Explained: How APEDA Can Move to APEDA 2.0

In Agriculture
October 3, 2025
Dr Vasu Srinivasan
103 Views
0 comments

India’s agri exports have touched $27 billion, but frequent rejections and overdependence on rice and meat limit growth. This ABC Live audit explains how APEDA must evolve into APEDA 2.0 — moving from a promoter of exports to a defender and transformer with compliance-first systems, dispute resolution, and value-added products.

New Delhi (ABC Live): India’s agricultural exports have grown enormously in the last four decades. From less than a billion dollars in the late 1980s to nearly USD 27 billion today, India has built its place among the world’s top ten agri-exporters. At the centre of this story is the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), created in 1986 to promote, develop, and diversify India’s agricultural trade.

But beneath the headline numbers lies a deeper audit question: Is APEDA truly delivering its mandate?

What the Numbers Say

India’s APEDA basket reached USD 26.7 billion in FY 2022–23, but slipped slightly in FY 2023–24, reflecting a plateau. Out of 23 major commodities, 18 showed growth, yet two categories—rice and buffalo meat—still account for nearly half of all exports. This heavy concentration brings risk: any disruption in compliance or market access for these products can destabilise overall performance.

Within this, basmati rice stands out. Exports in FY 2024–25 have already crossed USD 5.9 billion, with a 15% growth in volume and shipments to 154 countries. While this breadth is impressive, basmati is also the most exposed to regulatory scrutiny in Europe, where pesticide residue standards are exceptionally strict.

Geographically, GCC and West Asia take 39% of India’s exports, followed by South Asia, Africa, and the EU. The reliance on GCC reflects comfort but also overdependence. In contrast, India’s presence in premium markets such as Japan, North America, and Europe remains under-penetrated.

The Compliance Challenge

India’s agricultural exports face frequent rejections abroad. The most common reasons are:

Pesticide residues in rice, grapes, and chillies.
Aflatoxin contamination in peanuts, maize, and spices.
Microbial contamination in meat and dairy.
Certification lapses in organic shipments.

European Union rules are especially strict. For example, the EU lowered the maximum residue limit for the fungicide tricyclazole in rice from 1.0 mg/kg to 0.01 mg/kg—effectively a zero-tolerance standard. Indian exporters have repeatedly struggled with such thresholds.

Peanuts and spices remain another weak spot. In 2022 alone, the EU flagged 39 consignments of Indian peanuts for aflatoxin contamination, triggering an audit of India’s controls. These issues are rooted not just in farm practices, but also in post-harvest storage and handling.

APEDA’s Systems: Built but Uneven

To address these issues, APEDA has put in place several frameworks:

National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP): recognised by the EU and USA.
Digital Traceability Platforms: TraceNet for organics, Peanut.Net for peanuts, MeatNet for livestock, and Hortinet for fruits and vegetables.
Residue Monitoring Plans (RMPs): mandatory for high-risk crops like rice, grapes, chillies, and peanuts.
Infrastructure: packhouses, irradiation units, vapour heat treatment plants, and cold chains in selected hubs.

These systems helped India regain access to the EU for mangoes after the 2014 ban, once vapour heat and irradiation protocols were mandated. But coverage remains limited. Traceability systems apply to only a few commodities, labs are concentrated in metros, and enforcement at the farm level is inconsistent.

When Shipments Are Rejected

APEDA’s support for exporters in dispute cases remains ad hoc. It provides test reports, certification records, and technical clarifications. It also engages in government-to-government negotiations and participates in WTO sanitary and phytosanitary forums.

But exporters—particularly small and medium ones—still lack structured protection. There is no dedicated Export Dispute Cell that can offer legal assistance, standardised appeal documentation, or coordinated representation abroad. As a result, many exporters absorb losses individually when consignments are rejected.

Farmers and Startups: The Emerging Front

Recognising the need for innovation, APEDA launched the BHARTI Initiative in 2025. It aims to mentor 100 agri-food startups, helping them with branding, technology, and global market access. A landmark agreement with LuLu Hypermarket promises shelf space for Indian startups across 252 outlets in the GCC.

Yet, this is still at an early stage. Farmer integration remains shallow; smallholders often find certification costs prohibitive. Unless certification is subsidised and digital onboarding is scaled, farmers will remain disconnected from direct export chains.

Global Benchmark: Why India Lags

Other emerging economies tell a different story. Brazil, Thailand, and Vietnam each export far more value-added food products, with processed exports making up 30–40% of their basket, compared to India’s 12%. These countries not only promote exports but also defend them through structured legal mechanisms and export credit facilities.

India, in contrast, remains a commodity-heavy exporter, vulnerable to quality rejections and price fluctuations.

Path to APEDA 2.0

For India to reach USD 50–60 billion agri exports by 2030, APEDA must move beyond its traditional role as a promoter and become a transformer.

Compliance by Design: Make digital spray logs and pre-harvest residue tests mandatory across all high-risk crops.
District-Level Infrastructure: Deploy moisture-controlled silos, dryers, and NABL-accredited labs in producing districts, not just export hubs.
Export Dispute Authority: Create a cell with legal experts, international counsel, and insurance integration to defend exporters abroad.
Value-Addition Push: Raise processed exports to at least 25% of the APEDA basket by 2030.
Market Diversification: Use FTAs to enter premium markets in the EU, North America, and Japan, reducing GCC dependence.
Farmer Integration: Subsidise certification for smallholders and digitise FPO participation in traceability systems.

Conclusion

A classic audit would call APEDA “partially compliant” with its mandate. But a deeper, strategic lens shows the real gap: India has the systems but not the scale; the rules but not the reach. APEDA has delivered promotion, branding, and some compliance frameworks, but the absence of broad farmer integration, dispute support, and value addition continues to hold India back.

The leap from USD 26–27 billion to USD 50–60 billion will not come from more trade fairs, but from compliance-first operations, rural infrastructure, and structured protection for exporters. Unless APEDA evolves into APEDA 2.0—both promoter and defender—India will remain a commodity supplier, not a global value-added food leader.

References (for further reading)