ENSURING HEALTHY BUSINESS COMPETITION
Vietnam News, April 06, 2011

Co-operation between the Government's Competition Authority and regulatory bodies in sectors needs to be promoted to ensure a healthy competitive business environment in Vietnam, says Vu Ba Phu, Vietnam Competition Authority (VCA).

He said that although Vietnam's Competition Law was passed in 2004 and took effect one year later, firms, as competitors, were still confused which institutions they should go to when they met competition-related issues.

To promote a fair competitive environment, the sectoral regulators must be independent from business interests or Government influence. Besides regularly reviewing sectoral regulations, the responsibilities between a competition authority and the sectoral regulators also must be clear said Pham Que Anh, Director of the Consumer Unity and Trust Society, Hanoi Resource Centre.

To read more, please follow the link:
http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/Economy/210102/Ensuring-healthy-business-competition.html
http://en.baomoi.com/Info/Ensuring-healthy-business-competition/5/129375.epi

2^nd CUTS-CIRC International Conference
REVIEWING THE GLOBAL EXPERIENCE ON ECONOMIC REGULATION
– A forward looking perspective

April, 18-20, 2011
Venue: Hotel Le Meridien, Windsor Place, Janpath, New Delhi 110001, India

CUTS International alongwith CUTS Institute for Regulation and Competition is organising the 2^nd International Conference, ‘Reviewing the global experience on economic regulation – a forward looking perspective’ in New Delhi from April, 18-20, 2011.

The term ‘regulation’ is associated with such broad usage that its relevance is seen in almost all walks of life. It has, therefore, been classified into various types, one major class being ‘economic regulation’ or regulation that directly affects the number of firms operating in markets, the quantity transacted in each market and shares of participating firms in the transacted amount, and finally, the prices at which these transactions are carried out. While there is a fair bit of consensus on the definition of ‘economic regulation’ there is wide disagreement and confusion about the rationale for such regulation.

This conference would be a humble attempt to forge some agreement on the mentioned issue by putting on display different approaches for rationalising and evaluating regulation as well as defining stakeholder participation in such regulation; and then inviting discussion and debate among students, experts and practitioners with varying perspectives from different parts of the world.

Please find the Agenda of the conference at: http://www.cuts-ccier.org/pdf/Agenda-CONF_Reviewing_Global_Experience_Economic_Regulation.pdf

For further information, please contact:
Vikash Batham, vb@..., +919460707005

Addis Ababa University (Ethiopia) is seeking a suitable person who could teach the course ‘Regulatory Economics and Institutions’. This is one of the courses for our students pursuing MA Program in 'Competition Policy and Regulatory Economics'. A suitable time for the course delivery is during August 2011.

Penn Law Launches “RegBlog” Resource for News, Analysis and Opinion on Regulatory Issues
April 5, 2011

The University of Pennsylvania Law School launched RegBlog, an online resource that provides news, analysis, and opinion on policy developments, regulatory actions, court decisions, and cutting-edge research related to regulation.

The website, www.regblog.org tackles issues such issues as the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation, food safety in an era of global trade, constitutional challenges to health care reform, and governmental transparency.

Each Monday the website publishes a Regulatory Recap which compiles some of the most important regulatory stories from the previous week.

“The website fills a unique need for balanced, penetrating coverage of regulatory issues for the general reader as well as the scholar and practitioner,” said Cary Coglianese, the Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, who directs the Penn Program on Regulation.

RegBlog features guest posts by leading academics and practitioners; initial contributors include Penn Law professors Theodore Ruger and David Skeel, along with Abigail Slater, a senior attorney with the Federal Trade Commission. RegBlog is written and edited by over 20 graduate students and several alumni from across the University of Pennsylvania. 

RegBlog is a project of the Penn Program on Regulation, an interdisciplinary, University-wide program that analyzes regulatory policy problems and alternative strategies for solving them.

COMPETITION WATCHDOG AND SECTOR REGULATORS NEED TO WORK TOGETHER: CCI CHIEF
April 19, 2011, New Delhi

“Competition Commission of India and sector regulators need to develop a functioning coordination mechanism for better regulatory actions given that their boundaries are not fully segmented,” said Dhanendra Kumar, Chairman of the Competition Commission of India. He was speaking at an International Conference on Reviewing the Global Experience on Economic Regulation. The conference is orgnised by CUTS International and CUTS Institute for Regulation & Competition. More than 60 experts from around the world are taking part in deliberations on diverse issues of economic regulation.

Given the complexity of the Indian economy and its political economy factors, there is a greater need for a more inclusive consultation to act and take policy decisions, Kumar added. One of the objectives of the event is to discuss corrective measures that should be integrated into the evolution and integration of regulatory regimes.

Speaking at the opening session, Arun Maira, Member of the Planning Commission highlighted how critical it was for a country like India to effectively implement regulatory policies. “It is important to identify indicators of market failure and do necessary readjustment in the system of economic governance. An effective regulatory mechanism is an essential requirement for that to happen smoothly,” he said.

Frederic Jenny, a judge in the Supreme Court of France and Chairman of OECD’s Competition Committee raised a fundamental question of whether we are better placed to discern market failures than what we did before and highlighted the need for greater consistency across various regulatory policies aimed at achieving similar objectives. He asserted that timing is an important determinant of success of a regulatory decision.

Atiur Rahman, Governor of the Bangladesh Bank stressed on the need to comply with regulatory requirements as lapses in compliance during good times was one of the main reasons for financial crisis.

Delivering the keynote address, Dr. C. Rangarajan, Chairman of the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister of India observed that well-functioning markets and regulatory failures co-exist in a real world. He said that it was critical for governments involved in designing regulatory institutions to be aware of three main objectives of economic regulation which are to promote investment, protect consumers and catalyse efficiency in the production process.

Pradeep Mehta, Secretary General of CUTS International welcomed the delegates and said that the aim of this conference is to stimulate research and thinking among governments and other segments of the policy community on the future agenda of regulatory reforms.

“India, an emerging economy, is witnessing fast-paced changes in demography, per capita income and technology. These changes drive the market dynamics and the consequent issues to be regulated in a very substantial manner. Thereby requiring a regulator to keep in mind not only the issues to be regulated immediately but also those which may arise in 25-20 years from now,” said J S Sarma, Chairman of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. He was speaking on the second day at an International Conference on “Reviewing the Global Experience on Economic Regulation”, orgnised by CUTS International and CUTS Institute for Regulation & Competition. More than 60 experts from around the world are taking part in deliberations on diverse issues of economic regulation. 

The day’s discussion included three contemporary themes: the role of competition law & policy in promoting economic growth, sectoral regulatory experiences from different countries, and the interface between competition and sectoral regulators.

Highlighting the experiences of different countries, Kenneth Davidson, a former antitrust regulator from the US, said that competition law has a complimentary relationship with other economic policies which promote economic liberalization and growth. Further elucidating the theme and from a developing country perspective, Deunden Nikomborirak, Director of Thailand Development Research Institute, said that it is critical for a government to distinguish between firm specific, sector specific and activity specific regulatory policies. She underscored that activity specific support and promotion, such as R&D support, training etc, enhances overall welfare in a country particularly small and medium enterprises. Also it emerged that in order to boost regulatory effectiveness; capacity of consumer groups is an essential pre-condition. Other countries have experimented in and reaped rewards of equipping consumer groups to participate in regulatory process.     

Regulatory issues in natural gas, in the context of India and other countries were discussed amongst issues from other sectors. Devendra Kodwani, a UK-based researcher explained the transformation of the gas market in the UK. During 1948-1986, there was a monopsonist and monopolist market which was sought to be replaced by private market during 1986-1995. However, no restructuring was done. Finally, during 1986-1999 competition was ensured after a lot of efforts that also included litigation in the courts. In India, regulation of natural gas exploration and marketing is fraught with lack of competition and objectivity in regulation of prices etc.

May 6, 2011

Who are NGOs accountable to? This is a question often asked by many along with the allegation that NGOs are self-appointed advocates and unelected bodies claiming more space in the policy discourse than what is rightfully due to them.

NGOs are accountable to their membership; to their development partners; to their auditors and government auditors where their moneys come from government sources and so on. Most importantly, they are accountable to the constituency which they serve.

In order to benchmark NGOs for good practices and norms Credibility Alliance has been accrediting NGOs for many years through a vigorous exercise. Credibility Alliance is a consortium of voluntary organisations committed towards enhancing accountability and transparency in the voluntary sector through good governance.

Some of the NGOs which have been accredited by Credibility Alliance include: GiveIndia (Mumbai); HelpAge India (New Delhi); Partners in Change (New Delhi); DISHA (New Delhi); Blind People's Association (Ahmedabad).

The Jaipur-based Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS International) has just been granted accreditation by Credibility Alliance’s Desirable Norms. The accreditation is valid for five years, i.e. April 29, 2011 to April 28, 2016.

Established in 1983, CUTS International is an international NGO working out of Jaipur, Chittorgarh, Kolkata in India; with affiliates in Lusaka, Zambia; Nairobi, Kenya; Hanoi, Vietnam and Geneva, Switzerland. Broadly, it works on trade, regulatory and governance issues through the tools of research, advocacy and networking.

Since its establishment CUTS International has practiced a high standard of transparency and accountability, which includes putting all its financial statements and ‘projects under a glance’ on its website at: www.cuts-international.org. Such transparency is a rare practice, even among NGOs.

For more details, please contact:
Rajeev D Mathur, Executive Director, CUTS, +919829366116, rdm@...

PRADEEP MEHTA DEFENDS INDIAN CONSUMERS
Le Monde Economie, May 23, 2011

Pierre Jacquet
Chief Economist, Agence française de développement

Pradeep Mehta is an Indian activist and intellectual who has contributed in an original way to the development of his country.

Born in 1948, he devoted his career to a rare form of engagement, in particular by founding, in 1983, a non-governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to consumer protection, CUTS International (Consumer Unity & Trust Society).

An anecdote shows the underlying idea for the creation of CUTS: some of the founders discovered that the matchboxes they used did not contain the indicated number of matches, so they decided to check whether this was a simple manufacturing defect or a systematic deficiency. Therefore, and after going through a number of obstacles, CUTS made it possible to lodge a complaint for dishonest practices.

CUTS thus defends the rights of the poorest and see this as a fundamental contribution to development. The Jaipur-headquartered CUTS has now four other offices in India, as well as representations in Zambia, in Kenya and in Geneva, and employs more than 85 people for a budget of 1,25 million dollars (885 000 euros).

According to the poverty reduction philosophy that moves CUTS, one of the keys to the empowerment of the poor is their access to information about the products, practices and policies implemented to improve their living conditions.

Hence, CUTS founders started by placarding a monthly newspaper on the walls of public places of villages of Rajasthan (in particular the post office, often the only federal institution represented) in order to inform the people about their rights.

ENGINE OF DEVELOPMENT

Currently, CUTS and its founders are major actors of policy-making in India and acknowledged contributors in the debates around competition policy, trade policy and the World Trade Organization.

CUTS in particular created two international centres of excellence dedicated to the promotion of trade and sustainable development (1996), on the one hand, and to competition, investment and economic regulation (2003), on the other hand.

The NGO promotes competition policy as an engine of development outside of India, in particular in Africa, through a programme dedicated to international trade, where the world’s most reputed academics exchange views about the difficulties faced in the multilateral trade negotiations of the Doha Round.

At first sight, CUTS can be considered similar to consumer associations from industrialized countries , which play a crucial role as well in informing and defending consumers. Yet its focus is sometimes different.

Few other consumer organizations are thus committed to advocate competition law, trade liberalization and consumers’ access to imported products, thus associating the effectiveness of social policy to an effectively regulated, competitive economy. All things considered, the experience of CUTS clearly illustrates the role of civil society in designing effective economic policies in an emerging economy where poverty remains widespread.

Pradeep Metha défend les consommateurs indiens
LE MONDE ECONOMIE, 23 May, 2011 

Pierre Jacquet
Chef économiste, Agence française de développement

Pradeep Mehta est un militant et intellectuel indien qui a contribué de manière originale au développement de son pays.

Né en 1948, il a consacré sa carrière à une forme rare d'engagement, notamment en fondant, en 1983, une organisation non gouvernementale (ONG) de protection des consommateurs, CUTS International (Consumer Unity & Trust Society).

Une anecdote témoigne de l'idée prévalant à la création de CUTS : certains des fondateurs découvrirent à l'utilisation que leurs boîtes d'allumettes ne comptaient pas le nombre indiqué, et décidèrent de vérifier s'il s'agissait d'un vice de fabrication ou d'une déficience systématique. CUTS rendit alors possible le dépôt d'une plainte pour pratiques malhonnêtes après avoir surmonté nombre d'obstacles.

CUTS défend ainsi les droits des plus pauvres et conçoit cette action comme une contribution fondamentale au développement. CUTS, dont le siège est à Jaipur, dispose à présent de quatre autres bureaux en Inde, plus des représentations en Zambie, au Kenya ainsi qu'à Genève, et emploie plus de 85 personnes pour un budget de 1,25 million de dollars (885 000 euros).

Selon la philosophie de réduction de la pauvreté qui anime CUTS, l'une des clés de l'émancipation (empowerment) des populations pauvres est leur accès à l'information sur les produits, les pratiques, les politiques mises en oeuvre pour améliorer leurs conditions de vie.

Les fondateurs de CUTS avaient ainsi commencé par créer un journal mensuel placardé sur les murs des lieux publics des villages du Rajasthan (notamment la poste, souvent la seule institution fédérale présente) afin d'informer les populations de leurs droits.

MOTEUR DU DÉVELOPPEMENT

CUTS et son fondateur sont désormais des acteurs majeurs de l'élaboration des politiques publiques en Inde et des contributeurs remarqués aux débats sur la politique de la concurrence, la politique commerciale et l'Organisation mondiale du commerce.

CUTS a notamment créé deux centres internationaux d'excellence consacrés à la promotion du commerce et du développement durable (1996), d'une part, de la concurrence, de la réglementation économique et de l'investissement (2003), d'autre part.

L'ONG promeut la politique de la concurrence comme moteur du développement en dehors de l'Inde, notamment en Afrique, à travers un programme dédié au commerce international, au sein duquel les universitaires les plus renommés du monde entier échangent sur les difficultés rencontrées par la négociation commerciale multilatérale du cycle de Doha.

CUTS peut être à première vue assimilée aux associations de consommateurs des pays industrialisés, qui jouent elles aussi un rôle très important dans l'information et la défense des consommateurs. Mais ses champs d'action sont parfois différents.

Peu d'autres organisations de consommateurs s'emploient ainsi à militer pour le droit de la concurrence, pour la libéralisation du commerce et pour l'accès des consommateurs aux produits importés, associant l'efficacité de la politique sociale à la régulation efficace d'une économie concurrentielle. Au total, l'expérience de CUTS illustre bien, dans un pays émergent où la pauvreté reste très répandue, le rôle de la société civile dans l'élaboration et l'efficacité des politiques économiques.

http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2011/05/23/pradeep-metha-defend-les-consommateurs-indiens_1525900_3232.html 

COMPETITION ENFORCEMENT WEAK
Business Daily, May 3, 2011

Rijit Sengupta

Unprecedented interest and zeal on competition law issues has been noted in African countries over the last decade or so.

A number of countries have adopted laws and some have also established a competition enforcement agency.  However, when it comes to competition enforcement, most African countries still have a long way to go.

A competition enforcement agency’s task is to ensure that markets function in a fair manner - ensuring predictability and stimulating enterprise development on one hand, and on the other promoting consumers’ interests.

Both these outcomes are extremely important from a socio-economic perspective of a country, but are also marred with interference by vested interest groups.

Establishment of socio-economic harmony (in sections of the economy and the population) as expected from effective enforcement of a competition law often goes against the ill conceived notions of such groups.

In order to neutralise or at least minimise the influence of these interest groups, it is important that benefits from competition reforms is communicated to possible ‘friends of competition’ in simple and tangible terms, so that supporters of the competition reforms process outnumber and overpower its detractors.

This was one of the motivations for setting up the Africa Competition Forum (ACF) by a group of competition experts, practitioners, international organisations and donors with field-experience on competition research and enforcement across Africa.

To read more, please follow the link:
http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Opinion+++Analysis/Competition+enforcement+weak/-/539548/1154982/-/g9jdewz/-/

* Nous sommes extrêmement désolés de ne pouvoir traduire ce message en français ; cependant, et étant donné l'intérêt et la qualité des interventions des abonnés francophones sur le forum,  un résumé du sujet du message est disponible en français. L'article intégral peut être lu en anglais.

THE FOREIGN M&A DOMINO EFFECT
Business Standard, June 3, 2011

Pradeep S Mehta

The CCI should be proactive in analysing mergers of international companies that have Indian subsidiaries to check anticompetitive practices

As the Competition Commission of India (CCI) gears up to implement merger regulations from June 1, it should also take a close look at international mergers that can have a potential impact on the Indian market. These mergers may not be happening in India but as a consequence their subsidiaries in India would need to merge because their parents have already married . India is a huge growing economy and thus many international mergers are bound to have an impact on the country.

For instance, in April 2011, the media were awash with news that the US Department of Justice(DoJ) – one of the two competition authorities in the US, the other being the Federal Trade Commission – had approved the acquisition of ITA Software Inc by Google, subject to a few conditions. First, that Google should continue developing ITA’s software products and license them to travel vendors on reasonable terms. Second, to build an internal firewall to prevent Google from gaining access to commercially-sensitive information of travel vendors licensing ITA’s products. And third, it should refrain from entering agreements with airlines that would deprive travel vendors of flight information. These conditions were imposed after the DoJ noted that several competition concerns could arise in the US market if Google takes advantage of its ownership of ITA to engage in anticompetitive behaviour.

Though the US market was protected by the DoJ conditionalities, services for Google and ITA are also offered to Indian customers. Unfortunately, the DoJ prescription cannot prevent Indian consumers from being abused. ITA Software technology is widely used by domestic and international airlines, online and traditional travel agents including those in India. Besides, Indian consumers also travel to the US. This is done in competition with several other agents who can easily find themselves out of business if Google were to unleash its supremacy to force other travel agents, in India and elsewhere, out of business. Indian players thus also need to be protected by the CCI.

Like many competition authorities around the world, the CCI, too, is empowered to take action on mergers that are consummated in other countries, but have effects in India. Section 32 of the Competition Act, 2002 has empowered the CCI to regulate such mergers. The competition authorities were mostly given this power under a concept known as the “effects doctrine”, which acknowledges that anticompetitive outcomes can emanate from behaviour that has its roots outside a country’s borders, hence the need to protect consumers against their likely harmful effects.

Such powers have already been used by other competition authorities to protect domestic consumers from abusive conduct emanating from mergers beyond the geography of focus. In 1997, two US-based aircraft manufacturers – Boeing and McDonnell Douglas – that had obtained approval by the US Department of Justice were informed by the European Commission that they could only go ahead with the merger if some conditions were followed. This despite the fact that the companies were based in the US, outside the European Union (EU). Following the merger, airlines had a choice of only two aircraft manufacturers, the other being the European Airbus Industrie. Like all other countries in the world, India, too, has a limited choice in the range of aircraft that can offer big airplanes.

Similarly, there are many cases in which the CCI could have taken action if it had been operational and willing to use its extraterritorial reach. In 2006, Adidas (the German athletic apparel and the world’s second-largest sports goods maker after Nike) acquired Reebok International (headquartered in the US) in a $3.1 billion deal. Although the transaction was analysed and approved in the EU, there are many countries like India where the two players had some presence through subsidiaries. Conseqently, the market situation became distorted. This was clearly a case of two companies, that were competitors, coming together to reduce the number of players in the market and enhancing market power as well as a possibility for its abuse. Thus the potential anticompetitive effect of this merger in the Indian market was not analysed because the two companies cornered a market they were previously competing for.

In April this year, two pharma giants Alcon and Novartis merged. Although Alcon’s headquarters is in the US, and Novartis is headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, both companies have a presence in India through subsidiaries. It would have been ideal for the CCI to also join in the analysis of this merger while it was being consummated at the parent level, but the merger provisions in India were not in force.

Earlier this year, there were reports that DuPont Denmark Holdings, a subsidiary of DuPont, US had acquired Danisco (headquartered in Copenhagen, Denmark), with the approval of the competition authorities. This was also a merger that the CCI had every right to investigate into using the effects doctrine, given that both companies have subsidiaries in India. In August 2010, the merger between a French oil and gas technology company, Schlumberger International and US-based Smith International was completed. Although the potential for anticompetitive practices were reviewed and the merger was approved by the US and European competition authorities, India was also affected because the two companies had a presence here. Under the effects doctrine, the CCI could have used its extraterritoriality provisions to ensure that potential anticompetitive practices arising from this marriage were analysed, but it was still fighting for notification of its merger provisions.

Although in some cases local subsidiaries could notify the CCI once the parent companies merged, it would be difficult to stop that merger since the companies would already be under the control of a globally-merged entity. This implies that competition authorities have to exercise the extraterritoriality provisions of their law ex ante to deal with a merger while the parent companies are merging rather than dealing with the fated merger of their subsidiaries at a local level. For example, although competition authorities in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe found themselves investigating the Coca Cola Company and Cadbury-Schweppes and the Total and Mobil mergers, confined only to their local level the competition authorities lacked the ability to stop them since their parent companies had already married. They could only impose a few conditions that are still troublesome in some countries.

Although the CCI is yet to launch its merger analysis activity at the local level, there is nothing that can stop it from exercising its mandate in challenging mergers at the global level. Therefore, the CCI should be proactive and exercise vigilance by guarding against global mergers that are likely to impact Indian consumers adversely, and join other competition authorities in investigating these mergers rather than waiting for their local subsidiaries to notify them.

The author is Secretary General, CUTS International. Cornelius Dube of CUTS contributed to this article

This news can also be viewed at:
http://cuts-ccier.org/Article-The_foreign_M&A_domino_effect.htm
or
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/pradeep-s-mehtaforeign-ma-domino-effect/437614/

WORLD LEANS TOWARDS MORE REGULATION
The Hindu Business Line, July 12, 2011

Alok Ray

While regulation is back in favour after the financial crisis, politicians and bureaucrats are not keen on setting up truly independent regulatory bodies.

Mainstream thinking on economic regulation has gone through a cycle. In the 1950s and 1960s, in almost all developing economies, the dominant paradigm for economic development was nationalisation, state planning and regulation of economic activities.

Then, starting from the 70s and especially from the 80s (after Communist China switched towards `market socialism'), deregulation and economic liberalisation (popularly known as `Thatcher-Reaganomics' in the West and `Washington Consensus' in the developing world) started replacing controls and regulations.

Now, after the financial crisis and economic recession hitting the western economies and greater public concern over inequality and environmental degradation, the pendulum is swinging everywhere towards more regulation.

But what are the experiences of different countries with regulation? CUTS International (a Jaipur-based think-tank), in collaboration with the Norwegian Government, recently organised an international conference in New Delhi.

It was a rare meet where theorists, actual regulators and civil society groups from a wide cross-section of countries (including the US, Canada, Australia, the UK, France, Norway, Greece, Mexico, Brazil, Egypt, Kenya, South Africa, China, Thailand, Pakistan, Bangladesh and, of course, India) exchanged notes on their respective experiences.

The author is a former Professor of Economics, IIM, Calcutta.

The full article can be viewed at:
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/article2219106.ece?homepage=true

WORLD LEANS TOWARDS MORE REGULATION
The Hindu Business Line, July 12, 2011

Alok Ray

While regulation is back in favour after the financial crisis, politicians and bureaucrats are not keen on setting up truly independent regulatory bodies.

Mainstream thinking on economic regulation has gone through a cycle. In the 1950s and 1960s, in almost all developing economies, the dominant paradigm for economic development was nationalisation, state planning and regulation of economic activities.

Then, starting from the 70s and especially from the 80s (after Communist China switched towards ‘market socialism'), deregulation and economic liberalisation (popularly known as ‘Thatcher-Reaganomics' in the West and ‘Washington Consensus' in the developing world) started replacing controls and regulations.

Now, after the financial crisis and economic recession hitting the western economies and greater public concern over inequality and environmental degradation, the pendulum is swinging everywhere towards more regulation.

But what are the experiences of different countries with regulation? CUTS International (a Jaipur-based think-tank), in collaboration with the Norwegian Government, recently organised an international conference in New Delhi.

It was a rare meet where theorists, actual regulators and civil society groups from a wide cross-section of countries (including the US, Canada, Australia, the UK, France, Norway, Greece, Mexico, Brazil, Egypt, Kenya, South Africa, China, Thailand, Pakistan, Bangladesh and, of course, India) exchanged notes on their respective experiences.

The author is a former Professor of Economics, IIM, Calcutta.

The full article can be viewed at:
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/article2219106.ece?homepage=true

UNCTAD IGE 2011 – Day One Bulletin

July 19, 2011, Geneva

Bridging the gap between agency and stakeholders cannot be ignored any longer!

The first day of the meeting of the Intergovernmental Group of Expert on Competition Policy and Law (IGE) organised by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), here today was dedicated to discussing two specific aspects of competition enforcement, viz. (i) Foundations of an effective competition agency; and (ii) Effectiveness of capacity building and technical assistance to young competition agencies. A number of points were raised by the speakers and debated at length over the course of the discussions, as has been summarised in the following paragraphs. A number of countries expressed concern about the (very) slow forward movement of their national competition regimes, owing to a host of factors including: lack of political will, inadequate public understanding and support, non-availability of trained human capital, poor visibility of the national competition enforcement agency, etc. Support from international development partners was also either limited or not available. These (and other such factors) made both the evolution and enforcement of competition law and policy an uphill task for these countries, and they were keen to get some guidance on the way forward.

Certain key aspects pertaining to the foundation of an effective competition agency emerged. While some of these aspects have been greatly studied and debated (viz. efficiency, independence, accountability, power, stakeholder engagement); some of the others were new and provided fresh perspectives to the discussion (viz. ethos and value systems, transparency, internal control and risk management). Other more generic topics with regard to organisational management and development such as strategic planning and prioritisation were also highlighted in the context of competition law enforcement, to help young competition authorities overcome the ever-daunting problem of resource constraints. It emerged from the discussions that young competition agencies are confronted with a number of challenges (investigation, information, decisions, penalties) and should make incremental progress in addressing them. Emphasis could be given in the first stage (10 years) of a competition agency’s life, on building up the foundation of the agency, while also (if possible) picking cases that would provide ‘easy wins’, so as to create  public support. It was observed, however, that many agencies did not have the ‘luxury’ to pick and choose cases, as cases would fall on their laps (complaints received from firms, consumers, etc.) and they have to deal with such cases.

Role of internal control was discussed at length, as experts and practitioners highlighted the value of – transparency, communication strategy, risk management systems, human resource management policy and project management skills in competition agencies. In order to achieve all these, high-quality of leadership in a competition agency was critical. Evidence suggested that competition agencies which have invested time and effort in building a consistent and robust internal control system have emerged in the long-run as credible institutions. In addition to internal challenges, competition agencies (especially young competition agencies, and those in developing countries) needed to be aware of challenges posed by the external environment. Typically, in a developing country setting these could be – cultural, socio-political and (vested) interest group related. Competition agencies need to be sincere, intrepid and visible, in order to address some of these external challenges.

Competition enforcement cannot happen in isolation, and therefore needs to be properly integrated in the sphere of public policy. Therefore, in addition to building up the capabilities of the competition agency, it is critical also to focus on the need to mainstream other stakeholders to achieve effectiveness in the competition reforms process. Importance of competition enforcement in the interest of consumers had been highlighted in the inaugural session of this meeting. UNCTAD has consistently maintained that agencies needed to bridge the gap between them and the stakeholders. This gap is often quite wide in a developing country setting, and hence agency effectiveness would depend on the extent to which this gap is reduced.

----- Original Message -----

From: Pradeep S Mehta

To: Competition Online Forum

Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 1:40 PM

Subject: Open Letter from Pradeep Mehta to Supachai Panitchpakdi, on the IGE on Competition Policy, Geneva 19-21 July

Dear Supachai,

 

Greetings!

 

We missed you yesterday the opening session of the UNCTAD IGE on Competition Policy, while your name was mentioned in the agenda. Perhaps other more important things must have come up. Alas, I have a serious complaint about the manner in which I and my colleagues were humiliated and insulted by the head of the Competition and Consumer Policy Branch in public, and therefore this open letter.

 

I alongwith my colleagues at CUTS have been participating and I have also been speaking as panellists during the IGEs and the Review Conferences. Not only that but we have had a very close cooperation with UNCTAD over several years in the areas of trade, competition and investment, including mentioned by name in UNCTAD's documentation several times. You have personally participated in our events in Delhi and elsewhere and have always spoken about us with great respect. Not only that, we enjoy a very high reputation in the field. 

 

Only last month we have also been accredited as Observers, though such an accrediation has never mattered in our work with UNCTAD. On several occasions, UNCTAD has been public about its philosophy of working with the civil society, and this is widely known.

 

At the current IGE our delegation has four representatives from Hanoi, Geneva and Jaipur, including me, and we are here at our own cost.

 

Yesterday in two different sessions, we were not allowed to speak/intervene in the deliberations, and were informed that only government delegates can speak, while NGOs cannot. This is ridiculous as we have always been able to intervene in all such competition-related meetings in the past, what to speak about other UNCTAD meetings.

 

I am not aware of which rule the Secretariat is using to not give us an opportunity. As you may know traditions, conventions and precedents have the force of law, and we cannot be denied an opportunity to speak. This is due to some attitudinal problems of the people involved and a serious matter of discipline, and therefore this reference to you.

 

Looking forward to your valued response, I remain,

 

With kind regards,

 

 

Pradeep S Mehta,
Secretary General, CUTS International, and
Chairman, Mng Committee, CUTS Institute for Regulation & Competition,
D-217, Bhaskar Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur 302 016, India
Ph: 91.141.2282821; Mob: 91.98290.13131; Fx: 91.141.2282485, skype: psm_cuts.
www.cuts-international.org; www.cuts-ccier.org; www.circ.in

 

www.PradeepSMehta.com

 

"IT'S BETTER TO LIGHT A CANDLE THAN CURSE THE DARKNESS" A CHINESE PROVERB
_____________________________________________________________________________
Information contained in any e-mail transmitted from or on behalf of CUTS
are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s) and may be legally
privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorized use. No legally
binding commitments will be created by this E-mail message. CUTS may not be
held responsible for the content of this email as it may reflect the
personal view of the sender and not that of the organisation.

 

 

UNCTAD IGE 2011 – Day Two Bulletin

July 20, 2011, Geneva

IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS BULLETIN IS A CUTS SERVICE AND NOT AN OFFICIAL UNCTAD RELEASE 

Policy coherence an imperative for effective competition enforcement 

“Competition law enforcement does not work in vacuum”- the theme continued on the second day of the UNCTAD IGE 2011. A certain level of coherence between enforcement of competition law and other government policies (consumer protection, trade policy, industrial policy, public procurement policy, sectoral regulation, etc.) should be ensured so that competition law enforcement is effective. Welfare of consumers should remain at the centre of the overall pro-competitive policy framework. 

Advocacy functions of competition authorities have always been highlighted in various international fora as complementary to effective enforcement, and being critical for achieving objectives of a competition law. Such advocacy efforts should include undertaking competition impact assessment of relevant policies; building alliances with and raising awareness of a broad range of stakeholders, including the judiciary; providing independent advices to policymakers (through formal and informal channels); tackling vested interest groups and changing their dynamics so that the merits of competitive markets in bringing about choice, quality, innovation and affordability are brought to the fore.  

During this process, due attention should be paid to conveying the right message to the relevant groups of stakeholders. Such messages should consider the possible trade-off between competition law objectives and other public interest issues, as well as highlighting facts which would eventually ensure greater political buy-in and public support.   

Competition authority officials and experts also discussed and agreed that the role of competition authorities as advocates of pro-competition policy reform should be legislated in domestic competition laws. This would help address some of the problems related to vested interests and crony government behaviour that often undermines competition enforcement in developing countries. The public interest element of competition law enforcement should be highlighted, especially among policymakers, in order for them to consider ‘competition audit’ of relevant market-related policies.  

The distinction between competition policy and competition law is still not widely understood, not only from a conceptual perspective but also from an institutional point of view. It is therefore important for a country embarking on adoption of a competition policy to effectively communicate this distinction and its implications. Countries have realised the value of sensitising Parliamentarians and policymakers on the benefits of a competition policy as a critical step and one that should be done well in advance to drafting of a competition legislation. 

CUTS Views: Sequencing of a Competition Policy and a Competition Law is critical but experience shows that the need for a Policy comes much after the law has been enforced. For example, Australia drafted its Policy much after its law was enforced. India is now drafting a Policy after several years of experience under two different competition laws. There are many other reasons why a developing country competition authority should focus its scarce resources on enforcement rather than advocate with other arms of the Government and not be successful in either functions. 

This year the Serbian competition law is under review by the IGE, despite the fact that this law has only been in place only since 2009. Adoption of a competition law is part of the legal and governance reforms initiated as a part of its accession process into the European Union. The political will of the country in adopting and effectively implementing its competition law, therefore, is fairly high.  

A couple of issues were raised in response to the Serbian competition authority (Serbian Commission for Protection of Competition, SCPC)’s request for advice from the international community at this meeting. One of them was to focus on competition advocacy as a means to gain greater visibility among public institutions. Preference to national supplies in government procurement was one of the areas that needed reforms, it was conveyed.  

Need for policy reforms to facilitate seamless enforcement of a national competition regime, was really the central element of discussion at the IGE, today. Given the uphill task that many competition authorities (especially from the developing world) are likely to face in addressing policy matters (which agencies are often not mandated to do), it would have been better if a few specific case examples of how these have been undertaken by competition agencies/countries could have been discussed in details. Both governments and competition agencies are urgently in need of such advice.

 

Dear Pradeep

 

This is indeed shocking and unacceptable...I am glad you have raised/questioned this...these international fora are increasingly becoming venues for mutual admiration and back scratching by the same group of 'speakers' pretending to represent the broad interests when really they represent themselves or their 'office' only instead of being attentive and receptive to fresh voices and ideas...when I was Advisor, Competition Policy at the World Bank, I ensured the meetings/conferences my group organized included representatives from the public and private sectors, and also NGOs/civil society...and we were all the more richer for that in our work....

 

Look forward to Supachai's reply.

 

Best,

 

Shyam Khemani,
Former Adviser on Competition Policy
The World Bank Group

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Pradeep S Mehta

To: Competition Online Forum

Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 1:40 PM

Subject: Open Letter from Pradeep Mehta to Supachai Panitchpakdi, on the IGE on Competition Policy, Geneva 19-21 July

Dear Supachai,

 

Greetings!

 

We missed you yesterday the opening session of the UNCTAD IGE on Competition Policy, while your name was mentioned in the agenda. Perhaps other more important things must have come up. Alas, I have a serious complaint about the manner in which I and my colleagues were humiliated and insulted by the head of the Competition and Consumer Policy Branch in public, and therefore this open letter.

 

I alongwith my colleagues at CUTS have been participating and I have also been speaking as panellists during the IGEs and the Review Conferences. Not only that but we have had a very close cooperation with UNCTAD over several years in the areas of trade, competition and investment, including mentioned by name in UNCTAD's documentation several times. You have personally participated in our events in Delhi and elsewhere and have always spoken about us with great respect. Not only that, we enjoy a very high reputation in the field. 

 

Only last month we have also been accredited as Observers, though such an accrediation has never mattered in our work with UNCTAD. On several occasions, UNCTAD has been public about its philosophy of working with the civil society, and this is widely known.

 

At the current IGE our delegation has four representatives from Hanoi, Geneva and Jaipur, including me, and we are here at our own cost.

 

Yesterday in two different sessions, we were not allowed to speak/intervene in the deliberations, and were informed that only government delegates can speak, while NGOs cannot. This is ridiculous as we have always been able to intervene in all such competition-related meetings in the past, what to speak about other UNCTAD meetings.

 

I am not aware of which rule the Secretariat is using to not give us an opportunity. As you may know traditions, conventions and precedents have the force of law, and we cannot be denied an opportunity to speak. This is due to some attitudinal problems of the people involved and a serious matter of discipline, and therefore this reference to you.

 

Looking forward to your valued response, I remain,

 

With kind regards,

 

 

Pradeep S Mehta,
Secretary General, CUTS International, and
Chairman, Mng Committee, CUTS Institute for Regulation & Competition,
D-217, Bhaskar Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur 302 016, India
Ph: 91.141.2282821; Mob: 91.98290.13131; Fx: 91.141.2282485, skype: psm_cuts.
www.cuts-international.org; www.cuts-ccier.org; www.circ.in

 

www.PradeepSMehta.com

 

"IT'S BETTER TO LIGHT A CANDLE THAN CURSE THE DARKNESS" A CHINESE PROVERB
_____________________________________________________________________________
Information contained in any e-mail transmitted from or on behalf of CUTS
are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s) and may be legally
privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorized use. No legally
binding commitments will be created by this E-mail message. CUTS may not be
held responsible for the content of this email as it may reflect the
personal view of the sender and not that of the organisation.

 

 

UNCTAD IGE 2011 – Final Day (Three) Bulletin

July 21, 2011, Geneva 

IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS BULLETIN IS A CUTS SERVICE AND NOT AN OFFICIAL UNCTAD RELEASE 

Striking a balance between cooperation and confidentiality is key to partnerships 

The final day of this year’s Intergovernmental Group of Experts on Competition Law and Policy (UNCTAD IGE) meeting was dedicated to discussing the issue of ‘Cooperation on Competition Enforcement’. Given that a large number of young competition authorities and those in many developing countries lack experience in competition enforcement – cooperation with more experienced competition enforcement agencies would be extremely useful for enhancing their effectiveness. 

A number of issues need to be borne in mind, while developing a cooperation programme, and a fundamental question to be asked at the outset is - why does cooperation matter? Striking a balance between cooperation and confidentiality is a critical determinant of the effectiveness of a cooperation framework, when tackling cases. Further, achieving the right blend of formal and informal modes of cooperation is necessary, as sometimes it is easier to have informal modes of cooperation rather than entering into a formal cooperation agreement. Building mutual trust and working relationship are the right recipes for a successful cooperation framework, irrespective of whether such cooperation is between agencies from a developed or a developing country. 

Experiences from existing networks (like the International Competition Network, European Competition Network, etc.) show that cooperation on competition enforcement knowledge at the regional level has been fairly successful in the areas of cartel enforcement and merger control. Many jurisdictions have developed ‘leniency programmes’ to facilitate cartel-busting. In case of cartels involving multiple jurisdictions, conflicts in leniency provisions could potentially dampen such cooperation.   

Many members of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) region have integrated elements of cooperation in their respective competition legislations, and have been working towards implementing such cooperation arrangements as well. Zambia, South Africa and Zimbabwe are some such examples. Similarly, members of the West Africa Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) have attempted to forge such cooperation through a ‘consultative committee on competition’ whose members are officials from the competition agencies of each member state. In Latin America, similarly cooperation among competition agencies has been operationalised under the COMPAL programme implemented by UNCTAD.   

The following issues are some of the salient points of the conclusion formally adopted by the IGE 2011 (Eleventh Session):

• Competition policy and law is one of the key instruments for addressing globalization, and enhancing benefits of trade and investment
• Enabling environment for competition and development may include both national competition policies and international cooperation on competition (for cross-border anti-competitive practices)
• Need to strengthen UNCTAD’s work on competition policy and law to enhance its development role and impacts
• High level of participation in written and oral forms by competition agencies, academia, NGOs and business community registered in this IGE (Eleventh Session, 2011)
• Satisfaction with the growing cooperation with the OECD, ICN and regional institutions
• Three roundtables were suggested to be organized in the next (Twelfth Session, 2012) of the IGE, viz., (i) competition policy and public procurement, (ii) knowledge and HR management for effective competition enforcement, and (iii) cross-border anti-competitive practices
• Recommendation to conduct voluntary peer review of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe for the next session (Twelfth Session, 2012) of the IGE
• Expressed gratitude for the continued support provided by bilateral and multilateral donors 

One of positive features of this session of the UNCTAD IGE (2011) was the high degree of participation by competition enforcement agencies from African, Asian and Latin American countries – which really brought to the fore a large number of critical challenges on the ground faced by these agencies – and the need for international organisations and development partners to make efforts to address them.  

Points to ponder: 

However, NGOs were not allowed to participate in the discussions due to an archaic rule of conducting business, though in practice NGOs have been very active participants in various events and programmes of UNCTAD, even beyond competition issues. In the case of competition issues, the engagement of civil society can be hugely beneficial to the cause. This was reiterated in various sessions by competition agencies. 

The final declaration however seems to have missed out reference to the interface of competition policy with consumer protection, an issue which was raised on the 1^st day of meeting. This was a recommendation of the 6^th Review Conference on Competition Policy held in Geneva in November, 2010. The significance of the UN Guidelines on Consumer Protection, 1985 was not brought up in this regard, even though the Branch is mandated to work on both Competition and Consumer Policy issues. 

One of the major activities at such conferences is networking in the lobbies and other smaller structured or unstructured side meetings, which are hugely valuable.

 

That is what the CUTS delegation was doing at the UNCTAD IGE meeting, other than reporting about it through the three days. Many really appreciated the crisp three bulletins, as the official bulletin, whenever it comes out, may not be as reader-friendly or candid.

 

Following this protest, on the 2nd day morning, even though we did not ask for the floor, the Chair invited CUTS to speak for two minutes and simultaneously asked the audience if they do not have an objection. Quite naturally, we regretted the opportunity to speak, while thanking the chair. Probably the Branch wanted to put on record that we were asked to speak, but not say that we did not ask for it. And the official record wrongly says that NGOs participated in the meeting, when none did. Many government delegates came up to sympathise with us at the lunch break.

 

Few more relevant points:

 

1. The Chair is mostly an elected person from one of the government delegations, who is 'guided' by the Sectt staff, sitting next to him/her, rather than assisted as to who should be invited, in  which order and so on. The Chair is not assisted by the Sectt staff, and does not use his/her own wisdom or discretion, which is tragic. Secondly, the Chair rarely interrupts a speaker who may be taking more than the alotted time or speaking off the track, not because s/he does not want to, but only when prompted by the Sectt staff. This was shared with me by two delegates, who had chaired such sessions.

 

2. On substance, UNCTAD has been stating loudly on every possible occasion, including on their website, that working with civil society is a sine qua non, because that helps the cause hugely. For e.g. this IGE had a session on Agency Effectiveness, where only govt delegates spoke, sympathised with and patted each other on their backs. Would it not have been enriching to ask CUTS to share the civil society's views as we and our civil society partners have hands on experience of working on competition law issues in nearly 30 developing countries of the world. UNCTAD's Competition & Consumer Policy Branch know about this and have been participating in most of our project meetings, at CUTS's cost.

 

I trust readers can appreciate our huge agony and hurt, when we were treated like some second-class outcaste citizens reminding us of the horrible apartheid regime in South Africa.

 

Pradeep S Mehta

 

----- Original Message -----

From: rskhemani@...

To: scottjacobs@...

Cc: psm@...

Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 8:53 PM

Subject: Re: [CompetitionOnlineForum] Re: Open Letter from Pradeep Mehta to Supachai Panitchpakdi, on the IGE on Competition Policy, Geneva 19-21 July

DITTO....DITTO....some meetings sound like tired talking nodding heads (if not dozing in sessions) and/or repetitive broken records,,,,,wonder if the attendees would come so regularly and eagerly if the meetings were held in other than Paris and Geneva or other western capitals and held say in Patna or in Dhaka or Lagos.....no insult intended to these cities but lets face it there are no Michelin restaurants....bet they would never go to Riyadh....too dry

Cheers

Shyam

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Jacobs <scottjacobs@...>
To: rskhemani@...; 'Competition Online Forum' <competitiononlineforum@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Jul 21, 2011 8:09 am
Subject: RE: [CompetitionOnlineForum] Re: Open Letter from Pradeep Mehta to Supachai Panitchpakdi, on the IGE on Competition Policy, Geneva 19-21 July

Dear Pradeep,

 

                I have noticed the same trend in regulatory reform conferences – highly staged and pre-arranged panels and speakers who present the same speeches at conference after conference – and less participation by outside voices such as the private sector, NGOs, and think tanks. We have stopped attending certain international conferences because they became irrelevant and boring self-congratulations without much real scrutiny or accountability for what is being said.

 

                I pity those people who attend these conferences for the first time, and do not have the background to properly assess the value of what they are hearing.

 

Best wishes,

Scott

 

________________________________

Scott Jacobs, Managing Director

Jacobs and Associates

Leaders in regulatory reform and better business environments

www.regulatoryreform.com

Tel: 1 202 415 4525

 

 

From: CompetitionOnlineForum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CompetitionOnlineForum@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rskhemani@...
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 3:25 AM
To: Competition Online Forum
Subject: [CompetitionOnlineForum] Re: Open Letter from Pradeep Mehta to Supachai Panitchpakdi, on the IGE on Competition Policy, Geneva 19-21 July

 

Dear Pradeep

 

This is indeed shocking and unacceptable...I am glad you have raised/questioned this...these international fora are increasingly becoming venues for mutual admiration and back scratching by the same group of 'speakers' pretending to represent the broad interests when really they represent themselves or their 'office' only instead of being attentive and receptive to fresh voices and ideas...when I was Advisor, Competition Policy at the World Bank, I ensured the meetings/conferences my group organized incl uded representatives from the public and private sectors, and also NGOs/civil society...and we were all the more richer for that in our work....

 

Look forward to Supachai's reply.

 

Best,

 

Shyam Khemani,
Former Adviser on Competition Policy
The World Bank Group

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Pradeep S Mehta

To: Competition Online Forum

Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 1:40 PM

Subject: Open Letter from Pradeep Mehta to Supachai Panitchpakdi, on the IGE on Competition Policy, Geneva 19-21 July

 

Dear Supachai,

 

Greetings!

 

We missed you yesterday the opening session of the UNCTAD IGE on Competition Policy, while your name was mentioned in the agenda. Perhaps other more important things must have come up. Alas, I have a serious complaint about the manner in whi ch I and my colleagues were humiliated and insulted by the head of the Competition and Consumer Policy Branch in public, and therefore this open letter.

 

I alongwith my colleagues at CUTS have been participating and I have also been speaking as panellists during the IGEs and the Review Conferences. Not only that but we have had a very close cooperation with UNCTAD over several years in the areas of trade, competition and investment, including mentioned by name in UNCTAD's documentation several times. You have personally participated in our events in Delhi and elsewhere and have always spoken about us with great respect. Not only that, we enjoy a very high reputation in the field. 

 

Only last month we have also been accredited as Observers, though such an accrediation has never mattered in our work with UNCTAD. On several occasions, UNCTAD has been public about its philosophy of working with the civil society, and this is widely known.

 

At the current IGE our delegation has four representatives from Hanoi, Geneva and Jaipur, including me, and we are here at our own cost.

 

Yesterday in two different sessions, we were not allowed to speak/intervene in the deliberations, and were informed that only government delegates can speak, while NGOs cannot. This is ridiculous as we have always been able to intervene in all such competition-related meetings in the past, what to speak about other UNCTAD meetings.

 

I am not aware of which rule the Secretariat is using to not give us an opportunity. As you may know traditions, conventions and precedents have the force of law, and we cannot be denied an opportunity to speak. This is due to some attitudinal problems of the people involved and a serious matter of discipline, and therefore this reference to you.

 

Looking forward to your valued response, I remain,

 

With kind regards,

 

 

Pradeep S Mehta,
Secretary General, CUTS International, and
Chairman, Mng Committee, CUTS Institute for Regulation & Competition,
D-217, Bhaskar Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur 302 016, India
Ph: 91.141.2282821; Mob: 91.98290.13131; Fx: 91.141.2282485, skype: psm_cuts.
www.cuts-international.org; www.cuts-ccier.org; www.circ.in

 

www.PradeepSMehta.com

 

"IT'S BETTER TO LIGHT A CANDLE THAN CURSE THE DARKNESS" A CHINESE PROVERB
_____________________________________________________________________________
Information contained in any e-mail transmitted from or on behalf of CUTS
are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s) and may be legally
privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorized use. No legally
binding commitments will be created by this E-mail message. CUTS may not be
held responsible for the content of this email as it may reflect the
personal view of the sender and not that of the organisation.

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Pradeep S Mehta

To: Competition Online Forum

Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 1:40 PM

Subject: Open Letter from Pradeep Mehta to Supachai Panitchpakdi, on the IGE on Competition Policy, Geneva 19-21 July

Dear Supachai,

 

Greetings!

 

We missed you yesterday the opening session of the UNCTAD IGE on Competition Policy, while your name was mentioned in the agenda. Perhaps other more important things must have come up. Alas, I have a serious complaint about the manner in which I and my colleagues were humiliated and insulted by the head of the Competition and Consumer Policy Branch in public, and therefore this open letter.

 

I alongwith my colleagues at CUTS have been participating and I have also been speaking as panellists during the IGEs and the Review Conferences. Not only that but we have had a very close cooperation with UNCTAD over several years in the areas of trade, competition and investment, including mentioned by name in UNCTAD's documentation several times. You have personally participated in our events in Delhi and elsewhere and have always spoken about us with great respect. Not only that, we enjoy a very high reputation in the field. 

 

Only last month we have also been accredited as Observers, though such an accrediation has never mattered in our work with UNCTAD. On several occasions, UNCTAD has been public about its philosophy of working with the civil society, and this is widely known.

 

At the current IGE our delegation has four representatives from Hanoi, Geneva and Jaipur, including me, and we are here at our own cost.

 

Yesterday in two different sessions, we were not allowed to speak/intervene in the deliberations, and were informed that only government delegates can speak, while NGOs cannot. This is ridiculous as we have always been able to intervene in all such competition-related meetings in the past, what to speak about other UNCTAD meetings.

 

I am not aware of which rule the Secretariat is using to not give us an opportunity. As you may know traditions, conventions and precedents have the force of law, and we cannot be denied an opportunity to speak. This is due to some attitudinal problems of the people involved and a serious matter of discipline, and therefore this reference to you.

 

Looking forward to your valued response, I remain,

 

With kind regards,

 

 

Pradeep S Mehta,
Secretary General, CUTS International, and
Chairman, Mng Committee, CUTS Institute for Regulation & Competition,
D-217, Bhaskar Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur 302 016, India
Ph: 91.141.2282821; Mob: 91.98290.13131; Fx: 91.141.2282485, skype: psm_cuts.
www.cuts-international.org; www.cuts-ccier.org; www.circ.in

 

www.PradeepSMehta.com

 

"IT'S BETTER TO LIGHT A CANDLE THAN CURSE THE DARKNESS" A CHINESE PROVERB
_____________________________________________________________________________
Information contained in any e-mail transmitted from or on behalf of CUTS
are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s) and may be legally
privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorized use. No legally
binding commitments will be created by this E-mail message. CUTS may not be
held responsible for the content of this email as it may reflect the
personal view of the sender and not that of the organisation.

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: barbara.casassus@...

To: Competition Online Forum

Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 3:39 PM

Subject: [CompetitionOnlineForum] Re: Open Letter from Pradeep Mehta to Supachai Panitchpakdi, on the IGE on Competition Policy, Geneva 19-21 July

 

UNCTAD PROCEDURE SPARKS CONTROVERSY AS NGOs ARE PRECLUDED FROM SPEAKING

Paris, July 22, 2011

A row has broken out over procedure at a meeting of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development intergovernmental group of experts (IGE) on Competition Policy in Geneva on July 19.

Pradeep Mehta, secretary-general of CUTS International and chairman of the CUTS Institute for Regulation & Competition management committee, has written a furious open letter to UNCTAD secretary-general Supachai Panitchpakdi, complaining that he and his three colleagues from Geneva, Jaipur and Hanoi were banned from speaking by the secretariat.

“In two different sessions, we were not allowed to intervene in the deliberations, and were informed that only government delegates can speak, while [nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)] cannot,” Mehta said. “This is ridiculous, as we have always been able to intervene in all such competition-related meetings.”

Although there is a rule preventing NGOs from speaking, “traditions, conventions and precedents have the force of law, and [so] we cannot be denied an opportunity to speak,” he added. CUTS became an UNCTAD observer in June.

Mehta noted that he and his CUTS colleague have attended and served as panelists at IGE meetings and Review Conferences for years, and said they were “humiliated and insulted” by the head of the UNCTAD Competition and Consumer Policy branch, Hassan Qaqaya in front of the meeting.

Mehta told BNA on July 20 that he considered the offer by IGE conference secretary Arkady Sarkissov to raise questions approved by the meeting as “adding insult to injury,” and said that the delegation declined to speak when it was called upon to do so.

By

Barbara Casassus

Antitrust & Trade Regulation Report

----- Original Message -----

From: Pradeep S Mehta

To: Competition Online Forum

Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 1:40 PM

Subject: Open Letter from Pradeep Mehta to Supachai Panitchpakdi, on the IGE on Competition Policy, Geneva 19-21 July

Dear Supachai,

 

Greetings!

 

We missed you yesterday the opening session of the UNCTAD IGE on Competition Policy, while your name was mentioned in the agenda. Perhaps other more important things must have come up. Alas, I have a serious complaint about the manner in which I and my colleagues were humiliated and insulted by the head of the Competition and Consumer Policy Branch in public, and therefore this open letter.

 

I alongwith my colleagues at CUTS have been participating and I have also been speaking as panellists during the IGEs and the Review Conferences. Not only that but we have had a very close cooperation with UNCTAD over several years in the areas of trade, competition and investment, including mentioned by name in UNCTAD's documentation several times. You have personally participated in our events in Delhi and elsewhere and have always spoken about us with great respect. Not only that, we enjoy a very high reputation in the field. 

 

Only last month we have also been accredited as Observers, though such an accrediation has never mattered in our work with UNCTAD. On several occasions, UNCTAD has been public about its philosophy of working with the civil society, and this is widely known.

 

At the current IGE our delegation has four representatives from Hanoi, Geneva and Jaipur, including me, and we are here at our own cost.

 

Yesterday in two different sessions, we were not allowed to speak/intervene in the deliberations, and were informed that only government delegates can speak, while NGOs cannot. This is ridiculous as we have always been able to intervene in all such competition-related meetings in the past, what to speak about other UNCTAD meetings.

 

I am not aware of which rule the Secretariat is using to not give us an opportunity. As you may know traditions, conventions and precedents have the force of law, and we cannot be denied an opportunity to speak. This is due to some attitudinal problems of the people involved and a serious matter of discipline, and therefore this reference to you.

 

Looking forward to your valued response, I remain,

 

With kind regards,

 

 

Pradeep S Mehta,
Secretary General, CUTS International, and
Chairman, Mng Committee, CUTS Institute for Regulation & Competition,
D-217, Bhaskar Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur 302 016, India
Ph: 91.141.2282821; Mob: 91.98290.13131; Fx: 91.141.2282485, skype: psm_cuts.
www.cuts-international.org; www.cuts-ccier.org; www.circ.in

 

www.PradeepSMehta.com

 

"IT'S BETTER TO LIGHT A CANDLE THAN CURSE THE DARKNESS" A CHINESE PROVERB
_____________________________________________________________________________
Information contained in any e-mail transmitted from or on behalf of CUTS
are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s) and may be legally
privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorized use. No legally
binding commitments will be created by this E-mail message. CUTS may not be
held responsible for the content of this email as it may reflect the
personal view of the sender and not that of the organisation.