6. (b) Examine the implications for India due to agreements on agriculture that are signed under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 1995.

Three Pillars of the AoA and India's Commitments

The AoA is structured around three main pillars, each with specific provisions impacting India:

1. Market Access: This pillar aimed to convert all non-tariff barriers (like quotas) into tariffs (tariffication) and reduce these tariffs.
   • Implications for India: India, due to balance of payment reasons, initially maintained quantitative restrictions. It bound its primary agricultural products at 100%, processed foods at 150%, and edible oils at 300%. While this provided some protection, the general push for tariff reduction exposed Indian farmers to increased competition from cheaper imports, particularly after the removal of quantitative restrictions. This led to concerns about "dumping" and potential harm to domestic producers.
   • Challenges: Increased imports of certain commodities posed a threat to the livelihoods of small and marginal farmers. India has consistently advocated for mechanisms like the Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) to protect its farmers from import surges and price declines.
2. Domestic Support: This pillar classifies domestic subsidies into "boxes" based on their trade-distorting potential, mandating reduction commitments for trade-dististorting subsidies.
   • Amber Box: Subsidies considered trade-distorting (e.g., Minimum Support Price - MSP, input subsidies for fertilisers, seeds, electricity). Developing countries, including India, are allowed to maintain these up to 10% of the value of their agricultural production (the *de minimis* level). India's extensive public procurement programs, like MSP, have often faced scrutiny under these rules.
   • Blue Box: Subsidies linked to production-limiting programs, considered less trade-distorting. Few countries currently use these.
   • Green Box: Non-trade-distorting or minimally distorting subsidies (e.g., agricultural research, pest and disease control, environmental protection, domestic food aid, disaster relief). These are permitted without limits. India has leveraged Green Box provisions to provide support through extension services, infrastructure development, and other non-price support measures.
   • Implications for India: The calculation of Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) under the AoA has been a contentious issue. India argues that its MSP system, crucial for farmer welfare and food security, is often perceived as exceeding the *de minimis* limit due to an outdated external reference price (1986-88). This puts pressure on India to reduce vital farmer support. India, along with other developing countries, has sought a permanent solution for public stockholding for food security purposes, aiming to exempt it from subsidy reduction commitments.
3. Export Subsidies: This pillar aimed to reduce or eliminate subsidies that directly promote agricultural exports.
   • Implications for India: Developed countries were required to reduce export subsidies by 36% (value) and 21% (volume) over six years, while developing countries had milder commitments (24% value, 14% volume over ten years). The 2015 Nairobi Package significantly advanced this, committing to abolish export subsidies on farm exports. Developed countries were to eliminate them immediately, while developing countries had until 2018 (with flexibility for marketing and transport costs until 2023). This potentially created a more level playing field for Indian agricultural exports by reducing unfair competition from subsidized products of developed nations.

Key Challenges and Concerns for India

India's journey under the AoA has been marked by several persistent challenges:

• Food Security vs. Trade Rules: India's public stockholding programs (PDS) for food security are often seen as trade-distorting under the AoA, creating a dilemma between international obligations and the fundamental need to feed its large population. India advocates for a permanent solution that exempts such programs from subsidy reduction.
• Disproportionate Subsidies by Developed Nations: Developed countries continue to provide substantial domestic support, often through Green Box measures, which, despite being "non-trade-distorting" in theory, can still influence global markets and make it harder for Indian farmers to compete. India and China jointly highlighted in a 2017 paper that developed nations cornered 90% of farm subsidy entitlements, amounting to $160 billion annually.
• Market Access Barriers: Despite tariff reductions, non-tariff barriers, including stringent Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) standards and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), continue to hinder Indian agricultural exports.
• Impact on Farmer Livelihoods: Increased competition from imports and pressure to reduce domestic support can negatively impact the incomes of small and marginal farmers, who form the backbone of Indian agriculture.

Opportunities and India's Stance

Despite the challenges, the AoA also presented opportunities and shaped India's negotiating positions:

• Export Potential: With reduced global trade barriers, India, with its diverse agricultural produce, could potentially increase its agricultural exports. However, this potential has been hampered by various factors.
• Advocacy for Developing Countries: India has emerged as a strong voice for developing countries, advocating for "Special and Differential Treatment" and emphasizing food security as a sovereign right. It played a crucial role in the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) discussions, pushing for significant cuts in trade-distorting subsidies by developed countries and a permanent solution for public stockholding.
• Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM): India has consistently demanded the implementation of an SSM, which would allow developing countries to temporarily raise tariffs on agricultural products in response to import surges or price declines, protecting domestic farmers.

Evolution of Negotiations and India's Position

The AoA has been subject to ongoing negotiations, with India actively participating:

Event/Phase	Key Outcome/India's Stance	Implications for India
Uruguay Round (1986-1994) & AoA (1995)	Established 3 pillars (Market Access, Domestic Support, Export Subsidies). Developing countries had milder reduction commitments.	Initial optimism for market access but also concerns about increased competition and subsidy pressures. India's commitments were relatively modest initially.
Doha Development Agenda (2001 onwards)	Aimed at further liberalising trade with a focus on developing country concerns. Negotiations stalled over agriculture.	India strongly advocated for reducing developed countries' trade-distorting subsidies and a permanent solution for public stockholding for food security. Stalled talks meant continued uncertainty.
Bali Ministerial Conference (2013)	Introduced the 'Peace Clause' allowing developing countries to exceed subsidy limits for food security without penalty, pending a permanent solution.	Temporary relief for India's public stockholding programs, but not a permanent solution. Highlighted the ongoing tension.
Nairobi Ministerial Conference (2015)	Decision to eliminate export subsidies for agricultural products. Adopted a decision on SSM for developing countries, committing to continued negotiations.	Positive step towards fairer export competition. India secured re-affirmative Ministerial Decision on Public Stockholding and recognition of the right to SSM, but permanent solutions remained elusive.

India's strategy has been to balance its trade liberalisation commitments with the imperative of safeguarding its food security and the livelihoods of its millions of farmers. This often involves taking a firm stand against developed nations' persistent high subsidies and advocating for policy space for developing countries.