim Groser has, however, decided to
>revise his draft on AVEs.
>
> Similar division between developing and
>developed countries emerged in relation to Mr Grosers proposal to
>include in March discussion issues of interests but not agreed in
>the July package covering sectoral initiatives, differential export
>taxes and geographical indications. The developing countries said
>that bring such issues, at this stage, would dilute the negotiations
>on three pillars - domestic support, export subsidies and market
>access.
>
> Senegal and Kenya proposed longer repayment
>periods and lower interest rates on export credits should be allowed
>to developing countries and Malyasia suggested subsidised credit
>should be allowed for promoting south-south trade, while others
>cautioned that such flexibilities might create loopholes and
>undermine the effectiveness of the commitment to end export
>subsidies.
>
> Discussions on agriculture issues, thus,
>remained inconclusive. In the meeting of the sub-committee on cotton
>controversy centered around inclusion of International Cotton
>Advisory Committee as an observer. The committtee chairman, Tim
>Groser, however, sounded to reach an approximation by July, this
>year.
>
> In discussions on NAMA, member countries
>differed on whether all products not covered by the WTO agreement on
>agriculture were to be covered by any rules under NAMA negotiations.
>There were confusion over how to classify fish and fish products.
>There was also differences of opinion on binding of tariffs. A
>number of developing countries in Asia and Africa wanted tariffs on
>sensitive products to remain unbound.
>
> On the issue of S&D, a split emerged between
>two groups - African group wanted that 88 agreement-specific
>proposals for S&D enhancement, while other developing countries
>wanted that the controversial cross-cutting issues, including the
>principles and objectives of S&D should be addressed.
>
> In discussions on services, the progress was
>sluggish, despite Indonesias offer to open up its service sector.
>Two proposals for defining and classification of different kinds of
>service-providing professionals under GATS Mode 4 was discussed.
>
> The only successful results of the February
>talks are the change of guards in different bodies. Amina Chawahi
>Mohamed becomes the chairman of WTO General Council, Eirik Glenne
>now heads the WTO Dispute Settlement Body and Don Stephenson will
>head the Trade Policy Review Body. Can the upcoming Kenya
>mini-ministerial break the impasse ?
>-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
><http://in.rd.yahoo.com/specials/mailtg/*http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/>
>Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partner
><http://in.rd.yahoo.com/specials/mailtg2/*http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/>online.
>
>
>caravan99 at lists.riseup.net
--
http://www.virtueelplatform.nl/person-1024.25.html
http://blogger.xs4all.nl/kranenbu/
0031 (0) 641930235
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20050309/560da8f7/attachment.html
More information about the reader-list
mailing list