| Developing countries need to exercise caution during the forthcoming negotiations on agriculture, from September 3rd, 2007. |
| In the Indian context, proposals to progressively reduce tariff levels will narrow the gap between 'bound' and 'applied' tariff rates ('water', in jargon) sharply. Even going by the G20 tariff reduction proposal, which is the least ambitious, the aggregate tariff overhang will fall from 76 percent to 40 percent. |
| In the case of cereals, oilseeds, fruits and vegetable and milk, the gap between applied and bound rates will reduce sharply or even become negative "" while these cover more than 65 per cent of the total value of agricultural output, according to the CSO's National Account Statistics for 2006, they also cover 35 per cent of tariff lines at the 6-digit level. |
 Some would argue that this still affords enough protection. That depends on whether or not the developed world makes the kind of subsidy cuts expected. |
| Reacting to the proposal to cut US farm spending by $13 bn, Tom Harkin, chair of the Senate Agriculture committee said, "If a final Doha round agreement were to reflect these ranges, it would face a difficult road in being approved by the US Congress". |
| Therefore, India should adopt a cautious approach. And any attempt in putting caps on the Special Products (SPs) in terms of specific percentage of tariff lines will ensure India will not be able to protect the interests of farmers. |
| (The author works at ICRIER. The views are personal) |
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
