Need for stronger agricultural policy intervention stressed

Agricultural growth declined post-WTO

Getting concessions on freight and marketing subsidies allowed within the World Trade Organisation (WTO) framework rather than working on direct export subsidy and, the right to have countervailing duty to match export subsidy of developed countries, can be one of the alternatives to negotiate with at the WTO, said Suresh Chandra Babu of the International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington.

The countervailing duty would ensure enough compensation for the loss of potential export markets, he said.

Suresh Babu was making a presentation on 'WTO and domestic market reforms in South Asia - Implications for AP agriculture' at the Dr Marri Chenna Reddy Human Resource Development Institute of Andhra Pradesh here on Tuesday.

Speaking at the programme on 'WTO implications for agriculture sector in AP' organised under the aegis of Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, to strengthen the policy understanding of key decision-makers, Babu said that agriculture policy making was more complex as compared with other policy making and emphasised that a stronger and effective policy intervention was necessary.

N Raghuveera Reddy, minister for agriculture in his introductory remarks said that the economy as a whole was growing in all the Saarc (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) countries at faster rate after the WTO regime but agriculture growth has rapidly declined during post-WTO period.

Reddy was referring to the South Asia Regional Conference on 'Globalisation of Agriculture' held in the state in March this year.

A K Parida, director-general, MCRHRD Institute, in his welcome address said that 70 per cent of the population who depended on agriculture for their livelihood had been growing at a mere 1-1.5 per cent while other sectors grew at 6-7 per cent, post WTO. This meant that the benefits of globalisation had not percolated to the rural people, he said.

Speaking at length on the WTO and what it means for the agriculture sector, Babu said that India was a signatory to WTO and hence international policies cannot be separated from domestic policies.

The Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) though unfair to developing countries, the need of the hour was to look at the complex issue of what we can give to the international market and thereby put our demands at the negotiating table at WTO, which will in turn benefit our farmers, he said.

Access to markets outside India which are ready to import, domestic support in the form of product specific and non-product specific subsidies and gearing up to meet export competition are the key issues to be understood within the framework of the WTO agreement to arrive at negotiable solutions and for evolving a policy that is beneficial to the farmer.

Speaking about the domestic support, he said that while the total aggregate measure of support (AMS), which includes both product specific and non-product specific subsidies, is higher in developed countries, it was actually lower than the 5 per cent specified, in India. He mentioned that the input subsidies formed roughly 2 per cent of the GDP.

A Janaiah, senior scientist, National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy research (NCAP) said that while agriculture was a state subject, international trade was a Union subject and hence there was a need to bring agriculture from the state list to the concurrent list.

Senior officials and heads of various departments from various districts and mandals of the state participated in the programme.