1. Non-Agriculture Market Access(NAMA)  It is widely acknowledged that trade could be an engine of economic growth as well as an effective driver of development Liberalized trade could facilitate this.  The issue is who is to liberalize to benefit whom. It is widely believed that WTO trade talks, negotiations and laws have actually benefitted the developed economies only leaving only peanuts to the developing economies.

2.  It is also claimed that the USA and the European Union (EU) want to gain from trade in primary sector products.  So, this issue was discussed in the Doha round wherein the developed economies focussed their efforts on Non-Agriculture Market Access (NAMA).

3. NAMA calls for liberalization an all natural resources. NAMA proposed to have three elements: 1. General liberalization across a wide range of sectors. 2. Liberalization of “environmental goods” and 3. Removal of non-tariff barriers (NTBs)

4. NAMA proposed to cover all sectors not covered in the earlier round of discussion on agriculture and services negotiations for partial liberalization. Further NAMA would strive for: a) Reducing tariff an industrial products, including reduction or elimination of tariff peaks, high tariffs and tariff escalation, and b) Eliminating (or accelerated reduction of) all tariffs in particular sectors (the so-called sectoral). Based on this, the July 2004 framework was evolved which proposed that (a) product coverage would be comprehensive (without a-priori exclusions); b) tariff reduction was to commence from bound rates; and (c) that all non-ad valorem duties are to be converted to ad valorem equivalents.

5.  It is held that “even if tariff reductions take place from bound rates, tariff reduction commitments are expected to lead to a lowering of Most Favored Nation (MFN) tariffs on those goods, since spread between bound rates and applied rates for most industrial products imported by the developed countries is not significant.  There is also a possibility that tariff reductions (at least for some goods) may take place from the applied rate. The reduction of MFN tariffs under the current NAMA negotiations is likely to have important adverse implications for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in the form of preference erosion”.

6. Preference erosion  Preference erosion is defined as the decrease in the margin between a preferential tariff rate and MFN tariff rate due to multilateral trade liberalization.  In order to provide market access for products from LDCs, the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) schemes were introduced by the western countries.  Although the GSP helped to some extent, it was not fully beneficial to the LDCs as the “Stringent rules of origin” prohibited exports from the LDCs. If NAMA is adopted then preferential treatments, however less utility it may have provided, enjoyed by the LDCs will suffer.

7. Zero-for –zero liberalization  NAMA proposed that “if you remove all your tariff barriers, then I will also do so in our country”. This is called zero-for-zero liberalization.  The important sectors coming under NAMA include fish and fish products, stones, gems and precious metals (gold and diamonds, for example) and primary aluminium.

8. How will it affect fisheries?  About 80% of world marine fish production comes from shallow coastal waters which are overfished. The problem of overfishing is widespread and many marine fish stocks have been overfished for several years.  When the zero-for-zero liberalization is adopted, it will further intensity fishing effort.

9.  The crux of overfishing is over fishing capacity, and if it becomes worse, then all marine fishing will bring complete collapse of marine fish stocks which will adversely affect the livelihood of fisherfolk.  NAMA is also considered to lead to environmental degradation.