Many a time, it has been observed in the inner circles of MAPMC -- Why is computerization necessary at MAPMC ? Surely MAPMC has been running (and successfully) for the past three decades without even bothering to think about automation and technology? So why this sudden talk of the need to have an advanced Information System ?

We believe that computerization is not the issue at all. The real issue pertains to the changing global scenario, its effect on India and MAPMC's shifting role definition.

In the past decade, a lot of convergence has happened in the world. The world is virtually shrinking into a single, uniform market place. Economic orders all over the world have undergone an irreversible change. Almost every nation now has an outward-looking approach and is willing to invite influences of other economies and let market forces rule. The decade between 1991 and 2000 was critical for the world economy because of the emergence of the World Trade Organization, with the exclusive mandate of promoting and regulating international trade. Every WTO summit held till now has made rapid strides in terms of removal of trade barriers and establishing a competitive world market.

Agriculture has been one of the most contentious issues debated at WTO conferences. Rightfully so, since it directly impacts every national economy. Despite the widespread debate and even opposition, there is a slow but sure consensus evolving around the world regarding the dismantling of governmental intervention in agriculture.

The Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), which is propounded by the WTO, has the following provisions :

The objective of the Agreement on Agriculture is to reform trade in the sector and to make policies more market-oriented. This would improve predictability and security for importing and exporting countries alike.

Market access - various trade restrictions confronting imports
Domestic support - subsidies and other programs, including those that raise or guarantee farm gate prices and farmers' incomes
Export subsidies and other methods used to make exports artificially competitive.

The agreement does allow governments to support their rural economies, but preferably through policies that cause less distortion to trade. It also allows some flexibility in the way commitments are implemented. Developing countries do not have to cut their subsidies or lower their tariffs as much as developed countries, and they are given extra time to complete their obligations. Special provisions deal with the interests of countries that rely on imports for their food supplies, and the least developed economies.

The new rule for market access in agricultural products is "tariffs only". Earlier, some agricultural imports were restricted by quotas and other non-tariff measures. These have been replaced by tariffs that provide more-or-less equivalent levels of protection. The newly committed tariffs and tariff quotas, covering all agricultural products, took effect in 1995. Uruguay Round participants agreed that developed countries would cut the tariffs (the higher out-of-quota rates in the case of tariff-quotas) by an average of 36%, in equal steps over six years. Developing countries would make 24% cuts over 10 years. Several developing countries also used the option of offering ceiling tariff rates in cases where duties were not "bound" (i.e. committed under GATT or WTO regulations) before the Uruguay Round. Least developed countries do not have to cut their tariffs. For products whose non-tariff restrictions have been converted to tariffs, governments are allowed to take special emergency actions ("safeguards") in order to prevent swiftly falling prices or surges in imports from hurting their farmers. But the agreement specifies when and how those emergency actions can be introduced (for example, they cannot be used on imports within a tariff-quota).

The main complaint about policies, which support domestic prices, or subsidize production in some other way, is that they encourage over-production. This squeezes out imports or leads to export subsidies and low-priced dumping on world markets. The Agriculture Agreement distinguishes between support programmes that stimulate production directly, and those that are considered to have no direct effect. Domestic policies that do have a direct effect on production and trade have to be cut back. WTO members have calculated how much support of this kind they were providing (using calculations known as "total aggregate measurement of support" or "Total AMS") for the agricultural sector per year in the base years of 1986-88. Developed countries have agreed to reduce these figures by 20% over six years starting in 1995. Developing countries are making 13% cuts over 10 years. Least developed countries do not need to make any cuts.