Impact Of Wto Agreement On Agriculture

Agriculture is the oldest culture in all of human civilization. The history of agriculture in India goes back ten thousand years. The WTO succeeds the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), established in 1947. GaTT held a total of eight rounds. The WTO agreement on agriculture, known as the “international treaty,” was one of the largest agreements negotiated during the Uruguay Round, involving a total of 123 countries. The objectives of WTO legislation are to promote free and liberal trade. But there has been widespread abuse of this concept. Exporting countries have begun to sell their products to importing countries, which has posed a serious threat to the economies of developing countries, particularly to India`s agriculture. The member transparency toolkit contains information on notification formats and a reporting manual, as well as links to members` lists with commitments and other resources to support member transparency in the agricultural sector. WTO members have taken steps to reform the agricultural sector and address high subsidies and trade barriers that distort agricultural trade.

The overall goal is to establish a fairer trading system that improves market access and improves the livelihoods of farmers around the world. The WTO Agreement on Agriculture, which came into force in 1995, is an important step towards reforming agricultural trade and towards fairer and more competitive development. The Committee on Agriculture is monitoring the implementation of the agreement. With the advent of the WTO, india`s economy has changed enormously. The WTO agreement on agriculture has a major impact on Indian agriculture, which India has really felt on several occasions. The competent agricultural markets (CAM) were not correct. Agricultural exports were dominated by a small number of large MNCs and trade agents. Low-priced imports have often hit Indian markets and caused shockwaves among agricultural producers. The subsequent effects of WTO policy have been undemocratic due to the lack of transparency in the negotiations.