Reorienting India’s Trade Policy

It is vital that India’s trade policy, while taking cognizance of GST’s nitty-gritties, also realigns domestic trade infrastructure with the altering global trade landscape

India’s commerce ministry is conducting a mid-year review of its trade policy to closely align it with the roll-out of the goods and services tax (GST) on 1 July. Truth be told, GST is important but probably too narrow a peg to hang India’s trade policy from; it might make more sense to re-anchor the policy in the shifting framework for global trade and the rapidly evolving nature of globalization.

Deep resentment against globalization’s misaligned distribution effects, a widening wage gap and increasing inequality have given birth to an aggressive brand of nationalism. Strands of these have now found utterance in the economic and political policies of many countries. Brexit in the UK was sold as regaining economic independence from the European Union. US President Donald Trump’s executive decisions on trade (withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, restricting H1B visas, threatening the North America Free Trade Agreement) or geopolitical moves (hectoring European leaders or abandoning the Paris climate change agreement) were custom-built to address localized grievances. The sharp pivot by both countries—main actors in constructing the post World War II global trade, financial and security architecture—has made globalization a guessing game, bereft of its earlier certainties and confidence. Both countries are now seen as flag-bearers of a neo-isolationist doctrine.

Australia, New Zealand and Singapore are also following in the US’ footsteps, complicating India’s traditional trade matrix. The picture is further muddied by two momentous shifts occurring in the subcontinent’s neighbourhood. One is the ambitious Belt-Road initiative, a vehicle designed to rejuvenate China’s surplus domestic capacity and to give expression to its expansionist aspirations. The second is the recent schism in the Gulf with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Libya, Yemen and the Maldives collectively imposing informal sanctions against Qatar by shutting down transport links and choking essential supplies.

All these developments are bound to reorder the global trade system. Therefore, it is imperative that India’s trade policy, while taking due cognizance of GST’s nitty-gritties, also realigns domestic trade infrastructure with the altering global trade landscape. It is also perhaps the perfect opportunity for the policy to be more of a strategy document rather than a manual. The statement accompanying the 2015 Trade Policy states: “Change has been a constant in the global economy, not least in the international trading landscape.” Never was a truer word spoken, and never has there been a better time to factor this truism into the national trade policy.

Three areas demand trade policy’s attention.

One is to prepare for less reliance on traditional trade partners in the West while increasing India’s trade and investment footprint in alternative markets, such as the African continent. India started looking at Africa seriously after the launch of economic reforms in 1991 and then with renewed vigour after the 2008 crisis. However, promises to increase two-way trade between India and Africa to $90 billion by 2015 have remained largely unfulfilled. India’s trade with Africa touched $56.7 billion during 2015-16, down from $72 billion in 2014-15. The drop is largely due to the fall in oil prices, which contracted India’s import bill with Nigeria. Meanwhile, China-Africa two-way trade touched $215 billion during calendar 2014.

India has intensified its relationship with Africa, which includes initiating several high-level visits since 2015. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, President Pranab Mukherjee and vice-president Hamid Ansari have between them visited 16 countries, with senior cabinet ministers visiting the remaining countries on the continent. During May, the African Development Bank held its 52nd annual meeting in Ahmedabad.

More needs to be done, of course. Trade policy can examine how coordinated action between commerce, finance and external affairs ministries might help in expanding India’s trade efforts; for example, a larger presence of Indian banks outside the conventional East African theatre can help reduce export credit costs. This includes reducing delays in implementing projects under Lines of Credit, India’s flagship instrument for development diplomacy.

Second, there is a need for a clear link between India’s trade policy and Make In India, including strategic linkages through global value chains. Policy clarity will be required whether India desires domestic manufacturing platforms that double as supply hubs for a global market, or assembly units that can be folded up and relocated elsewhere when cost arbitrage dries up (Chinese mobile units are perhaps a good example). Trade policy may be able to play a role here.

Finally, there is trade in services. There seems to be a concerted move within the rich countries—through the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development—to open up trade in services, including movement of professionals. This has been India’s longstanding demand because trade in services has been asymmetric so far—high in capital flows, information and communication technology, but low in free movement of professionals. Rising unemployment, particularly in Europe, could be driving Western agencies to prise open employment markets elsewhere. India’s demand (and strategy) for trade facilitation in services should find some articulation in the revised trade policy.

The above article was originally published in Mint newspaper and can be read here as well

Arun Jaitley’s Shades-of-Green Budget

All said, a fog currently surrounds finance minister Arun Jaitley’s tax play on carbon credits

The West’s climate-change politics vilifies India for its pointed refusal to abandon coal as an energy source. This criticism continues unabated despite praise from multiple quarters for India’s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), submitted before the Paris climate summit in 2015. The INDCs commit to reduce the emissions intensity of India’s gross domestic product (GDP) by 33-35% from 2005 levels by 2030. Interestingly, the INDCs are voluntary, unlike past top-down climate governance mechanisms, such as the Kyoto Protocol.

India’s INDC moves are coming to life in myriad forms. Union finance minister Arun Jaitley has used the 2017-18 annual budget to incorporate some basic elements of a “Green Budget” as well as initiate India’s economic response to the West’s climate change politics. These policy initiatives include lighting up 7,000 railway stations across the country with solar power and halving basic customs duty (BCD) on liquefied natural gas—a relatively cleaner fuel compared to coal or oil—from 5% to 2.5%.
Green budgets deploy fiscal carrots and sticks to influence economic behaviour and improve the environment. Jaitley made a tentative start with his 2016-17 budget but without taking any of the long strides necessary to strengthen India’s commitment to sustainable development or place India firmly on the path to lower emissions. The measures in this year’s budget perhaps quicken the pace, but two decisions stand out for their curious configuration.

The first is a direct tax measure: a new section (115BBG) in the Income Tax Act makes income from the transfer of carbon credits taxable at a concessional 10% rate (plus applicable surcharge and cess). This income was earlier taxed at the normal rate. The directive would have been welcome had the timing not been mystifying. Critics have called the decision a delayed reaction, especially because carbon-credit markets are all but dead. The European Union’s emissions trading system (ETS) shut its doors in 2012; in addition, carbon credit prices have plummeted sharply, rendering the whole process of creation of carbon credits and subsequent trade unviable. But such criticism could also be hasty.

India is trying to create two domestic trading initiatives: Perform Achieve and Trade (or PAT) under the Bureau of Energy Efficiency and a Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) trading system. A third initiative has been launched in three states—Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat—for developing a pilot ETS programme to reduce particulate matter (such as sulphur dioxide) emissions. Only the PAT design, currently in pilot phase, comes anywhere close to an ETS.

The PAT mechanism has identified 11 industrial sectors accounting for 25% of GDP and 40% of India’s energy consumption: thermal power plants, cement, chlor-alkali, pulp and paper, petroleum refinery, power discoms, fertilizers, iron and steel, textile, aluminium and railways. PAT seeks to lower energy intensity in each of these industries through trade in energy savings certificates on designated power exchanges.

In the first phase, 478 companies from eight sectors were included in the programme and achieved an energy savings of 8.67 million tonnes of emissions (mtoe) against a target of 6.886 mtoe. In the second phase, 621 companies from all 11 sectors are being included in the scheme. Is Jaitley’s tax measure designed to provide greater acceptance of, or impart greater depth to, PAT? Did he use the term “carbon credit” interchangeably? This is a distinct possibility: Over the past few years, the number of ETS programmes has been rising across the world, trebling from 5 in 2012 to 17 now.

Throw into this mix China’s planned ETS going live in 2017—slated to become the world’s largest, and bound to change the nature of the game. China, South Korea and Japan are already exploring regional cooperation in carbon markets. Interestingly, India and China signed a bilateral agreement on climate change (goo.gl/BF3hke) in 2015. Both developments point to the possibility of enhanced regional cooperation, especially on a larger, plurilateral platform. But China needs to iron out some wrinkles: harmonizing cross-border compliance and enforcement regimes, improving liquidity, expanding the number of eligible sectors, fungible trading units, among others.

All said, a fog currently surrounds Jaitley’s tax play on carbon credits.

The second curious decision is ending the 5% BCD on the import of solar-tempered glass for the manufacture of solar cells/panels/modules. Simultaneously, and inexplicably, a 6% excise duty has been introduced, where none existed earlier, on domestic production of the same product, solar-tempered glass; it’s like expressing a preference for imports over domestic manufacture and thumbing one’s nose at the Make In India campaign. What adds to the mystery is that 5% BCD was imposed only last year, and in just one year the ministry has decided to backtrack.

There are only two plausible explanations. One, a domestic manufacturer favoured by the current political dispensation probably needs to import for a local photovoltaic fab facility, having already tied up with large importers. Alternatively, two-three large global tempered glass manufacturers have been able to impress upon the government the need to keep imports cheaper than domestic products.

Whatever the reasons, Jaitley needs to provide more clarity on these measures and what they intend to achieve.

The above article appeared in Mint newspaper on March 8, 2017, and can also be read here

COP21 Battle: from Paris to Nairobi

December 13 will bring curtains down on climate change talks at Paris, but the sharp ideological divides between rich countries and developing nations will continue to play out at World Trade Organisation’s 10th Ministerial Conference in Nairobi, beginning on December 15

Even as the Paris climate talks, or COP21, is likely to yield an agreement, albeit a weak one, governments are readying themselves to continue the battle in Nairobi, where they will converge again from 15-18 December for the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) 10th Ministerial Conference (MC10). And, though the faces around the table will change, the positions adopted by various countries at Paris will only harden.

Take the stand that Western countries — led by the U.S. and Europe — are trying to force fit into all talks: that India and China deserve to be in a separate category since both have outgrown the “developing country” tag. This is being duly repeated by Western media and their think tanks. This implicitly requires India and China to make larger sacrifices than the rest of the developing countries.

In climate change negotiations, a “High Ambition Coalition” (comprising 100 countries, including the U.S.) has pitched for an “ambitious” deal that would require the world to limit global warming to below 1.5 degrees, against the earlier target of 2 degrees. This strategy achieves four things simultaneously.

One, it takes attention away from the pollution that industrialised countries continue to inflict upon the world. Two, it detracts from the package industrialised countries had promised to deliver but reneged — $100 billion of funding for developing and poor countries to help improve energy technologies. Three, it wins over island nations (which can be used in other negotiating forums), who have been complaining about rising water levels due to global warming. Four, it turns the needle of blame towards India and China, both of whom will obviously oppose the increased commitment expectations.

It is quite likely that the developed world lobby will try to replicate some of these strategies at MC10 talks as well.

For example, well ahead of the meeting, the U.S. has begun making noises (with some support from the U.S.-based think tanks and media) that India and China should not be included in the group of “developing countries”, especially when designing support for poor farmers. This, effectively, takes out the strongest proponents of the Doha Round of the WTO. Without these two, most other developing countries will find it difficult to resist pressure from the developed world lobby.

The conclusions are fairly predictable if the West is able to have its way. The U.S. will manage to achieve its goal of burying the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). In this endeavour, it has some help from WTO Director-General Roberto Azavedo, who has suggested on a deadline to finalise DDA and sees MC10 as the last opportunity to do so. This proposition was rejected by developing countries, including India. One reason for seeking to bury DDA is that the U.S. and other developed countries have already managed to swing Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA). Uniquely, TFA was not part of original DDA but was shoe-horned into the Bali agreement of the WTO by the rich countries as a trade-off. Today, with TFA out of their way, the developed countries would want to bury the DDA.

It will also help torpedo WTO members’ plans to finalise a permanent solution for public food grains stockholding programme or a special safeguard mechanism (which allows developing countries to protect farmers from cheap imports or sharp price drops).

In fact, the U.S. has concurrently started pushing WTO for a deal on “new issues” — environment, labour, e-commerce, global value chains, investment, competition policy and transparency in government procurement — which will replace the development agenda.

As trade ministers congregate in the Kenyan capital next week, expect to see a reprisal of the Paris viewpoints.

Courtesy: Gateway House