📰 India drops two ranks in Human Development Index
UNDP Resident Representative Shoko Noda said the drop in India’s ranking doesn’t mean “India didn’t do well but other countries did better”.
•India dropped two ranks in the United Nations’ Human Development Index this year, standing at 131 out of 189 countries. However, if the Index were adjusted to assess the planetary pressures caused by each nation’s development, India would move up eight places in the ranking, according to the report.
•For the first time, the United Nations Development Programme introduced a new metric to reflect the impact caused by each country’s per-capita carbon emissions and its material footprint, which measures the amount of fossil fuels, metals and other resources used to make the goods and services it consumes. This paints a “less rosy, but clearer assessment” of human progress, said UNDP India’s representative Shoko Nada.
•Norway, which tops the HDI, falls 15 places if this metric is used, leaving Ireland at the top of the table. In fact, 50 countries would drop entirely out of the “very high human development group” category, using this new metric, called the Planetary Pressures-adjusted HDI, or PHDI. Australia falls 72 places in the ranking, while the United States and Canada would fall 45 and 40 places respectively, reflecting their disproportionate impact on natural resources. The oil and gas-rich Gulf States also fell steeply. China would drop 16 places from its current ranking of 85.
•China’s net emissions (8 gigatonnes) are 34% below its territorial emissions (12.5 gigatonnes) compared with 19% in India and 15% in Sub-Saharan Africa.
•“No country has yet been able to achieve a very high level of development without putting a huge strain on natural resources. We have to be the first generation to do things right,” said Ms. Nada. She praised India’s record in achieving its carbon emissions goals so far, and urged Indian policy makers to take the path of sustainable development.
•The HDI itself is an assessment of a nation’s health, education and standards of living. Although this year’s report covers 2019 only, and does not account for the impact of COVID, it projected that in 2020, global HDI would fall below for the first time in the three decades since the Index was introduced.
PTI adds:
•According to the report published by the United Nations Development Programme on December 15, India’s gross national income per capita fell to $6,681 in 2019 from $6,829 in 2018 on purchasing power parity (PPP) basis.
•Purchasing power parity or PPP is a measurement of prices in different countries that uses the prices of specific goods to compare the absolute purchasing power of the countries’ currencies.
•The report said evidence from Colombia to India indicates that financial security and ownership of land improve women’s security and reduce the risk of gender-based violence, clearly indicating that owning land can empower women.
•It further said indigenous children in Cambodia, India and Thailand show more malnutrition-related issues such as stunting and wasting.
•“In India different responses in parent behaviour as well as some disinvestment in girls’ health and education have led to higher malnutrition among girls than among boys as a consequence of shocks likely linked to climate change,” the report said.
•The report said that under the Paris Agreement, India pledged to reduce the emission intensity of its GDP from the 2005 level by 33-35% by 2030 and to obtain 40% of electric power capacity from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030.
•“As part of the plan, the National Solar Mission aims to promote solar energy for power generation and other uses to make solar energy competitive with fossil fuel—based options. Solar capacity in India increased from 2.6 gigawatts in March 2014 to 30 gigawatts in July 2019, achieving its target of 20 gigawatts four years ahead of schedule. In 2019, India ranked fifth for installed solar capacity,” the report said.
“Many even among medical community may not take COVID-19 vaccine immediately”
•As the country readies to implement its COVID-19 vaccination programme, vaccine hesitancy could be an issue that the government needs to address forthwith. The results of an online survey showed that there was considerable hesitation even among the medical community to take the vaccine as soon as it is available.
•In an online study conducted by Abdul Ghafur, Coordinator of the Chennai Declaration, and infectious diseases consultant at Apollo Hospital, Chennai, among 1424 health professionals, only 45% said they will take the COVID vaccine as soon as it becomes available. Fifty-five per cent will either defer the vaccination or are yet to decide what to do. About one-tenth of the respondents said they will never take the vaccine.
•Interestingly, 869 of the respondents had worked in a COVID hospital or unit.
•In India, it is expected that about one crore healthcare workers will be vaccinated first. “It is the health care professionals who should be educating the public on the need for COVID vaccines, since they closely follow the developments and their word carries weight with the people,” says Dr. Ghafur. Therefore, vaccine hesitancy in this group is worrisome, also because it might percolate down to the general population.
•Responses from participants reflected their concerns about the efficacy of the vaccine and fear of side effects. “We need to address this urgently, scientifically” he adds, quoting from another recent online survey by the agency Local Circles, where 59% of the public surveyed said they preferred to defer vaccination.
•“A vaccine is one of the essential weapons in the armamentarium in our war against the pandemic,” Dr. Ghafur says. “Any hesitation in accepting the vaccine will have a negative consequence on our effort to control the pandemic. We should proactively address the reasons behind this hesitancy.”
•Chirag Trivedi, President, Indian Society for Clinical Research, adds: “It is very important to give confidence to the public by discussing the robustness of various processes involved in drug/vaccine development — clinical trial designs, conduct, monitoring, analysis, reporting and the regulatory reviews that happen before it is approved. This will make the public aware about the rigorous processes followed for clinical trials, and the approval, as followed by regulators.”
•Dr. Ghafur points to a mathematical model done by a team of U.S. scientists that has recommended preferentially vaccinating sero-negative individuals first. His survey among health professionals also indicated that 64% prefer to do an antibody test before vaccination. That is also an option that the government could use, he adds.
📰 Discouraging numbers: On National Family Health Survey 2019-20
Early data from NFHS-5 show decline in key anthropometric and nutrition indicators
•With a debilitating death toll and an economic recession, India has had among the worst effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is anecdotal evidence that the pandemic and lockdown measures have led to new complications related to food consumption and food security for impoverished Indians. But an express indication of the possible scale of the crisis can be gleaned from the data from the newly released National Family Health Survey 2019-20 which was conducted before the pandemic and its impact. The partially released early data from NFHS-5 for 22 States/Union Territories — data for U.P., M.P. Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Punjab, Jharkhand and Odisha are not yet out — shows a disappointing record on metrics such as child nutrition and adult anthropometric measurements, suggesting the exacerbation now of an already fraught situation. NFHS-5 shows that four key metrics for the nutritional status of children declined in 2019-20 compared to levels in 2015-16 (NFHS-4) in many of the surveyed States. Gujarat, Maharashtra and West Bengal recorded an increase in the percentage of anaemic and wasted (low weight for height) children compared to even the 2005-06 survey. In the key indicator of childhood stunting, there has been an increase in 13 of the 22 States/UTs in comparison to NFHS-4, with a noticeable improvement only in Bihar and Assam. Even here, the reduction in stunting numbers is lower than the government’s targets. Bihar has shown a promising decline of 5.4 % points in stunting, but still retains the highest percentage of stunted children (42.9%) among big States.
•On the flip side, NFHS-5 also flags improvements in other factors that contribute to malnutrition and poor health outcomes — in access to sanitation and clean cooking fuels. In indicators related to women’s well-being (with variance across States), spousal violence declined in 17 of 22 States/UTs, child marriage declined in 18, and access to bank accounts rose in all of them, compared to NFHS-4. But the persistence of poor anthropometric measures related to hunger and nutrition suggests that existing programmes to address them, such as POSHAN Abhiyaan, will need a push and focus to meet targets such as the 2%-point decrease in childhood stunting every year. More importantly, the complications arising out of the pandemic should make the Centre and States refocus on welfare delivery as a concerted strategy to eradicate hunger and extreme poverty. This is an imperative that would not just meet the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal targets but will also ensure the well-being of citizens in a country that showed significant promise in combining economic growth and general welfare in the last couple of decades before encountering major reversals lately.
📰 Privacy, a fundamental right the state must protect
An open and transparent government that also respects every citizen’s right to privacy is not a contradiction
•In an article in The Hindu, Is a person’s address public information? (OpEd page, December 1, 2020), the writers, Shailesh Gandhi and Prashant Reddy T., raised a few issues over a recent Bombay High Court order directing the government to take down the address of a Right to Information (RTI) applicant from its website.
•The writers had argued that no ‘law or principle of law prevents the state from disclosing such information about the addresses of citizens’ and placed the onus on keeping the address private on RTI Applicants by specifying a P.O. box. Our article attempts to point out why the framing of the initial question is misleading and looks at the problems in the December 1 article.
Not judicially tested
•First, the writers cite the example of public telephone directories and voter lists to point out how addresses are not always treated as private information. They further point to how disclosure of beneficiary addresses helps with transparency and accountability of social welfare programmes and serves public interest. The first example is a paraphrased version of the tired rhetoric on India’s privacy culture, i.e., ‘Indians don’t care about their privacy.’ A similar argument made by the state was repelled by a unanimous nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) ... vs Union Of India And Ors. (9J, 2017). Further, none of these examples has been judicially tested, especially in the context of such information being available digitally, where the unforeseeability of extent of harms is aggravated: something which the nine-judge Bench decision also acknowledged.
•But, more importantly, an assertion that addresses are sometimes published information or that disclosure of addresses may serve public interest in some cases is of little use to decide the question in any given case, such as disclosure of the addresses of RTI applicants.
•Second, the writers may be correct in stating that the High Court decisions do not exposit their reasoning from first principles of transparency or privacy. However, they fail to see the line of reasoning that justifies the decision — from the recognition of citizens having an interest in guarding their addresses as private/personal information; unauthorised or mandatory disclosure of such personal information constituting an infringement; privacy being a fundamental right that the state must respect and protect; and any state action has to be justified based on the four-pronged test articulated in the nine judge Bench decision of Puttaswamy. The requirements of the backing of law; the law being in pursuance of a legitimate state purpose; the proposed action having a rational nexus to such purpose; and the extent of infringement being necessary and proportionate to purpose constitute that test.
High Court ruling
•A useful framework for first-principles reasoning that the writers search for may come from a ruling of the Allahabad High Court earlier this year. Questions that relate to the publication of personal information, such as addresses, came up in a suo motu action against the Uttar Pradesh government for putting up posters with the personal details of people accused of allegedly destroying public property during the widespread protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. These personal details included their photographs, names, and addresses. Following Puttaswamy, the Court found the action of State ‘nothing but an unwarranted interference in the privacy of people’. The High Court observed that neither was there a law which empowered the state to put up such posters with personal details nor was there any legitimate aim that a democratic state could pursue for which such action could be deemed necessary and proportionate. Therefore, the pertinent question is whether the state has lawful power to publish information that a citizen may consider private and not merely the somewhat self-fulfilling question that the writers pose.
•Third, the writers refer to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to assert that there is an obligation to disclose personal information where such ‘information bears a nexus to public activity’. It is not immediately apparent the basis for the writers’ assertion that an RTI applicant’s address has any nexus to public activity. Perhaps, more significantly, the writers overlook the other limb of that Section that disallows disclosure that would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy — which is a consequentialist test — the kind that the writers criticise the High Court decisions for. Section 8(1)(j) still allows disclosure subject to the public information officer making a case by case judgment on whether the larger public interest is served by disclosing such personal information. It is not clear what the writer’s idea of the larger public interest is in disclosing the addresses of RTI applicants.
•On the other hand, there is significant public interest in not disclosing the personal information of RTI applicants. In this case, it was not a mere publication of his address as part of some broader list containing addresses of all citizens of his area. The disclosure also easily brought out the association of his address with his application that made him the target of violence and retaliation.
Waiver as barrier
•Protection of privacy for individual citizens and transparency of public authorities are two sides of the same coin. An open and transparent government that also guarantees, respects, protects, promotes, and fulfils every citizen’s right to privacy is not a contradiction in terms. To insist that applicants must waive or make compromises on their right to privacy to exercise their rights under the transparency law is an unreasonable barrier that causes a chilling effect in exercise of those rights, quite significantly harming the very cause that is sought to be championed.
📰 A protocol of deference that is plainly injurious
From alleged judicial over-reach, India seems to be settling for a spell of judicial self-abnegationvis-à-visthe executive
•Last week Prime Minister Narendra Modi performed an elaborate bhoomi pooja rite for a new parliament building in New Delhi, but only after the Supreme Court was pleased to give its assent for the foundation stone laying ceremony. While allowing the Prime Minister to have his date with the pandits and history, the top court permitted itself to enunciate what seems like an innovative jurisprudence of deference. A Bench, led by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, expressed its displeasure with the government for unheeding the Court’s directions. According to a report in The Hindu on December 8, “SC nod for Central Vista inauguration”, the Bench said: “We thought we were dealing with a prudent litigant and deference will be shown... We have shown deference to you and expected that you will act in a prudent manner. The same deference should be shown to the court and there should be no demolition or construction.”
•This was a remarkable — and a revealing — formulation from the Justice Khanwilkar-led Bench and the honourable judges must be thanked for spelling out publicly what seems to be a new working proposition. Suddenly, so many judicial verdicts, as also many non-verdicts, of recent years have become somewhat decipherable in the light of this protocol of deference. This full disclosure from the Bench should also invite more than a few questions. To begin with: to whom does the apex court undertake to offer deference? An individual? A Prime Minister or a Law Minister? An incumbent political regime? The executive as an institutional entity? The other side of the equation would be: who is offering deference? This or that individual judge? Or the current gaggle of judicial leadership? Or, the entire judiciary, presided over by the Supreme Court, as a constitutional institution? There are no easy answers.
The U.S., in comparison
•Juxtapose this protocol of deference with the bracing rectitude at display in the U.S. Supreme Court. A Court that was supposed to have been “packed” only a few months ago by U.S. President Donald Trump now has simply refused to countenance his electoral goondagiri . The majority of judges in the U.S. Supreme Court may owe their appointment to Republican Presidents but they do not feel it is their institutional remit to remain at the beck and call of the Republican White House. Their judicial exertions are informed, becomingly, by their constitutional insights and moral convictions, not by the partisanship needs of politicians in power. It would be patently unwise for any American President to think that the Supreme Court would owe him any deference and it is unthinkable that a U.S. Supreme Court judge will allow herself to even entertain the thought that the White House was entitled to any kind of deference. One institution respects another institution; but, deference, my Lords?
•This protocol of deference becomes baffling and inexplicable. After all, judges are not in the business of soothing and smoothing. The very idea of deference carries with it a suggestion of acquiescence and perhaps even an absence of any kind of constitutional compass. And, pray, what can possibly be the terms of this protocol of deference?
•Of course, an institution can sustain its edge only as long as men and women of strength preside over it. So it is with the judiciary. And it can be easily conceded that not all judges necessarily constitute a superior breed of individuals. A judge can only perform within the limits of her/his intellectual depth, moral core, personal quirks, political preferences, and judicial temperament. Not all judges are munificently endowed with qualities and traits for them to develop their own judicial fortitude.
Checks and balances
•Yet, these Lordships are armour-plated with a constitutional design and institutional arrangements, precisely to overcome their personal limitations and to help them perform their dharma with élan and integrity and honour. And, that is precisely what the founding fathers of our Republic had ordained.
•In fact in the very early days of our Republic, there was an occasion for the redoubtable Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel to remind an impetuous Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru about the limits of power: “we are now faced with a Constitution… that means that for every executive action there must be legal sanction and judicial justification.”
•In practical terms, the political class in its role as the Executive was joyfully undertaking to surrender its power and privilege to resort to arbitrary authority, however pressing may be the claims of national security or of any other urgency.
•It was a historic commitment, anchored in the finest sentiment of democratic nobility and it was an undertaking on the part of national political leadership to cheerfully submit itself, its conduct and its policies, to scrutiny and, if warranted, risk a ‘nyet’ from the judiciary. The bottomline was that the moral health and the democratic robustness of the Republic had to be institutionally safe-guarded, and not just left to the benign indulgence of this or that demagogue masquerading as a national saviour.
At variance with traditions
•Thanks to the new jurisprudence of deference, the spirit of an accountable executive authority seems to have dissipated. Worse, the higher judiciary seems to have comfortably gone along with the executive’s assertion that once a law has been duly passed by Parliament it was beyond democratic contestation. The High Courts, for example, have been plainly unsympathetic to those who have had reason to critique and protest the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
•This protocol of deference is at variance with the glorious traditions of independence and self-assertion, vigorously re-discovered after the Emergency and proudly re-asserted — till now.
•Now, a penny has dropped. Because of this peep into the protocol of deference, we can perhaps make sense of a Chief Justice of India accommodating a Prime Minister’s wish to see for himself the Court Number One, the very seat of action. Perhaps we can see the emerging pattern — a Rajya Sabha seat for a recently retired Chief Justice of India.
•And, it is no surprise that without anybody noticing it — leave alone, mourning — the very notion of judicial activism, as a practical axiom and as an institutional tool, has simply disappeared from our constitutional repertoire. From the days of an alleged judicial over-reach we seem to have settled for a spell of self-abnegation on the Bench.
•This newly delineated protocol of deference is plainly injurious to the health of our Republic. It has produced an unhealthy lopsidedness in our democratic arrangements. We seem to be forgetting that elections only confer an office — and, not any kind of canonisation. Without any countervailing judicial constraints, errant megalomania is getting emboldened; arrogance has already embedded itself in the ruling clique, and a moral callousness appears to have seeped into the system. Hence, the kisans manning barricades at the Sindhu border.
📰 Excellence in diversity
Equal opportunity and universal education can make affirmative action meaningful
•The significant expansion of the IIT system since 2008, after reservation was extended to student candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes, has resulted in a vexed situation in which these institutions are unable to find enough qualified faculty members, whose recruitment must also meet quota norms. Bound by the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Act, 2019, the IITs must fulfil the important goal of affirmative action while making appointments. While the law is enabling, the benefit cannot be extended to many due to a severe mismatch between the demand and availability of technology research graduates. Last year, IIT Delhi had a staggering deficit of 30% in its teacher ranks, and there are 23 such institutes in India now, highlighting the scale of the crisis. It is in this context of large-scale vacancies that the Education Ministry tasked a committee to suggest effective implementation of reservation in central institutions such as the IITs, for both student enrolment and faculty recruitment. The panel headed by IIT Delhi’s director has come up with two options: to exempt IITs from quotas by including them in the schedule to the 2019 law, which is applicable to institutions of excellence, research institutions and institutions of national and strategic importance; and to provide reservation to specified grades of assistant professors, taking the institution as a whole. Where candidates are not available in the latter case, the posts can be de-reserved in the subsequent year. An early decision must now be taken by the government without sacrificing equity principles.
•Diversity achieved through affirmative action such as compensatory discrimination in favour of some classes of citizens corrects historical distortions. For it to be fully realised, however, the concomitant is massive investments in the education system at all levels, which can raise the capability of students. It is now widely recognised that substituting traditional privilege with opportunity and the right facilities dispels the myth of innate merit. Such an approach ensures justice for those who were deprived. The Ministry’s committee echoes this, when it recommends a government-sponsored preparatory programme at the IITs which can help candidates eligible for reservation to get acquainted with high quality academic work, and optionally prepare for a PhD if they aspire to be teachers. This is the imperative, considering that such graduates will help fill not just vacancies in the IITs, but also aid the large number of other technical education institutions that aspire to research excellence. Governments must aim for progressive redistribution, for which policy should actively expand equal opportunity, starting with a strong, liberal public school system. This will strengthen diversity, and lay the foundation for the kind of scholarship that institutions of excellence need.
📰 The long road to food security
Despite being self-sufficient in agricultural production, India’s hunger levels are alarming
•India’s malnutrition levels are almost twice the level of many African countries. The Global Hunger Index 2020 report has given India the 94th rank among 107 countries, much behind Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Nepal. As per a UN-FAO report, 194 million people go hungry every day in India, comprising about 23% of the world’s undernourished population. This flies in the face of the landmark Right to Food case, in which the Supreme Court declared Right to Food as part of Article 21 of the Constitution, that is, the Right to Life.
•It is a grim failure that 73 years after Independence, India continues to be gripped by a paradox of plenty in the realm of food security. The country reached self-sufficiency in agricultural production some time ago, and yet, mass hunger is rampant across States. India produces more than the estimated amount required to feed the entire population (in 2018-19, India produced 283.37 million tons of food grains). The country ranks first in millets and second in rice and wheat production in the world. India’s horticultural crops, such as fruits and vegetables, are also in surplus (over 313 million tons in 2018-19).
Struggling ecosystem
•However, according to data released by the Department of Consumer Affairs, almost 62,000 tons of food grains were damaged in Food Corporation of India warehouses between 2011 and 2017. In 2016-17 alone, over 8,600 tons of food grains were lost. A study conducted by the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations found that while there is a proliferation of millions of ineligible and bogus ration cards, there are also, simultaneously, a multitude of genuinely poor families that do not even possess ration cards. These data expose the poor management of the food ecosystem in India.
•To ensure India’s food security, a two-pronged policy is needed. Firstly, the government must ensure remunerative prices for farm produce. For this, the Minimum Support Price (MSP) should be made available to the maximum range of farm products. This will enhance the purchasing power of farmers so that they can purchase essential food items. Secondly, it is crucial that India improves the Public Distribution System and Public Procurement.
The Annapurna scheme
•The situation could be further improved by revamping the Annapurna Yojana. Under this scheme, ten kilograms of food grains are distributed per month free of cost to destitute persons above 65 years of age, with no or meagre subsistence. The Centre has fixed the target of 20% of the number of persons who are eligible for National Old Age Pension, but who are not receiving such pension. It may be noted that as far as Kerala is concerned, social security pension covers almost all the sections of people in the community. Thus, almost all eligible people are excluded from the Annapurna Yojana. This problem demands immediate attention and resolution.
•Further, according to the Global Pulse Confederation, pulses are part of a healthy, balanced diet and have been shown to have an important role in preventing illnesses such as cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. The World Food Programme (WFP) includes 60 grams of pulses in its typical food basket, alongside cereals, oils and sugar and salt. The Background Note for the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution titled Price Rise of Essential Commodities - Causes and Effects (2020), says, “With dietary shift in favour of proteins, in an otherwise vegetarian society, the consumption of pulses is growing but the production has not kept pace … However, production of pulses has increased during the last two years which has resulted partly from continuous increase in MSP, increased procurement, and creation of buffer stock of pulses.” Hence, this is an ideal time to include pulses too in our Public Distribution System.
📰 The many challenges for WTO
The next Director-General of the organisation will have to navigate through a slew of thorny issues
•For the first time in its 25-year history, the World Trade Organization (WTO) will be led by a woman, as both the contending candidates for the Director-General (D-G) post are women, from Nigeria and South Korea respectively. The prestige aside, the D-G’s job will require perseverance and outstanding negotiating skills for balancing the diverse and varied interests of the 164 member countries, and especially, for reconciling competing multilateral and national visions, for the organisation to work efficiently. The next D-G will have to grapple with the global economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic and work towards carrying out reforms of the multilateral trading system for reviving the world economy. On all these issues, her non-partisan role will be watched carefully.
•The current impasse in the WTO negotiations has led member countries to believe in the necessity of carrying out urgent reforms, even as the debate is likely to throw up some difficult choices for developing countries like India. At the core of the divide within the WTO is the Doha Development Agenda, which the developed countries sought to jettison in favour of a new agenda that includes, amongst others, e-commerce, investment facilitation, MSMEs and gender. Salvaging the ‘development’-centric agenda is critical for a large number of developing countries as they essentially see trade as a catalyst of development. Restoring the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, especially the revival of its Appellate body, is also crucial for the organisation’s efficient functioning.
•The push for a change in the definition of “developing country” under the principle of special and differential treatment (S&DT), aimed at upgrading certain developing countries, will deeply impinge on the status of emerging economies such as India, China, South Africa, Turkey, Egypt, et cetera. The assumption that some countries have benefited immensely from the WTO rules since its formation in 1995 is flawed, at least in the case of India. And even if there may be no consensus of views on measuring ‘development’, India will remain a developing country no matter which parameter is used. The way out for India could be to negotiate a longer phase-out period, or an acceptable formula based on development indices, etc.
•Among the current negotiations at the WTO, nothing commands more attention than the fisheries subsidies negotiations. India can lead the way in finding a landing zone by urging others to settle for the lowest common denominator, while seeking permanent protection for traditional and artisanal farmers who are at the subsistence level of survival. The danger lies in seeking larger carve-outs, which, if universally applicable to all, could result in developed countries ploughing precious fisheries resources in international waters.
•The consensus-based decision-making in the WTO, which makes dissension by even one member stop the process in its track, gives developing countries some heft and influence at par with developed countries. The D-G would need to tread cautiously on this front, as some will allude to the successful implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement in 2017, that allowed member countries to take commitments in a phased manner in accordance with their domestic preparedness.
Lessons from COVID-19
•The COVID-19 crisis has revealed the urgent and enduring need for international cooperation and collaboration, as no country can fight the pandemic alone. The D-G can help mitigate the effects of the pandemic by giving clear directions on ensuring that supply chains remain free and open, recommending a standard harmonised system with classification for vaccines, and by the removal of import/export restrictions.
•Voluntary sharing and pooling of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) is required for any global effort to tackle the pandemic, but with the fear of vaccine nationalism looming large, several countries are seeking to secure future supply of leading COVID-19 vaccines. Our Prime Minister’s reiteration that India’s vaccine production and delivery capacity will help the whole of humanity will require the D-G to play a responsible role in removing barriers to intellectual property and securing a legal framework within the WTO TRIPS Agreement, by lending salience to the effective interpretation of Articles 8 and 31 of the Agreement, that allow compulsory licensing and agreement of a patent without the authorisation of its owner under certain conditions.
•Most imminently, the next D-G will need to build trust among its members that the WTO needs greater engagement by all countries, to stitch fair rules in the larger interest of all nations and thwart unfair trade practices of a few.
