USAID asks Pakistan to enhance sensitive list to protect industry, agriculture. DESIGN: MUHAMMAD SUHAIB
ISLAMABAD:
India stands on top among South Asian countries in restricting free trade with neighbours with the help of tariff barriers, based on criteria set by the World Bank, reveals a study conducted with the assistance of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
The study, conducted by renowned economist Hafeez Pasha in cooperation with USAID, focused on the prospects of free trade between Pakistan and India after grant of most-favoured nation (MFN) status to Delhi.
The report suggests that Pakistan should enhance its sensitive list of items to protect the industry and agriculture after giving MFN status to India.
The study proves right the concerns of Senator Sughra Imam, the Ministry of Industries, Ministry of Textile Industry and farmer lobbies. Though they are in favour of trade with India, they oppose a sudden phasing out of negative trade list, which they fear will provide Delhi an open field to swallow Pakistan’s fledgling industry.
They call for gradual removal of the negative list and on the need of a comparative study before granting MFN status.
However, exporter lobbies are pushing the commerce ministry to open trade with low duties. The Foreign Office has also called for granting MFN status to Delhi as part of confidence-building measures between the two countries.
It is interesting to note that the commerce ministry had finalised the sensitive and negative lists and was ready to grant MFN status to India by the end of December 2012. However, concerns expressed by the stakeholders forced the government to delay the move and now it is expected to make an announcement by February 15.
“According to criteria set by the World Bank, India is on top in this region in protecting the local industry by imposing tariff barriers, which discourage free trade with neighbouring countries,” a source says quoting the report.
Pasha was scheduled to give a presentation on the report to the stakeholders on January 3, but it did not happen. According to sources, now presentation will be given on Tuesday in the presence of USAID officials.
Sources point out that the report does support trade with India and not oppose the MFN status, but it suggests that Pakistan should expand the sensitive list to protect the domestic industry and agriculture.
It says India is giving higher subsidies to the agricultural sector, which can hurt farmers of Pakistan. This concern is also raised by the farmer lobbies, who argue that higher Indian subsidies will destroy Pakistan’s agricultural economy, leading to food crisis.
The prime minister’s secretariat had also expressed reservations about the list of agricultural items that would be imported from India through the land route.
It asked the commerce ministry whether a study was conducted on the economic impact of agricultural products’ import from India and whether other countries that share borders with India have had similar experiences.
In response, the ministry only said it consulted fertiliser manufacturers for assessing the impact of agricultural goods’ trade with India.
On its part, the Ministry of Industries had proposed a gradual phasing out of the negative list over a period of five years. It also called for linking the opening of trade with reciprocal measures by India to ease non-tariff barriers that stand in the way of Pakistan’s exports.
The Ministry of Textile Industry, while fearing that Indian goods would swallow Pakistan’s textile sector, argued that India and Bangladesh had realised the importance of textile in economic development, export growth and job creation and as a result they were protecting their industry.
It pointed out that Pakistan exported only $45 million worth of textile products to India in 2010, whereas India shipped $566 million worth of goods to Pakistan, though the negative list was still in force.
It said almost all textile items of Pakistan that had export potential had been placed in India’s sensitive list. Delhi has also kept high non-ad valorem duties on most textile products (around 700 tariff lines), which constitutes a hurdle in the way of exports.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 6th, 2013.
Like Business on Facebook to stay informed and join in the conversation.
COMMENTS (6)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Who says that imports do not lead to growth? Cheaper and more efficiently produced imports may they be from India or else where can lead to growth. Pakistan’s own exports according to SBP have over 60 percent imported content. On India being trade restrictive: What about Pakistan? Does Pakistan not give untargeted subsidies (hidden and non-hidden) to every possible sector (and has been doing so for the past 4 decades). Is over 100 percent unchecked tax evasion in every productive sector of the economy not synonymous to subsidies?
Why is there so mcuh fuss about opening trade in agricultural goods? If India was to stop exporting soyabean meal, our poultry industry would collpase. Similarly our textile industry is dependent on imports of cotton from India. If they were to stop exporting it, we will have to import it from the United States. It will not only be expensive but will make our textile industry no-competitive. Last year we had a glut of pototos and were lucky to have been able to export to India. We are competive exporters of rice. For sugar, sometimes we have surplus and some time we are deficit. We can export or import when we like. I do not see where is the problem. Opening trade does not mean that all restrictions will go.We can raise customs duty upto 100% or more whenever we feel threatened. I think the problem is that there is no Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Commerce does not have the knowledge to explain the issues. It is amazing that the Ministry of Textiles instead of promoting trade in textiles wants to restrict it.
||It pointed out that Pakistan exported only $45 million worth of textile products to India in 2010, whereas India shipped $566 million worth of goods to Pakistan, || off course the differences will be there - since there is a huge difference in population, scale of economy, size of country and other factors, India is not stopping Pakistan to give more subsidy to it's farmer....!!!!
I have lived outside of Pakistan for 20 some years. When I visited Pakistan 1 year ago, I observed alot of Made in India items in stores, like toothpaste, tooth brushes, soaps, mini cigars etc. which a common man buys, and all of which are also made in Pakistan too. Whats the point of importing such goods, which Pakistan already makes and will effect local industry. Why not import something from India which currently Pakistan does not make, like heavy textile machinery (if Indians makes it), Car parts (Engine for Mehran, Alto, Cultus, etc. which India makes), tea, cotton etc. Instead of importing things which are already produced here.
disgusting offering mfn to china which has same barriers like India but ignored buy pakistan traders though it is good but opposing and denying it to India as if India will only eat up their market and china will give then huge profit beyond their imagination.If pakistan rulers and people dont want trade with India and dont want to give mfn status then say it directly why making so much farce in the name of tarrif barrier by India,restriction by India etc etc.accept your uncompetitiveness but what i feel is if pakistan backtracks from its commitment this time then it will seriously dent further its already strained relations with India.India will not loose anything but pakistan has lot to loose in the presence of not many but few trades. I feel pakistan is literally at stake at the hand of some India opposers, any ways good luck at your trade with China atleast pakistanis will not blame India if their business further looses in future.
I'm not shocked. Along with a ban on Pakistani channels, it restricts everything else while asking us to carry out CBMs...hypocritical, ain't it?