India Pushes for Faster Progress on Agricultural Trade Safeguards
India is calling for a speedier resolution regarding a key element impacting agricultural trade: the special safeguard mechanism (SSM). During a recent WTO discussion, the country reiterated its stance to prioritize this mechanism, along with finding permanent solutions for issues like public stockholding and cotton subsidies.
Prioritizing Unresolved Issues in Agricultural Trade
India’s call for accelerated progress on this mechanism comes at a crucial time as countries gear up for the 2026 ministerial conference of the World Trade Organization, MC14.
"India highlighted the Nairobi Ministerial Decision’s mandate to prioritize and fast-track SSM negotiations, calling for modalities that are simple, operational, and equitable," said a Geneva-based official
India emphasized the need to treat these issues—including SSM, public stockholding, and cotton subsidies—as standalone matters, demanding urgent attention. The Nairobi Ministerial Decision refers to the WTO Ministerial Conference held in Nairobi in 2015.
Navigating the Pathways to Agreement: Text-Based vs. Facilitator-Led
Negotiating complex trade agreements involves diverse methods. While endorsing a text-based approach, where draft texts serve as the foundation for discussions and are refined with input from member countries until consensus is achieved, India expressed concern over another method. India specifically voiced reservations about Guyana’s proposal for facilitator-led negotiations. While acknowledging Guyana’s efforts, India stressed the need for consensus-based
approaches that respect the WTO’s multilateral principles.
This preference for text-based negotiations underscores India’s commitment to transparency and ensures all WTO members have equal opportunities to contribute.
"India reiterated that any facilitator-led processes should be consensus-based and respect WTO’s multilateral principles, rejecting the non-traditional approach based on convergence," the official further elaborated.
, India s.
Meanwhile, amidst discussions, the WTO’s agricultural negotiations are set for a major review, with Guyana’s proposal likely to be a key topic at the upcoming ministerial conference, MC14 to be held in Cameroon in 2026.
What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of India’s proposed Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) for developed countries?
## Interview: Pushing for Fair Agricultural Trade?
**Host**: Welcome back to the show. Joining us today is Alex Reed, an expert on international trade policy, to discuss India’s recent push for faster progress on agricultural trade safeguards. Alex Reed, thanks for joining us.
**Alex Reed**: Thank you for having me.
**Host**: So, India is making waves at the WTO, calling for a speedier resolution on the special safeguard mechanism, or SSM. Can you explain what this mechanism is and why it’s so important to India?
**Alex Reed**: The SSM is essentially a tool that allows developing countries like India to temporarily raise tariffs on agricultural imports if their domestic agricultural market is threatened by a surge in imports. This is crucial for India because it has a large agricultural sector employing a significant portion of its population.
The SSM protects this vulnerable sector from sudden fluctuations in global markets and ensures food security. India has been advocating for a robust SSM for years, and they’re doubling down on this demand as we approach the next WTO ministerial conference in 2026.
**Host**: It sounds like India is also focused on resolving issues like public stockholding and cotton subsidies.
**Alex Reed**: Exactly. These are longstanding issues that impact India’s ability to support its farmers and ensure fair trade practices. Public stockholding refers to the government’s practice of holding reserves of grain to guarantee food security.
However, WTO rules currently limit how much grain governments can hold, which poses a challenge for India’s food security efforts. Similarly, cotton subsidies provided by developed nations create an uneven playing field, making it harder for Indian cotton farmers to compete.
**Host**: Critics argue that India’s push for these safeguards could be seen as protectionist, potentially harming other countries. How do you respond to that?
**Alex Reed**: India maintains that these measures are necessary to ensure fair and equitable trade. They argue that developed countries have enjoyed decades of protectionist policies and subsidies, while developing countries like India have been disadvantaged.
These safeguards are seen as a way to level the playing field and create a more just trading system.
**Host**: This is a complex issue with significant implications for global trade. Alex Reed, thank you for shedding light on India’s position and the broader context surrounding these agricultural trade negotiations.
