By Smita Sirohi

With the India-UK free trade agreement (FTA) signed and talks with the European Union (EU) and others in full swing, the current geopolitical climate presents a rare opportunity to boost global trade ties. While much attention has been given to the strategic and economic importance of these agreements, a critical question is how can Indian agriculture and allied sectors truly benefit from them.

India’s Green Revolution is globally acknowledged, transforming a food-deficit nation in the 1960s into one with over 50 million tonnes of buffer foodgrain stocks. India is among the top producers of rice, wheat, pulses, fruits, vegetables, spices, cotton, groundnuts, milk, and eggs. But our share in global agri-exports remains modest (around 2.2%). While domestic demand absorbs much of the output, enhancing farmers’ incomes over the long term requires stronger global integration.

No matter how cautiously India negotiates to safeguard its agriculture in FTAs, it will need to offer greater market access to partners’ agri and livestock products. For farmers to benefit in return, two foundational pillars must be strengthened: Compliance with international food safety and standards; systemic, professionally managed trade promotion. Especially in high-value markets like the EU, food safety regulations are evolving rapidly — extending beyond maximum residue levels to traceability, labelling, packaging, sustainability, and production methods. Even developing markets are upgrading food standards, driven by public health concerns and rising consumer awareness.

As “trade without traceability” becomes untenable, India’s agricultural value chains must be future-ready to meet these benchmarks. Moreover, India must be better equipped to respond when food safety norms are applied in ways that restrict market access.

India’s ability to gain from FTAs depends not only on negotiations but on how well its domestic ecosystem is prepared. Several structural and institutional hurdles persist.

First, coherence across ministries and regulatory bodies is weak. Agriculture, livestock, marine products, and food processing fall under different ministries. Food safety, pesticide regulation, and drug residue standards are overseen by the FSSAI, Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee, and Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, while trade negotiations lie with the department of commerce. This functional division, while enabling sectoral focus, results in policy contradictions and weak export preparedness.

For instance, even as the commerce ministry was negotiating with the EU to increase the import tolerance level of tricyclazole (a fungicide vital for basmati rice exports) the agriculture ministry issued a draft notification proposing its ban in India. Similarly, a 2020 draft order of the ministry proposed banning mancozeb, a fungicide India continues to export, even as the commerce ministry was pushing back against the European Commission’s non-renewal decision. In case of ethylene oxide (ETO) contamination, the absence of domestic regulation and best practice protocols made it difficult to reassure importers about safety standards. Despite the disruptions, India lacks a comprehensive regulatory framework on ETO use.

These incoherencies affect exports, and imports. When India delays market access to partners due to lack of internal coordination, it invites reciprocal restrictions, affecting overall trade credibility.

Second, while several countries publicly consult and notify regulatory changes well in advance, and Indian embassies also often provide early alerts, our fragmented and overloaded institutional system fails to process such information efficiently. Responses from relevant bodies are ad-hoc and delayed, weakening India’s ability to shape global trade rules proactively.

Third, awareness of food safety norms remains low among small exporters and aggregators. Many source from mandis with little traceability. When consignments are rejected, India often lacks the capacity for credible root cause analysis, triggering scrutiny from importing nations. Though digital portals by the Federation of Indian Export Organisations and others exist, they are not yet robust enough to offer real-time, commodity- and market-specific guidance.

Lastly, India’s trade promotion remains event-driven. Agencies like Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, Marine Products Export Development Authority, and commodity boards focus on expos and buyer-seller meets. Unlike nations like Australia, Taiwan, or Thailand that have permanent trade centres abroad, India lacks sustained, professionally managed market presence that can monitor trends and foster long-term buyer relationships.

Investments in hard infrastructure — cold chains, grading, processing, and logistics — are necessary, but insufficient. If India’s agriculture sector is to truly benefit from FTAs, deeper institutional and informational bottlenecks must be removed.

India needs a technically equipped coordination mechanism encompassing agriculture, livestock, and marine products. Presently, responsibilities are scattered across ministries, and follow-up on complex market access issues lacks continuity. Developed economies have institutionalised long-term technical experts in their trade systems. India must embed such expertise, possibly within the proposed Global Trade Promotion Organisation, which should include agriculture and allied sectors in its scope.

Capacity building across export value chain must go beyond tick-box exercises. Awareness programmes by trade bodies need professional rigour to match the fast evolving global standards. Many developing countries, like those working with the Netherlands-based Centre for Promotion of Imports, have built export capacity via international partnerships. India should explore such models. Our digital tools, including export portals and apps, need vast improvement to offer market- and product-specific intelligence. Ecuador’s QR code-based traceability system for exporters and real-time alerts on importing nation regulations is a model we could adopt.

We must shift from event-based trade promotion to year-round, market-specific engagement. Latin American nations (Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala) have commodity-specific export bodies that interact consistently with buyers and regulators. Kenya’s Flower Council is another success story. India should build similar value chain-based platforms for products where we hold comparative advantage — like rice, spices, tea, marine products, etc.

Also crucial is rethinking the governance of export promotion bodies. Those led by exporters tend to be more agile and responsive. Government-heavy bodies often lack the urgency or accountability required in competitive global markets. Increasing private-sector leadership in these organisations could enhance India’s export competitiveness.

FTAs will only be as transformative as the domestic systems backing them. India must match its negotiating ambition with on-ground agility and institutional readiness. Because in today’s trade world, market access isn’t just won at the table. It’s earned through credibility, coordination, and compliance.

The writer is agricultural economist at Indian Council of Agricultural Research, former advisor (agri and marine products), Indian Embassy, Brussels.

Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of FinancialExpress.com. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.