Latest news with #MinimumSupportPrice
United News of India
11 hours ago
- Business
- United News of India
Odisha to implement e-KYC system for farmers in paddy procurement
Bhubaneswar, July 1 (UNI) The Odisha government has decided to introduce an e-KYC (Electronic Know Your Customer) system for farmers in the paddy procurement process to ensure transparency and prevent the inflow of paddy from neighbouring states. Once implemented, the e-KYC system will help ensure that only genuine farmers from Odisha benefit from the paddy procurement scheme. The decision was taken at an inter-ministerial review meeting chaired by Deputy Chief Minister K.V. Singh Deo to assess the status of Rabi paddy procurement for the 2024–25 season. The meeting was informed that, against the initial target of 14 lakh metric tonnes (MT), the state has procured 19 lakh MT of paddy so far. In comparison, only 12 lakh MT was procured during the same period last year. This season, the state has recorded an all-time high in paddy procurement. Odisha remains the only state in the country offering Rs.3,100 per quintal, covering both the Minimum Support Price (MSP) and input assistance under the Samruddha Krushak Yojana for Rabi crops. In addition, the state government is actively considering a new paddy procurement policy to be introduced in the near future. According to official sources, Odisha currently requires 27 lakh MT of rice annually for internal consumption. However, this year, the state has produced a total of 93 lakh MT of paddy from both Kharif and Rabi seasons, which will yield approximately 63 lakh MT of rice, far exceeding the state's requirement. The meeting also discussed strategies for managing the surplus rice. As part of this effort, arrangements have been made to supply paddy straw and broken rice to ethanol production units in the state, enabling the production of second-generation (2G) ethanol. UNI DP ARN 1201
Time of India
a day ago
- Business
- Time of India
Tariff tightrope: How Donald Trump's ceasefire claim puts Centre in a 'no-win' situation
Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a meeting with US President Donald Trump at the White House, in Washington, DC, USA. (PTI file photo) While visiting India in late April, US vice president JD Vance announced the two sides had "officially finalised the Terms of Reference' for the negotiations on trade deal. US commerce secretary Howard Lutnick said June 3 that, "You should expect a deal between the United States and India (in the) not-too-distant future because I think we have found a place that really works for both countries. ' India was one of the first countries to begin trade negotiations with the US, launching talks in February as US President Donald Trump began to unveil his ambitious agenda to upend global trade. But as the July 9 deadline approaches, when a 90-day suspension on additional US tariffs is set to expire, the two sides have yet to seal the deal. Moreover, Trump has also said he does not plan to extend the 90-day pause on additional global tariffs beyond July 9, even as India's trade delegation extended its stay in Washington in a final push to iron out differences before the deadline. Also read: 'Not planning to extend tariff pause after July 9', says Donald Trump; India's trade team extends US stay India is seeking full exemption from the additional 26 per cent reciprocal tariff announced by the US on April 2. While the tariff was suspended for 90 days, the 10 per cent baseline tariff imposed by Washington remains in place. A tough ask It has proven difficult to officially ink a deal because of all the things the Trump administration is asking India to do to lower its trade barriers, while only offering to give up some of its newly-imposed tariffs, in return. The United States is urging India to open up sectors such as agriculture, dairy, and energy, and to reduce tariffs on products like soy, wheat, corn, ethanol, and apples. Washington is also seeking market access for genetically modified (GM) crops in India. India, however, is resisting these demands, particularly in agriculture and dairy, citing the importance of safeguarding farmers and maintaining the Minimum Support Price (MSP) mechanism. Negotiations have at times been marked by tension, as TOI reported earlier. At the beginning of the negotiations, the Indian government aimed to secure zero-duty access for several key export items, including textiles, leather products, pharmaceuticals, certain engineering goods, and auto parts. As TOI reported earlier that while American negotiators have shown interest in concluding the deal, they have conveyed to their Indian counterparts that the Trump administration is not in a position to offer zero tariffs immediately. Separately, India has also sought protection from any future tariff measures once an agreement is reached. Moreover, agriculture and dairy sectors are difficult and challenging areas for India to give duty concessions to the US. India has not opened up dairy in any of its free trade pacts signed so far. Trump's rhetoric on ceasefire between India and Pakistan Trump's repeated public claims about mediating peace between India and Pakistan during Operation Sindoor by threatening to "cancel all deals" have added a new layer of complexity to the already delicate trade negotiations between Washington and New Delhi. While trade officials from both sides have been working toward a deal since February, Trump's comments have stirred political unease in the country, as any suggestion of third-party involvement in India-Pakistan relations is considered a non-starter. The government has consistently maintained that there is "complete political consensus' against external mediation on Pakistan-related matters. Prime Minister Narendra Modi reinforced this position directly to Trump in a recent phone call. "PM Modi told President Trump clearly that during this period, there was no talk at any stage on subjects like India-US trade deal or US mediation between India and Pakistan," foreign secretary Vikram Misri said in a statement following the call between the two leaders. "Prime Minister Modi emphasized that India has not accepted mediation in the past and never will," Misri added. Despite this, Trump has continued to take public credit for what he has framed as brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. He repeated the claim at the Nato summit in the Netherlands and during other public appearances. This dissonance has made it politically harder for the Modi government to move forward with a trade deal that was supposed to showcase progress in India-US ties. "Nothing riles Indians more than the idea that their government was bullied by a foreign leader,' Syed Akbaruddin, India's former ambassador to the United Nations was quoted as saying by the Politico. "A trade bargain that could have been a win-win deal now risks being portrayed by those who oppose it as a tribute, not a partnership.' "Trump's comments have injected mistrust and public skepticism of US support to India,' said Akbaruddin. "The more he repeats his claim, the more a prospective US-India trade agreement smells like coercion, not cooperation." In effect, the ongoing trade talks have placed the government in a delicate position. If a deal is not finalised by the July 8 deadline, India could face fresh tariff hikes from the US. But if an agreement is reached, the government risks facing criticism at home for appearing to bow to American pressure. "Whatever the current government does, it will be seen as they basically capitulated to President Trump's demand,' Mukesh Aghi, president and CEO of the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum was quoted as saying by the Politico. "So they are in a no-win situation." Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Time of India
2 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Trade war: 'Not planning to extend tariff pause after July 9', says Donald Trump; India's trade team extends US stay
US President has said he does not plan to extend the 90-day pause on additional global tariffs beyond July 9, even as India's trade delegation extended its stay in Washington in a final push to iron out differences before the deadline. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The in-person negotiations between Indian and US officials, initially scheduled to run through June 27, were extended by a day, raising hopes of an interim trade agreement, Bloomberg reported, quoting officials. India is seeking full exemption from the additional 26 per cent reciprocal tariff announced by the US on April 2. While the tariff was suspended for 90 days, the 10 per cent baseline tariff imposed by Washington remains in place. Meanwhile Trump, in an interview with Fox News said he does not plan to extend the pause. "I don't think I'll need to," he said. "I could, no big deal." Letters notifying countries of the upcoming tariffs will begin going out "pretty soon," he said. "We'll look at how a country treats us — are they good, are they not so good — some countries we don't care, we'll just send a high number out," Trump told Fox News. Those letters, he said, would state: "Congratulations, we're allowing you to shop in the United States of America, you're going to pay a 25 per cent tariff, or a 35 per cent or a 50 per cent or 10 per cent." The high tariffs, first announced on April 2, are set to be enforced unless individual countries reach trade agreements with the US. "There's 200 countries, you can't talk to all of them," Trump said. The Trump administration had set a goal of reaching 90 trade deals in 90 days Meanwhile, the Indian side continues to resist key US demands, including Washington's push to open India's agricultural market to genetically modified crops — an ask New Delhi has rejected, citing risks to farmers. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now India is also unwilling to sign a deal that doesn't address both sectoral access and reciprocal tariffs on its exports, Bloomberg earlier reported. Despite the challenges, Trump said last week that "a very big" deal with India was likely soon. Why deal matters For India, the goal is to protect sensitive sectors while gaining entry into the US market, the largest for global consumers. For the United States, the focus is on narrowing trade deficits, increasing its exports, and strengthening ties with a strategic partner as trade frictions with China continue. What are USA's demands The United States is urging India to open up sectors such as agriculture, dairy, and energy, and to reduce tariffs on products like soy, wheat, corn, ethanol, and apples, many of which are significant US exports to China. Washington is also seeking market access for genetically modified (GM) crops in India. India, however, is resisting these demands, particularly in agriculture and dairy, citing the importance of safeguarding farmers and maintaining the Minimum Support Price (MSP) mechanism. Negotiations have at times been marked by tension, as TOI reported earlier. What India wants At the beginning of the negotiations, the Indian government aimed to secure zero-duty access for several key export items, including textiles, leather products, pharmaceuticals, certain engineering goods, and auto parts. As TOI reported earlier that while American negotiators have shown interest in concluding the deal, they have conveyed to their Indian counterparts that the Trump administration is not in a position to offer zero tariffs immediately. Separately, India has also sought protection from any future tariff measures once an agreement is reached. Moreover, agriculture and dairy sectors are difficult and challenging areas for India to give duty concessions to the US. India has not opened up dairy in any of its free trade pacts signed so far.
Hans India
3 days ago
- Business
- Hans India
Agriculture can be revived in India only if farmers get right prices for the produce
In a complete reversal of its earlier stand, the Bharti Kisan Union (Ekta-Ugrahan), which boasts of the largest support base in Punjab, now calls for a rethinking on making Minimum Support Price (MSP) a legal right for farmers. Saying that a legal mechanism for MSP will lead to 'higher inflation', the leader of the farm union, Joginder Singh Ugrahan, has stirred a hornet's nest. While another farmer leader, owing alliance to BKU (Dakounda), Jogmohan Singh, termed any move that goes against the popular demand of the farm bodies for seeking a legal protection for MSP as 'back stabbing' the farmers, other farmer's voices expressed surprise at the turnaround. 'All factions should stick to the demand for hike in MSP as per MS Swaminathan's recommendation for 50 per cent profit over the input cost,' Jagmohan Singh had asserted. Till only a few weeks back, prior to the time when the protest at the Punjab and Haryana border were not forcibly lifted, farmer leaders Jagjit Singh Dallewal and Sarwan Singh Pandher, were both calling for MSP to be converted into a legal right across the country. Even after the farmers protests at Shambhu and Khanauri borders ended, these leaders maintain that a legal MSP is the only way forward. So do others. Nevertheless, the volte-face by the dominant farmers union in Punjab is baffling. While speculation is rife about why and how did the farm union go for a flip-flop, the split in economic thinking isnow wide open. As quoted in the media, Ugrahan says that beyond a point, the increase in MSP can't be sought as it will lead to increase in prices of foodgrains, making it out of reach of poor and marginalized classes. That is why the union is seeking a reduction in input costs, which will eventually bring in a fall in the cost of production. Any fall in the cost of production will indirectly mean a higher price for farm produce, he says. Before I go any further, let's first look into a fallacious call for reducing the input costs such as that of chemical pesticides, fertilizer, diesel, seeds and other inputs that the farmers have to fend for. For several years now, I have seen academicians saying, and mainline economists have often echoed, saying while there is no need to increase farmgate prices, what is required is to reduce the cost of production. They always knew that the input prices are not in the control of farmers and we often hear farmers rue that the MSP does not cover even the cost of cultivation. I don't blame the farmers, but at least the academicians should have known that the call for reducing the input costs is not workable and so it is meaningless. But I still see many academic papers that repeat the call for reducing the cost of cultivation. The reason is simple. Academicians and policy makers have never been in favour of enhancing farm incomes and therefore the best way is to divert attention to something that is undoable. Even if the Government decides to follow cost reductions it will only be possible with subsidy support, which means more budgetary support. And then at the same time, any increase budgetary support for agriculture is decried saying it will lead to fiscal imbalance. Ugrahan says: 'Not only farmers, we have to think about all sections of the society, particularly the poor. In case, there is an increase in MSP, it will lead to inflation. So, to benefit the farmers, the cost of agriculture inputs should be kept under check.' Therefore, I am a little surprised to know how come a senior farmer leader goes for a turnaround using the bogus argument of reducing the cost of production. In reality, what the farmer leaders need to know is that a majority of country's poor are in fact farmers. It is well-known fact, they produce enough food for the country, but themselves sleep hungry. The latest report of the Situational Assessment Survey for Agricultural Households, which was based on 2019 data, clearly shows that the average monthly income of a farm household, at only Rs10,218 is at the bottom of the pyramid. I don't think any miracle has happened in the past five years that shows a remarkable jump in farm incomes thereby to change the perception about prevailing levels of farm distress. If Joginder Singh Ugrahan is satisfied and comfortable with such low-income levels knowing (or perhaps unknowing) that his suggestion would not in any way lead to enhanced income levels, there is no reason why the farmer leader himself should not be rethinking. It is never too late to make a correction. I find this switch over most intriguing knowing that an OECD (organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) had worked out that in the 16 years period, between 2000 and 2016, Indian farmers had lost Rs 45-lakh crore. Moreover, the latest 2024 OECD report on producer support had categorically shown that Indian farmers were the only community globally that continued to incur losses year after year since the year 2000. What more evidence is required to demonstrated a broken food system that has been pushing farmers into a cycle of indebtedness, distress and suicides? Surprisingly, the policy makers who continue to call for reducing the cost of cultivation have never given any economic justification for not asking the industry to reduce the cost of production. Name one industry that continues to incur losses even for a year, and still stays in business. Tell me which section of the urban society has reduced the cost of living if it made any economic sense to them. I haven't heard of any section of employees wanting the pay commissions to be frozen. In fact, an imaginative 'fitment factor' continues to jack up employee salaries every ten years. Academicians and policy makers are fine with that (because it also raises their incomes) but then why is that such stupid arguments are floated only for farmers? The answer is again simple -- because farmers will fall for such outlandish arguments. Agriculture is in a dire crisis. Over the years, farm incomes have been deliberately squeezed. It is time to rebuild agriculture and that can only happen if farmers get an assured income (by way of a guaranteed price) along with a package of practices that actually usher in prosperity on the farm. (The author is a noted food policy analyst and an expert on issues related to the agriculture sector. He writes on food, agriculture and hunger)
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
4 days ago
- Business
- First Post
What's in 'very big pact' with India as Donald Trump's tariff deadline nears?
US President Donald Trump has claimed that a 'very big' deal with India could come soon. His remarks came as Indian negotiators landed in the United States on Friday for the final round of talks on a bilateral trade agreement (BTA). But what do we know? What do experts think? read more US President Donald Trump delivering remarks on tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington. Reuters Is the trade deal between India and the US imminent? US President Donald Trump has claimed that a 'very big' deal with India could come soon. Trump's remarks came as Indian negotiators landed in the United States on Friday for the final round of talks on a bilateral trade agreement (BTA). Trump on April 2 – which he had dubbed 'liberation day' – had announced tariffs on dozens of nations. Trump later paused his 'reciprocal tariffs' and issued a 90-day deadline for countries to reach bilateral trade deals with America. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD That deadline is set to expire on July 9. 'Everybody wants to make a deal and have a part of it… we just signed with China yesterday. We are having some great deals. We have one coming up, maybe with India. A very big one. Where we're going to open up India. In the China deal, we are starting to open up China,' Trump said on Friday. 'We're not going to make deals with everybody. Some, we are just going to send them a letter, say thank you very much… My people don't want to do it that way. They want to do some of it, but they want to make more deals than I would do'. But what's in this 'very big pact'? What do experts think? Let's take a closer look: What's in this 'very big' pact? India's team is being led by Rajesh Aggarwal. Aggarwal, who is the chief negotiator, will be dealing with US officials including those from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). Trade between India and the United States touched $131.84 billion in the 24-25 Financial Year. If no deal is reached, India will face a base tariff of 10 per cent – lower than the 26 per cent Trump originally imposed. The US wants India to open up its agriculture, dairy, aviation and energy sectors. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It wants India to reduce tariffs on soy, wheat, ethanol and corn – two of which are its top exports to China. The US also wants less tariffs on apples. Reports say the meetings between the two sides have been contentious at times – with the Indian side pushing back on US demands particularly when it comes to its sensitive agriculture and dairy market. The US wants India to open up its agriculture, dairy, aviation and energy sectors, while New Delhi is looking for Washington to cut tariffs on steel and auto parts The US also wants to sell genetically modified (GM) crops in India. However, the Indian side is pushing back to protect Indian farmers. They also say they do not want to undercut the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system in India. A NITI Aayog working paper in May suggested that New Delhi offer some concessions on 'soybean oil imports' to help redress the trade imbalance – which has become an obsession for Trump. India is the world's biggest importer of edible oil. India may agree to reduce tariffs on automobiles – a long-pending demand of the US. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India, on the other hand, wants the US to roll back its reciprocal tariffs to zero. New Delhi also wants Washington to cut tariffs on steel and auto parts. The US had imposed a 50 per cent tariff on steel and aluminium, and a 25 per cent tariff on automobile imports from India. But there is a stumbling block. 'The US side first wants India to commit to deeper import tariff cuts on farm goods like soybeans and corn , cars and alcoholic beverages along with easing of non-tariff barriers,' an official in the know has said. What do experts think? Experts think a bilateral trade deal (BTA) could benefit traders exporting textiles, gems and jewellery, smartphones and pharmaceuticals to the US. However, they say a BTA could benefit US exporters particularly those sending walnuts, pistachios and cranberries more. They say this is because many of New Delhi's exports to Washington already have duty-free access to the market. They say the rest could get only a limited boost. Which is perhaps why some have suggested caution. 'The ball is now in the US court. India is not for any win-lose trade partnership,' Ram Singh, chief of the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, told The Times of India. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Global Trade Research Initiative, for example, has warned against a deal that favours the US. India and the US in February had agreed to increase bilateral trade, which was at $262 billion in 2024, to $500 billion by 2030. Reuters 'The more likely outcome is a limited trade pact - styled after the US-UK mini trade deal announced on May 8,' GTRI Founder Ajay Srivastava said. 'Any trade deal with the US must not be politically driven or one-sided, it must protect our farmers, our digital ecosystem, and our sovereign regulatory space.' 'There may also be pressure on India to ease FDI restrictions in multi-brand retail, potentially benefiting firms like Amazon and Walmart and to liberalise rules on remanufactured goods, currently subject to stringent import norms,' Srivastava added. 'India must hold its ground and insist on a reciprocal, balanced, and transparent agreement,' the think-tank added. Indian officials have insisted that the country's interests will come first in any deal. 'Protecting India's interests will be supreme in India-US BTA talks,' an Indian official in the know said. Modi and Trump in February had agreed to increase bilateral trade, which was at $262 billion in 2024, to $500 billion by 2030. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
