Big business is driving the murky EU-India trade negotiations

The ongoing India-European Union Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations have been non-transparent. They are a threat to the livelihoods of millions of people, and any hasty conclusion of the talks will only fuel poverty, inequality, and environmental destruction.

The terms of a new deal between the EU and India, negotiations of which have been “hijacked” by big business and vested interests on both sides, will jeopardise the livelihood of millions of small farmers and patients, a joint study by the Belgium-based Corporate Europe Observatory and New Delhi-based India FDI Watch has revealed. The report, Trade invaders: How big business is driving the EU-India FTA negotiations, was released simultaneously in New Delhi and Brussels recently.

The heavily criticises the FTA negotiations as tailored to corporate interests and kept behind closed doors without access for non-governmental organisations, trade unions, or even members of the respective parliaments. No negotiating text or position has been made available to the Indian public, the Parliament or state governments. Such a state of things is called "murky".

The Manmohan Singh government, which has a dubious track record of thrusting laws on the people of the land, is silently on its way towards imposing another such one. All in the name of the 10 per cent growth that robs the Prime Minister of the sleep that he needs at the age of 78.

Since 2007, India and the EU have been negotiating a far-ranging free trade agreement (FTA). It covers the liberalisation of trade in goods, the deregulation of services, investment and government procurement, the strict enforcement of intellectual property rights, and many other points. Ever since the launch of the negotiations, the doors of the EU Commission have remained wide open to interested businesses. But not to others.

Many of the issues raised by European industry made it into the EU‘s list of top-10 priority barriers to the Indian market:

• The EU objected to Indian government proposals for a bill for the Indian postal market that will limit foreign ownership in the sector to 49 per cent, give the Indian Post exclusive competence for certain services and require large companies to contribute to India‘s universal service fund. India argued that these measures were necessary to ensure affordable and guaranteed services to all citizens because private couriers “are operating only in creamy areas and big business centres with the sole motive of profit without corresponding responsibility towards deprived classes of people residing in rural, remote, hilly, tribal and inaccessible areas of the country”. The EU found these measures “too cumbersome” for European couriers like DHL and TNT.
• The EU challenged India‘s import restrictions on pork and poultry products from countries affected by bird flu. On behalf of the Association of Poultry Processors and Traders (AVEC), the European food and drink lobby (CIAA) and the meat processors lobby group (CLITRAVI), the EU challenged these restrictions, which it claims go beyond international standards.
• The EU challenged requirements for a certificate that shows that imported pork products come from places that are free from a number of pig diseases. Again, the EU acted on behalf of the meat industry and criticised the measure for going beyond what is internationally required.
• The EU also challenged existing and upcoming legislation for medical technology that requires, for example, that any imported device still has a valid shelf life of not less than 60 per cent of its original shelf life – an anathema for the lobby group for the medical technology industry Eucomed.
• The EU objected to certain quality and health standard conditions for imported hides and skins, which it claimed go beyond international standards and were hurting exports from the European leather industry.
• The EU challenged the need for an Indian certificate for imported tyres for consumer protection and road safety. The EU Commission, the European Tyre & Rubber Manufacturers‘ Association (ETRMA) and tyre companies such as Continental, Michelin and Pirelli, which apply different safety standards, see these kinds of regulations as “barriers to trade with a danger to spill over to the whole Asian region if they are not contained”.

Following the EU-industry offensive, India has already relaxed its import conditions for some poultry and pork products and for hides and skins. And, the negotiations are still on.

Civil society groups in Europe have called for an immediate halt to the negotiations until:

• all negotiating texts and positions are made public
• comprehensive impact assessments and meaningful, broad consultations with the most affected groups in Europe and India have taken place
• the EU‘s approach to the negotiations has fundamentally changed. Development concerns, human and labour rights, food sovereignty, environmental, social and gender justice should inform the EU position – not commercial interests.

However, the EU Commission does not seem to care about these demands – despite the constant feelgood rhetoric about accountability, transparency and addressing civil society concerns in EU trade policy. Take a look at how things stand:

The report says that the free trade talks between the EU and India are tailored to corporate interests. Both the EU Commission and the government of India have entered into a symbiotic working relationship with big corporations and their lobby groups. "Both have put in place a dense web of corporate advisory bodies, working groups and consultation channels through which business can exercise undue influence over trade-policy making. Both largely ignore people who stand up for a trade policy that acts in the interest of people‘s livelihoods.

Taking this further, the report makes its suggestions. As a first step, both sides should halt the EU-India FTA negotiations until:

• all existing negotiating positions, draft proposals, stakeholder contributions and government commissioned studies are made public;
• comprehensive impact assessments and meaningful, broad consultations with the most affected groups in Europe and India have taken place;
• they have put an end to their habit of joint-policy making with big business;
• development, livelihoods, food sovereignty, environmental, social and gender justice form the core of their trade policy agenda.

Now, these are not unreasonable demands. Transparency in democratic societies need to be all-pervading.