Case Study On Indian Agriculture
Case Study On Indian Agriculture
Case Study On Indian Agriculture
Agriculture Negotiations
Shishir Priyadarshi
The problem in context
back to top
* Counsellor, Development
Division, World Trade Organization.
The views expressed in this case
study do not reflect those of the
WTO or its members and are
purely an expression of the
authors assessment of decisionmaking processes in India in the
context of the agriculture
negotiations. The study is based on
a number of interviews that he
carried out in July-Aug. 2004. The
author wishes to thank all those
people who agreed to be
interviewed, without whose
valuable inputs and insight this
case study would not have been
possible.
This would show why agriculture is such a key issue for India
in the WTO, and the constraints that were probably factored
in while finalizing the Indian proposal. Additionally, the rural
population in India, which is largely agro-based, has a
political mind of its own, and has the power (and often the
inclination) to prove the political pundits wrong. This was
amply demonstrated in the recently held elections in which
the ruling, and favoured, National Democratic Alliance was
voted out of power, largely because the rural population felt
neglected, and in fact somewhat bypassed, by the much
touted process of economic liberalization. This power which
the rural population wields makes the decision-making
process in agriculture even more sensitive and consequently
subject to even greater political scrutiny.
back to top
Industry
back to top
back to top
During the UR, academic institutions and think tanks did not
feature in the consultative process at all. Since the UR they
have become much more involved, even though this
participation is still somewhat marginal because most of
them do not have the resources needed to conduct a
meaningful analysis. At times, they also lack the sectoral
expertise that the modern multilateral process requires,
something which is not uncommon amongst academic
institutions around the world. However, a number of
institutions and think tanks were consulted during the
drafting of the agriculture proposal. These included the
National Council for Applied Economic Research (NCAER), the
Civil society
back to top
back to top
back to top
proposal.
The ministries also contacted a number of well-known
agricultural scientists. Some very useful suggestions appear to
have come out of these interactions. For instance, M. S.
Swaminathan, one of the most renowned agricultural
economist in India, came up with the suggestion that India
should press for a livelihood box, in which all the countrys
concerns on rural development and poverty alleviation could
be aired.(11) This concept seems to have been taken on
board even though Indias final proposal talks of a food
security box rather than a livelihood box. At the same
time, the policy framers also had to factor in views such as
those expressed by Devinder Sharma, a trade and food policy
analyst who, at that time, wrote that
five years after the World Trade Organization came into
existence, the anticipated gains for India from the trade
liberalization process in agriculture are practically zero.
And yet, undaunted by the negative fallout from the
implementation of the WTOs Agreement on Agriculture,
the Ministry of Agriculture is aggressively pushing for
the second phase of reforms. The entire effort of the
free trade initiative is to destroy the foundations of
food self-sufficiency so assiduously built over the years.
(12)
back to top
Inter-ministerial consultations
back to top
Even though the two key ministries, the MOCI and the MOA,
appear to have initiated the process somewhat
independently, they do seem to have kept each other
involved and informed on developments. Subsequently, the
interaction between the two ministries increased even more
and culminated in what was practically a joint negotiating
proposal. But the path to the final common position was not
all that smooth. Officials from both ministries admitted that
there were at times serious differences on the position
the two ministries wanted to adopt on key issues. R. C. A.
Jain, in trying to explain the reasons for these differences,
said that MOCI, understandably, has a broader perspective
and sees agriculture as one of the sectors being negotiated,
whereas for MOA it was difficult to accept such an approach
as agriculture is a very sensitive sector in which compromises
cannot be made.(15) He also felt that differences arose
because MOCIs mandate was to increase Indias share of
global trade, while MOA wanted to ensure that domestic
production and the livelihood of small farmers was in no way
threatened. A former expert who was closely associated with
the drafting process said that the two ministries were like
the two sides of a convex lens; the inevitability of their
relationship being signified by the two joined ends of the
lens, while the differences amongst them on the approach to
key issues is illustrated by the bulging middle part of the
lens.
State-level consultations
back to top
back to top
back to top
The documented records and the oral interviews that were
conducted clearly show that the Indian proposal on
agriculture was finalized mainly through a bureaucratic
process based on consultations with stakeholders. Julius Sen
has pointed out, in relation to the proposals on WTO issues,
that Indias negotiating positions are almost without
exception recommended by Commerce Ministry officials,
examined by the Committee of Secretaries, and then
approved by the concerned Cabinet sub-committee.(18)
Clearly the process was bureaucratically driven and subject
to fairly wide-ranging domestic consultations. And yet, to
many, the WTO seems to have a significant influence, on both
the process and outcome. The general perception is that the
WTO is pushing the agenda for global economic reform and
that the agriculture negotiations are a part of this WTO-led
reform agenda. Feelings against the WTO are expressed even
more strongly in the context of reductions in tariffs,
especially on agriculture products, which many of the
stakeholders felt would open up domestic markets with
negative implications for rural employment and agriculture
production. The fact that the WTO does not have an
organizational mandate of the kind that the World Bank and
the IMF have, and that it is a completely member-driven
organization, where the agenda is set and executed by the
members on the basis of explicit consensus, does not seem to
be a well known, or an accepted fact. Instead, as Amrita
Narlikar said, the general public seems to have a very
opinionated view of the WTO, and even certain civil society
organizations and other institutions who would be expected
to have a better understanding of the WTO, more often than
not seem to have a negative perception of the organization.
(19) Biswajit Dhar, who writes for a number of newspapers,
also said that because of such a perception it is not always
very easy to take a pro-WTO line in public writings.
A number of reasons were put forward to explain this
perception. The Indian ambassador to the WTO felt that this
was because the general public still regards the WTO as a
developed country club, pushing the agenda at the behest of
the major players and global MNCs.(20) Another, perhaps
more historical, explanation was given by a former official of
the Commerce Ministry, who said that when India signed up
back to top
NOTES:
1.G/AG/NG/W/102,
15
Jan.
2001
back to text
2.- Government of Indias allocation of business orders of
June
2004.
back to text
3.- Unlike most foreign missions, that invariably lobby for
their governments position, there is very little evidence of
Indian embassies abroad performing similar lobbying in the
context of the agriculture negotiations. This could perhaps be
explained by the minimal involvement of the MEA in the
drafting of the agriculture proposal.
back to text
4.- The government of India has designated certain subjects,
including agriculture, as state subjects, which are areas
where the basic and residual authority to legislate has been
delegated to the state governments. Areas such as external
affairs, defence and finance have been placed in the
corresponding list of areas falling within the competence of
the central government. Interestingly, there is also a
concurrent list on which both the central and state
governments
can
legislate.
back to text
5.- Views expressed in a meeting of Chief Ministers convened
in
May
2001.
back to text
6.- Interview with T. S. R. Subramanian, former Cabinet
Secretary, who normally, though not necessarily, is the most
senior civil servant in the country. back to text
7.- Interview with N. Srinivasan, Director-General, CII.
back to text
8.- Interview with Manab Majumdar, Project Leader WTO
Issues,
FICCI.
back to text
9.- Interview with Dr Anil Sharma, Senior Economist, NCAER.
back to text
10.- Interview with Biswajit Dhar, head of the WTO Unit, IIFT.
back to text
11.- As quoted in the 3-16 Feb. 2001 issue of Frontline
Magazine, in which Dr Swaminathan is reported to have made
this suggestion in a convocation address given by him at the
Kerala Agriculture University on 29 Dec. 2000. back to text
12.- Devinder Sharma, WTO and Indian Agriculture: The End
Result
Is
Zero.
back to text
13.Interview
with
Srinivasan.
back to text
14.Interview
with
Majumdar.
back to text
15.- Interview with R. C. A. Jain, former Secretary, Ministry
of
Agriculture.
back to text
16.- Interview with Subramanian, who earlier had also
worked as Joint Secretary in the Trade Policy Division (TPD)
of
the
MOCI.
back to text
17.- Interview with R. Agarwal, former Director of the MOA.
back to text
18.- Interview with Julius Sen, a former Indian administrative
service officer, now an Associate Director and Senior
Programme Adviser at Enterprise LSE, London School of
Economics.
back to text
19.- Interview with Amrita Narlikar, Lecturer in International
Relations at the Centre of International Studies, University of
Cambridge.
back to text
20.- Interview with K. M. Chandrasekhar, Indian ambassador
to
the
WTO.
back to text
21.Interview
with
Jain.
back to text
22.Interview
with
Subramanian.
back to text
23.- Interview with Sharad Pawar, Minister of Agriculture,
Financial
Express,
7
June
2004.
back to text
24.- Interview with Pawar, India Today, 5 July 2004.
back to text