This chapter contains a review of the main policy developments that have taken place over the course of 2024 and early 2025. It also reports on the latest data on agricultural policy support by country, including the level and composition of support and its changes over time.
Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2025
Making the Most of the Trade and Environment Nexus in Agriculture
Abstract
Governments responded to a complex trade landscape in 2024-2025 by pursuing trade agreements – often emphasising sustainability – while adjusting border measures and domestic policies to support production, expand market access, and ensure food security.
The PSE expressed as a share of GFR (%PSE) is declining, but with substantial variation across countries reflecting different policy objectives and implementation. Average %PSE were highest in Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, and Korea, ranging between 40% and 49. In contrast, negative values between -11% and -15% were observed in Argentina, Viet Nam, and India, where prevailing policies exert an implicit net tax on producers.
The composition of support varies markedly. India exhibits the highest reliance on the most potentially trade- and production-distorting forms of support, which represent 95% of total producer transfers and 40% of GFR. By contrast, in Australia, Chile, and the United States, such measures comprise less than 1% of GFR. Marked declines in the use of more distorting measures were observed in Japan, Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland.
Transfers deemed less market-distorting – such as those based on historical entitlements (e.g. land area, livestock numbers, or income levels) – remain common. However, payments de-linked from commodity criteria are infrequent. Switzerland and Mexico are notable exceptions, allocating a relatively high share of support to non-commodity-linked schemes aimed at broader environmental and social objectives.
Countries with high levels of producer support also provide the most support to general services. Japan, Korea, and Switzerland each allocated more than 7% of agricultural production value to such services in the reference period. At the other end of the scale, Argentina, Brazil and Ukraine spend less than 1% of the value of the sector’s production on general services.
Infrastructure remains the dominant area of expenditure for general services in most countries, notably in Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Türkiye, Chile, and Viet Nam. Switzerland, Norway, and Korea also allocate significant resources to knowledge and innovation systems, with expenditures reaching up to 4.2% of production value.
Budgetary transfers targeting consumers – primarily those with low incomes – were observed in relatively few countries. The United States, India, Norway, and Indonesia were the most significant providers of such targeted consumer support relative to consumption expenditure.
The global trading system was tested in 2024 and 2025 by natural and policy-driven events that made it easier for agro-food products to cross borders in some places, and more difficult in others. Policies in agriculture have been responsive to the changing conditions affecting the sector, whether as short-term responses to acute events, or adapting to long term trends, including related to environmental, social and economic sustainability. This section reviews the main policy developments that have taken place over the course of 2024 and early 2025.
Governments sought to capitalise on trade opportunities and used trade policy to promote domestic production, economic growth and food security
The trade environment in 2024 and 2025 was relatively unstable, with tariffs on some products changing significantly. At the same time, the number of trade agreements continued to expand, and other measures sought to improve the efficiency and reliability of the global trade system. Trade agreements continue to strive for increased market access but there is also an increased move towards new types of provisions such as the ones focusing on sustainability issues. Overall, trade in agricultural products continued to grow as a share of agricultural production.
Trade agreements and negotiations
In December 2024, the European Union reached a political agreement with four Mercosur countries – Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay – on the trade pillar of the EU-Mercosur association agreement. Negotiations were finalised for the Advanced Framework Agreement between the European Union and Chile, which began to apply on 1 February 2025. On 1 May 2024, the New Zealand-European Union Free Trade Agreement entered into force. It is one of the first FTAs globally to include a Sustainable Food Systems chapter. It also provides for tariff eliminations and reductions for key products.
The agreement between the European Free Trade Association (EFTA, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein) and Chile was modernised to improve market access. EFTA members also signed a Trade and Economic Partnership Agreement (TEPA) with India. As part of the agreement, EFTA countries have committed to investing USD 100 billion and generating 1 million jobs in India over the next 15 years. EFTA’s market access offer covers 100% of non-agricultural products and includes tariff concessions on processed agricultural products. India is removing duties on 82.7% of its tariff lines, which cover 95.3% of EFTA exports, but sectors such as dairy, soybeans and other sensitive agricultural products are excluded.
Four countries, Costa Rica, Australia, New Zealand and Viet Nam signed agreements with the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In each case, this was the first free trade agreement between that country and a Middle Eastern country. As such, these agreements aim to expand trade opportunities into new regions.
The Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS) was signed in November 2024 by Costa Rica, Iceland, New Zealand, and Switzerland. ACCTS represents a new type of agreement that uses trade commitments to address environmental challenges. It includes commitments to promote the liberalisation of research and experimental development services on agricultural sciences relevant to environmental concerns. Costa Rica also signed a Trade Association Agreement with Ecuador.
Tariffs
Effective from 8 July 2024, the Philippines reduced the rice tariff from 35% to 15%. This move sought to lower rice prices for consumers and help control inflation, given the substantial impact of rice on the consumer price index. A temporary tariff reduction for a staple food in Costa Rica was approved in 2024. This allowed for the duty-free import of 6 260 tonnes of black and red beans between October 2024 and January 2025 to prevent their shortage in the domestic market.
In June 2024, the European Union extended zero tariffs on Ukrainian imports, in response to Russian military aggression, but introduced an emergency brake mechanism, limiting Ukrainian exports of certain products such as sugar, poultry, and maize to the average export levels of 2021-23. As a result of proposal from Latvian authorities, the European Union has increased the tariffs on selected agriculture products originating in Russia and Belarus.
The People’s Republic of China (hereafter “China”) announced tariff increases on 4 March 2025 in response to increased US tariffs on most Chinese goods, covering USD 22 billion worth of US agricultural and food products (USD 19 billion will face an additional 10% tariffs and USD 3 billion an additional 15%). Goods affected include soybeans, maize, sorghum, wheat, meat, fish products, cotton, dairy, fruit and vegetables. On 7 March, in retaliation against new tariffs imposed by Canada on Chinese electric vehicles, China announced 100% tariffs on Canadian rapeseed oil and pea imports and a 25% tariff on pig meat and selected seafood products.
In response to new US tariffs on steel and aluminium, the European Union raised tariffs on US agricultural products to up to 25%, affecting corn, soybeans and dairy, and planned additional countermeasures affecting EUR 95 billion (USD 103 billion) in US imports. A 90-day truce was announced in April to allow for negotiations.
In May 2024, in response to rising wholesale cabbage prices Korea reduced the import tariff on cabbage from 27% to 0%. Cabbage yields were impacted by hot weather, reducing domestic availability.
Other trade measures
Argentina eliminated the equilibrium volumes of exports (VEE) (export quotas) for maize and wheat, which were managed through administrative export permits granted by the former Ministry of Agriculture depending on the quantity available and the price in the domestic market (in place since January 2021).
Australia adopted legislation to ban live sheep export by sea, starting in May 2028, combined with budgetary assistance for affected live sheep exporters. Kazakhstan restricted exports of cattle and imports of wheat for most of 2024.
Several anti-subsidy, anti-dumping and safeguard investigations were started in China, affecting products such as beef meat, dairy, rapeseed and brandy. New border procedures for export of fertilisers were introduced.
The Plant Health Act was passed in South Africa. It provides a new regulatory framework for phytosanitary standards to expand agricultural trade opportunities. The new law makes South Africa compliant with the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and the International Plant Protection Convention.
A common integrated system for the export and import of agro-food products was established in Spain. The new structure integrates all border control services under one single coordination unit of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to simplify processes, reduce the administrative burden on users, and improve the efficiency of border controls. Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia have maintained their unilateral ban on Ukrainian imports, although the list of prohibited agricultural goods from Ukraine has been adjusted in some instances. An import ban of agricultural and animal feed products from Russia and Belarus into Latvia was introduced.
Türkiye extended an export ban on olive oil in bulk and in barrels until the end of May 2024 to reduce pressure on domestic prices. Regulations were also extended for the pulse sector, placing bans or limits on lentil, chickpea and dry bean exports.
Governance and policy frameworks, both economy-wide and agriculture-specific were established or revised
A new Coordinating Ministry for Food has been established in Indonesia, covering seven ministries including Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries and Environment. The Ministry of Agriculture was previously co‑ordinated by the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The new co‑ordinating Ministry for Food also covers the National Food Agency (NFA) and the newly created National Nutrition Agency (NNA). These institutional changes reflect the high priority that the new government gives to self-sufficiency, but also to the nutrition aspects of food security. Viet Nam also restructured its ministries, merging the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) to establish a new Ministry of Agriculture and Environment (MAE), which officially came into operation from 1 March 2025.
Twenty-five priority measures from the implementation plan of the National Strategy of Sovereignty for Food Security in Chile were officially launched. The comprehensive plan consists of 84 measures grouped into four strategic pillars: sustainable production, market diversification, innovation and transformation, and the promotion of healthy diets. In Mexico the National Development Plan (NDP) has been developed for the period 2024-30. It contains a Sectoral Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development which defines agricultural policy objectives.
Israel established the cross-ministerial National Plan for Food Security 2050, which outlines policies and initiatives for local agricultural production. The plan aims to achieve a 33% increase in local agricultural production within 10 years while taking into account climate change mitigation and adaptation policies, reviewing international trade agreements, and reducing food loss and waste.
The foundational legal framework for Japan’s agricultural policies, the Basic Act on Food, Agriculture, and Rural Areas, was revised to address significant changes in agriculture since its enactment in 1999. The revision strengthens food security as a core principle, expanding its focus beyond food supply to ensuring stable access to high-quality food at reasonable prices. It also emphasises sustainable agriculture and maintaining rural communities.
The 2024-2035 Decade-Long Plan to Boost Consumption of Grains was released in China. The plan aims to development of the cereals sector through higher production standards, research and international co-operation. It encourages agro-food businesses and financial enterprises to establish development funds in support of the grain industry. The plan also calls for China to participate actively in the formulation of international standards for grains trade.
The Strategy for the Development of Agriculture and Rural Areas in Ukraine until 2030 was launched, along with the corresponding Operational Plan of Measures for its Implementation in 2025-2027. The strategy, developed in line with the EU’s “Ukraine Facility” initiative, focuses on fostering inclusive policies, ensuring food security, increasing competitiveness, improving land use, supporting climate-smart agriculture, modernising the sector, and promoting rural development.
Norway put out the “Strategy for Increased Self-Sufficiency in Agricultural Products and Plan for Enhancing Income Opportunities in Agriculture”. Objectives include raising the self-sufficiency rate for agricultural goods to 50%, improving and expanding the production of plant products to bolster agriculture's competitiveness against imports, boosting domestic feed content, while using grazing resources to maintain a high self-sufficiency rate for meat and dairy.
The Strategy for Resilient Food Systems covering the 2025-34 period was launched, setting a common vision and direction for food systems in Malta built on three key pillars, namely a) Securing the viability of local production; b) Future-proofing food supply; and c) Re-igniting pride in local food products and nurturing a knowledge-driven food culture.
The review of the CAP in the European Union – the so-called Simplification Regulation – came into force with the objective of reducing the burden on farmers. The approved changes, which will be in force until the end of the current CAP 2023-27, provided more flexibility for Member States regarding some conditionality standards. In the United States, the American Relief Act extended agricultural programmes authorised in the 2018 Farm Bill through 2025 while a new farm bill continues to be developed.
The Australian Government Drought Plan (2024-29) outlines the country’s updated national drought policy, in parallel with the National Drought Agreement (2024-29) that sets out collaboration between the national government, states and territories.
The Parliamentary Resolution in Agricultural Policy until 2040 in Iceland will be implemented in five-year phases. Implementation of the first five-year action plan started in 2024. It contains 28 actions linked to the policy’s ten main issues: food security; adaptation and mitigation to climate change; biodiversity; land use and land preservation; circular economy; international market issues; consumers; innovation and technology; education and R&D; and the agricultural support system.
In the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland introduced the Farm Sustainability Transition Payment (FSTP) as part of its Sustainable Agricultural Programme. The aim of the FSTP is to support the transition from the Basic Payment Scheme (which continued in Northern Ireland following the exit from the European Union) to the Farm Sustainability Payment, which is planned for introduction in 2026.
Governments acted to reinforce domestic production, often in the context of food security goals
The Philippines extended the Rice Competitiveness Enhancement Fund (RCEF) until 2031 by amending the Rice Tariffication Law. The fund, financed with the receipts from rice import tariffs, is designed to offset the impact of lower border protection. The fund is used to purchase rice farming machinery and equipment, promote rice seed development, and support training, extension services, soil health improvement, pest and disease control and water management.
In 2024, Kazakhstan modified funding distribution methods for major support programmes. Increased subsidised loans and loan guarantees were provided through financial institutions to producers, and input subsidies were provided through input manufacturers. Instead of payments to producers individually, funds for mineral fertilisers, pesticides, agricultural machinery are now directed to domestic input manufacturers.
Türkiye has established the “Supply Security Department” in response to risks to food security stemming from geopolitical and international agricultural market crises which may affect the country. This department monitors, among other things, changes in production, consumption, stock levels, domestic and international demand, and identifies when price increases more than production costs for certain strategic products. Türkiye also put in place production planning for plant, animal and aquaculture production. The objectives of the production planning system are to ensure food supply security, use resources effectively, grow strategic products in the most suitable places, and ensure sustainable use of natural resources.
The total credit allocation for commercial agriculture in Brazil for the 2024/25 harvest was increased by 10% from the 2023/24 period. Credit destined for smallholders, traditional agriculture, and family agriculture was set at BRL 239 billion (USD 44 billion). The Agriculture Decree in Italy increased funding for the coverage of interests on bank loans for farmers and granted additional support to farms impacted by specific events affecting their economic viability.
A new subsidy programme in Ukraine was introduced in 2024, providing per-hectare payments to farms located in active and potential conflict zones. In 2024, Poland directed payments to cereal and maize farmers to address liquidity losses caused by market disruptions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Costa Rica began a large-scale irrigation project in the province of Guanacaste (one of the driest in the country). The new irrigation service is expected to benefit 18 639 ha and 746 agricultural producers, including large, medium, and small-scale farmers. Bulgaria allocated additional funding via its Rural Development Programme to support its aim to quadruple irrigated area. Separately, a new aid scheme for the supply of water for irrigation is part of the national budget and is expected to continue for at least the next four years. To combat water scarcity and improve agricultural productivity, Portugal launched new investments in upgrading irrigation systems, particularly in the Alentejo region. These efforts aim to optimise water use efficiency.
To reduce dependence on imported raw materials for chemical fertiliser, Japan introduced measures to expand the use of domestic resources for organic fertilisers. The main measure was support payments to livestock farmers and compost manufacturers to partially cover the cost of building facilities for the manufacture of compost. Slovakia introduced regulations for “agricultural functional greenery” aiming at strengthening protection of the most fertile agricultural soils and lands with the highest water retention.
Many countries reinforced environmental protections
The Nature Restoration Law was approved in the European Union. The law requires, inter alia, restoration of land area and habitats, reversing the decline in pollinators, enhanced biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems, and restoration of at least 30% of drained peatlands in agricultural use by 2030. The Nature Restoration Regulation (Naturrestaureringsförordningen) was adopted in Sweden as part of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. The regulation sets national requirements for various restoration measures, with a particular focus on the rewetting of organic soils (such as peat or wetland) used in agricultural production.
In the context of nature-based solutions for climate and biodiversity, in Germany two research and demonstration projects were launched focusing on creating new, near-natural peatland habitats, and on peatland revitalisation, water level optimisation and biomass harvesting in peatland areas. Public schemes were established in Denmark to support the creation of more nature and forests, including targeting afforesting 250 000 ha, rewetting and restoring 140 000 ha of drained peatlands in agricultural use, and establishing six additional national parks to protect and restore biodiversity.
Several countries engaged into soil management programmes. In 2024, Norway established a system of regular soil sampling of soils in pastureland and forest to document status and changes in soil properties. This complements existing soil testing on agricultural lands. In 2025 the Mexican Soil Alliance developed a National Soil Restoration Programme to rehabilitate degraded soils. The programme aims to restore 25% of the eroded area through management practices that improve soil cover and organic matter, as well as the implementation of works to reduce soil loss.
With regards to climate change, the Zero Net Emissions from Agriculture Cooperative Research Centre (ZNE Ag CRC) was established in Australia to support long-term emissions reductions. The ZNE Ag CRC aims to improve the competitiveness, productivity and sustainability of Australian agriculture through research and development, and help achieve the net zero GHG emissions from agriculture by 2040. In Denmark taxes were introduced on emissions from the agricultural sector, including from livestock, with plans for the tax rate to increase over time. The European Union’s Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) Regulation, published in December 2024 under Regulation (EU/2024/3012), creates the first EU-wide voluntary framework for certifying carbon removals, carbon farming practices, and carbon storage.
Colombia advanced several measures to improve environmental sustainability. The Orinoquia Biocarbon Project seeks to identify and develop alternatives that contribute to improving conditions for sustainable agricultural planning and production, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Slovenia released its first annual climate report for the agricultural sector, outlining GHG emission mitigation and adaptation efforts. The report will serve as a scientific foundation to develop targeted agricultural policies in response to climate change
To reduce nitrogen deposition, new rules introduced in Luxembourg require slurry, liquid manure, digestate, and sewage sludge to be spread using band application at ground level or direct soil application. As part of the National Rural Area Programme (NPLG), a new policy instrument was introduced in the Netherlands to facilitate voluntary farm relocation, reducing nitrogen deposition in Natura 2000 areas. A second NPLG policy instrument was also launched to support farm-level investments in proven technologies that significantly reduce nitrogen emissions.
Latvia saw high uptake rates for its eco-schemes “agricultural practices beneficial for the environment and climate”, “agricultural practices that reduce nitrogen and ammonia emissions and pollution”, and a sub-measure of “ecological focus areas” agricultural practices beneficial for the environment and climate, “agricultural practices that reduce nitrogen and ammonia emissions and pollution”, and a sub-measure of “ecological focus areas”.
As of 2025, additional conditionalities will apply to farmers in the United Kingdom (Scotland) to access direct payments. Farmers will be required to carry out farm plans and audits and meet additional conditions related to the maintenance of soil organic matter. In England, the roll-out of Environmental Land Management schemes has continued and as of March 2025, agri-environmental schemes covered more than half of farm land in England. In Wales, a new Sustainable Farming Scheme starting in 2026 will pay farmers for delivering sustainable land management outcomes, such as water quality, biodiversity, and animal health.
The development of AgNav, a free nationally-available online farmer-centric sustainability platform in Ireland, was accelerated in 2024 and 2025 via additional funding allocated by Teagasc, Bord Bia and the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation.
Investment support for biomethane production has been launched in Estonia. The support will enable the construction of five new biomethane production units, which will significantly increase Estonia's biomethane production capacity, contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions both in the agricultural sector and in sectors using biomethane, and provide additional income to agricultural enterprises.
Actions focused on generational renewal, rural quality of life and fostering opportunity highlight increasing interest on social issues
Social sustainability issues have been around for a long time, but the underlying drivers have been growing in importance, bringing these issues higher up the policy agenda in many places (Asai and Antón, 2024[1]). For example, many EU countries are facing an aging farming population, with fewer young people entering the sector. In the United States and Canada, some rural communities are struggling with declining populations while young farmers often face barriers such as high land prices that make it hard to enter the sector. Countries like Japan and Korea are dealing with rural depopulation as younger people move to urban areas for better job opportunities.
Several initiatives to foster greater youth involvement in the agricultural sector were established in the Philippines. These efforts include comprehensive training programmes and international exchange opportunities designed to familiarise young farmers with advanced technologies and innovative practices. Additionally, the 2024 edition of the Young Farmers Challenge Program as a financial grant assistance programme aims to support young Filipinos actively engaged in agriculture.
Italy introduced support for the installation of young farmers (EUR 15 million per year) and favourable tax regimes and incentives for purchasing agricultural land. The law also established the National Observatory for Youth Entrepreneurship and Employment in Agriculture. Poland introduced payments for small farms as a lump-sum payment of EUR 225/ha for farms up to 5 ha, replacing other types of direct payments. Portugal launched Initiatives to attract young individuals to agriculture by providing financial incentives, training programs, and support for adopting innovative technologies.
A legal amendment and government decree implementing the 2021 Act on Agricultural Farm Transfers were introduced in Hungary to facilitate generational renewal by clarifying the process for whole farm transfer contracts. The Direct Payment System for Farmland Transfers by Retirement in Korea was modified to better encourage senior farmers to retire and transfer farmland to younger farmers. In 2024, payment levels were increased and the eligibility was expanded to farmers aged 65-84 (previously 65-74), with payments available until age 84 (previously 75).
France reached agreement with the European Investment Fund in late 2024 to enhance the impact of the “National Initiative for French Agriculture” guarantee fund, catalysing additional investments to support agricultural transformations, particularly for climate adaptation and generational renewal, while improving access to credit, especially for young farmers.
Spain started applying CAP social conditionality in 2024. The full payment of certain aids is now tied to compliance with basic standards on working conditions and employment of agricultural workers and occupational health and safety. Beneficiaries who fail to comply and who have a final sanction issued by the competent authority will be subject to a penalty.
In 2024, Spain organised its first meeting with all participants in its CULTIVA Programme, a training resource aimed at young farmers and livestock breeders based on temporary stays at model farms throughout the country. The 2024 call for applications attracted 290 applicants, with a budget of EUR 1.2 million.
Switzerland pursued implementing the agreed provisions from the AP22+ reform in the social and economic domains. This includes mandatory social security coverage for spouses who work regularly and to a significant extent on the farm. From 2027, they must be covered by a personal insurance.
The action plan on gender equality began to be implemented in Austria, focusing on measures including agricultural and forestry consulting, farm and diversification related investments. The plan was formulated by the working group on gender equality within the framework of the monitoring committee of the Austrian CAP Strategic Plan. In Ireland a new Women in Agriculture Working Group was tasked with facilitating and guiding implementation of the Women in Agriculture Action Plan, developed in 2023.
Colombia continues to strengthen the Integrated Rural Reform under the framework of the Agreement for the Termination of the Conflict. This reform is based on land democratisation, anchored in access, formalisation, and regularisation of property rights. However, it goes beyond land issues and aims at improving the quality of life of rural people in general, especially marginalised populations, while guaranteeing territorial rights.
In March 2024, Korea announced the Rural Extinction Response Strategy Under the New Rural Paradigm to address rural population decline and create new development opportunities for agriculture and rural areas. The strategy includes financial support and housing packages to promote new rural business and establishing clusters of smart farms, agribusiness, food tech companies and green bio-enterprises to promote innovation.
In Italy, the register of “Identity Cities” was established to acknowledge municipalities where at least 30% of agro-food products have a quality certification and a long-lasting tradition of production (at least 50 years).
In response to farmer protests in Belgium, both Flanders and Wallonia established task forces to engage with sector stakeholders and introduce administrative simplifications to ease compliance burdens.
The new Expropriation Act in South Africa allows the government to acquire property for public purposes with “just and equitable compensation”, replacing the 1975 market-value-based system. Compensation considers land use, history, market value, state investment, and purpose, with provisions for little or no compensation in cases of unused, abandoned, or state-funded land.
Israel established a dedicated administrative body, the Tkuma Region Administration, for overseeing the southern region’s recovery and rehabilitation subsequent to the October 2023 attacks. It covers the area within 0-7 kilometres from the Gaza strip. A five-year agricultural rehabilitation strategic plan for the region has been developed.
Governments have been assisting with technology adoption and innovation
Digital technologies, use of data and new forms of data, biotech and other innovative approaches continue to accelerate the transformation of agricultural production. Governments have been acting to respond to and support this evolution by funding actions and investments on and off the farm as well as via national research and extension organisations.
Promoting smart agriculture
In January 2025, Korea established the First Master Plan for Fostering Smart Agriculture (2025–2029) required under the Act on the Promotion and Support of Smart Agriculture (July 2024).1 This plan outlines key policies and initiatives to foster smart agriculture over the next five years. The plan aims to convert 35% of the country’s 55 000-hectare greenhouses into smart farms and apply at least one smart agricultural technology to 20% of the cultivated area for major field crops undergoing mechanisation. The Smart Agriculture Action Plan 2024-2028 in China promotes digitalisation of the agricultural sector by helping farmers and other stakeholders in the agro-food value chain to incorporate technologies such as big data and Artificial Intelligence in production processes. The Act on Promoting the Utilization of Smart Agricultural Technology was enacted in 2024 to boost agricultural productivity and sustainability in Japan. It aims to address labour shortages and improve resource efficiency through financial incentives and special exceptions for farmers, co-operatives, and research institutions to invest in smart technologies, precision farming, and data-driven agriculture.
The EU CAP 2023-27 introduces digitalisation strategies to enhance digital technology adoption and infrastructure development in agricultural and rural areas. To support the digitalisation of agriculture in Germany, 11 projects on optimising the data and information exchange between e.g. agricultural machines, vehicles or with central data processing have received financing of EUR 15 million over three years from early 2025. The so-called interoperability aims to increase the efficiency of the use of digital applications by farms. In Estonia, a digital solution enabling field-based precision fertilisation and nutrient balancing was developed.
Improving digital services for farmers
In its 2024 National reform programme, Cyprus outlined two initiatives to boost agricultural competitiveness: a national centre for excellence in agri-tech to drive digitalisation, and a cloud-based platform to streamline trade and enhance information symmetry across the supply chain. The e-khalati digital platform was launched to track prices of essential products, enabling consumers to compare supermarket prices. The Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) “Knowledge Portal” in Slovenia has recently been updated, to offer farmers, advisors, researchers, and others access to a comprehensive range of agricultural knowledge, including research findings, training materials, and reports.
A new national knowledge hub for digitalisation was established in Sweden as part of a network of hubs bridging the gap between research and practice, enhancing collaboration within AKIS and integrating advisors. Additionally, a knowledge database for farmers and advisors, providing verified and updated information, was developed and is set to launch in early 2025. In the context of its progress toward EU membership, Ukraine launched three digital learning platforms on agriculture in 2024 to build institutional capacity, including systems for livestock, crops, and grain storage. Additionally, Ukraine has adopted laws to align its legislation with EU digital standards. Croatia established the eMonitoring service which collects and monitors various types of plant-growth related data, the eLearning system which provides online courses for farmers and the eAdvisor system to collect and distribute information and data to farmers and other AKIS stakeholders.
The National System of Individual Identification and Traceability of Cattle started implementation in Costa Rica in 2024. The system requires each animal to be identified and registered using ear tags and electronic transponders. An associated digital platform stores the registration information and other relevant data. Also in 2024, the National Electronic Individual Traceability System for bovines, buffalos and cervids in Argentina was replaced with a new digital system in the form of a mandatory individual identification tool based on technical specifications defined by the competent authority. This will make it possible to establish the precise traceability of each animal from the primary link to the meat industry
Capacity building in government institutions
Lithuania invested in digitalisation across various departments aimed to improve efficiency and reduce administrative burden on producers including through creating a risk assessment system to optimise inspections in the dairy sector.
The AKIS Coordination Group was established in Ireland, which delivered a new AKIS map for Ireland that was published by CAP Network Ireland. Similarly, in Spain a pluralistic body for the co-ordination and governance of the AKIS was approved and held its first meeting in 2024. It consists of three working groups that began operating in 2025 encompassing advisory services, agro-food training and policies for research, development and innovation in the agro-food sector. Two of its working groups, on agro-food advisory services and agro-food training, also started operating. The Estonian Agricultural Big Data project (launched in 2022) aims to link available datasets collected by the public and private sectors and create digital decision-making tools which enable agricultural producers to adopt climate- and environmentally-friendly technologies.
The Czech Agrifood Research Centre (CARC), established in January 2025, unites experts from three research institutes to enhance research efficiency, focusing on topics like biotechnology, sustainable agriculture, and low-emission farming aligned with EU CAP goals.
On 12 June 2024, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay signed a memorandum for the creation of the International Biosafety Network (ABRE-Bio, Biosafety Agencies Network for Biotechnology), to promote the exchange of scientific information and co-operation in the risk assessment and regulation of genetically modified organisms as well as of products derived from new breeding techniques. The countries will work to create common procedures for the evaluation of biosecurity, seeking to reduce costs and time, and harmonise regulations with the specific legislation of each country.
Extreme weather events are becoming a common policy driver
Following a national emergency after heavy rainfall linked to a hurricane and a tropical storm, Costa Rica established a special fund to provide credit at favourable conditions to micro, small and medium enterprises in the affected regions, including agricultural producers, and an investment for the in-kind provision of agricultural inputs to farmers in the affected areas.
Hot weather in Korea in 2024 caused inflation in staple foods like cabbage, radishes and green onions with prices doubling over summer. The Korean Government released cabbage into the market from national stockpiles to manage prices and they have plans to improve the stockpiling of cabbages.
Payments for disaster relief continued to increase in China in 2024 in response to severe flooding and crop damage across several regions. Funding was allocated to manage flood-damaged crops, restore damaged agricultural facilities, and support flood control and drainage of fields. Subsidies for agricultural insurance premiums were also increased by almost 19%.
In the EU the agricultural reserve of the CAP was used to alleviate effects of adverse climatic events. This compensated farmers in Austria, Czechia and Poland facing losses from extreme weather events like frost and hail. Agriculture holdings in Greece received exceptional payments in 2024 for the 2023 “Daniel” and “Elias” storms and for wildfires and other natural disasters that occurred in past years. Romania increased state guarantees for farm loans, provided compensation using state aid and delayed agricultural loan repayments in a series of measures to support farmers affected by drought.
Measures for the food system
Improving food systems
The National Coordination Center for Sustainable Food Systems in Austria, established in January 2023 by the ministries responsible for agriculture, climate protection, and health was extended until end of 2025. It is tasked with co-ordinating actions towards sustainable food systems. The federal government’s Food and Nutrition Strategy “Good Food for Germany” was launched in January 2024. it has several measures including a competition between model regions to initiate a transformation towards a healthier and more sustainable food system, and projects for communal catering.
In Belgium, Flanders launched an open dialogue on food policies, while Wallonia unveiled an action plan aimed at sustainable food procurement, collective catering, local supply chains and citizen participation. Finland has launched studies on the operations of the food sector's wholesale trade and the efficiency and competitive conditions of the food market. A working group was appointed to compile statistics on the food sector to obtain a more up-to-date picture of the food market.
The Milk Market Supervision Department in Lithuania created and implemented a risk assessment system to reduce the number of inspections by identifying the riskiest 20% of economic entities. Inspection reports are now reported in a digital format.
Food loss and waste
In 2024, Chile began developing a National Strategy for the Prevention and Reduction of Food Loss and Waste. The strategy is expected to be launched in the second half of 2025. Additionally, a Clean Production Agreement was established in 2024 between AB Chile (the food processing industry association), the Sustainability and Climate Change Agency (ASCC), and ODEPA. This agreement is the first to tackle food loss and waste management across the entire food and beverage sector.
The Food Conservation and Anti-Food Waste Action Plan was introduced in China in November 2024. The Plan is designed to maximise the use of grains and oilseeds output by increasing the use of processing by-products. It also calls for the use and assessment of food loss and waste reduction indicators, particularly by food service providers, who would face penalties in case of non-compliance.
Romania created the National Platform for the Prevention and Reduction of Food Waste to ensure a more efficient management and monitoring of measures to prevent and reduce food waste. Concerned economic actors in the agri-food supply chain now must submit reports on donated food. Spain enacted Law 1/2025 on the prevention of food loss and avoidable food waste, establishing a comprehensive legal framework to reduce avoidable food waste across the entire supply chain – from production to consumption. The law introduces mandatory prevention plans for food businesses, prioritises donation of surplus food, and sets out a hierarchy for managing food waste. It also includes sanctions for non-compliance and promotes consumer awareness and education.
Consumer needs and nutrition
The new National Nutrition Agency leads a new Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) programme in Indonesia, reflecting the priority given to improving nutritional intake. This programme also promotes nutritional knowledge and healthy eating patterns, while at the same time seeking to improve school attendance. The MBG programme targets school children of all ages along with younger children, pregnant women, and breastfeeding mothers.
As part of the Stabbiltà initiative, major importers and retailers in Malta were required to reduce the recommended retail prices of staple foods by at least 15% compared to 31 October 2023 levels. In 2024, the Philippines aimed several programmes at improving food security and nutrition. To address rising food prices, it introduced two subsidised rice programmes in July and August: Programme 29, which provided rice at PHP 29 (USD 0.5) per kilo for vulnerable groups, and the KNP Rice-for-All Program which offered rice at an initial price of PHP 45 (USD 0.8) per kilo for all Filipinos, before being reduced to PHP 40 (USD 0.7). Additionally, a Joint Administrative Order granted senior citizens and persons with disabilities a 5% discount on essential goods, capped at PHP 125 (USD 2) weekly. The Walang Gutom 2027 Food Stamp Program was also expanded, providing monthly food vouchers to 300 000 food-insecure households across 10 regions.
Argentina finished a manual to contribute to the interpretation and effective application of the regulations of the Law for the Promotion of Healthy Eating. The law made it mandatory to place one or more warning labels for each critical nutrient, as appropriate, as well as cautionary legends, for example, for sweeteners and caffeine.
This section presents the results of the latest support estimates. Chapter 2 provided an overview of support for OECD and EE countries as a group. This chapter focusses on how individual countries delivered policy support. The results reveal that countries take different approaches to supporting their producers. While most OECD countries offer only positive policy support, many of the 54 countries in the report use a mix of positive and negative support. In three countries, India, Argentina and Viet Nam , net support is negative. The composition of support is also quite varied, with some countries reliant on market price support (MPS) while others hardly using it at all.
Chapter 2 showed that the overall levels of support have not changed very much between 2023 and 2024. This can hide the fact that for some commodities in some countries, there were more substantial movements in support levels. This is often driven by global price movements that change the reference price used to determine the level of market price support for a commodity. In some cases, this can even move support from being positive to negative or vice-versa between years (Box 3.1).
The following is a selection of results from the PSE data collection for this report. It is not a comprehensive list but is intended to provide some additional insights into the content of the database. They are chosen based on the estimated percent change as well as whether the country is an important producer or normally has a significant amount of policy support (either positive or negative). The interested reader is encouraged to look at the individual country chapters where greater detail is provided on the policy settings in each country.
For wheat, commodity specific budgetary transfers are down 92% between 2023 and 2024. A large share of this is from changing export taxes in Argentina (down 52%), driven by changes in the world reference price (which declined 65%). In general, reference prices for wheat declined substantially between 2023 and 2024 as prospects for Ukrainian exports improved and harvests were generally good. On average for the OECD, wheat MPS is down 28% between 2023 and 2024, although it has increased in the EE countries.
For maize, there was an important swing in MPS in India as reference prices declined 15% and domestic prices rose by 10%. This increased MPS year-on-year by USD 2.3 billion. While overall MPS for maize was stable, there were also big swings in Indonesia, Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico.
Soybeans MPS changed the most in Argentina, where a 2023 domestic price spike normalised in 2024 as drought conditions eased and more area was planted to soybeans. Producer and reference prices for soybeans were also strongly lower in Brazil, Japan, Indonesia and the United States.
Prices for eggs were volatile in North America as avian influenza led to culling of flocks and supply shocks, especially in the United States, where prices rose 50% between 2023 and 2024. This affected MPS in Canada and Mexico, which use US egg prices as reference. This led to record high negative MPS for eggs in Mexico in 2024. Higher US reference prices for eggs have kept Canadian MPS for eggs at zero for the last three years.
The domestic price of sheep meat in the European Union increased by 15% on a smaller sheep herd at the end of 2023 and poor weather and disease also affecting production. At the same time, the reference price declined by 9%, leading to an increase in MPS to USD 565 million from nearly zero in the three previous years.
MPS for poultry meat increased significantly in Colombia, India and Türkiye, mainly due to stronger domestic prices driven largely by higher feed costs. Conversely, MPS for poultry meat was lower in the United Kingdom and Korea as a result of lower domestic prices resulting from improved supplies and lower input costs in their domestic markets.
The countries with the biggest changes in their TSE estimates between 2023 and 2024 were India (from USD -4 billion to USD -28 billion) as the exceptionally low negative TSE in 2023 returned to normal ranges in 2024, Kazakhstan (+106%, mainly due to higher wheat MPS), Ukraine (+66%, driven by higher egg MPS) and Argentina (61% more negative due to MPS for soybeans; negative MPS reduced for many other commodities).
Some of the more important movements in budgetary support were for payments for non-commodity outputs. Payments in that category were also 56% higher in the European Union, mainly driven by national expenditures on buyouts of livestock farmers. In Norway, these payments were for certain landscape features such as buffer strips.
Payments based on inputs were 56% higher in Kazakhstan with the introduction of a new credit programmes, and up by 28% in Indonesia with more support for fertiliser as well as payments for estate crop development. Input support was 48% lower in Japan with the ending of temporary supports for fertiliser, and down by 74% Argentina, where several programmes were phased out.
Spending on General Services was 41% higher in the Philippines on higher spending on infrastructure and public stockholding. GSSE was 19% higher in Türkiye, also due to higher spending on irrigation infrastructure.
Note: 2024 results are preliminary and subject to revision. MPS data is most frequently subject to revision as it depends on price and quantity data that are often preliminary at time of publication. These numbers give a good indication of overall movements, but the specific changes should be interpreted with caution.
Source: OECD (2025), “Producer and Consumer Support Estimates”, OECD Agricultural policy monitoring (database), https://data-explorer.oecd.org/.
Countries offer widely differing levels of support
Producer support was 13% of gross farm receipts (%PSE) in OECD countries and 6.8% in emerging economies on average between 2022 and 2024. The highest levels of support as a share of gross farm receipts are all found in the OECD area (Figure 3.1). Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Korea all offer support greater than 40% of gross farm receipts (GFR) while policies in India, Viet Nam and Argentina result in net negative support. Most countries have reduced support as a share of GFR; only in China, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Ukraine and New Zealand has support increased over the last 20 years (and all these countries had support less than 10% of GFR in 2000-02), noting that New Zealand and Ukraine currently have very low percentage PSEs.
Those countries with the highest (or most negative) %PSE also have high shares of market price support (MPS) in their policy mixes, which means that price changes can have a substantial effect on their support from year to year. For example, India’s MPS was affected by higher world beef prices in 2024, and Korea’s MPS for eggs more than doubled in 2024 due to lower border prices (while egg prices were higher in other parts of the world).
In most countries, support for general services is less than 5% of the production value
General services support (GSSE) is generally a smaller share of value of production than is producer support (PSE). Only Japan, Switzerland, Korea and Türkiye provide GSSE support of more than 5% of the value of production. Thirteen countries in this report provide GSSE less than 2% of the value of production. Underinvestment in GSSE can put sustainable productivity growth at risk when farmers do not have the knowledge and infrastructure to maximise the value of their operations.
Spending on infrastructure is the largest component of the GSSE overall, accounting for 47% of the GSSE on average for all countries in this report. This is commonly targeted for irrigation, as is the case for Japan, which invests heavily in irrigation infrastructure related to paddy rice production. Other countries that invest more than half of their total GSSE in infrastructure are Korea, the Philippines, India, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Viet Nam and Indonesia.
Spending for the agriculture knowledge and information system (AKIS) is the next most important component of the GSSE, at 22% of the total on average. Norway, the European Union, Australia and Brazil all spend more than half of their GSSE support on AKIS. This spending includes agricultural knowledge generation, knowledge transfer, and extension services. For example, Switzerland spends more than half of its AKIS budget on agronomic research, while 90% of Brazil’s AKIS spending is on education.
The impact of policies on consumers comes mainly through changing the price of food
MPS, when positive, is a transfer from consumers to producers, and is a transfer from producers to consumers when negative. MPS accounts for most of the consumer support estimate (CSE), but some countries also have important budgetary policies that support consumers. India, the United States, Viet Nam and Argentina provide the most support to consumers relative to gross consumption expenditures (%CSE), India via a mix of budgetary support and MPS, the United States via budgetary support and Argentina and Viet Nam via MPS alone. Korea, Iceland, Japan, and Switzerland all have %CSE of -20% or greater of gross expenditures reflecting high levels of market price support to producers.2 Consumer support includes both support to final consumers of agricultural products as well as industry consumers who transform agricultural commodities into processed products.
The United States provided the most budgetary support to consumers via assistance to low-income households, equal to 21% of gross consumption expenditures in 2022-24 (Figure 3.3). India also provided substantial budgetary support to consumers, corresponding to more than 7% of consumption expenditures via the public distribution of food grains. Norway and Indonesia are the only other countries where budgetary support to consumers was greater than 1% of consumption expenditures. Norway provides price reducing subsidies for domestic grains and oilseeds and Indonesia subsidises food processors. For thirteen countries, no budgetary support to consumers is recorded at all.
Many countries continue to use the potentially most distorting forms of support
Based on past and ongoing OECD work, the types of support considered to have the potential to be the most distorting in terms of production decisions and markets are market price support, payments based on output, and payments based on the unconstrained use of variable inputs. These forms of support are also known for being both inefficient and poorly targeted to those households most in need. The data show that use of these forms of support varies greatly by country, with some making little use of them while for others they are the main policy tool.
As a share of gross farm receipts, India is the largest user of the potentially most distorting forms of support, at 95% of all support amounting to 40% of GFR, most of which is in the form of polices to keep prices low for consumers. Korea, Iceland, Japan, Switzerland, Norway and Viet Nam all offer potentially most distorting forms of support in amounts greater than 20% of GFR, mainly in the form of market price support for main or strategic commodities (Figure 3.4). At the other end of the scale, this support amounts to only 0.29% of GFR in Australia (mainly for concessional loans to farmers), while in Chile and the United States this support is less than 1% of GFR. In Chile this is mainly input support including notably a cost-sharing programme for recovering agricultural soils. In the United States it is a mix of MPS for sugar (the only commodity receiving MPS in the United States) and support for energy and irrigation.
While the countries that provide the highest %PSE still provide most support in potentially most distorting forms, the share of this support in the total has declined in Norway and Switzerland, who now provide about half of support in less distorting forms. The European Union and the United States make less use of most distorting support when compared to their overall %PSE, with shares of 30% and 10%, respectively.
Market price support tends to be targeted at commodities of particular interest
Which commodities are targeted to receive market price support is contingent on national objectives, which can be influenced by factors including domestic self-sufficiency targets and consumer dependence on certain commodities. A staple commodity for which a country is a large net importer is often treated differently than one that is exported, for example. This can be seen in the range of approaches taken and the scope of application of MPS by commodities in the countries in this report.
One of the most common uses of MPS is to achieve domestic self-sufficiency in strategic commodities. This the case for rice in countries where this is a main staple, including Japan, Korea, the Philippines and Viet Nam. In Norway, Iceland and Switzerland livestock markets receive more attention, to encourage food self-sufficiency as well as to maintain traditional production landscapes.
Argentina uses export taxes on several commodities to keep domestic prices low and as a source of revenue. These are most important for soybeans. India uses border measures to maintain domestic prices of certain commodities within target ranges, especially staple grains and applies a range of domestic policy measures affecting the marketing of commodities that lower farmgate prices. In India and Viet Nam, MPS on the most implicitly taxed product corresponds to -134% and -95% of commodity gross receipts, but these countries also provide positive MPS support for at least one commodity amounting to 25% and 34% of receipts, respectively (Figure 3.5) (see Box 2.2 for more information on how MPS is calculated).
Countries can have a low rate of average MPS that masks the fact that some commodities are highly supported while others are relatively unsupported or implicitly taxed. For example, in Indonesia, aggregate MPS represented 3% of gross farm receipts (GFR) in 2022-24. However, MPS represented 39% of the commodity gross receipts specifically related to the production of sugar, and -24% of those related to the production of palm oil.3 In the United States, average MPS was about 0.5% of GFR, but for sugar it was 34% of that commodity’s gross receipts. This reflects the fact that sugar makes up only a small part of overall agricultural production, so this support hardly affects the national average.
Relative magnitude of product-specific market price support by country, 2022-24, percentage of commodity gross receipts
Note: The upper blue dot shows the MPS as a share of gross receipts of the most supported commodity. The lower blue dot represents the least supported, or most negatively supported commodity. The black dot is the average MPS as share of gross farm receipts for the country as a whole.
Source: OECD (2025), “Producer and Consumer Support Estimates”, OECD Agricultural policy monitoring (database), https://data-explorer.oecd.org/.
Less distorting forms of support are offered in many ways
Other forms of support are considered potentially less distorting of production and trade. These include payments based on area, animal numbers, receipts or income (A/An/R/I) and payments based on non-commodity criteria.4 These are considered less distorting because they are not directly connected to the price or production quantity of a specific commodity, though sometimes they require production as a condition for eligibility.
The amount of support considered potentially less distorting, expressed as a percentage of gross farm receipts, is highest in Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and the European Union (Figure 3.6). For some major users of these types of support, there is evidence of change in its composition, moving away from traditional area or animal-based payments towards support even less connected to production. In Switzerland, this reflects the growing importance of payments based on non-commodity criteria, which represented 6% of GFR in 2022-24, the highest of all the countries included in this report (Mexico also stands out as an important user of support based on non-commodity criteria with its “Sembrando Vida” agroforestry programme). In 2003 Norway added the cultural landscape payment and structural support to milk producers. In Iceland the direct payment to sheep meat producers is the largest of this type of support. Support has evolved in the European Union over the course of several CAP reforms, whose core is now the Basic Income Support Scheme, which does not require production.
Among the emerging economies, China and India have begun offering this form of support, where they had previously provided only minimal amounts. In China, this is for agricultural production development, and in India it is the income support scheme PM-KISAN.
Use and composition of support that is less coupled to production, selected countries, 2000-02 and 2022-24, percentage of gross farm receipts
Note: Figure presents countries having share of payments based on area, animal numbers, farm receipts or farm income (A/An/R/I) and on non-commodity criteria above 1% for 2022-24 period. Countries are ranked according to the total share of payments for 2022-24. The European Union refers to EU15 for 2000-02, and EU27 for 2022-24. No data available for the United Kingdom for 2000-02.
Source: OECD (2025), “Producer and Consumer Support Estimates”, OECD Agricultural policy monitoring (database), https://data-explorer.oecd.org/.
%PSE declining across countries due to the increasing value of agricultural production, but with substantial variation
The %PSE, or the PSE expressed as a share of gross farm receipts (GFR), remains a central indicator of the scale of agricultural policy interventions. Substantial variation across countries reflects divergent policy objectives and implementation mechanisms. Average %PSE were notably high in Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, and Korea, ranging between 40% and 49%, signifying strong policy-driven income support. In contrast, negative values between -11% and -15% were observed in Argentina, Viet Nam, and India, where prevailing policies exert an implicit net tax on producers.
The decline in %PSE observed in aggregate over the past two decades is also seen in most countries covered in the report, primarily driven by rising production values (in nominal terms, support levels remain near historical highs). Notably, China stands apart as the only country to have significantly increased its producer support ratio, rising from 5% of GFR in 2000–02 to 13% in 2022-24.
Composition of support varies both by country and commodity
The composition of support varies markedly. India exhibits the highest reliance on the most potentially trade- and production-distorting forms of support, which represent 95% of total producer transfers and 40% of GFR, most of which is designed to keep prices low for consumers. By contrast, in Australia, Chile, and the United States, such measures comprise less than 1% of GFR, reflecting limited market intervention. Marked declines in the use of more distorting measures were observed in Japan, Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland, where historically such instruments had a significant role.
Headline figures can obscure the fact that certain commodities may be targeted for support and not others. Some countries, including India, Viet Nam, Indonesia and Kazakhstan provide positive MPS to some commodities and negative MPS for others. These differences in treatment of commodities complicate the interpretation of overall support levels and their likely impacts.
Most payments are linked to production
Transfers deemed less market-distorting – such as those based on historical entitlements (e.g. land area, livestock numbers, or income levels) – remain common. However, payments de-linked from commodity criteria are infrequent. Switzerland and Mexico are notable exceptions, allocating a relatively high share of support to non-commodity-linked schemes aimed at broader environmental and social objectives.
Countries with high levels of producer support also provide the most support to general services
Investment in general services (e.g. R&D, infrastructure, inspection systems) has declined in comparison to sector output. However, inter-country differences are pronounced. Japan, Korea, and Switzerland each allocated more than 7% of agricultural production value to such services in the reference period. At the other end of the scale, Argentina, Brazil and Ukraine spend less than 1% of the value of the sector’s production on general services.
Infrastructure remains the dominant area of expenditure in most countries, notably in Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Türkiye, Chile, and Viet Nam. Switzerland, Norway, and Korea also allocate significant resources to knowledge and innovation systems, with expenditures reaching up to 4.2% of production value.
Consumer impacts of policies vary widely, with some countries prioritising affordability
In most countries, market price support increases domestic prices and imposes implicit taxation on consumers. In contrast, some countries including India, Viet Nam and Argentina apply measures that lower domestic prices relative to world levels, effectively supporting consumers.
Budgetary transfers targeting consumers – primarily those with low incomes – were observed in relatively few countries. The United States, India, Norway, and Indonesia were the most significant providers of such targeted consumer support relative to consumption expenditure.
Reference
[1] Asai, M. and J. Antón (2024), “Social issues in agriculture in rural areas”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 212, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/fec15b38-en.
← 1. Korea defines smart agriculture as the use of advanced technologies to optimise production and sustainability.
← 2. Norway’s %CSE was the 5th highest of the countries included in 2023, but in 2024 they were the 10th highest, reflecting changes in MPS levels.
← 3. Gross farm receipts for a specific commodity are referred to as “commodity gross receipts”, which includes the value of production of that specific commodity plus any transfers arising from policies specifically targeting that commodity.
← 4. See Chapter 2 for more description of the content of these PSE categories.