GELIIS: Globalisation, Economic Liberalisation and Indian Informal Sector

Dialogue for Advocacy: Globalisation, Economic Liberalisation and Indian Informal Sector, Home-based Producers and Cottage Industries

1.1 For the Indian economy to grow with equality and economic justice, the informal sector, home-based production and cottage industries need to achieve high growth with policy and institutional support. The contribution of these sectors to any economy cannot be ignored. This is especially true for a country like India, as they are important sources of employment and income for many families. They have 40 percent share in the total industrial output, 35 percent in exports, and over 80 percent in employment.

1.2 However, many of such sectors are not doing well in this era of globalisation, which encompasses economic liberalisation. It has been found that in order to overcome the challenges and avail opportunities of globalisation and economic liberalisation, these sectors and associated entrepreneurs need institutional support for technology upgradation, infrastructure support for market penetration, and adequate working capital finance from the banking sector.

1.3 There is also a need for small entrepreneurs to keep pace with the structural and technological changes taking place in large industries. They should be in a position to adjust so as to act as service providers as many larger companies are keen on outsourcing a number of job works.

People from the associations, artisan groups, community-based organisations working among these groups, government officials, elected representatives of local self government institutions, media persons, developmental agencies will be involved in these dialogue.

The project is supported by OXFAM GB in India. In order to address the above-stated concerns and achieve objectives of the project the following methodology has been drawn up.

Bhubaneswar: Regional Centre for Development Cooperation (RCDC)
Lucknow: Network of Entrepreneurship & Economic Development (NEED)
Hyderabad: Cenrte for Resource Education (CRE)
Ahmedabad: International Centre for Entrepreneurship & Career Development (ICECD)

The Competitiveness of Indian Informal Sector and Cottage Industries in the Era of Globalisation and Economic Liberalisation

Indian Economy: Recent Trend of Globalisation, Liberalisation and Indian Informal Sectors

Session III 02.30-03.30 Role of Banking Sector in Generating Capital in the Informal and
Home Based Sectors

Session IV 4.00-05.00 Govt Policies and Market Access: How to Ensure Healthy
Growth of the Informal and Home Based Sectors

Launch Meeting
Competitiveness of Indian Informal Sector and Cottage Industries in the Era of Globalisation and Economic Liberalisation

The informal sector, covering a wide spectrum of home-based production and cottage and small industries in India, has emerged as a dynamic and vibrant sector of the Indian economy. The sector contributes around 40 per cent of the gross industrial value added to the Indian economy. It has made a commendable contribution of 40 percent in industrial production, 35 percent in direct exports, 45 percent in overall exports and 80 percent in industrial employment. Through over 32 lakh units, the sector provides employment to about 18 million people.

The inherent resilience and strength of the sector, its high flexibility, low overheads, labour-intensity and adaptability to semi-urban and rural environment put it in high growth trajectory which even the large industries find hard to emulate. With respect to capital and labour productivity, the partial measures of efficiency, small scale enterprises have both lower capital-output and capital-labour ratios compared to large scale sector. Thus, in a labour-abundant and capital-scarce country like India, with mounting problem of unemployment, the growth and development of the small and informal sector deserves utmost importance.

The sector has contributed significantly to the realisation of the socio-economic objectives of growth with economic justice. Besides emerging as the engine of growth for Indian economy, the sector helps to achieve important objectives like employment generation, more equitable distribution of income, industrial dispersal, optimum utilisation and exploitation of local resources and capital and fostering entrepreneurship.

Indian Economy: Recent Trend of Globalisation, Liberalisation and Indian Informal Sectors

India embarked upon the process of economic liberalisation in 1991. Since then liberalisation has exposed all industrial units including small home-based enterprises in the informal sector to the inherent risks of free market competition. Globalisation has intensified the market competition by allowing imports and multinational corporations.

The reform process of the Indian economy has a far reaching impact on Indian informal sector. Most of the problems, during this era of economic liberalisation, arise due to the unorganised nature of the sector, lack of data and information, use of low technology and poor infrastructure of the sector.

The setting up of the WTO (World Trade Organisation) in 1995 has intensified global competition. The World Trade Organisation regulates multilateral trade and enforces its member countries to remove import quotas and other import restrictions, and to reduce import tariffs. In addition, countries, especially the developing countries, are asked to stop subsidies to exports as well as to domestic production. As a result, every single individual enterprise in India, small or large, whether exporting or serving the domestic market, has to face competition.

In India, selective dereservation of some SSI products and removal of ORs (Quantitative Restrictions) have started taking place with a view to enhancing exports and competing effectively in the global market. Out of 836 items reserved for production under SSI, 162 items have been dereserved and almost all the items are placed on the OGL (open general license) list of imports. This opens up the possibility of direct competition in the domestic market with the imports of high quality goods from the developed countries and cheap products from the other less developed countries.

Competition in the domestic market would further be intensified with the arrival of multinational companies as the restrictions on foreign direct investment have been removed. Removal of quantitative restrictions and lowering tariffs are creating a serious impact on the small and informal sector, leading to closure of some units and consequent displacement of labour.

In view of several desirable socio-economic objectives, Abid Hussain Committee made out a strong case for support and promotional policies to encourage the development of SSIs left to free market forces. The committee recommended to effectively address the problems faced by the SSI units.

The silverlining amidst the fierce competition lies in exploiting the opportunities of globalisation – in terms of outsourcing, sub- contracting and ancillarisation of the products manufactured by corporates. To be able to face competition in a level playing ground the Indian informal sector needs to be endowed with technological upgradation and modernisation. In the changing economic scenario, it is the knowledge-based technology, organisation and information which will be able to improve the quality and competitiveness of products and thus help to face competition from imports. The free economy will usher in accessibility to bigger markets, greater linkages for SSI with larger companies and marketing outfits, improved manufacturing techniques and processes.

However, the sector is afraid of adopting new technology because of the huge initial capital investment and adjustment of production process, uncertain input supply, marketing prospect and profit of the products manufactured with new technology. Other major impediments are lack of knowledge of technology sourcing, evaluation and demonstration facilities, lack of surveys and feasibility studies etc. Therefore, for the development of this sector there needs to be a major thrust on technology intervention in clusters which offers the small units an opportunity and easier access to get acquainted with new technologies.

Civil society and government agencies can play a significant role in educating small units about the changes in the business environment and the necessity of going in for technological upgradation. Civil society organisations are mostly unable to come to a platform for conducting meaningful dialogues (exchange of information and views), taking forward the outcomes at appropriate levels and disseminate the learning to their respective constituencies. Thus, there is the need to facilitate the process of learning (through exchange of information and views) for policy advocacy at different levels. This will go a long way to instil trust and confidence in the small units.

Role of Banking Sector in Generating Capital in the Informal and Home Based Sectors

With the financial liberalisation, a crucial component of liberalisation policy, credit requirements of the Indian informal and home based sector merits urgent attention. Working capital and long term finance are mainly two types of credit requirement for the growth of informal and home based sector. Recognising the need for a focussed credit policy the government of India ensured Priority Sector Lending and Institutional Arrangement policies for the sector.

The small scale industries sector has been accorded the status of priority sector for the purpose of credit dispensation from the banks. 40 percent of the total bank credit is earmarked for priority sector lending comprising agriculture, SSI and service sector. Under the Institutional Arrangement: Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) was set up as the apex refinance bank. Term loans are to be provided by State Financial Corporations (SFCs), Scheduled Banks, Small Industries Development Corporations (SIDCs). Credit lending in direct/indirect forms is also undertaken to some extent by National Bank for Agriculture & Rural Development (NABARD), National Small Industries Corporation (NSIC) etc.

SFCs have played a significant role in generating finance for the informal and small scale sector. However, due to various reasons, most of the SFCs have become financially weak and are not in a position to perform their tasks properly. Kapur Committee and Khan Working Group have recommended for rejuvenation of the SFCs.

Specialised branches of public sector banks cater to the needs of small scale enterprises and help in extending required credit assistance. Setting up of more such specialised SSI branches in the clusters with concentration of SSI units will go a long way to provide financial assistance to the informal and small scale sector.

Micro credit is another way to generate capital for the home-based small units. SIDBI has launched the micro credit scheme since 1994 and widened its operation in 1998 with the introduction of a Rs. 100 crore “SIDBI Foundation for Micro Credit”. The objective of such endeavour is to build up a strong and viable national network of Micro Finance Institutions from both the informal as also formal financial sector to provide micro finance services to the small village and home based poor entrepreneurs, especially women. Local area banks, co-operative banks and regional rural banks are also ideally suited for financing micro credit to the tiny units.

The establishment of the different development banks after independence acted as a positive step to augment productivity of small and home based enterprises. The development banks provide long term finance, knowledge and enterprise, the three major ingredients of development, for informal home based enterprises. Their lending operations are supplemented with promotional and developmental activities to facilitate entrepreneurship.

However, the Second SSI Census stated that the absence of adequate and timely finance act as the largest constraint in healthy growth of the informal cottage and small industries sector. It deserves mention that in spite of RBI’s directives in response to Nayak Committee’s recommendations to provide working capital facilities equivalent to 20 percent of the projected actual turnover (for working capital limits upto Rs. 2 crore), actual credit made available to the sector is only 7-8 per cent.

The liberalisation regime has opened the doors for a large number of entrepreneurs to launch their venture with innovative technologies. Their commercial applications with a high risk high return profile requires assistance through the venture capital route.SIDBI has already taken a number of initiatives to provide sector specific Venture Capital funds to small scale sector.

SIDBI has evolved a number of schemes, which aim to solving to some extent the financial tangles faced by the informal and small scale sector. The Government of India launched National Equity Fund Scheme through SIDBI to provide equity assistance for setting up small and tiny units. Besides this, there is direct lending provision by SIDBI to meet the needs of these units in areas like infrastructure, marketing, venture financing etc. The schemes of bills financing, Single Window Scheme, Working Capital Term Loan, Factoring Services, Forex Services, Technology Development and Modernisation Fund (TDMF) provide finance and assistance for development and healthy growth of the sector.

Govt Policies and Market Access: How to Ensure Healthy Growth of these Sectors

Marketing is an important ingredient for the success of an enterprise. However, marketing has been identified as the second most important problem affecting smooth performance of informal and small home based enterprises. These sectors cannot afford to offer optimum amount of resource allocation for marketing their products. So the governments of even the developed countries have launched programmes to promote sales of items produced by the small and informal sectors.

Government of India has been operating two schemes, viz. Price Preference upto 15 percent to SSI products under government purchase scheme and Purchase Preference in respect of 358 specified items on purchases by government departments. The policy is implemented through the Directorate General of Supply and Disposals (DGS&D). But at present government purchases from small scale sector routed through DGS&D are hardly 10 percent of the total government purchase. The situation, therefore, needs immediate redressal.

In the area of marketing, institutional support will be necessary for the healthy growth of these sectors. The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. was established in 1955 by the Government of India with a view to promote marketing of the small scale sector in the country. NSIC is providing Single Point Registration facilities that extend some other benefits in the area of SSI marketing. NSIC provides integrated technology, marketing and financial support to small scale sector.

Increasing internationalisation of production, distribution and marketing of goods and services has given rise to global commodity chains. In order to access the markets, it has become sine qua non for each producing unit, be it large or small, to be a part of the chain. Increased market access under WTO requirements will also mean that domestic industries can compete for export markets in both developed and developing countries. The small and informal sectors, besides facing problems in the domestic market, are also affected in the global export market. This necessitates general upgaradation in quality, proper price adjustment and allocation of more resources for marketing.

It deserves mention here that the development banks need to help the industrial units to market their product and/or encourage entrepreneurs to develop the common marketing infrastructure.It has been suggested by the different industry associations to extend the merchant banking services to the small units which hitherto were available mainly for the large scale units.

The surge in Indain exports can come about only if the small and informal sector is restructured to meet the demands of global competitiveness which is the key to the future of the sector in the present context. Various measures adopted by government to stimulate marketing for small enterprises through the consortium formation, brand building, design selection, media publicity and making available the technology inputs are expected to enhance the prospects of the sector towards the new millennium.

The Competitiveness of Indian Informal Sector and Cottage Industries in the Era of Globalisation and Economic Liberalisation
9th – 10th June, 2003, New Delhi

Bhubaneswar
Regional Workshop on Globalisation, Economic Liberalisation and Indian Informal Sector:
Impact of Globalisation on Non-Timber Forests Produces
17th – 18th July 2003, Bhubaneswar

Session I 10.00 – 11.00 Inaugural: Welcome by RCDC
Inauguration by Honb’le Chief Minister Mr. Naveen Patnaik

Keynote Address: Overview of Golbalisation and
Liberalisation and its Impact on Indian Informal Sector
Prof. Nabinanada Sen , CUTS

Session – II 11.15 –1.30 Theme - Conservation, Certification and Patenting of
Medicinal Species and other NTFP
Speaker:
Mr. Ardhendu Chatterjee, Service Centre,
Calcutta
Mr. R. K. Sahu, Srusti,Bhubaneswar
Ms. Sumita Sindhi, Freelance Researcher, Sunabeda

Chairperson:
Mr. Saroj Kumar Patnaik, IFS, Addl. PCCF (Rtd.)

Session – III 02.15 – 03.45 Theme - Impact of Globalisation on NTFP Policy and Trade in
Orissa and Neighbouring States
Speaker:
Mr. A. K. Mohapatra, Managing Director, Tribal Development Cooperative Corporation, Bhubaneswar
Mr. R. K. Agarwal, Natural Renedies, Bangalore
Mr. G. Raju, Gram Mooligai, Bangalore
Mr. A. K. Patnaik, Special Secretary, Forest Deoartment, Govt. of Orissa, Bhubaneswar

Chairperson:
Mr. Ram Vir Singh, IFS, Convener, Poverty Task Force

Session – IV 04.00 – 05.30 Theme - Market Promotion and Cooperatisation
Speaker:
Ms. Vidya Das, Agragamee, Bhubaneswar
Mr. Biswajit Pandey, SRUSTI, Bhubaneswar
Mr. Nihar Ranjan Mishra, Bana
Banijya Samittee, Gurundia, Orissa

Session – V 09.45 –10.30 National Innovations, on Knowledge as a Tool for Advantage in
the Era of Globalisation - Video presentation by Mr. Rohini
Sahu, SRUSTI

Session – VIII 02.15 – 03.00 Evolving and identifying key recommendations

03.15 – 04.00 Valediction
Honb’le Forest Minister, Mr. Bijayshri Routry to Chair the
session

Vote of Thanks

‘If I had any other option, I would never go for sal leaf collection. My family is forced to sell sal leaf plates as there is no other source of income’, says Ratani Dei, 45 year old Santal woman from Jarala village in Karanjia block of Mayurbhanj district. For the tribal women in Mayurbhanj collection and selling of sal leaf cup and plates, though not remunerative and commensurating with the labour, is a major source of income. She along with her family members spends more than 12 hours ( 6 in the morning to 6 in the evening) a day to collect one bag of sal leaves which invariably contains 1000-1200 leaves. On the second day, they stitch the leaves and make plates and pali (pali is two leaves stitched and later on compressed to chautis or cups). About 6-7 leaves are required to stitch one plate which means that about 200 plates are stitched from one day’s collection. On the third day, the plates are dried and made ready for binding and sale. Three days of hard labour fetches the entire family a mere sum of Rs 10-12, provided the Government declared rates (Rs 5 per one chaki, one chaki contains 80 plates) are given. Interestingly, the Government rates are fixed for 80 plates but the traders collect 100 plates for the same price. Ratani Dei in her rustic innocence asks a very fundamental question, ‘can’t the Government rates for procurement for sal leaf plates be raised a bit so that we are a little comfortable. We hear that the local traders from Betanati and Karanjia are making a fortune by selling the sal leaf plates to the next traders in the ladder at an exorbitant price, sometimes even 20 rupees per chaki. Though during the rainy season the rates increase and goes to the tune of 9-10 rupees per chaki, we are unable to fetch that price since we do not have space for storage. There are instances when properly dried plates have been stored for about one year, but if the colour changes from green to red which it does invariably, the trader starts grumbling and reduce the price.’

Ratani and many others from blocks like Karanjia, Bishoi and Sukruli are not aware of anything happening at the State level with the policy or royalty. To them, ‘as long as it does not make the procurement more erratic and further reduce the collection price, we wouldn’t be interested.’ They have, on the contrary, very humble and straightforward demands like a little hike in the collection price, storage facilities and procurement security.

To translate the negative impact of globalisation into challenging opportunities, awareness generation regarding domestic policies related to NTFP and international trade environment at the grass root level merits urgent attention. Dissemination of information about provisions of Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) deserves particular mention here.

The growing demand of the NTFP products to be used as inputs in various sectors in the international markets is on the rise. Apart from sal leaf, in case of sal seeds the problem in Orissa exists in the form of lack of institutional support like no extraction plants. It is pertinent to understand that the demand of sal oil is on the rise and this presents an unique opportunity to the primary collectors to gain the most out of it. But this again needs massive support from the state so that the collective energies of the local population are chanalized in the right direction.

The primary collectors of NTFP pour their lifeblood to eke out their living from meagre return as illustrated in the case study. Their hard work and fortitude can be utilised as stimulating ingredients to foster NTFP as one of the most profitable trading, specially when it embraces a large population dependent on forest products. Proper institutional support and policy mechanism will usher in a new era in both domestic trading and export potential for NTFP.

The over exploitation of the forests and the open plundering of the biodiversity treasure is a growing concern. There is an overriding disquiet about the degradation of forests and the increasing need to add value to forest resources. This ever-increasing environmental awareness and the constantly developing concept of sustainable development have made it imperative that forests be used in a more benign manner and thus the need of evolving strategies that aim at bringing sustainability in the use of forests.

All this has created a huge interest in Non-Timber Forests Products (NTFP) as they are ecologically sustainable and environmentally friendly. But the importance of NTFP is not limited to just ecological or environmental considerations. NTFPs are an indispensable element in the livelihood systems of forest-dwelling people. The forest dwelling people especially the local tribals have relied on the NTFP for centuries for food and cash income. The significance of the NTFPs in sustaining biodiversity of local forests and regions is also well understood. Therefore our approach towards NTFPs has to be a holistic one that encompasses the entire imperative attributes of it.

Another important reason for this renewed vigour is the latent commercial interest in the NTFPs. This commercial prospect has drawn the attention of the trans national corporations in the NTFPs. The commercial interest in forests is not restricted just to timber but has expanded to a wide array of non-timber products like medicinal plants, mushrooms, resins, saps and many other raw materials. The forces of globalisation and economic liberalisation have generated this commercial interest.

>India embarked on the path of economic liberalisation in the early nineties in a major way. The process of economic liberalisation and the pursuit of neo liberal, market driven economic policies is having a significant impact on the entire economic landscape of the country. The process of economic liberalisation has been marked by a constant shift in the role of the state in economic activities. The role of the state is undergoing a paradigm shift from being a producer to being a regulator and facilitator. A constant removal of restrictions on economic activity and fostering private participation is becoming the order of the day.

Today’s economic jurisprudence is being guided more by market forces and less by state forces. This thrust on market forces has both positive and negative aspects. The positive aspects include the opportunities for the growth of entrepreneurial skills and better market access both at domestic and international level. The most negative element of this economic liberalisation has been the exposed vulnerability of the poor and marginalized sections of the society. But this economic liberalisation is a reality and therefore the question to be asked is, “how to maximise the opportunities and minimise the negatives?”

An important consequence of India’s economic liberalisation was the adoption of the multilateral trading regime under the WTO. This multilateral trading regime is a rule based, institutionalised trading system that imposes significant obligations on its member countries. This new model of international trade is a reality and has significant ramifications for a developing country like India.

It is in this light that it becomes imperative to understand the symbiotic relationship that the local tribals or the indigenous populace have with their forests with special emphasis on the NTFPs. Has this dynamic relationship undergone a change because of the neo-liberal market forces that have started to dominate every strata of our lives, how relevant is international trade for this relationship, what are the opportunities provided and challenges thrown and what should be our strategies to counter these challenges and optimise the opportunities, are some of the questions that need some serious pondering.

This analysis has to be done at two levels. One is the multilateral trading level and the second is at the domestic level.

At the multilateral trading level the need is to look at those forces that have a profound impact on the Bio Diversity, where NTFPs are of paramount importance, of developing countries. The first step should be to expansively understand the threats that the legal and the economic forces of the multilateral trading regime under WTO entail. The next step would be to structure a proper policy response that is broad based and incorporates the voice of all the stakeholders.

At the domestic level the need is to locate those bottlenecks that are disrupting the relationship of the local population with their forests and the NTFPs. the important stage is that domestic strategies are to be fine tuned in a manner that the benefits from the NTFPs are vested in the hands of the primary beneficiaries i.e. the local population living in close proximity of the forests. In this regard a multi pronged effort is needed which should include legislative intervention and policy formulations.

In international law the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is one all pervasive treaty on biological diversity. Biological diversity is a very comprehensive term and includes the NTFPs as well. Therefore any law, treaty or policy that affects biological diversity would invariably have an impact on the NTFPs. The (CBD) provides two important stipulations. Firstly it recognizes the sovereign right of the nations over their biological diversity and secondly the acceptance of the need to share benefits flowing from the commercial utilization of biodiversity resources with the holders of the traditional knowledge. However it is interesting to note that there is no Agreement in the multilateral trading level that recognizes these two noteworthy characteristics of the CBD. The Trade Related Aspects Of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement does not recognize the sovereign rights of the nations over their biological diversity nor do they recognize the concept of benefit sharing.

The TRIPS Agreement requires WTO members to meet certain minimum standards for protection of intellectual property. Categories of intellectual property covered by the Agreement are patents, copyright, trademark, industrial designs, geographical indications, layout design of integrated circuits and trade secrets. This Agreement also requires parties to provide fair, effective judicial procedures and remedies for right holders claiming infringement. Under the TRIPS Agreement the principles of National Treatment and Most Favoured Nation are also to be observed. The TRIPS Agreement also asks countries to recognize patents on both products and processes.

Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement states as one of its basic objectives to provide either patents or an effective sui-generis system for plant varieties. The patent regime at the multilateral trading level is in the form of Union for the Protection of Plant Varieties.(UPOV) But the problem with UPOV 1991 is that they significantly diminish the farming community’s capacity to be self sufficient in seed and self reliant as agricultural producers.

Therefore the sui-generis option given in Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement needs to be explored. The language of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement that gives the sui-generis option is quite flexible. Taking recourse to the sui-generis option is much more preferable for developing countries rather than adopting the patenting route given under the UPOV. The developed countries in general and the US in particular want the elimination or at least the narrowing of the sui-generis option and to make the UPOV 1991 patenting route as the only option for the protection of the plant varieties in developing countries.

The UPOV 1991 route could spell catastrophe for developing countries as it talks only of breeder’s rights and not farmer’s rights and it also does not recognise any concept of benefit sharing. In other words there could be many forest plants having varied qualities and characteristics that could be easily exploited and patented by the trans national corporations. Patenting on the lines of UPOV 1991 would mean that only the breeder would have the right and the local people who have lived in harmony with these forests would not have any right on the forest plants that have been patented. Moreover the benefits of commercial utilisation of these plants would be cornered by the breeder, which most likely would be the Trans National Corporations, and the local or the indigenous people would not get any benefit.

Therefore there is an urgent need to resist any single legislation model for the patenting of the plant varieties. India has already explored the sui-generis option by enacting the, “The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmer’s Rights Act”, 2001 and the “Biological Diversity Act”, 2002. If the sui-generis option is eliminated or narrowed it would mean the laws made by India would become redundant and new laws in conformity with the UPOV 1991 would have to be made.

An important strategy at the international level has to be to bring the TRIPS Agreement in conformity with the CBD. In other words the TRIPS Agreement should incorporate two important elements that have been given in the CBD. The TRIPS Agreement should recognize the sovereign right of the independent countries over their biological resources and should give acceptance to the principle of benefit sharing.

It is also important to understand that by virtue of international law the CBD prevails over other international treaties. This point has not been emphasized too often as the interests of developed countries is linked in undermining the importance of CBD. Article 22 of CBD succinctly states that where the performance of rights and obligations of any member country under any international Agreement jeopardizes or threatens biological diversity, then the provisions of CBD would prevail. This is equally valid for all those Agreements that have come into existence after the Convention by virtue of international law. A fundamental principle of international law is that a treaty in respect of specialized subject matter like the CBD would always take precedence over a general Agreement like TRIPS. Similarly Article 16(2) of the CBD ensures that any IPRs under national or international law are supportive of and do not undermine the convention.

The superlative way would be to develop an interpretation of the two treaties in a manner that harmonises the provisions of these treaties rather than one, which undermine the provisions of any one of the treaties.

There are a lot of NTFPs that could be subjected to a wide variety of use like in food processing and pharmaceutical industries. These wide uses have the possibility of being challenged under the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement and the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBT). These Agreements are very important for developing countries as they are directly linked to market access.

The issue of eco-labeling and certification is very important for developing countries. Stringent eco labeling and certification standards could mean denying market access to the products of developing countries as developing country producers find it difficult to meet the labeling and certification standards. Thus it is important for developing countries to ensure that the eco-labeling and certification standards and the provisions of the TBT Agreement are interpreted in a manner that does not deny market access to developing countries. The ever-growing demand and opportunity for the NTFPs in so many different sectors has the potential to boost our export earnings and also help the indigenous people who are relatively more likely to gain from trade in these minor forest products. Stringent eco-labeling and certification standards could easily hamper the export opportunities of the NTFPs.

The case study of Neem, an important non-timber forest product abundantly illustrates the vulnerability of the NTFPs vis-a-vis the international patenting laws. The multi-utility of Neem is well known and its use for medicinal purposes need not be overemphasized. The local and indigenous people have possessed the traditional knowledge regarding the use of Neem for centuries. But the increasing patenting of many uses and processes of Neem has exposed the vulnerability of the Indian traditional knowledge base and the protection of the NTFPs. This patenting has also meant that the local and the indigenous people have been denied the use of the qualities and properties of Neem for ever.

The enactment of the Biodiversity Act and the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmer’s Rights Act are import ant steps that have been taken in this direction.

In the bio diversity wealth of India the central importance of NTFPs is well understood. The legislative intervention to protect bio diversity came in the form of enacting a Bio Diversity Act in the year 2002. This Act is one of the first of its kind to protect the rich biological diversity and traditional knowledge of the indigenous people. The tribals and the indigenous people have a rich and varied knowledge base regarding the NTFPs. As the understanding about the economic importance of these NTFPs is on the rise the piracy of these bio treasures is also mounting. The tribal and the indigenous people who have nurtured the knowledge of these forest products stand to loose as the superior bargaining and economic power of the MNCs allows them to literally steal these bio treasures from the indigenous people. The traditional knowledge base could range from knowledge about the medicinal plants to use of a particular non-timber product in the food sector. Thus it was felt that there has to be an institutionalized approach to protect this bio diversity and the rich traditional knowledge base.

The Biological Diversity Act of 2002 aims to achieve these coveted goals by furthering the objectives given in the CBD. Most importantly this Act conveys the strong message that India has the sovereign right over its biological resources and anyone cannot just come and take away this wealth. The other important element in this Act is that it recognizes the principle of benefit sharing. This principle ensures that the tribals and the indigenous people do get their due share in case of commercial exploitation of these forest products by non-citizens.

The Act prohibits the obtaining of any biological resources occurring in India and associated knowledge for research, commercial utilization, or bio survey and bio utilization without the prior approval of the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) by non-citizens staying abroad and foreign corporation. It also prohibits further transfer of biological resources or the knowledge associated with them by the person who obtained the permission for use to any other person without the approval of the NBA.

However the Act has certain shortcomings that need to be rectified in order to provide complete support and protection to the indigenous people and their traditional knowledge base.

The Act has not defined “Benefit Claimers” in the proper manner. The definition of benefit claimer lays a lot of emphasis on the individual members of the community. But in reality it has been found that the benefit claimers are the entire community not just individual members of the community. The Act has no provision to identify the benefit- claimers in cases where the entire society is the benefit claimer. In such cases there is every possibility that the indigenous people who collectively posses the knowledge regarding the use of a particular NTFP could easily be devoid of any benefit sharing.

Another important flaw in this Act is that it allows Indian citizens and corporations to use the biological resources and knowledge without the prior approval or permission from anyone. They are bound only to give prior intimation to the concerned State Biodiversity Body (SBB).

This provision could have serious implications for the tribals and the indigenous people as the giant Indian corporates could easily exploit these resources and take away the traditional knowledge that the indigenous people posses. Thus there would be no benefit sharing with the traditional people who in reality are the custodians of the traditional knowledge about the various NTFPs. Therefore the need is to make changes in the Act so that the concept of benefit sharing could also be evolved even when biological diversity is exploited by Indians.

The Act needs to be restructured so that the biological resources and the knowledge associated with them are not looked differently from each other. The need is to confer the ownership on the local and indigenous people who collectively possess and have possessed these resources and the knowledge for centuries together.

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmer’s Rights Act is another legislative attempt to protect and nurture our rich bio diversity. This Act is a sui generis legislation that recognizes the rights of the farmer’s in India. This law has been enacted by exploring the sui generis option given in Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement.

This law provides for farmer’s rights and it defines the farmer in a broad way comprising not just of the cultivator but also of the conserver of the gene pool or the breeder of new varieties. This law also recognizes the importance of the farmer’s right to sell seeds. This is very important for NTFPs like sal seeds.

The Act has incorporated the principle of benefit sharing. This is a significant step but is at present ridden with difficulties. The system of benefit sharing should be made much more simpler and easier to implement. The National Gene Fund should be the recipient of all the revenues payable to the farming community and the farmers should have the right to decide how this money is to be spent.

The new forest policy of 1988 has made a significant departure from the earlier forest policies that talked about maximizing forest revenue and fostering forest industry. The thrust in the new policy is on ecological stability and social justice. The new policy recognizes the symbiotic relationship between the tribals and the forests and emphasizes on the protection of their rights. This policy talks of chalking out a strategy so as to create space for the participation of forest-dependent women and men in the management of state appropriated forests land.

In order to convert these policies into realities the Central Government issued orders that have led to the adoption of the Joint Forest Management (JFM) in many states of India. The nature and character of these JFMs differ and vary from state to state.

It is felt that this policy would deliver good results in a decentralized model of governance. One of the formal processes launched to announce decentralisation in Indian polity was the adoption of the 73^rd Amendment to the Indian Constitution. This amendment was a watershed development in the Indian polity as it institutionalized the three-tier Panchyati Raj structure model of governance. This has been a significant step vis-à-vis the NTFPs as the NTFPs are one of the 29 functions recommended for decentralisation to the Panchayati Raj institutions. The enactment of Panchyats (Extension to Scheduled Areas Act) PESA in 1996 has further given a mandate for decentralized governance. The basic intention behind enacting this Act was to empower the tribal people.

However, this Act is ridden with ambiguities primarily because of multiplicity of legislations and vagueness of policies. The contradictory nature of PESA with other with the new forest policy and the JFM is well evident. The fact that revised JFM guidelines that were issued in 2000 do not even mention PESA is a pointer to the ambiguity that exists in the institutionalized structures. Moreover, the assortment of legislations has further convoluted the picture. The co-existence of PESA with other laws like the Wild Life Protection, Forest Conservation Act, the Indian Forests Act of 1927 has made it difficult to find out which of these Acts prevail over the other.

The Community Forest Management (CFM) programme in Orissa has made significant strides in terms of improving forest quality, and enhancing the capacity of the local self help groups to tackle with issues like lives and livelihoods. The CFM programme has enormously helped the process of forest regeneration and this in turn has contributed significantly to the availability of the NTFPs. An increased availability of NTFPs has boosted income of the tribals and of the local indigenous people.

But the problems galore in the form of lack of marketing support by the government. The local tribals still depend on the petty traders and the middlemen and thus are not able to realize the full potential of the NTFPs.

The CFM in Orissa has created a lot of space for the local forest management. This movement has amply demonstrated the power of the local institutional endeavours and management practices. These local endeavours are based on the proper understanding of the local demands and aspirations and thus are able to erect proper strategies for the growth of the NTFPs. These measures are very important in context of globalisation as it arms the local people with the weapon of collective bargaining. The local communities need to be in a position where they could effectively negotiate with the transnational corporations so that they are ensured of those benefits that they deserve.

These local endeavours in the form of CFM have not received the kind of recognition that they deserve from the state. However, the mounting pressure on the government has compelled it to take cognisance of these initiatives. The Forest Department of Orissa Government in 1996 issued a resolution declaring that the area under the villagers’ protection would be village forests and the villagers would have the complete right to maintain the NTFPs within them. This resolution has however remained a dead letter.

The benefit sharing arrangement under the JFM has not materialized. The monopoly and marketing rights over a lot of NTFPs have been leased out to private traders. The local tribals and indigenous people who are supposedly co managers in the NTFP exploration in the jointly managed forest land have not received dues that could be called proportionate to the actual value of the produce. The transfer of control to the Gram Panchyats under the Orissa’s Gram Panchyat Act has remained illusory as the bargaining powers of the NTFP gatherers has not improved.

To counter the challenges of globalisation and economic liberalisation it is pertinent to arm the local institutions and people with the weapon of collective bargaining. This could happen only if the villagers are allowed to play an active role in the local forest management. The CFM programme has amply demonstrated the benefits that could emerge from community involvement in the management of forests.

The sad part is that instead of nurturing and fostering these local initiatives the state has done everything that could be done to retard and derail these initiatives. The JFM model reduces the control of the local institutions and the local population and in essence is quite contrary to the principles of decentralised model of governance. The state through its Forest Department exercises too much control on the forests and the forest resources and the real custodians i.e. the local villagers or the indigenous people do not get the real benefit.

This is not to argue that state should not have any say or role in the management of the forests. The role of the state is very important in this regard especially because the NTFPs have a direct effect on the lives of the local tribals and the indigenous population. The real question is what should be the nature and character of the role of the state. The state should provide a congenial environment for the growth of local institutions and community based endeavours. The local population has lived in close proximity with the forests for centuries and has nurtured these forests like their children. The need is to recognise their effort and diligence in an institutionalised manner so that sustainable economic benefits could be derived from them.

It is important to understand that the state should do everything that is possible to ensure that the real benefits of the NTFPs goes to the local population living near the forests. The threat of multinationals and the Indian industrialists stealing these bio treasures has increased manifold in the era of globalisation. The need is not just to protect but also provide every possible support to the local population so that they are able to counter the forces of globalisation and are also able to maximise the opportunities that globalisation presents. This needs to be done at two levels as discussed in the paper. Fine tuning of the existing laws and policies at the domestic level and the assiduous campaign at the international trading level to make the multilateral trading fair, participatory and accountable.

List of Participants
Regional Workshop on Globalisation, Economic Liberalisation and Indian Informal
17th – 18th July 2003, Bhubaneswar

1. Ms. Neera M. Singh Vasundhara E/14, Gajapati Nagar Po: Sainik School Bhubaneswar – 751 005 Ph: 0674-2300190 E-mail: vasundharanr@satyam.net.in	2. Mrs.Vidya Das Agragami ND-8, VIP Area IRC Village, Nayapalli Bhubaneswar – 751 015 Ph: 0674 – 2551122 E-mail: agragami@sancharnet.in
3. Ms. Sumananjali Mohanty Mr. Dasarathi Sahoo OXFAM (I) TRUST 1116, Jayadurga Nagar Cuttack Road Bhubaneswar – 751 006 Ph: 0674 – 2570278 E-mail: Smohanty@oxfam.org.uk; dsahoo@oxfam.org.uk	4. Ms. Bratindi Jena Action Aid India A-331, Sahid Nagar Bhubaneswar – 751 007 Ph: 0674 – 2544503 E-mail: bratindij@actionaidindia.org
5. Mr. Ashish Raj Concern 1266, Bhoi Nagar Unit – 9 Bhubaneswar – 751 022 Ph: 0674 – 2404132 E-mail: rodmac62@hotmail.com	6. Ardhendu Chatterjee DRCSC 58A, Dharmatala Road Bose Pukar, Kasba Kolkata – 700 042 Ph: 91 33 2442 7311 E-mail: drcsc@vsnl.com
7. Mr.Rohini Sahoo Mr. Jitesh Panda Sristi B-205, Krishna Tower Nayapalli Bhubeneswar – 751 012 Ph: 91 674 2560847 E-mail: shristi4@rediffmail.com	8. Mr.Pravakar Adhikari Pragati Pujariput (Near Riti Printers) Po/Dist: Koraput – 764 020 E-mail: pragati24@sancharnet.in
9. Mr. Ramesh Ch. Das Foundation for Enterpreneurship Development of Orissa (FEDO) C-10, Green Park Po: Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar – 751 030 Ph: 91 674 2470097, 9861130894 (M)	10. Ms. Jayshree Nayak Awareness 131, Rajarani Nagar Hatiaseeni Lane Bhubaneswar – 751 002 Ph: 91 674 2436232
11. Mr. Biswajeet Padhi Srusti, Khariar, Nuapada Ph: 06671-232110 E-mail: greensrusti@rediffmail.com	12. Dr.S.K. Pattanaik Vikalpa, Kantabanjhi Ph: 06657 – 220724 Email: vikalpabj@yahoo.co.in
13. Mr. Abani Panigrahi Lokadrusti At: Godramunda, Po: Chindaguda Via: Khariar, Nuapada Ph: 06671-232348 E-mail: lokadrustikhariar1@rediffmail.com	14. Mr. Ashini Kumar Maharana Mass Mayurbhanja Ward No. 10, Baripada Ph: 06792 – 257303 E-mail: massbpd@hotmail.com
15. Mr. Ranjan Panda Mass At/Po: Dhanupalli, Sambalpur Ph: 0663 – 2520962/ 2404974 E-mail: ranjanpanda_mass@rediffmail.com	16. Mr. Krupasindhu Tarai Antodaya Infront of DIC, College Road, Bhawanipatna Dist: Kalahandi - 766001 Ph: 06660 – 232038 Fx: 91 6670 234012 Email: antodayas@sancharnet.in
17. Mr. Jirimo Digal NIPDIT College Road Kandhamal – 762001 Ph: 91 6842 253579 Fx: 91 6842 253403 Email: nipdit@sancharnet.in	18. Mr. Soumya Tripathi CRAIC Uttara Kausalyaganga PO: Bhubaneswar – 2 Ph: 91 674 2465213 Email: craicworld@rediffmail.com
19. Mr. Sankarsan Hota Mr. Samarendra Satpathy PIPAR Prakruti Nivas Bhagirathi Sagar East Gudianali, Dhenkanal – 759 001 Ph: 91 6762 232798 Fx: 91 6762 234450 Email: piparkdl@sancharnet.in; piparbbsr@sify.com	20. Prof. Radha Mohan CWS HIG – 238 Kalinga Nagar, Patrapada Bhubaneswar – 19 Ph: 91 674 247568 Email: radhamohan_cwsy@yahoo.co.in
21. Mr. P. Felix Kerketta Chief Executive Officer KOVEL HIG – 1 – 1, Sagar Nagar Vishakhapatnam – 2530043 Ph: 91 891 2799026 Fx: 91 891 2542283 Email: kovel@rediffmail.com	22. Mr. E. Basant Minj Secretary Deme Kindo Team Member RAHI At Near Railway High School At/Po: Bandamunda Sundargarh – 770032 Ph: 91 661 2530286 Email: e_basant_minj@rediffmail.com
23. Mr. Cornelius Baxla IGSSS 2130/4158, Vivekananda Marg Bhubaneswar – 2 Ph: 91 674 2432373 Fx: 91 674 2432751 Email: igsssero@sancharnet.in	24. Mr. Saroj Kumar Jena OPDSC Post Box No. 17, Raniguda Farm PO/Dist: Rayagada – 765 001 Ph/Fx: 91 6856 22516 Email: opds@sancharnet.in
25. Mr. Jeorge Cheriyan Network of Entrepreneurship & Economic Development (NEED) 39, Neel Vihar, Near 14-Sector Power House Indira Nagar, Lucknow – 226 016 Ph: 91 522 271 2671/73, 09415020503 (M) Fx: 91 522 230 2694 Email: need@satyam.net.in	26. Mr. A. K. Patra, ACCF, Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest’s Office Aranya Bhawan, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar – 751 016 Ph: 0674 – 2300949 Fx: 91 674 2300049
27. Mr. J. P. Singh, G. M. (H. Qs) Mr. Vinod Kumar Director Commercial G.P. Mohanty Marketing Manager Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited (OFDC) A/84, Kharvel Nagar Bhubaneswar – 751 001 Ph: 0674 - 2500067 Fx: 91 674 2535934	28. Mr.A.K.Mohapatra, MD Tribal Development Cooperative Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (TDCC) TDCC Building Rupali Sqaure Bhubaneswar – 751 022 Ph: 0674 –2542475 Fx: 91 674 2542530
29. Mr. Bipin Raut, Deputy Director Orissa Rural Development & Marketing Society (ORMAS) Constituted under Dept. of Panchayatiraj Govt. of Orissa Block No III-2, Sardar Patel Hall Unit –II, Bhubaneswar – 751 009 Ph: 0674 – 2531167 Fx: 91 674 2532440 Email: cgmfpfederation@yahoo.co.in	30. Ravindra .K. Agarwal Chairman & M.D., Natural Remedies “Manandi Arch” No-242/29, 2^nd Floor 9^th Main, 3^rd Block, Jaya Nagar Bangalore – 560 011 E-mail: rkagarwal@naturalremedy.com
31. Mr. D. B. Pattanaik (M.D.) Mruttika Resources Pvt. Ltd. 331, Sahid Nagar Bhubaneswar – 751 007 Ph: 9437041556 (M)	32. Dr. Satyananda Patra Mr. Nirakar Bhela Assisstant Professor Centre for Drought Management (OUAT) Bhubaneswar – 751 003 Ph: 9861090230
33. Prof. Bhabagrahi Mishra (HOD) Department of Economics Sambalpur University, Burla Sambalpur	34. Mr. L. Balia Mr. Barna Baibhaba Panda Orissa Jungle Manch C/o: Jungle Surkshya Mahasangha New Rajbati Road Trinath Chhak Po/Dist: Nayagarh – 752069 Ph: 06753 - 252702 E-mail: bubup@rediffmail.com
35. Mr. Nihar Mishra Banaja Banijya Sangha (Gurundia) At/Po: Jarda, Near S. B. I. Dist: Sundargarh Ph: 0663-2006169 (PP)	36. Ms. Hitmai Dei Vanashri Mahila Sangathan C/o: Antodaya At/Po: Kaniguma Bhawanipatna Dist: Kalahandi Ph: 91 6660 232038
37. Ms. Sumani Jhodia Ms. Gunjani Nayak Aama Sangathan At/Po: Mandibisi Via: Kasipur Dist: Rauagada	38. G Raju Managing Director Gram Mooligai Co. Ltd. 50, MSH Layout, 2^nd Stage, 3^rd Main, 2nd Cross Anand Nagar Bangalore – 560024 Ph: 080-23632008 Fax: 080-2354 6971 Email: gmcl@vsnl.net
39. Ms. Panamani Hembram Secretary Guru Gamke Bahamala SHG At – Chauladahani Po: Bagda Dist: Mayurbhanj	40. Ms. Singo Beshra, President Bharati Nari Samaj, SHG At/Po: Jhanai, Via – Rasgovindapur Dist: Mayurbhanj
41. Mr. Abhas Panda Era Consultancy B-21, BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar – 751 014 Ph: 91 674 2432490	42. Mr. A. K. Pattanaik - SMPB A. C. F. Forest and Environment Department Orrisa Secretariat Bhubaneswar – 750 001 Ph: 91 674 2400904 Fx: 910674 2408820
43. Mr. Saroj Pattanaik EXCCF (WL) Plot – 81, Fishery Lane, Bhudeswari Bhubaneswar – 751 006 Ph: 91 674 2313364 (R)	44. Ms. Sumita Sindhi C/o: P. R. Choudhury Scientist (Forestry) CSWCRTI, MIG – 36, H. B. Colony Sunabeda – 1 Koraput, Orissa Ph: 91 6853 221261 Email: choudhury@sancharnet.in; sumitasindhi@yahoo.co.in
45. Mr. Ratan Kumar Pani Journalist, New Indian Express 210, Panposh Road Rourkela, Sundargarh Ph: 91 661 2401645 Fx: 91 661 2506262	46. Mr. R. V. Singh Convenor Poverty Task Force Planning and Coordination Department Orissa Secretariat Ph: 91 674 2536882 Fx: 91 674 2322619
47. Mr. R. K. Sarangi Integrated Agriculture and Service 2510 (J), Kedargouri Area Behind Metro Mansion Rabi Talkies Square Bhubaneswar – 751 002 Ph: 91 674 2435074	48. Mr. Pravakar Sahoo SGUP At/Po: Lannunipara Dist: Sundargarh Ph:Fx: 91 6625 232270
49. Ms. Alisha Bage Vanashree Mahila Sangathan At/Po: Kaniguma Via: Thrampur Dist: Kalahandi	50. Ms. Sumita Bag Nari Vikas Parishad At/Po: Jamut Via – Guduella Dist. Bolangir
51. Mr. A. K. Pandey Foundation for Ecological Security 5^th Lane, Amdapada Angul	52. Mr. Subrat Das Staff Correspondent The Statesman 22, Ashok Nagar Ph: 2533622 (R), 2530465 (O)
53. Mr. Manoj Barui Sambad TV Nayapalli Ph: 9861033086	54. Mr. M. Narayana Rao C/o: ETV Oriya Channel Bhanja Prabha Complex Opp: Sriya Talkies Ph: 2507036

Hyderabad
Regional Workshop
Globalisation, Economic Liberalisation and Indian Informal Sector with Focus on Handloom Sector
28th – 29th July 2003, Hyderabad

Inaugural Session 10.00 - 11.00 Welcome Address: Regional Meeting: Objectives and Expectations
Speaker:
Sri. D. Narasimha Reddy, CHIP

Chief Guest:
Shri G. Venkataswamy, Former Union Minister for Textiles

Guest of Honour:
Sri G. N. Rao, Commissioner, Handlooms, GOAP

Keynote Address:
Recent Economic Trends: Processes of Globalisation and Economic Liberalisation Speaker: Mr. Bipul Chatterjee, Director, CUTS

Handloom Sector in the Last Ten Years

Speaker:
Sri. Macherla Mohan Rao, RCKS

Changing Scenario in Handloom Sector

Session II 02.30 - 04.00 Public Hearing on Kerala and Karnataka Situation
Presentations by Kerala and Karnataka delegates

Session III 04.15 - 05.45 Public Hearing on Tamilnadu and AP Situation
Presentation by Tamilnadu delegate

Session I 09.00 - 10.30 Public Hearing on Plight of Women in Handloom Sector
Paper by Ms. Kalpana, Sangamitra
Presentations by women weavers

Session V 04.30 – 05.00 Finalising and Drafting Key Recommendations

Chair Person:
Sri Konda Laxman Bapuji

Backgrounder
for Hyderabad Regional Workshop
28th – 29th July 2003

OXFAM CRE CUTS

It is important to understand the concept of economic liberalisation and the dynamics of international trade and its possible impact on the handloom sector in India.

The liberalisation of Indian economy in 1991 mainly entailed the integration of the Indian economy with the world. As part of this, the economic restructuring done relied on “structural reforms”. These structural reforms took the form of bringing reform in the trade and balance of payments regime and changes in the domestic financial sector.

It is of utmost importance to understand that these measures though initiated because of a host of crisis factors, nevertheless represented the ushering in of a new kind of economic paradigm which reflected a shift from state control and state supervision to encouraging private participation in the economic activity. This was the beginning of a movement from the license-permit raj to the embracement of the Bretton-Woods development paradigm.

This economic liberalisation is characterised by changing mind-set of the policy makers and the adoption of a particular development paradigm. The government launched the policy of removing import restrictions and bolstering exports. This marked a shift from import substitution policies to having policies that had an export thrust. In fact the new economic liberalisation process has made trade sacrosanct and it expects trade to act as an engine of growth. An important consequence of giving top primacy to international trade has been India’s acceptance of the WTO-led international trade model.

The need is to look at the process of economic liberalisation in a dispassionate and pragmatic way. With regard to economic liberalisation the question to be asked is, would it serve the people of India in a better way or not. Globalisation and economic liberalisation, together, constitute a change, which needs to be assessed from the point of view of its impact on people, marginalized sectors and basic needs of the people. The framework for such assessment would also require closer consideration.

There are a number of Agreements under the WTO that affect the Handloom sector. Textiles in particular are of crucial importance to developing countries because of the tremendous export potential that this sector promises. Therefore all those Agreements that have a direct or an indirect impact on the textiles sector of developing countries are very important for them. An important and indispensable element in evolving an appropriate policy response would be a painstaking understanding of such agreements.

Regarding the WTO Agreements, one needs to look at:

I. The Agreement that exclusively deals with textiles and clothing.
II. Those Agreements, which are not exclusively on textiles and clothing, but nevertheless are important for the textiles and clothing sector.

This Agreement seeks to ensure the integration of the Textiles and the Clothing sector into the multilateral trading regime by adopting an institutionalised approach. The ultimate aim of this Agreement is to liberalise the textiles and the clothing sector.

Before the Uruguay Round (UR), for textile products, discriminatory Quantitative Restrictions (QR) could be applied under a cover provided by the Multi Fibre Agreement (MFA). These quota restrictions were fixed on the basis of unilateral or bilateral arrangement. Both these aspects of the MFA i.e. fixing discriminatory quotas and adopting a unilateral or bilateral approach were inconsistent with the basic philosophy of GATT. The ATC after coming into force in the UR has provided for a structured phase out plan of products under the MFA. This implies that the products that had been restricted under the MFA, would be brought under the GATT rules and thus the restrictions on textile imports and exports would be removed on a planned basis.

This phase-out plan is a 10-year plan. ATC requires all the contracting parties to phase out their QRs on imports of textile products over a period of 10-years, i.e. by 1^st of January 2005. This would facilitate the integration of the textile sector with normal GATT rules. This is to be done in four stages starting from 1^st January 1995. The Agreement provides for a list of textile products that are to be integrated. The base year for integration would be 1990 i.e. minimum percentages of the products in the phase-out plan would be subject to reduction on the basis of the volume of the country’s imports prevalent in 1990. The Agreement also stipulates that products from all the four categories of textiles namely tops and yarns, fabrics, made up textile products and clothing be included.

The Agreement also provides a specific transitional safeguard mechanism to protect members from increased imports of textile products that have not been integrated into GATT. Such a provision could be invoked when a member country is able to demonstrate that increased imports are causing damage to its domestic industry.

Thus the ATC has a direct bearing on the textile sector because it encompasses issues like market access opportunities, liberalizing the textile sector by allowing imports into the markets of developing countries, allowing countries to invoke the safeguard clause against increased imports. Therefore it would not be wrong to say that the most important international trade law governing the trade in textiles is the ATC.

II. There are some Agreements under the WTO that unlike the ATC do not deal exclusively with textiles and clothing but nevertheless have a very important consequence on textiles and clothing. These Agreements are given below:

As per this Agreement whenever a country is able to prove that dumping has taken place and there is a causal link between dumping and material injury to the domestic industry, that country could slap anti-dumping duties on the dumping country. This Agreement, in theoretical terms, should favour developing countries, as developed countries are more likely to indulge in the practice of dumping. But the reality has been just the opposite of what was anticipated. The developed countries have led from front in imposing anti-dumping duties against developing countries and in most of the cases these anti-dumping duties have been arbitrarily imposed after exploiting the existing loopholes in the loosely drafted ADA.

These anti-dumping measures, in a number of cases have been slapped against the textile products of developing countries. The cotton – type bed linen case and unbleached fabric cotton case against India is an ample testimony to the fact that how developed countries abuse the anti-dumping provisions against the products of developing countries. These two cases involved textile products from India. This also demonstrates how these Agreements could possibly affect even the textiles sector.

Thus there is a need to completely understand this Agreement as well, as it could have possible ramifications for the handloom sector. Gradual opening up of the textiles sector by virtue of removal of QRs is bound to witness more and more non-tariff barriers in the form of anti-dumping duties.

This Agreement provides for the imposition of countervailing duties when a particular country provides subsidies to its domestic industry and these subsidies injure the industry of the country where such exports are destined. In the imposition of the countervailing duties like in anti-dumping the need to prove the causal link between the subsidies being provided and the injury caused is of paramount importance.

This Agreement also provides for a trade remedial measure. But practice has shown that even this Agreement has been abused for protectionist purposes especially by developing countries. Countervailing duties have often been levied arbitrarily without there being sufficient proof of subsidies being provided to the domestic industry.

The misuse of this particular Agreement just like the ADA is bound to increase in the light of disappearing QRs in the textiles sector.

One could ask the question that how is international trade connected to a small sector like handloom or how would changes at the multilateral trading level affect a small artisan or weaver residing in a remote part of the country.

In today’s globalised world where everything is inter-connected what happens in one part of the globe has a definite impact on the people and their lives in the other part of the globe. This glorified economic globalisation has the potential to touch the lives of a lot of people. Ever since India embarked on the path of economic liberalisation, its entry into the rule-based multilateral trading regime under the WTO was a logical corollary. Now India is a well-recognised member of the WTO and thus sensitive to the positives and the negatives of the multilateral trading regime, which has the capability to touch almost all the trading and manufacturing activities.

The relevance of international trade for the handloom sector can be gauged from the fact that now the Indian markets are open for handloom imports from other countries and the Indian handloom manufacturers are free to sell their products in the overseas markets. This might bring a monumental transformation in the way handlooms are manufactured, purchased and perceived.

The gradual phasing-out of the QRs in textiles under the ATC over a 10-year period would undoubtedly benefit developing countries. The developing countries are bound to gain in terms of market access for their products, as textiles are of considerable significance to developing countries. On the flip side, imports into the markets of developing countries would witness an increase. Therefore the impact on the entire textiles sector including handlooms would be immense.

In India’s context the exports of Indian cotton handloom products (fabrics plus made-ups) witnessed a continuous rise from Rs 1491 crores in 1995-96 to Rs 2008 crores in 1998-99. However during the year 1999-2000, these exports decreased to Rs 1892 crores, showing a fall of 5.8% constituted by fabrics and made-ups. Compositional pattern of cotton handloom exports has also witnessed a distinct shift from fabrics to made-ups in recent years. For the years 2001-02 to 2002-03 the export figures of cotton yarn, fabrics and made ups paint a very dismal picture. These items collectively registered a negative export rate of 12.42 percent during this year. Hand-made carpets also registered a negative growth rate of 17.37 percent during this period. However the imports during this period of cotton yarn and fabrics registered an increase of 56.36 percent.

Barring USA, cotton handloom products and made-ups are outside quota restrictions in all the countries. The quota restrictions on power loom and on mill made products facilitated handloom exports to these countries, as handloom exports could meet the excess demand of fabrics and made-ups. But with the phasing out of the MFA the competition for the handloom exports is bound to increase from countries like Pakistan, China and other South-East Asian countries.

These figures and analysis indicates that as the quantitative restrictions regime gets dismantled the imports into our country would increase and so would the imports to all other countries. The dismantling of the quota regime would also witness increasing level of competition that Indian handloom exports would have to face in the overseas markets. These figures are a pointer to that direction. Thus the Indian handloom products not only have to compete with the imports that are coming into India but also have to make a place for their products in the international markets by displacing the exports of other rival countries. Thus the challenge is two-fold.

The impact of Agreements like ADA and ASCM would also be important on the textiles sector including the handlooms sector. The abuse of these trade remedial measures is bound to increase as more and more QRs are being removed. This would hamper the exports of Indian handloom products that could benefit from the dismantling of the quota regime.

Thus the relevance of international trade for the handlooms sector is phenomenal, as it could literally make or break this sector.

In India the handloom sector is very important from the point of view of its size and employment potential. It provides direct and indirect employment to more than 30 lakh weavers and is the largest economic activity second only to agriculture. The relevance of the handloom sector in the agrarian economy is massive because of its linkages with crucial and sensitive sectors like agriculture. It uses agricultural products as raw materials and therefore provides an ever-ready market for agricultural goods. Therefore in an economy where majority of people for their livelihood depend upon the agrarian sector the significance of handloom is well understood. It also gives employment to a lot of women and thus plays its role in women empowerment.

The strength of this sector is its innovation and dynamism in relating itself to the changing market needs and requirements. Indian textile industry, including spinning, weaving (and knitting), fabric processing and garment-making units, accounted for about one-fifth of India's total industrial output in 1994-95 and about 7 percent of GDP - share of the handloom sub-sector in fabric output is around 35 percent. This sector also contributes nearly 23 percent of the total cloth produced.

The traditional significance of this sector along with its inseparable links with our ancient cultural heritage further expounds the vitality of this sector. This 5,000 years-old Indian industry has a broad spectrum of production techniques -- from hand-operated to sophisticated automated technology. Important features include a dualistic structure including decentralised or "unorganised" small-scale segment in weaving, knitting and apparel/garment-making along with a vertically integrated, large-scale "composite" mill segment (spinning and weaving). It is a predominantly domestic-oriented industry with cotton as the primary raw material.

If the importance of the handloom sector is of such colossal character then the question to be asked is why this particular sector is facing so much problems? Handloom weavers today are not a happy lot and are facing a series of problems ranging from unorganised nature of their business to threat from cheap imports. The problems that the weavers confront have compounded in the recent times. This has led to closure of many handloom units and thus has resulted in massive unemployment.

Impact of Economic Liberalisation on Handloom Sector: Opportunities & Threats

Over the past thirty years, new factors have been impinging on this sector, namely governmental intervention, international and national trade and automation. Various factors like inadequate understanding of the sector and its nature, bias towards mill sector, domination of trade, overwhelming support to automation, captive of vested interests etc. have been creating confusion among the policy circles on what is required and what needs to be done. It is against this backdrop that globalisation and WTO-related policy imperatives deserve clairvoyance understanding and threadbare analysis.

The liberalisation of the Indian economy by removing import restrictions has meant that small scale units like handlooms would face severe competition. Therefore the need is to evolve a mechanism through which the competitiveness of small sectors like handlooms is maintained. With changing global scenario, the role and nature of handloom units need proper redressal. Instead of large units crowding out the small handloom enterprises, the need is to evolve a complimentary relationship between handlooms and larger and bigger textile units.

The measures taken by the government or the policies adopted by it have to be understood in the backdrop of the WTO- modeled international trade paradigm. In other words their efficacy has to be examined on the touchstone of preparation of Indian weavers and artisans to meet the twin challenge of cheap imports and increasing exports. Today, the handloom sector is also facing the brunt of cheap imports and non-availability of new export markets, notwithstanding the fact that that the skills and talent of Indian artisans and weavers knows no bounds.

The handloom industry is facing problems because of a host of factors. The government has made many policies for the handloom sector like starting Weaver Service Centres, establishing Indian Institute of Handloom Technology, incorporating National Handlooms Development Corporation, which seek to ensure the regular supply of raw material to the handloom sector.

The Parliament also passed the Handloom Act in 1985 with the aim to shield handloom weavers against power loom and textile mill operators by reserving certain textile items for exclusive production by handlooms. The moot question arises here as to the how far the benefits of most of these schemes, programmes and projects percolate down to the handloom weavers who are really in need of such programmes. This sector faces several new challenges, above all to remain competitive with imports not only in terms of price but also in product quality and consistency.

The poor weavers and the artisans are not getting proper institutional support and thus their skills largely remain untapped. The institutional support in the form of weak financial base of weavers, non availability of adequate and timely credit facilities, technology and traditional production techniques, inadequate integration with modern economy, lack of marketing facilities, design development, training, infrastructure, information about the new international trade regime and developments, slow adaptation to consumer preferences, lack of opportunities for skill upgradation of weavers etc. is grossly missing and hence the current fate of the handloom sector. Even where this institutional support exists it suffers because of faulty, inadequate and delayed implementation. Red tapism of the bureaucracy, long, tardy and complicated fiscal procedures and general indifferent attitude of the state has taken its toll on the handloom sector.

There is now a much more sinister threat. After December 2004, free trade will be extended to all segments of textiles, including powerloom and mill sectors, and, therefore, handloom sector would have to face severe competition from the global market as well.

The new Textile policy 2000 is based on a fundamental rethinking of the entire policy. This policy is evidently based on the World Bank recommendations and Satyam Committee report. This approach believes that the phase-out of the Multi-Fiber Agreement (MFA) which long restrained developing country exports is opening tremendous opportunities for India to enlarge its share of existing markets and capture new ones. With more open global trade, however, comes heightened competition for India in both export markets targeted by other exporters including China, Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam and from imports in the domestic market, notably of yarn and fabrics, which are projected to increase dramatically over the next eight years.

World Bank puts forward three complementary options. Firstly, provision of an explicit, targeted, demand-based, per unit subsidy for hank yarn or handloom fabric. The second option is to initiate programs to convert handlooms to powerlooms and to upgrade product quality for raising weavers' productivity. A third option involves mitigating employment and income losses in the handloom industry through training and job conversion programs to help weavers move to more productive employment, including garment-making. The New Textile Policy 2000 took up the last two options.

An important element of the liberalisation process has been the policy of dereservation. Satyam Committee had recommended the abolition of Handloom Reservation Act and remove the Hank Yarn obligation. However the new Textile Policy of 2000 has not accepted these recommendations. Whether continuing the reservation policy for the handloom sector would help the handloom sector to grow or not needs to be seen.

Thus the need is to evolve pragmatic policies for the handloom sector in order to sustain the exquisiteness and novelty of this sector. Economic liberalisation is a reality and therefore the need is to tune our handloom sector as per the new challenges so that opportunities could be optimised.

At present handloom sector is facing several challenges by the changing dynamics within the sector, inadequate cash flow in the sector, unfair competition and trading practices by powerlooms, lack of government support, failure of cooperative movement, corruption, by the slow pace of investment in higher productivity and quality and by practices at the farm (cotton) and market levels.

Availability of finance for working capital has always been a major requirement of the sector. The overall flow of credit to the handloom sector, however, has not kept pace with the requirements, resulting in a wide gap between its demand and supply. Inability to repay the loan in time by many of the societies seems to be the bottleneck. It is not possible to meet this massive requirement through grants and other budgetary supports.

Despite the Government's efforts to provide working capital finance and setting up of All India Handloom Board, Handloom Cess Fund, the plight of the average weaver in the country does not seem to have changed. The condition of a majority of the handloom weavers still remains miserable in most parts of the country. Several starvation deaths and suicides of handloom weavers have been reported during the late 1990s.

The first two groups termed as an organised one and the latter two groups as unorganised. One of the main reasons for the distressing condition of the handloom co-operative marketing had been lack of infrastructural support and help from the apex and central weaver’s co-operatives in the states.

Handloom cloth production has crossed 7500 million square metres which constitute about 19 percent of the total production from all sectors put together. Exports which were around Rs 1800cr in the recent years, reached a level of Rs 2065cr during the last year. During the current year i.e. 2002-03, the handloom exports have been of the value of Rs 1102.34cr during April-August, 2002 as against Rs 837.53cr registering a 31.62 percent increase over that in the corresponding period of last year.

Setting up of marketing complexes, organisation of National Handloom Expos, participation in National and International fairs/exhibitions, organisation of district level events and participation in specialised craft melas are some of the efforts made by the Government of India to help liquidation of handloom stocks.

Government has established 24 Weaver Service Centres and 4 Indian Institutes of Handloom Technology (IIHT) at different places to provide technically trained manpower, development of new designs, improvement in weaving and processing techniques, upgradation of skill etc. throughout the country. However, with emphasis on powerlooms, these initiatives failed in assessing the needs of the weavers properly and provide them with necessary upgradations. A Technology Upgradation Fund (TUF) also was diverted to improve the mills and powerloom sectors. The latest scheme of Deendayal Hatkargha Yojana has been launched with effect from April 2000. This scheme covers a number of activities such as funding for the provision of basic inputs, infrastructure like setting up of processing houses and effluent treatment plants, CAD/CAM systems, designs, publicity, transport subsidy, renovation and strengthening of handloom organisations and marketing incentives.

Women remain largely absent at all levels of policy formulation and decision-making in this sector, and their experience and skills in weaving too often remain marginalised. Women are rarely trained to enhance their skills. Even in cases where women are trained, they are often under-represented. Often women are not equal participants in the family decision-making which most significantly affects the livelihood.

Women have often played leadership roles or taken the lead in promoting the interests of handloom sector. Women can have a particularly powerful role in influencing sustainable consumption decisions. Women in many areas provide the main labour force for subsistence production. Hence, their role is crucial for the promotion and development of this subsistence and informal sector. In certain regions, women are generally the most stable members of the community, as men often pursue work in distant locations, leaving women to continue the work on looms.

The strategic actions needed for sound management of handloom sector requires a holistic, multidisciplinary and intersectoral approach. Women's participation and leadership are essential to every aspect of that approach. The recent United Nations global conferences on development, as well as regional preparatory conferences for the Fourth World Conference on Women, have all acknowledged that sustainable development policies that do not involve women and men alike will not succeed in the long run. They have called for the effective participation of women in the generation of knowledge and education in decision-making and management at all levels. Women's experiences and contributions to the handloom sector must therefore be central to the agenda for the twenty-first century. Sustainable development will be an elusive goal unless women's contribution to livelihood and sustenance is recognised and supported.

Governments and other organisations should promote an active and visible policy of mainstreaming a gender perspective in all policies and programmes, including, as appropriate, an analysis of the effects on women and men, respectively, before decisions are taken.

The issue of fair trade merits attention particularly against the backdrop of falling commodity prices in global market where the terms of trade has been (price relation between raw materials and processed/technical goods) developed very much in favour of the industrialised countries. This imparts adverse impact on the lives of millions of small scale producers of developing countries, pushing many of them into utter distress with onerous burden of debt. Fair trade serves both the purposes of offering a progressive alternative for sustainable livelihood for the producers as also generating awareness among the consumers to purchase FAIRTRADE Mark products.

Fair Trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect that seeks greater equity in international trade. The aim is to provide better trading conditions to the marginalized producers and workers especially in developing countries.

This Fair Trade campaign works through various national fair trade initiatives that are coordinated through an umbrella organization called Fairtrade Labelling Organisations International (FLO). The Fair Trade campaign has developed the concept of a Fairtrade mark on the products. This mark is meant to guarantee the consumes that farmers in developing countries get a fair deal for their products. At present different countries have different fairtrade marks. A central responsibility for FLO is to collect data and ensure the audit of all fairtrade-labelled products from the producers to the supermarket shelf. One of its aims is to see the introduction of a single fairtrade-label all over the world.

Steady growth of fair trade has been reflected in 21.2 percent increase of Fairtrade labelled sales across the world during 2001 and 2002. One of the most glaring examples of Fair Trade in Action is how the fair trade campaign has brought about a huge transformation in the lives of cocoa producers who completely rely for their earnings on exports of cocoa in the Ashanti region of Ghana.

Such a result could be achieved only because of the sustained pressure that has been created by the Make Trade Fair campaign. Such campaigns ensure the effective implementation of the existing trade rules and thus bring benefit to the small-scale producers of developing countries. This also drives home the point that effective implementation of the existing Agreements could prove to be very handy in reducing, if not completely solving, the problems of small-scale producers in developing countries. The need is to replicate such successful movements in India as well.

Several studies have been done on textile sector. And, there have been reports by several committees, notable among them being the Abid Hussain and Mira Seth committee – now the Satyam Committee. There have been draft policies and ‘final’ policies on textiles. However, there was never any policy on handloom sector itself, both at the national and State levels.

Handloom was always considered a sub-sector, despite its historical existence, large size and economic potential. With the result, policy perspectives were topsy-turvy, giving precedence to automated sector than the traditional sector.

Largely based on the Reports of the various committees, different government pronouncements were overtly concerned with technology upgradation, human resource development, marketing support, R & D intervention, reservation and export prospects. None of these ‘shining ideals’ stem from the actual situation, which invariably involves the profession and livelihood of lakhs of weavers. These recommendations and policies have hardly considered the strengths of the handloom sector and its contribution to the society, economy and employment.

Parliamentary Standing Committee said in its 48^th Report, “The onslaught of economic liberalization has pressurized the bottom line of handloom sector. Shrinking global economic borders and promises of an open international trade regime under the WTO would open flood-gates of an era of imports where the handloom sector would be directly pitched against the innovative marketing strategies and quality textiles, at cheaper rates, of the foreign companies. The Committee are of the view that the interests of 65 lakh persons should not be lost over the horizon of economic liberalization.”

It further said, “The handloom sector is in need for a proactive role of Government in carrying out developmental activities.” The Committee reiterate their recommendation contained in the 40^th and 43^rd Reports that Government should increase the proportion of reservation of yarn and continue to earmark a portion of the overall textile output for the handloom sector. “In a welfare state commercial interests of the State should remain sublimated. It is the duty of Government to effect qualitative changes in the life of its populace.”

The new policies recommended by the Satyam Committee (1993) made the handloom industry leaders concerned about the destruction of weaving sector. The on-going policies viz., Handloom Reservation Act, Hank Yarn obligation and marketing services through Co-operative Federation (APCO), etc., are proposed to be replaced with liberalised policies which are anti-weaver and predominantly support the powerlooms against the handloom. The All India Handloom Weavers' Congress, The Andhra Pradesh Handloom Weavers' Congress, District Handloom Weavers Societies, Andhra Pradesh Rastra Chenetha Karmika Samakya (RCKS), South India Handloom Weavers Organising Committee (SIHWOC), Andhra Pradesh Handloom Weavers' United Forum, Hyderabad, Handloom Protection Forum, Thiruvananthapuram, etc organised massive resistance and struggles jointly and individually for safeguarding the weaving industry and protecting the market from the textile mills and powerlooms.

Agitated handloom workers organised dharnas and movements by the workers' organisations in different parts to protect the dying industry and weaving community. RCKS with its representatives met the Minister of Textile and opposed the proposed Textile Bill which is based on S.R. Sathyam Committee recommendations. The South India Handloom Weavers Organising Committee (SIHWOC) presented the New National Handloom Policy prepared by the RCKS for the protection of handloom industry in the Conference of All State Ministers of Textiles. Rasta roko was organised with 10,000 weavers in November, 1998 in all the 16 handloom Centres for including 22 varieties reserved in the 9th schedule of the Constitution, continuation of welfare measures for weavers in 9th plan, avoiding the duplication of handloom designs, and preventing powerloom lobbying. As a result, the High Court set aside the stay orders given on 11 varieties reservation Act.

The RCKS in collaboration with SIHWOC, organised Challo Delhi programme in May, 2000 with the weavers from different parts of the country when thousands of handloom weavers marched from Red Fort to Parliament. Among others some Union Ministers, social activists, trade union leaders also participated in it. A team met Prime Minister Vajpayee and the Union Textile Minister and explained the plight of weavers in the country.

The RCKS was instrumental in forming the Andhra Pradesh Handloom United Action Forum (APHWUAF) by bringing several weavers' organisations to oppose the issue of New Textile Policy. More than 250 weavers' leaders participated from different weavers organisations affiliated to various political parties and caste groups in the conference. This forum has organised several campaigns and protests, to withdraw the proposed New Textile Bill. A state level conference was held on 11 December 2000 at Hyderabad in which more than 3000 delegates from different parts of the state besides two Cabinet Ministers, two MPs and State Weavers Organisations participated. The Mandal level teams organised several protests in front of Mandal Level Offices in their respective mandals. They led a nine-member team to New Delhi along with 10 MPs and submitted a memorandum with a request to withdraw the Textile Bill to the Prime Minister and the Textile Minister (Labour File, Centre for Education and Communication, New Delhi, 2001).

List of Participants
Regional Workshop on
Globalisation, Economic Liberalisation and Indian Informal Sector with Focus on Handloom Sector
28th – 29th July 2003, Hyderabad

Speaker:
1. Ele.Bikshapathi, Rastra Chenetha Karmika Samakya, Bhudan Pochampally Ph: 916223544	2. S. Devaraj, Sangamitra, Bhudan Pochampally
3. K. Narender, Sangamitra, Bhudan Pochampally	4. M. Rana Mohan Rao, Jilla Chenetha Karmika Union, Madanapalle, Chittor (DIST)
5. G. Nagalingam, Rastra Chenetha Karmika Samakya, Ramanagar, Desaipeta (POSt) Vetapalem, Prakasam (DIST) Ph: 247046	6. Dvena Veera Nageswara Rao, Rastra Chenetha Karmika Samakya, Amondagiripatnam, Jandrapet (POST) Prakasam (DIST) Ph: 2220378 PP
7. Anubham Venkateswarlu, Chentha Karmika Samakya, Epurupalem (POST), Chirala (M) Ph: 235803	8. Dantham Hanumantharao, Rastra Chenetha Karmika Samakya, Ayodya Nagar, Near Old Capol Gate, Jandrapet – 523165
9. K. Hanumantha Rao, Ayodya Nagar, Jandrapet - 523165	10. Rajasree V.V, L-14, Jawahar Nagar, Kowdiar (POST) Thiruvananthpuram – 695003 Ph: 0471-2727150 Fx: 2311896 Email: thanal@vsnl.com
11. Manljilas B. Varuvila, Peringamala, Kalliyoor (POST) Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Ph: 047122204624 Email: thanal@vsnl.com	12. M. Mohan Rao, 14-173, Hastinapuram, Jandrapet – 523 165, Chirala (M) Ph: 222167/222800
13. P. Yogendra Kumar Neelakantapuram, Jandrapet - 523165	14. B. Neelakantam, S/O. B. Lakshmanna, H. No. 5/2294, karnool
15. B.V. Subba Rao, CRE, Hydrabad	16. Dalia Dey 3, Suren Tagore Road, Kolkata – 19 Ph: 033-24601424
17. Yeshala Ashok, A.P. Chenetha Karmika Sangam, Maadhoom Bhavan, Himayat Nagar Hyderabad Ph: 23224966/23221257	18. Nihanth Panday, 18, Amarawati CO-OP Housing Society Karkhana, Secundrabad Ph: 277411891
19. P.B Muhammad, Kudumbashree, Ayyanthola, Thrissur, Kerala Ph: 0487-2362517, Email: pbmohamad@hotmail.com	20. M. Jamal Kanju, Dist. Mission Co-Ordinator, Kudumbesree, Trivandrum Ph: 94470-29737/0471-2337553 Email: dmctum@sancharnet.in
21. Sridhar R, L-14, Jawahar Nagar, Kowdiar (P.O), Trivandram – 695003 Ph: 0471-2311896/2727150 Email: thanal@vsnl.com	22. Uzramma dastkar Andhra, 95A, Park Lane, Secunderabad Ph: 27721735 Email: dastkar7@satyam.net.in
23. Seemanthini Dastkar Andhra 95A, Park Lane, Secunderabad Ph: 27721735 Email: dastkar7@satyam.net.in	24. Shyama Sundari Dastkar Andhra Plot. No. 9 & 10, Ganesh Nagar, West Marredpally, Secundrabad Ph: 27701689
25. Vidyasagar A.D.O, Hndloom Textile Karimnagar Ph: 98485-62860	26. M. Satyanarayana Uppal, Hyderabad – 39 Ph: 25504435
27. R.Umamaheswari (Journalist) Ph: 27510297	28. Vemula Yellaiah S/O. Ambaiah Desha Rajpally (POST) Ramadugu (Mandal) Karim Nagar (DIST) Pin–505451 Ph: 2239274
29. Dusa Muninder President, H.W.C P & S LTD., Kotha Pally, PIN-505451 Karimnagar (Mandal & Dist) Ph: 2239274(O), 2239426 (R)	30. P.L. Murthy Kakatiya Exporters Hyderabad Ph: 23233090
31.Karnati Venkatesham H.W.C.S Gattuppal, Gattuppal (Village) VIA. Nagayanapur Nalgonda Dist Ph: 08681-249057/04024031708/ 9848074537	32. Andey Narasimharao A.P. Chenetha Karmika Samakiya, Mangalagiri, Guntur (Dist) Ph: 235135
33.T.S.N. Reddy Nalgonda	34. Prof. T. Sudhakar Reddy Department O Fine Arts, Andhra University, Vishakapatnam – 530003 Ph: 0891-2525416
35.Dr. P.V. Subba Rao Apcost, 12th Floor, Gagamvihar, Nampalli Hyderabad - 1	36. Dr. A. Venkateswara Rao 1-8-724/33 Padma Colony, Nallakunta, Hyderabad - 44
37. K. Balasubrahmanyam Jilla Chenetha Karmika Samakya Jandrapet – 523 165, Chirala	38. P. Arama Rao Hyaderabad
39. M. Kodandaram 12-13-578, Nagarjuna Nagar, Tarnaka, Secunderabad Ph: 27175353	40. D. Vijaya Kumar Asst. Director (H & T DEPT) O/O regional Deputy Director (H & T) 3RD Floor, APCO Central Office Narayanaguda, HYD
41. Dr. C. Ganesh Department of Sociology Osmania University Hyaderabad – 500007 Ph: 27072967 (R), 27682281 (O)	42. D. Kalpanakumari Chairman of Sangamitra, Bhudhan Pochapally (V & M) Nalgonda Dist Ph: 040-24056501, 08586-222114
43. A. Hari Krishna Row H. No. 3, H.No. 6-3-247 Maheswari Towers Banjara Hills, Road No. 1, Hyaderabad Ph: 23327153 Email: tchyd@vsnl.net.in	44.Vanguri Rajam Pochampalli, Nalgonda Dist
45. Kurapati Babu Pochempalli, Nalgonda Dist	46. G. Sadasiva Rao Pochampalli, Nalgonda Dist
47. M. Sasikala (M.P.T.C Member) Pochampalli, Nalgonda Dist	48. Naresh Kumar Sharma B-22, University of Hyderabad Hyderabad – 500046 Ph: 040-23010868 (O) 040-23010539 (R) Email: nksss@uohyd.ernet.in
49. Prof. M. Jamal Kunji DMC, Vanross Junction Tiruvananthapuram – 34 Ph: 0471-2337553 Email: dmctvm@sancharnet.in	50. Bipul Chatterjee CUTS, D-217 Bhaskar Marg Bani Park, Jaipur – 302016 Ph: 0141-2207482
51. T. Yadagiri 1-5-42/2, Maruthi Nagar, Chaitanyapuri, Dilsuknagar, Hyderabad- 60 Ph: 31009227

3 Suren Tagore Road, 2nd Floor
Calcutta 700 019, India
Ph: 91.33.2460 1424
Fax: 91.33.2440 7669
E-mail: cuts-calcutta@cuts.org

Speaker:
Dr. B. B. Bhattacharya Director Institute of Economic Growth University of Delhi Enclave Delhi – 11007 Ph: 91 11 2766 7260 (O), 2766 7598 Fx: 91 11 2766 7410 Email: bbb@ieg.ernet.in	Mr. D. S. Negi General Manager Small Industries Development Bank of India 10^th & 11^th Floor, Videocon Tower E-1, Rani Jhansi Road Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi 110 055 Ph: 91 11 2368 2463 Fx: 91 11 2368 2461 Email: kesavan@sidbi.com
Dr. Shyam S. Sharma President Trade Alternative Reform Action Projects 148, Sukhdev Vihar Mathura Road New Delhi 110 025 Ph: 91 11 2683 9721/2691 8033/7/8040, 2631 6518 Fx: 91 11 2683 8885 Email: tara.delhi@gems.vsnl.net.in; taraproj@del2.vsnl.net.in	Mr. T. P. Bhat Institute for Studies in Industrial Development Ph: 91 11 2370 2450-1 Fx: 91 11 2370 2448 Email: tpbhat@vidur.delhi.nic.in
Samar Verma Oxfam GB’s India Office B-3, 1^st Floor, Geetanjali Enclave New Delhi-110 017 Ph: 91 11 2651 6481/7, 2652 5135/1971, 2685 6638/89 Ex. 111 Fax: 91 11 2685 6728 Email: sverma@oxfam.org.uk

Oxfam:
1. Sumananjali Mohanty Oxfam (India) Trust 1116, Jaydurga Nagar Jhapada, P. O. Box 170 Bhubaneswar – 751 006 Ph: 091 674 2571531/0485/0278 Fx: 091 674 2571579 Email: smohanty@oxfam.org.uk	2. Ms Monika Singh Oxfam GB Lucknow Oxfam (India) Trust 1-Dilbagh Butler Road Lucknow 226 001 Ph: 091 522 2204783/85 Fx: 091 522 2309712 Email: msingh@oxfam.org.uk
3. Mr. Nishant Pandey Programme Officer Oxfam (India) Trust Plot No. 18, Amaravathi Cooperative Housing Society Near Kausalya Estate Khar Khan Secunderabad – 500 009 Ph: 091 40 2774 1891/2552 6154 Fx: 091 40 2770 9037 Email: npandey@oxfam.org.uk	4. Mr. Anand K. Das Programme Coordinator Market Access Programme Ms. Aditi Kapoor OXFAM GB in India C-5, Qutab Institutional Area New Delhi – 110 016 Ph: 091 11 26516481 (Telefax) 091 11 26516487/26521971 Email: adas@oxfam.org.uk

Regional Partners:
1. Mr. Binu Zachairah Senior Faculty International Centre for Entrepreneurship & Career Development E-1/41, Sterling City, Ahmedabad – 380 058 Ph: 91 79 373 2039/2059/2527 Fx: 91 79 373 2530 Email: mail@icecd.org	2. Mr. Anil K. Singh Founder & Chief Executive Network of Entrepreneurship & Economic Development (NEED) 39, Neel Vihar, Near 14-Sector Power House Indira Nagar, Lucknow – 226 016 Ph: 91 522 271 2671/73, 09415020503 (M) Fx: 91 522 230 2694 Email: need@satyam.net.in
3. Mr. Nirmalendu Jyotishi Regional Centre for Development Cooperation (RCDC) 424, Saheednagar Bhubaneswar – 751 007 Ph: 91 674 251 0985/251 7897 Email: rcdcbbsr@sancharnet.in	4. Mr. D. Narasimha Reddy Cenrte for Resource Education Plot No. 9, First Floor, Zehra House Brig Thyagraj Colony, Near AOC Gate Secunderabad 500 015 Ph: 91 40 2789 5418 Email: creind@hd2.dot.net.in

Target Group:
1. Mr. Prabhakar Adhikari Secretary Pragati, KORAPUT Pulariput, Near Reeti Printers PO/Dost – Koraput – 760 020 Orissa Ph: 91 6852 250241 (O), 250720 (R) Email: pragati24@sancharnet.in, pragatikoraput@sify.com	2. Mr. Peter Bakos Advisor Unnayan HIG-55, Phase I, Kanan Vihar Patia Bhubaneswar Ph: 91 674 2441198/2441112 Email: unnayan89@yahoo.co.in
3. Pravanjan Mohapatra Shristi B-205, Krishna Towers Nayapalli Bhubaneswar Ph: 91 674 2560847 Email: shristi4@rediffmail.com	4. Mr. Mangaraj Prof. Nilamani Sahoo United Artists Association (UAA) PO/Dist – Ganjam Ph: 91 6811 254314
5. Mr. U. C. Pandey Chief Executive AWARD Kanpur Ph: 9415041774 (M)	6. Mr. J. P. Singh Chief Executive AIME Pratapgarh Ph: 91 5343 261007/261008
7. Ms. Alpa Seth Ahmedabad	8. Ms. Jigisha Patel Ahmedabad
9. Mr. Jagroop Singh Councellor ABHIYAN Atarra (Banda) UP

GRANITE Partners:
1. Arun Kumar Mishra Indian National Consumers’ Federation E-5/138, Rajajipuram Lucknow – 226 017 Ph: 91 522 2419785 Email: arunk2@rediffmail.com, abhishek11gunjan@yahoo.com

Local Participants:
1. Dr. S. K. Jain Executive Director National Institute for Entrepreneurship & Small Business Development (NIESBUD) NSIC-PDTC Campus, Okhla Industrial Estate New Delhi – 110 020 Ph: 91 11 2682 6506/6809 Fx: 91 11 2682 6811	2. Mr. Amitabh Mazumdar Director Ph: 9810656230 (M) Ms. Shakuntala Raha Consultant Research Insight Sector 4, Dwarka New Delhi