Foreword – 3
Foreword
This is the highlights of the third edition of Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: At a
Glance, which is published in alternate years, with longer version of Agricultural Policies in OECD
Countries: Monitoring and Evaluation, first published in 1988. These two publications examine
agricultural policies in OECD countries in response to the request by OECD Ministers to monitor and
evaluate the implementation of the principles for agricultural policy reform.
The Secretariat uses a comprehensive system for measuring and classifying support to
agriculture in order to provide insight into the increasingly complex nature of agricultural policy.
Ongoing changes in agricultural policies require that the methods used to calculate and present the
Producer and Consumer Support Estimates (PSEs and CSEs) and related indicators be reviewed
periodically. In 2006, OECD member countries agreed to a new classification of policy measures within
the PSE and to a new calculation of commodity-specific support. This new PSE classification was
implemented for the first time in the 2007 report and is presented in this 2008 report.
This year’s report emphasises the recent developments in agricultural markets and discusses
future challenges for agricultural policy reform in the context of rising world agricultural prices.
Chapter 1 provides an overview of developments in agricultural support in OECD countries, evaluates
the estimated support to agriculture, and draws some conclusions about the progress in agricultural
reform being made in OECD countries, with suggestions for future directions. Chapter 2 summarises
trends in policy developments for each OECD country and Chapter 3 contains detailed background
tables.
The Executive Summary and Chapter 1 are published under the responsibility of OECD
Committee for Agriculture. The rest of this work is published under the responsibility of the SecretaryGeneral of the OECD.
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: AT A GLANCE– ISBN 978-92-64-03213-2 – © OECD 2008
4 – Executive Summary
Executive Summary
In 2007 support to producers in the OECD area was estimated at USD 258 billion or
EUR 187 billion, as measured by the Producer Support Estimate (PSE). This is equivalent
to 23% of aggregate gross receipts of OECD farm producers, down from 26% in 2006
and 28% in 2005. The fall in the level of support in 2007 was largely driven by the
overall rise in world market commodity prices. With high world prices, policies to
support domestic prices in the OECD countries generated smaller transfers, resulting in
the overall reduction in support to producers. In a longer-term perspective, the currently
observed level of producer support is the lowest since the estimates began in the mid1980s: it came down from 37% of gross farm receipts in 1986-88 to 26% in 2005-07. In
that period, the average amount by which domestic prices in OECD countries exceeded
border prices more than halved – from 50% to 20%.
Along with the decline in support level, there has been a shift towards support that is
more decoupled from current production and that leaves more freedom to farmers in their
production choices – progress noted during the current decade has come about through
reform efforts in many OECD countries. Support is to a lesser degree being tied to
commodity output and increasingly to other parameters, such as area, animal numbers,
receipts or income and with respect to non-current levels of these parameters; the share of
payments that do not oblige recipients to engage in production is increasing; while the
proportion of support tied to a single commodity, although still important, is falling. This
progress notwithstanding, the aggregate share of support based on output and variable
inputs with no constraints attached to their use accounts for slightly less than 60% of the
PSE, while transfers provided to a single commodity remain the most important
component of the PSE, reaching 59% in 2005-07.
The most recent reduction in support levels has been not so much a consequence of
changes in the policy settings as of rising world prices. Once the latter decline from their
current extremely high levels, border protection and the price-related domestic support
measures might well take a stronger hold again, leading to higher support and more
production and trade distorting transfers. Unless policy reform efforts strengthen market
orientation of the agricultural sector, the current reductions in support level will not be
sustained.
If higher agricultural market prices persist for some time, which may lead to higher
incomes for farm households, policy makers have an opportunity to roll back the most
distorting measures that still dominate agricultural policy. Those measures have been less
effective in tackling farm income problems, and have contributed to inequity in the
distribution of support among farm households and the environmental performance
problems of the sector. Not grasping the reform opportunities will prolong the life of
policy measures that create market imbalances.
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: AT A GLANCE– ISBN 978-92-64-03213-2 – © OECD 2008
Executive Summary – 5
World agricultural
markets saw strong
price increases, as did
food prices for final
consumers…
Agricultural policies in 2007 operated in the context of steeply
rising international prices for key agricultural commodities, which in
many cases reached historically high levels in nominal terms (although
in real terms prices were considerably lower than in the 1970s). The
recent price rises occurred when longer term market trends from
increased food demand in emerging economies, and higher energy
prices coincided with a temporary tightening of supply from droughts in
key markets. Increased speculative activity and policies that encouraged
a shift in the use of key crops for biofuel production were other sources
of rising commodity prices. The strengthening of world agricultural
prices contributed to food price inflation, which became a global
phenomenon in 2007 and has continued into 2008. Food prices in the
OECD area rose noticeably. Some non-OECD economies experienced
considerable difficulties, in particular food importers, facing shortages
and price hikes for main food staples.
Some countries
contemplated their
future policy
directions, while others
implemented reforms
agreed to previously
On the domestic policy front, some countries implemented major
reforms agreed to previously. The European Union continued to move
towards more decoupled policies, implemented the sugar reform, agreed
on reform of the wine and fruit and vegetable sectors, and launched
discussion on the Health Check of recent CAP reforms. Japan
implemented new direct payments, joining Korea in a move towards
support more decoupled from commodity output. Other OECD
countries were in the process of defining future policy directions.
Switzerland adapted its agricultural policy law and extended it to 2011,
while following intense discussions during 2007, in the United States a
new Farm Bill was finally passed by Congress in 2008.
Multilateral trade
agreement is still
pending, with many
countries engaged in
new bilateral and
regional arrangements
Agriculture remained a chapter of continuing difficulty in the WTO
Doha Development Agenda negotiations, alongside non-agricultural
market access and services. However, some progress has been achieved
towards working out modalities for further commitments in agriculture.
Amid the slow-moving multilateral process, many OECD countries
engaged in new bilateral and regional trade agreements.
Producer support is at
its lowest level since
1986…
In 2007, the level of producer support in the OECD area (as
measured by the percentage Producer Support Estimate, %PSE) was
23%, meaning that support policies provided somewhat less than one
quarter of farmers’ gross receipts in OECD countries. The %PSE fell
for the third consecutive year, from 28% in 2005 and 26% in 2006. In
the longer term, the %PSE declined to 26% in 2005-07, down from 37%
in 1986-88. This is the lowest level observed since OECD began
estimating producer support in 1986 (Figures 1 and 2, and Tables 1, 2
and 3).
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: AT A GLANCE– ISBN 978-92-64-03213-2 – © OECD 2008
6 – Executive Summary
Figure 1. Evolution of OECD support indicators
PSE
NAC/NPC
40%
1.8
% PSE
producer NAC
producer NPC
35%
1.7
30%
1.6
25%
1.5
20%
1.4
15%
1.3
10%
1.2
5%
1.1
0%
1
PSE: Producer Support Estimate (left scale)
NACp: Producer Nominal Assistance Coefficient (right scale).
NPCp: Producer Nominal Protection Coefficient (right scale).
Source: OECD, PSE/CSE database 2008.
Figure 2. Producer Support Estimate by country
(Percent of value of gross farm receipts)
80%
70%
60%
1986-88
2005-07
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Countries are ranked according to 2005-07 levels.
1. For Mexico, 1986-88 is replaced by 1991-93.
2. Austria, Finland and Sweden are included in the OECD total for all years and in the EU from 1995. The
Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic are included in the OECD total for all years and in
the EU from 2004. The OECD total does not include the non-OECD EU member states.
3. EU12 for 1986-94 including ex-GDR from 1990; EU15 for 1995-2003; EU25 for 2004-06 and EU27 from
2007.
Source: OECD, PSE/CSE database 2008.
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: AT A GLANCE– ISBN 978-92-64-03213-2 – © OECD 2008
Executive Summary – 7
… the implicit tax on
consumers is
reduced…
The overall reduction in price support also meant a smaller burden
of agricultural support borne by consumers. As a percentage of
consumption expenditure (measured at the farm gate) the Consumer
Support Estimate (the %CSE) fell virtually everywhere in the OECD
area (Table 4). High world market prices resulted in a narrower
domestic-to-border price gap, leading to a smaller CSE at the time when
consumers in many countries are experiencing pressure on household
budgets as food prices soar. A lower CSE simply means that the share
of consumer food costs that result from government price support
policies has fallen, not that consumer expenditures are lower.
…and the overall
burden of agricultural
support declines
everywhere
Total support to the agricultural sector, combining producer support
(the PSE), support for general services to agriculture such as research,
infrastructure, inspection, marketing and promotion, as well as subsidies
to consumers, was equivalent to 0.97% of OECD GDP in 2005-07,
down from 2.49% in 1986-88. The reduced burden of agricultural
support on the overall economy is characteristic of all OECD countries
and is primarily a reflection of the falling share of agriculture in their
GDP, although agricultural policy reform has also contributed
(Figure 3).
Figure 3. Total Support Estimate by country
(Percentage of GDP)
Turkey
Korea
Iceland
Switzerland
Japan
1986-88
European Union (1)
2005-07
OECD (2)
Norway
Mexico (3)
United States
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
Countries are ranked according to 2005-07 levels.
1. EU12 for 1986-94 including ex-GDR from 1990; EU15 for 1995-2003; EU25 for 2004-06 and EU27 from 2007.
2. Austria, Finland and Sweden are included in the OECD total for all years and in the EU from 1995. The OECD total
does not include the non-OECD EU member states. TSE as a share of GDP for the OECD total in 1986-88 excludes
the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic as GDP data is not available for this period.
3. For Mexico, 1986-88 is replaced by 1991-93.
Source: OECD, PSE/CSE database 2008.
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: AT A GLANCE– ISBN 978-92-64-03213-2 – © OECD 2008
8 – Executive Summary
More support is
provided with no link
to current
production…
The share of the potentially most production and trade distorting
forms of support – those linked to outputs and non-constrained use of
variable inputs – declined in the OECD area (comparing the average
1986-88 and 2005-07 levels) (Figure 4). The decrease in output-based
support (including market price support) is also reflected in the more
than halving of the gap between domestic producer and border prices
(as measured by the producer Nominal Protection Coefficient, NPC)
(Figure 1). Reductions in the most distorting forms of support have
been accompanied by increases in payments based on area, animal
numbers, receipts or income, with payments based on non-current
(historical or fixed) eligibility parameters gaining importance. In the
most recent years, payments not requiring any production grew in
importance. Various compliance conditions, especially environmental,
are increasingly being attached to support payments provided to
farmers.
Figure 4. OECD: Composition of Producer Support Estimate
(Percentage share in PSE)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
Support based
on commodity
output
20%
10%
0%
Payments based on non-commodity criteria
Payments based on non-current A/An/R/I, production not required
Payments based on non-current A/An/R/I, production required
Payments based on current A/An/R/I, production required
Payments based on input use
Support based on commodity output
Source: OECD, PSE/CSE database 2008.
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: AT A GLANCE– ISBN 978-92-64-03213-2 – © OECD 2008
Executive Summary – 9
…and producers are
given more flexibility
in their production
decisions
Support over the years has evolved towards budgetary payments
less tied to producing a specific commodity, either by allowing a group
of commodities (or all commodities) to be eligible for a payment, or by
having no production requirement to receive payment. However, the
process has been uneven across the sectors. While Single Commodity
Transfers (SCT) fell by more than one half of producer receipts for
milk, eggs, and by even more for grain and oilseeds, other traditionally
highly protected sectors such as rice and sugar have experienced only a
small decline: they remain the commodities with the highest percentage
SCTs and NPCs (Figure 5 and 6).
Figure 5. OECD: Single Commodity Transfers, 1986-88 and 2005-07
(SCT as % of gross farm receipts for each commodity)
Rice
Sugar
Sheepmeat
Beef and Veal
Milk
The top bar relates to 1986-88, the bottom bar to 200507
Pigmeat
Market Price Support
Poultry
Payments based on output
All other Single Commodity Transfers
Other commodities
Sunf lower
Maize
Wheat
Other grains
Egg
Soyabeans
Wool
Rapeseed
Total SCT share in PSE
0%
20%
40%
Commodities are ranked according to 2005-07 levels.
Source: OECD, PSE/CSE database 2008.
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: AT A GLANCE– ISBN 978-92-64-03213-2 – © OECD 2008
60%
80%
10 – Executive Summary
Figure 6. Use of payments not requiring production, by country
(Percentage share in PSE)
Australia
United States
European Union (1)
Switzerland
OECD (2)
Mexico (3)
Canada
Turkey
Japan
The top bar relates to 1986-88, the bottom bar to 2005-07
Payments based on non-current A/An/R/I, production not required (4)
Korea
Payments based on non-commodity criteria
Iceland
New Zealand
Norway
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Countries are ranked according to 2005-07 levels.
1. EU12 for 1986-94 including ex-GDR from 1990; EU15 for 1995-2003; EU25 for 2004-06 and EU27 from 2007.
2. Austria, Finland and Sweden are included in the OECD total for all years and in the EU from 1995. The Czech
Republic,
Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic are included in the OECD total for all years and in the EU from 2004.
The OECD total does not include the non-OECD EU member states.
3. For Mexico, 1986-88 is replaced by 1991-93.
4. A (area planted), An (animal numbers), R (receipts) or I (income).
Source: OECD, PSE/CSE database 2008.
Despite the shift away
from most distortive
support it still
dominates and reform
is uneven across
countries
Despite a visible reduction in both the level of support and the share
of the most distorting forms of support in the majority of OECD
countries, the most production and trade distorting support continues to
dominate. Also, reform has been uneven across countries – some
countries are more advanced in implementing more decoupled support,
while others are only at the beginning of the process. There is also some
movement towards the development of much more fine-tuned policies,
targeted to the achievement of specific objectives or to the resolution of
specific problems affecting the sector.
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: AT A GLANCE– ISBN 978-92-64-03213-2 – © OECD 2008
Executive Summary – 11
Higher prices provide
an opportunity for
further reform
The current high price situation could offer opportunities to reform
policies that would impact on international markets. In so far as the
increase in world prices is a long-term structural phenomenon, current
price-related support policies do not create additional incentives to
enhance production, in cases where world prices are above administered
price levels. Expansion of agricultural output is the market-based
response to higher food prices. Governments could consider removing
impediments to that response and take the opportunity to improve
domestic policy performance. Careful policy design granting farmers
the greatest possible freedom to respond to market signals will allow
them to become more innovative and competitive. At the same time
policies closely targeted to address specific low income issues, provide
safety nets, or address environmental, animal welfare and other societal
concerns in agriculture will generally be more effective, efficient and
equitable than broad-based market interventions.
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: AT A GLANCE– ISBN 978-92-64-03213-2 – © OECD 2008
12 – Executive Summary
Table 1. OECD: Estimates of support to agriculture
(USD million)
Total value of production (at farm gate)
of which share of MPS commodities (%)
Total value of consumption (at farm gate)
Producer Support Estimate (PSE)
Support based on commodity output
Market Price Support
Payments based on output
Payments based on input use
Based on variable input use
with input constraints
Based on fixed capital formation
with input constraints
Based on on-farm services
with input constraints
1
Payments based on current A/An/R/I ,
production required
Based on Receipts / Income
Based on Area planted / Animal numbers
with input constraints
Payments based on non-current A/An/R/I,
production required
Payments based on non-current A/An/R/I,
production not required
With variable payment rates
With fixed payment rates
Payments based on non-commodity criteria
Based on long-term resource retirement
Based on a specific non-commodity output
Based on other non-commodity criteria
Miscellaneous payments
Percentage PSE
Producer NPC
Producer NAC
General Services Support Estimate (GSSE)
Research and development
Agricultural schools
Inspection services
Infrastructure
Marketing and promotion
Public stockholding
Miscellaneous
GSSE as a share of TSE (%)
Consum er Support Estimate (CSE)
Transfers to producers from consumers
Other transfers from consumers
Transfers to consumers from taxpayers
Excess feed cost
Percentage CSE
Consum er NPC
Consum er NAC
Total Support Estimate (TSE)
Transfers from consumers
Transfers from taxpayers
Budget revenues
Percentage TSE (expressed as share of GDP)
2
1986-88
2005-07
2005
2006
2007p
591 839
72
557 838
239 269
196 715
184 494
12 221
20 129
9 745
739
6 643
1 235
3 740
451
902 972
67
885 580
262 533
144 902
135 149
9 753
29 813
11 749
505
9 943
2 033
8 120
1 230
834 679
68
806 401
272 076
163 172
146 787
16 385
27 593
11 094
514
8 451
2 043
8 048
1 365
858 328
67
847 589
257 287
139 520
131 691
7 829
29 360
11 932
614
9 593
1 736
7 835
1 194
1 015 910
67
1 002 750
258 236
132 014
126 970
5 044
32 485
12 222
387
11 786
2 319
8 478
1 130
18 666
2 051
16 615
3 685
31 670
4 037
27 633
21 790
38 100
4 052
34 048
27 405
29 182
4 266
24 916
19 686
27 728
3 794
23 934
18 279
533
1 021
717
820
1 527
2 080
181
51 031
3 025
38 819
5 142
53 642
2 166
60 634
1 767
1 899
935
934
1
0
210
37
1.50
1.59
40 809
48 006
4 194
3 487
551
156
-99
26
1.20
1.35
75 791
33 676
4 027
3 277
576
174
-352
28
1.24
1.40
73 969
51 476
4 811
4 041
615
154
-48
26
1.20
1.35
75 767
58 867
3 744
3 142
462
140
104
23
1.15
1.29
77 638
3 562
837
1 092
13 866
13 274
6 561
1 617
13.6
-161 389
-171 385
-22 633
19 735
12 894
-30
1.54
1.43
299 813
7 081
1 993
3 281
22 184
37 180
1 562
2 510
20.6
-125 210
-134 374
-22 095
29 412
1 846
-15
1.22
1.18
367 736
6 730
2 056
3 195
22 169
35 564
1 801
2 455
19.7
-135 700
-145 835
-21 429
29 516
2 048
-17
1.26
1.21
375 560
6 748
1 684
3 228
22 143
38 133
1 385
2 446
20.9
-124 026
-132 021
-22 703
29 512
1 186
-15
1.22
1.18
362 565
766
238
421
239
843
499
630
21.3
-115 904
-125 265
-22 152
29 209
2 305
-12
1.17
1.14
365 082
194 018
128 428
-22 633
156 468
233 362
-22 095
167 264
229 726
-21 429
154 724
230 545
-22 703
147 418
239 817
-22 152
2.49
0.97
1.05
0.97
0.89
7
2
3
22
37
1
2
p: provisional. NPC: Nominal Protection Coefficient. NAC: Nominal Assistance Coefficient.
1. A (area planted) / An (animal numbers) / R (receipts) / I (income).
MPS is net of producer levies and Excess Feed Cost. MPS commodities: see notes to individual tables in Chapter 2.
2. TSE as a share of GDP for 1986-88 for the OECD total excludes the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak
Republic as GDP data is not available for this period.
Source: OECD, PSE/CSE database 2008.
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: AT A GLANCE– ISBN 978-92-64-03213-2 – © OECD 2008
Executive Summary – 13
Table 2. OECD: Estimates of support to agriculture
(EUR million)
Total value of production (at farm gate)
of which share of MPS commodities (%)
Total value of consumption (at farm gate)
Producer Support Estimate (PSE)
Support based on commodity output
Market Price Support
Payments based on output
Payments based on input use
Based on variable input use
with input constraints
Based on fixed capital formation
with input constraints
Based on on-farm services
with input constraints
1
Payments based on current A/An/R/I ,
production required
Based on Receipts / Income
Based on Area planted / Animal numbers
with input constraints
Payments based on non-current A/An/R/I,
production required
Payments based on non-current A/An/R/I,
production not required
With variable payment rates
With fixed payment rates
Payments based on non-commodity criteria
Based on long-term resource retirement
Based on a specific non-commodity output
Based on other non-commodity criteria
Miscellaneous payments
Percentage PSE
Producer NPC
Producer NAC
General Services Support Estimate (GSSE)
Research and development
Agricultural schools
Inspection services
Infrastructure
Marketing and promotion
Public stockholding
Miscellaneous
GSSE as a share of TSE (%)
Consum er Support Estimate (CSE)
Transfers to producers from consumers
Other transfers from consumers
Transfers to consumers from taxpayers
Excess feed cost
Percentage CSE
Consum er NPC
Consum er NAC
Total Support Estimate (TSE)
Transfers from consumers
Transfers from taxpayers
Budget revenues
Percentage TSE (expressed as share of GDP)
2
1986-88
2005-07
2005
2006
2007p
536 124
72
504 821
217 507
178 805
167 656
11 149
18 239
8 847
679
6 018
1 124
3 374
408
699 171
67
685 531
204 176
112 959
105 257
7 702
23 107
9 120
395
7 684
1 574
6 303
958
671 599
68
648 846
218 917
131 291
118 107
13 184
22 202
8 927
413
6 800
1 644
6 476
1 099
683 827
67
675 272
204 980
111 155
104 918
6 237
23 391
9 507
489
7 643
1 383
6 242
951
742 086
67
732 473
188 632
96 432
92 747
3 685
23 729
8 927
282
8 609
1 694
6 193
826
17 044
1 907
15 138
3 272
24 720
3 144
21 576
17 029
30 656
3 260
27 396
22 051
23 249
3 399
19 850
15 684
20 255
2 771
17 483
13 352
505
782
577
653
1 115
1 900
161
39 420
2 385
31 234
4 138
42 736
1 726
44 291
1 290
1 739
816
816
1
0
197
37
1.50
1.59
37 040
37 036
3 269
2 717
430
122
-82
26
1.20
1.35
58 864
27 097
3 240
2 637
463
140
-283
28
1.24
1.40
59 517
41 010
3 833
3 220
490
123
-38
26
1.20
1.35
60 363
43 001
2 735
2 295
338
102
76
23
1.15
1.29
56 711
3 225
758
989
12 590
12 058
5 955
1 464
13.6
-146 477
-155 715
-20 438
17 887
11 790
-30
1.54
1.43
272 433
5 488
1 544
2 547
17 241
28 880
1 216
1 948
20.6
-97 554
-104 675
-17 171
22 866
1 425
-15
1.22
1.18
285 906
5
1
2
17
28
1
1
415
654
570
838
616
449
975
19.7
-109 187
-117 341
-17 242
23 749
1 648
-17
1.26
1.21
302 183
5
1
2
17
30
1
1
376
341
572
641
380
104
948
20.9
-98 811
-105 180
-18 088
23 512
945
-15
1.22
1.18
288 855
5
1
2
16
27
1
1
673
635
499
245
643
095
921
21.3
-84 664
-91 502
-16 181
21 336
1 684
-12
1.17
1.14
266 680
176 154
116 718
-20 438
121 845
181 231
-17 171
134 584
184 842
-17 242
123 268
183 674
-18 088
107 683
175 178
-16 181
2.49
0.97
1.05
0.97
0.89
p: provisional. NPC: Nominal Protection Coefficient. NAC: Nominal Assistance Coefficient.
1. A (area planted) / An (animal numbers) / R (receipts) / I (income).
MPS is net of producer levies and Excess Feed Cost. MPS commodities: see notes to individual tables in Chapter 2.
2. TSE as a share of GDP for 1986-88 for the OECD total excludes the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak
Republic as GDP data is not available for this period.
Source: OECD, PSE/CSE database 2008.
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: AT A GLANCE– ISBN 978-92-64-03213-2 – © OECD 2008
14 – Executive Summary
Table 3. OECD: Producer Support Estimate by country
1986-88
2005-07
2005
2006
2007p
Australia
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage PSE
Producer NPC
Producer NAC
1 014
937
7
1.04
1.08
1 584
1 224
5
1.00
1.05
1 372
1 104
4
1.00
1.05
1 506
1 200
6
1.00
1.06
1 872
1 368
6
1.00
1.06
Canada
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage PSE
Producer NPC
Producer NAC
6 048
5 516
36
1.39
1.56
6 913
5 370
21
1.13
1.27
6 497
5 228
22
1.13
1.28
7 240
5 768
23
1.16
1.29
7 001
5 114
18
1.09
1.23
European Union1
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage PSE
Producer NPC
Producer NAC
98 585
89 534
40
1.76
1.67
131 921
102 482
29
1.19
1.42
130 824
105 264
32
1.25
1.47
130 622
104 066
31
1.19
1.44
134 318
98 114
26
1.13
1.35
Iceland
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage PSE
Producer NPC
Producer NAC
193
174
76
4.10
4.26
225
175
66
2.61
2.98
247
199
70
2.91
3.29
215
172
68
2.74
3.10
212
155
61
2.18
2.54
Japan
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage PSE
Producer NPC
Producer NAC
49 535
44 911
64
2.63
2.76
39 682
30 954
50
1.94
2.03
44 576
35 867
54
2.10
2.18
39 239
31 262
51
1.99
2.06
35 230
25 734
45
1.74
1.83
Korea
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage PSE
Producer NPC
Producer NAC
12 055
10 821
70
3.32
3.38
24 757
19 223
62
2.46
2.62
23 526
18 930
62
2.47
2.65
25 282
20 142
63
2.56
2.72
25 461
18 598
60
2.36
2.49
Mexico2
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage PSE
Producer NPC
Producer NAC
8 364
6 811
28
1.34
1.39
5 716
4 434
14
1.06
1.16
4 960
3 991
13
1.05
1.15
6 136
4 889
15
1.08
1.17
6 053
4 421
14
1.05
1.16
New Zealand
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage PSE
Producer NPC
Producer NAC
432
413
10
1.02
1.12
105
83
1
1.01
1.01
138
111
1
1.01
1.01
96
77
1
1.01
1.01
82
60
1
1.00
1.01
Norway
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage PSE
Producer NPC
Producer NAC
2 800
2 534
70
4.15
3.38
2 953
2 299
62
2.12
2.70
3 050
2 454
67
2.47
3.06
3 007
2 395
65
2.27
2.89
2 803
2 048
53
1.63
2.14
Switzerland
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage PSE
Producer NPC
Producer NAC
5 385
4 860
77
4.80
4.38
4 884
3 813
60
1.89
2.58
5 591
4 499
68
2.31
3.09
4 880
3 888
62
1.93
2.65
4 180
3 054
50
1.41
1.99
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: AT A GLANCE– ISBN 978-92-64-03213-2 – © OECD 2008
Executive Summary – 15
Table 3. OECD: Producer Support Estimate by country (cont.)
1986-88
2005-07
2005
2006
2007p
Turkey
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage PSE
Producer NPC
Producer NAC
3 118
2 826
16
1.17
1.19
12 288
9 526
22
1.23
1.29
12 615
10 150
25
1.32
1.34
10 810
8 612
20
1.20
1.26
13 438
9 816
21
1.17
1.27
United States
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage PSE
Producer NPC
Producer NAC
36 782
33 621
22
1.14
1.29
34 849
27 151
12
1.05
1.14
41 024
33 009
15
1.06
1.18
30 860
24 586
11
1.03
1.13
32 663
23 859
10
1.04
1.11
OECD3
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage PSE
Producer NPC
Producer NAC
239 269
217 507
37
1.50
1.59
262 533
204 176
26
1.20
1.35
272 076
218 917
28
1.24
1.40
257 287
204 980
26
1.20
1.35
258 236
188 632
23
1.15
1.29
p: provisional. NPC: Nominal Protection Coefficient. NAC: Nominal Assistance Coefficient.
1. EU12 for 1986-94, including ex-GDR from 1990; EU15 for 1995-2003; EU25 for 2004-06 and EU27 from
2007.
2 For Mexico, 1986-88 is replaced by 1991-93.
3. Austria, Finland and Sweden are included in the OECD total for all years and in the EU from 1995. The
Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic are included in the OECD total for all years and in
the EU from 2004. The OECD total does not include the non-OECD EU member states.
Source: OECD, PSE/CSE database 2008.
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: AT A GLANCE– ISBN 978-92-64-03213-2 – © OECD 2008
16 – Executive Summary
Table 4. OECD: Consumer Support Estimate by country
1986-88
2005-07
2005
2006
2007p
Australia
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage CSE
Consumer NPC
Consumer NAC
- 241
- 226
- 6
1.06
1.06
- 200
- 155
- 2
1.00
1.02
- 208
- 167
- 2
1.00
1.02
- 183
- 146
- 2
1.00
1.02
- 207
- 151
- 2
1.00
1.02
Canada
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage CSE
Consumer NPC
Consumer NAC
- 2 824
- 2 558
- 24
1.37
1.32
- 3 237
- 2 523
- 15
1.18
1.18
- 2 933
- 2 360
- 16
1.18
1.18
- 3 904
- 3 110
- 18
1.22
1.22
- 2 873
- 2 099
- 11
1.13
1.13
European Union1
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage CSE
Consumer NPC
Consumer NAC
- 74 686
- 67 886
-37
1.75
1.58
- 49 744
- 38 762
-14
1.17
1.16
- 53 838
- 43 319
-16
1.22
1.20
- 49 608
- 39 522
-14
1.18
1.16
- 45 785
- 33 445
-10
1.13
1.12
Iceland
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage CSE
Consumer NPC
Consumer NAC
-117
-106
-69
4.21
3.34
-92
-72
-46
1.92
1.87
-109
-88
-52
2.15
2.09
-92
-74
-49
1.99
1.95
-75
-55
-36
1.60
1.57
Japan
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage CSE
Consumer NPC
Consumer NAC
- 61 128
- 55 248
-64
2.80
2.80
- 45 922
- 35 853
-47
1.89
1.89
- 52 003
- 41 843
-52
2.07
2.07
- 46 349
- 36 926
-48
1.92
1.92
- 39 415
- 28 791
-40
1.67
1.67
Korea
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage CSE
Consumer NPC
Consumer NAC
- 11 754
- 10 567
-66
2.92
2.91
- 29 242
- 22 671
-59
2.45
2.45
- 25 942
- 20 874
-59
2.42
2.42
- 30 347
- 24 177
-61
2.58
2.57
- 31 437
- 22 964
-57
2.35
2.34
Mexico2
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage CSE
Consumer NPC
Consumer NAC
- 6 225
- 5 070
-24
1.37
1.32
- 2 167
- 1 679
-6
1.06
1.06
- 1 706
- 1 373
-5
1.06
1.05
- 2 442
- 1 945
-6
1.08
1.07
- 2 353
- 1 719
-5
1.06
1.06
New Zealand
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage CSE
Consumer NPC
Consumer NAC
- 60
- 56
-6
1.07
1.07
- 56
- 44
-2
1.03
1.03
- 69
- 56
-3
1.03
1.03
- 58
- 46
-3
1.03
1.03
- 40
- 29
-2
1.02
1.02
Norway
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage CSE
Consumer NPC
Consumer NAC
- 1 332
- 1 210
-56
3.29
2.28
- 1 379
- 1 078
-46
1.99
1.89
- 1 538
- 1 237
-53
2.30
2.15
- 1 485
- 1 183
-51
2.12
2.03
- 1 114
- 814
-33
1.55
1.50
Switzerland
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage CSE
Consumer NPC
Consumer NAC
- 4 937
- 4 451
-73
4.72
3.72
- 2 912
- 2 285
-44
1.91
1.84
- 3 707
- 2 983
-55
2.31
2.21
- 3 019
- 2 405
-47
1.96
1.89
- 2 010
- 1 468
-30
1.45
1.42
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: AT A GLANCE– ISBN 978-92-64-03213-2 – © OECD 2008
Executive Summary – 17
Table 4. OECD: Consumer Support Estimate by country (cont.)
1986-88
2005-07
2005
2006
2007p
Turkey
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage CSE
Consumer NPC
Consumer NAC
- 2 394
- 2 177
-16
1.21
1.19
- 7 159
- 5 585
-16
1.21
1.19
- 8 956
- 7 206
-21
1.30
1.27
- 6 105
- 4 864
-15
1.19
1.17
- 6 416
- 4 686
-12
1.14
1.13
United States
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage CSE
Consumer NPC
Consumer NAC
- 4 394
- 4 032
-4
1.12
1.04
15 576
12 162
7
1.04
0.93
14 712
11 838
8
1.05
0.93
19 051
15 178
10
1.03
0.91
12 965
9 471
5
1.05
0.95
OECD3
USD mn
EUR mn
Percentage CSE
Consumer NPC
Consumer NAC
- 161 389
- 146 477
-30
1.54
1.43
- 125 210
- 97 554
-15
1.22
1.18
- 135 700
- 109 187
-17
1.26
1.21
- 124 026
- 98 811
-15
1.22
1.18
- 115 904
- 84 664
-12
1.17
1.14
p: provisional. NPC: Nominal Protection Coefficient. NAC: Nominal Assistance Coefficient.
1. EU12 for 1986-94, including ex-GDR from 1990; EU15 for 1995-2003; EU25 for 2004-06 and EU27 from 2007.
2 For Mexico, 1986-88 is replaced by 1991-93.
3. Austria, Finland and Sweden are included in the OECD total for all years and in the EU from 1995. The Czech
Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic are included in the OECD total for all years and in the EU from
2004. The OECD total does not include the non-OECD EU member states.
Source: OECD, PSE/CSE database 2008.
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: AT A GLANCE– ISBN 978-92-64-03213-2 – © OECD 2008
18 – Table of Contents
Table of Contents
of the full publication
Executive Summary
Chapter 1. Evaluation of support policy developments
Key economic and market developments
Main changes in agricultural policies
Developments in agricultural support
Assessment of reform progress
Annex 1.A1. Policy principles and operational criteria
Annex 1.A2. Definitions of OECD indicators of agricultural support
Annex 1.A3. The PSE classification
References
Chapter 2. Country Focus
Australia
Canada
European Union
Iceland
Japan
Korea
Mexico
New Zealand
Norway
Switzerland
Turkey
United States
Chapter 3. Summary Tables of Estimates of Support for OECD countries
***
List of Boxes
1.1. WTO Doha round: what is on the table?
1.2. Use of %PSE in evaluating annual changes in agricultural support for the OECD area as a whole
1.3. Why does the PSE change when world prices change?
1.4. How are environmental and animal welfare payments classified in the PSE?
1.5. Policy responses to high food prices
1.A1. Classification of PSE and related support indicators applied until 2006
1.A2. Classification of PSE applied from 2007
1.A3. Definitions of categories in the new PSE classification
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: AT A GLANCE– ISBN 978-92-64-03213-2 – © OECD 2008
Table of Contents – 19
List of Tables
1.1. OECD: Estimates of support to agriculture (USD million)
1.2. OECD: Estimates of support to agriculture (EUR million)
1.3. Contribution to the change in the Producer Support Estimate by country,2006 to 2007
1.4a. Contribution to the change in the Market Price Support by country, 2006 to 2007
1.4b. Contribution to change in Border Price by country, 2006 to 2007
2.1. Australia: Estimates of support to agriculture
2.2. Canada: Estimates of support to agriculture
2.3a. European Union: Estimates of support to agriculture (EU27)
2.3b. European Union: Estimates of support to agriculture (EU25)
2.3c. European Union: Estimates of support to agriculture (EU15)
2.4. Iceland: Estimates of support to agriculture
2.5. Japan: Estimates of support to agriculture
2.6. Korea: Estimates of support to agriculture
2.7. Mexico: Estimates of support to agriculture
2.8. New Zealand: Estimates of support to agriculture
2.9. Norway: Estimates of support to agriculture
2.10. Switzerland: Estimates of support to agriculture
2.11. Turkey: Estimates of support to agriculture
2.12. United States: Estimates of support to agriculture
3.1. OECD: Producer Support Estimate by country
3.2. OECD: Consumer Support Estimate by country
3.3. OECD: General Services Support Estimate by country
3.4. OECD: Total Support Estimate by country
3.5. OECD: Composition of Producer Support Estimate by country
3.6. OECD: Characteristics of policy support by country
3.7. OECD: Composition of General Services Support Estimate
3.8. OECD: Producer Single Commodity Transfers (USD million)
3.9. OECD: Producer Single Commodity Transfers (EUR million)
3.10. Australia: Producer Single Commodity Transfers
3.11. Canada: Producer Single Commodity Transfers
3.12a. European Union: Producer Single Commodity Transfers (EU27)
3.12b. European Union: Producer Single Commodity Transfers (EU25)
3.12c. European Union: Producer Single Commodity Transfers (EU15)
3.13. Iceland: Producer Single Commodity Transfers
3.14. Japan: Producer Single Commodity Transfers
3.15. Korea: Producer Single Commodity Transfers
3.16. Mexico: Producer Single Commodity Transfers
3.17. New Zealand: Producer Single Commodity Transfers
3.18. Norway: Producer Single Commodity Transfers
3.19. Switzerland: Producer Single Commodity Transfers
3.20. Turkey: Producer Single Commodity Transfers
3.21. United States: Producer Single Commodity Transfers
3.22. OECD: Consumer Single Commodity Transfers (USD million)
3.23. OECD: Consumer Single Commodity Transfers (EUR million)
3.24. Australia: Consumer Single Commodity Transfers
3.25. Canada: Consumer Single Commodity Transfers
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: AT A GLANCE– ISBN 978-92-64-03213-2 – © OECD 2008
20 – Table of Contents
3.26a. European Union: Consumer Single Commodity Transfers (EU27)
3.26b. European Union: Consumer Single Commodity Transfers (EU25)
3.26c. European Union: Consumer Single Commodity Transfers (EU15)
3.27. Iceland: Consumer Single Commodity Transfers
3.28. Japan: Consumer Single Commodity Transfers
3.29. Korea: Consumer Single Commodity Transfers
3.30. Mexico: Consumer Single Commodity Transfers
3.31. New Zealand: Consumer Single Commodity Transfers
3.32. Norway: Consumer Single Commodity Transfers
3.33. Switzerland: Consumer Single Commodity Transfers
3.34. Turkey: Consumer Single Commodity Transfers
3.35. United States: Consumer Single Commodity Transfers
3.36. Australia: Payments made on the basis of area, animal numbers, receipts or income
3.37. Canada: Payments made on the basis of area, animal numbers, receipts or income
3.38a. European Union: Payments made on the basis of area, animal numbers, receipts or income (EU27)
3.38b. European Union: Payments made on the basis of area, animal numbers, receipts or income (EU25)
3.38c. European Union: Payments made on the basis of area, animal numbers, receipts or income (EU15)
3.39. Iceland: Payments made on the basis of area, animal numbers, receipts or income
3.40. Japan: Payments made on the basis of area, animal numbers, receipts or income
3.41. Korea: Payments made on the basis of area, animal numbers, receipts or income
3.42. Mexico: Payments made on the basis of area, animal numbers, receipts or income
3.43. New Zealand: Payments made on the basis of area, animal numbers, receipts or income
3.44. Norway: Payments made on the basis of area, animal numbers, receipts or income
3.45. Switzerland: Payments made on the basis of area, animal numbers, receipts or income
3.46. Turkey: Payments made on the basis of area, animal numb receipts or income
3.47. United States: Payments made on the basis of area, animal numbers, receipts or income
List of Figures
1.1. Annual changes in world agricultural prices
1.2. Evolution of OECD support Indicators
1.3. Producer Support Estimate by Country
1.4. Producer Nominal Assistance Coefficient by country
1.5. Consumer Support Estimate by country
1.6. OECD: Composition of Producer Support Estimate 1986-2007
1.7. Composition of Producer Support Estimate by Country, 1986-88 and 2005-07
1.8. Use of payments not requiring production, by country
1.9. Producer Nominal Protection Coefficient by country
1.10. OECD: Single Commodity Transfers, 1986-88 and 2005-07
1.11. OECD: Composition of General Services Support Estimate 1986-2007
1.12. Total Support Estimate by Country
1.13. OECD: Changes in the level and composition of producer support
2.1. Australia: PSE level and composition by support categories, 1986-2007
2.2. Australia: Producer SCT by commodity, 2005-07
2.3. Canada: PSE level and composition by support categories, 1986-2007
2.4. Canada: Producer SCT by commodity, 2005-07
2.5. European Union: PSE level and composition by support categories, 1986-20071
2.6. European Union: Producer SCT by commodity, 2005-071
2.7. Iceland: PSE level and composition by support categories, 1986-2007
2.8. Iceland: Producer SCT by commodity, 2005-07
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: AT A GLANCE– ISBN 978-92-64-03213-2 – © OECD 2008
Table of Contents – 21
2.9. Japan: PSE level and composition by support categories, 1986-2007
2.10. Japan: Producer SCT by commodity, 2005-07
2.11. Korea: PSE level and composition by support categories, 1986-2007
2.12. Korea: Producer SCT by commodity, 2005-07
2.13. Mexico: PSE level and composition by support categories, 1986-2007
2.14. Mexico: Producer SCT by commodity, 2005-07
2.15. New Zealand: PSE level and composition by support categories, 1986-2007
2.16. New Zealand: Producer SCT by commodity, 2005-07
2.17. Norway: PSE level and composition by support categories, 1986-2007
2.18. Norway: Producer SCT by commodity, 2005-07
2.19. Switzerland: PSE level and composition by support categories, 1986-2007
2.20. Switzerland: Producer SCT by commodity, 2005-07
2.21. Turkey: PSE level and composition by support categories, 1986-2007
2.22. Turkey: Producer SCT by commodity, 2005-07
2.23. United States: PSE level and composition by support categories, 1986-2007
2.24. United States: Producer SCT by commodity, 2005-07
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN OECD COUNTRIES: AT A GLANCE– ISBN 978-92-64-03213-2 – © OECD 2008