This chapter reviews agricultural policy developments during 2025 and early 2026 across the 56 economies covered by the OECD Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2026. It examines government responses to changing trade conditions, environmental pressures, production and income risks, food affordability concerns, rural development needs, and opportunities from innovation and digitalisation. The chapter also compares the latest estimates of support to producers, consumers and general services across countries. It highlights differences in support levels, policy composition and commodity coverage, and assesses the continued importance of market price support and other measures linked to production and trade decisions.
Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2026
Enhancing resilience in a world of interconnected risks
Abstract
Agricultural support remains substantial. Support to farmers represented 14.3% of gross farm receipts in OECD countries and 7.6% in emerging economies on average in 2023‑25, with wide variation across countries. Support exceeded 40% of farm receipts in Iceland, Switzerland, Norway and Korea, while policies in Argentina, Viet Nam and India reduce farmers’ returns by lowering domestic prices.
The composition of producer support differs widely across countries, from systems dominated by market price support and other measures tied to prices, output or input use, as in Iceland, Korea and India, to those using mainly budgetary and less production‑linked support, such as Australia, Chile and the United States. The European Union and Switzerland stand out with a relatively large share of budgetary support with voluntary constraints in their policy mixes. More than half of support to farmers in the United States is subject to mandatory constraints.
Market price policies are often applied selectively across commodities. In many countries, a small number of commodities (commonly rice, maize or sugar) receive support exceeding 50% of their gross receipts, while others are little affected or face lower domestic prices. This uneven distribution means that aggregate indicators can mask important differences in how policies affect production.
Estimated spending on general services that support the agricultural sector remains relatively low, averaging 2.4% and rarely exceeding 5% of the value of production, despite its importance for long-term productivity. While in major emerging economies infrastructure accounts for the largest share of this spending, investment in knowledge and innovation systems is more prominent in a smaller number of countries notably within the OECD.
Agricultural policies continue to affect consumers mainly through market price support (MPS), which raises domestic prices relative to international markets. On average, consumer support is estimated at -3.2% of consumption expenditure in OECD countries and -5.0% in emerging economies, indicating that support directed at consumers does not fully counteract the negative effect on consumers of MPS. Direct budgetary transfers to consumers remain limited, with notable exceptions, such as the United States (around 18% of consumer expenditure) and India (around 26%).
Agricultural policy in 2025 and 2026 has been influenced by a set of converging global trends that are reshaping food systems worldwide. Extreme weather has elevated resilience to the forefront of policy agendas. Governments are responding to the challenges facing agriculture, such as environmental pressures and shifting consumer preferences through different policy approaches. Geopolitical tensions and trade disruptions have heightened concerns over food security and supply chain stability, prompting a renewed focus on domestic production capacity and strategic reserves. Rapid advances in digital technologies and artificial intelligence are transforming agricultural practices and creating new opportunities. Often, developing countries face a different set of challenges than developed countries in terms of rural development, land tenure and productivity growth, with differing policy responses as a result.
Governments (or countries) undertook trade policy actions aimed at capturing the benefits of international trade and global market integration
Export policies
Germany launched a new agricultural export strategy to realign export promotion, open up new markets and strengthen the long-term competitiveness of agro-food enterprises. The strategy aims to make export promotion programmes more efficient, more flexible and more targeted, with particular attention to the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
The Dairy Industry Restructuring (Export Licences Allocation) Amendment Act 2025 reforms how New Zealand allocates dairy export quotas for markets. Quotas are now based on export volume history rather than milk solids collected, and up to 10% of quota can be reserved for smaller or previously ineligible producers.
Costa Rica launched the Sustainable Agro‑Landscapes Initiative and Planeta Vivo national label in 2025. These initiatives aim to certify and showcase environmental protection efforts and differentiate agricultural products in international markets through a label that demonstrates deforestation-free production, a neutral emissions balance and the responsible use of pesticides.
Egypt increased funding for agricultural export promotion and introduced plans for a digital export system to reduce customs delays.
Export taxes were reduced for key commodities in Argentina (beef, soybeans, maize, wheat, barley, sorghum and sunflower) and removed for some other products (including sugar, cotton, bovine leather, tobacco, forestry industry and rice). Administrative export permits were simplified or removed, and regional product exports were deregulated.
India relaxed export restrictions on selected crops in 2025 to allow limited exports of rice and wheat flour to the Maldives, and certain cereals and vegetable oils to Bhutan. In addition, the export ban on de-oiled rice bran was fully lifted.
Viet Nam signed new technical protocols with the People’s Republic of China (hereafter “China”) to facilitate agricultural exports through harmonised quarantine, food safety and traceability requirements. Customs authorities were instructed to prioritise clearance of agricultural exports, particularly perishable goods.
Import policies
Safeguard measures were introduced to limit rising beef imports in China. Following an investigation initiated at the end of 2024, China established a tariff rate quota for beef imports from January 2026, set at 2.7 million tonnes. Broadly aligned with recent import volumes and equivalent to nearly 30% of the domestic market, the quota appears designed to cap further import growth, with out-of-quota imports subject to an additional 55% safeguard duty. In addition, some import procedures affecting agro-food products were simplified while others were tightened. Customs reforms streamlined selected documentation requirements and procedures, and further digitalised related systems, while strengthening inspection, quarantine and supply chain controls.
Viet Nam reduced most favoured nation (MFN) import tariffs on agricultural products, including eliminating duties on maize and soybean meal.
A flexible tariff mechanism for rice imports was established in the Philippines, linking applied tariff rates to movements in international prices within a defined range. While the applied MFN tariff remained at 15% in 2025, as of January 2026 an automatic adjustment mechanism has been in place to moderate the transmission of global price fluctuations to the domestic market.
Indonesia banned imports of rice in calendar year 2025 after domestic production was forecast to meet domestic consumption needs. This import ban was extended for calendar year 2026 to include not only rice, but also table sugar and corn.
Temporary tariff reductions introduced by Türkiye during the COVID-19 pandemic were phased out, with customs duties on major cereals reverting to 130% and on pulses to 19.3%. Within this framework, targeted temporary adjustments were applied in 2025-26, including temporary duty reductions on maize imports (subsequently reinstated to 130%), a temporary reduction in the customs duty on oats from 130% to 30% (also since reinstated), a reduced rate on green lentils and adjustments to customs duties and tariff quotas on sunflower seeds and crude sunflower oil.
Targeted adjustments to trade and border measures were also implemented in the European Union, including tariff measures adopted in response to changes in trade conditions with key partners, together with import restrictions and regulatory controls aimed at addressing market pressures linked to sector-specific disruptions in neighbouring countries.
Trade agreements
The Australia and United Arab Emirates (UAE) Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) entered into force in October 2025. Australia and the European Union (EU) concluded negotiations on a free trade agreement in March 2026.
Viet Nam strengthened trade co-operation through agreements with the United States (US), South Africa and the United Arab Emirates.
The European Union-Mercosur Partnership Agreement and the related Interim Trade Agreement were signed in early 2026.1 Negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with India were concluded at the end of January 2026. Negotiations on the modernised EU‑Mexico agreement were also concluded, the revised EU-Ukraine FTA entered into force and the terms of the agreement with Moldova were updated. All these initiatives include provisions on market access for agricultural products, including tariff and regulatory elements, while taking into account sector-specific considerations.
India reached major new trade agreements and negotiating frameworks with several key partners. It signed the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the United Kingdom, signed a Free Trade Agreement with New Zealand, concluded negotiations on a Free Trade Agreement with the European Union and agreed in principle on an interim trade framework with the United States. These agreements contain selective tariff reductions and improved market access for certain agro-food products, while maintaining protections for sensitive sectors, such as dairy, cereals and other staple commodities.
Israel signed a new Agreement on Trade in Agricultural Products (ATAP) with the United States, replacing the framework in place since 2004. Under the agreement, Israel will eliminate import duties on about 300 US food and agricultural products, including meat, dairy, eggs, oils, vegetable, juices and a range of fresh and frozen products.
The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) states (Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein) expanded its trade network by signing or advancing several trade agreements with partners, including MERCOSUR (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay), Malaysia, India, Thailand and Kosovo*, covering trade in goods and services, and incorporating provisions on sustainability, climate and environmental protection. Market access was further expanded by the signing of the modernised Ukraine-EFTA free trade agreement in April 2025.
Many countries introduced policies aimed at enhancing natural resource management and environmental protection to strengthen sustainability and resilience
Sustainable resource use
Mexico reinforced measures on the prevention of deforestation and agricultural burning, reduced reliance on hazardous pesticides and the broader use of climate‑informed decision making tools and field schools to support agro-ecological transitions.
Norway adopted new regulations on fertilisers, covering both fertiliser products and fertiliser use: product regulation ensures quality standards and promotes environmentally sound, circular use of raw materials, while use regulation introduces stricter limits on the timing and quantities of fertiliser application in line with crop needs.
Bulgaria advanced amendments to the Water Act related to irrigation, classifying irrigation water supply as a service of general economic interest. This allows the government to grant preferential pricing and other benefits to farmers using irrigation water.
Implementation of the revised Raw Water Pricing Strategy in South Africa began in 2026. The strategy aims to ensure equitable, efficient and sustainable water management in line with the National Water Resource Strategy. For the commercial agricultural sector, the new framework is likely to translate into higher raw water tariffs, stricter cost recovery for infrastructure and charges linked to environmental management and resource protection.
In Türkiye, the National Water Plan (2026-2035) has been completed, introducing strategic elements, such as tiered water pricing, conditionality of agricultural subsidies on water efficiency criteria and digital tracking of groundwater abstraction.
Israel began to implement its water tariff reform, gradually reducing the reclaimed water tariff from the Shafdan system. For freshwater, a 10-tier reduction scale was introduced based on the utilisation ratio of marginal water sources, including effluents, treated municipal wastewater and brackish water, with the lowest rates applied to regions lacking alternative water sources.
The newly introduced Soil Monitoring Law establishes a European Union‑wide framework for monitoring and assessing soil health and resilience. Its aim is to halt soil degradation and improve soil health across the European Union by 2050. The law requires Member States to monitor and assess soil health, and support landowners and land managers through advice, training, capacity building and innovation.
Environmental performance improvements
A credit sub-programme was established in Costa Rica to support sustainable production practices in the livestock, coffee and sugarcane sectors. It targets small and medium producers, providing guarantees covering up to 75% of the loan principal. Beneficiaries must have farm diagnoses, investment plans and technical follow‑up to ensure the effective adoption of sustainable practices.
The Netherlands introduced a policy to reduce nitrogen pollution and ammonia emissions in agriculture. The Starter Package includes immediate measures, such as farming extensification, manure management, voluntary farm exit schemes, a target-based approach at farm level, and nature development. The Follow up Package covers additional measures, including innovation and support to other regions.
A new one-year environmental subsidy for ley farming was introduced in Sweden. A new national investment aid, Kväveklivet (“The Climate Leap”), supports on-farm investments that reduce ammonia emissions from agriculture and improve nitrogen-use efficiency.
Cyprus opened the Major Investment Measure, covering three interventions: investments aimed at modernising farms and livestock holdings; enhancing environmental protection and animal welfare; and improving livestock-waste processing and management. Environmental projects can receive up to 80% of eligible costs.
In the United Kingdom, new conditionalities have been introduced in Scotland for farmers who receive support through the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS). Additional cross-compliance conditions restricting certain activities on peatlands and wetlands were introduced to protect these environmental assets. As of 2026, farmers are required to dedicate 5% of their land to practices considered to be good for the environment in order to benefit from greening payments (a top-up on the BPS). In Northern Ireland, new conditionalities have been introduced for farmers who receive the Farm Sustainability Payment (FSP). These include participation in the Soil Nutrient Health Scheme and the Bovine Genetics project. Compliance with new Farm Sustainability Standards is also a requirement of the FSP. A new Farming with Nature Package has also been introduced to provide support to farm businesses.
Ireland’s Nitrates Derogation was extended for the period 2026‑28, with additional conditions, including the need to demonstrate enhanced compliance with the EU Habitats Directive. Unprotected urea (that is, urea that has not been coated with a urease inhibitor) in solid form is no longer permitted to be spread on land since September 2025. A new 60% Nutrient Storage Grant Aid scheme for investments under the Targeted Agricultural Modernisation Scheme was introduced to reduce reliance on chemical fertiliser.
Czechia reformed its eco‑scheme from a single whole‑farm payment into four distinct support types covering new landscape elements, maintenance of existing ones, sustainable nutrient management and strip‑crop rotation.
A new nitrogen regulation model in Denmark shifts input-based fertiliser limits to farm-level quotas to reduce nitrogen-induced biodiversity losses in coastal waters from 2027. Catchment-level discharge limits will be translated into individual farm quotas with flexibility mechanisms (e.g. crop choice, differentiated fertilisation, quota trading and organic conversion). Transitional compensation and targeted support, partly financed by common agricultural policy (CAP) funds, will support implementation.
In the United Kingdom (England), changes to the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) are expected to limit the concentration of payments. Payments under individual agreements will be capped, and smaller farms and those without nature-friendly agreements will be able to apply earlier. Beginning in April 2026, revised inheritance tax rules cap the 100% relief at GBP 2.5 million (USD 3 289 474), with 50% relief applying above this threshold.
New amendments in Spain recognised certain agrivoltaic systems as eligible for CAP support (provided agriculture remains the primary activity) and made some eco-scheme requirements more flexible.
The Cyprus Electricity Authority established a dedicated financing facility for farmers to install grid‑connected photovoltaic systems. In parallel, licensing procedures were simplified to accelerate applications, streamline approvals and boost investment uptake.
Romania introduced a new eco-scheme supporting cattle welfare through extensive grazing practices, providing additional payments to farmers who adopt pasture-based systems that improve animal welfare and pasture management while contributing to environmental sustainability.
Emissions mitigation
Australia released its Agriculture and Land Sector Plan, guiding agriculture’s contribution to net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emission goals by 2050. This complements Australia’s commitment to reduce net national GHG emissions by 62‑70% compared to 2005 levels by 2035, covering all greenhouse gases and all sectors of the economy, including agriculture.
In Belgium, Flanders updated its Energy and Climate Plan expanding methane-reduction measures and additional carbon removal requirements for agricultural land. Wallonia updated its Air-Climate Energy Plan 2030 with technical tools to assess ammonia and GHG emissions at the farm level.
New Zealand revised the second emissions reduction plan (ERP2) approach to reducing agricultural emissions, deciding not to introduce on-farm emissions pricing by 2030. The updated ERP2 reflects this shift and accelerates the development and commercialisation of mitigation tools and technologies to reduce on-farm emissions.
Methane-reducing feed additives became mandatory in Denmark for dairy cattle. Implementation of the 2024 livestock GHG taxation framework has advanced, including preparatory work on monitoring, reporting and verification systems ahead of the 2030 entry into force.
Farm support and risk management policy developments focused on stabilizing incomes, managing risks, and farm financing
Income and production support
Canada extended an increase to the interest-free allowance for farmers under the Advance Payments Programs to the 2025 programme year. Farmers are now allowed a larger interest-free advance under the programme – CAD 250 000 (USD 178 825) – more than twice the amount initially foreseen. This change was initially set to end in the 2024 programme year. In particular, interest-free allowance for canola was doubled for the 2025 and 2026 programme years.
The regulated natural gas price for nitrogen fertiliser producers was increased in Egypt in response to high export prices. The government also set stringent quotas to encourage nitrogen fertiliser producers to prioritise domestic supply and address local supply constraints.
Key programmes in Mexico were reformed, including the Fertilisers for Well‑being and Production for Well‑being, which are now more directly targeted to women and Indigenous farmers. LICONSA was transformed into Milk for Well‑being, the Guaranteed Price Programme was restructured into Stockpiling and Fair Trade programmes, and SEGALMEX was dismantled alongside reforms to food distribution entities, improving governance clarity and coordination.
In 2025-26, Brazil’s Plano Safra’s budget was increased to a new high, significantly expanding agricultural financing, while tightening environmental and risk-related conditions. Additional incentives were provided for farmers to adopt sustainable practices, including expanded support under RenovAgro for reforestation, fire prevention and the recovery of protected areas. The PRONAF (family farming) programme for small farmers expanded targeted credit lines to activities including organic production, climate adaptation and sustainable irrigation, tying support more closely to other policy objectives.
Regarding implementation of their CAP strategic plans, many European Union countries reduced administrative burden or eased requirements, such as for maintaining good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC). These include Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain, Slovakia, Belgium, Poland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Croatia and Czechia. EU Member States also reported higher uptakes of eco-schemes in many cases, including in Luxembourg, Spain, France, Slovakia, Belgium, Hungary, Poland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania and Croatia. Member States also reported higher direct payments or income support, such as in Portugal, Sweden and Italy.
A new Tax Code in Kazakhstan introduced new preferences for agriculture and food, exempting socially significant foods from value added tax (VAT), reducing the personal income tax rate for farmers exceeding income thresholds, excluding property donation to farms from taxable income and increasing land use fees for agricultural land left idle or inefficiently used.
Portugal increased basic income support per hectare by about 50% for the 2025 claim year and doubled support for young farmers. It also introduced greater flexibility for direct payments, including higher coupled support for maize and more flexible eligibility rules for rice.
Lithuania introduced separate personal income tax treatment for farmers. Income from agricultural activity became subject to lower progressivity than general personal income, reflecting income volatility and sector-specific risks.
The agricultural support model in Türkiye, introduced alongside production planning, was further operationalised in 2025-26. Support coefficient values were updated and linked to explicit cost-coverage targets for diesel and fertiliser. From 2026, members of first-degree producer organisations became eligible for an additional top-up. In the livestock sector, lambs and kids became eligible for small ruminant support for the first time. Concessional credit programmes were revised to provide enhanced incentives for planned production and contract farming, and rural development grants were adjusted to exclude new cattle facility investments in water-constrained provinces. Türkiye extended its agricultural production planning framework to crop production as of the 2025 production year, building on the livestock and aquaculture planning introduced in 2024. Under the new system, basin-based planning covers 13 strategic products and forage crops, with production authorisation granted only for products included in the designated basin plan.
In the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) was replaced by a one-year transitional payment in 2025 and, subsequently, by the Farm Sustainability Payment (FSP) from January 2026. The FSP introduces new eligibility criteria (e.g. the requirement to have carried out at least one of a number of defined agricultural activities during a set historic year period). It also introduces revised land eligibility rules, new farm sustainability standards as well as conditionalities on participation in the Soil Nutrient Health Scheme and the Bovine Genetics project. A progressive capping of benefits is also being phased in over 2026 and 2027.
The Primary Sector Growth Fund (PSGF) in New Zealand supports high-growth initiatives across the food and fibre sector by co-funding up to 40% of project costs for initiatives demonstrating direct economic benefit to the sector. The fund also includes dedicated support for Māori agribusiness projects.
Risk management, resilience and adaptation
Compensation rates in the AgriStability programme in Canada, which provides support when profit margins decline, were temporarily increased from 80% to 90%, and the maximum payment under this system was temporarily doubled for the 2025 programme year. Beginning in the 2026 programme year there is a new optional inventory evaluation method and feed-costs associated with rented pasture will be included as an allowable expense.
In the United States, The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) authorised increased statutory reference prices for the Agricultural Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage programmes and increased subsidy rates for certain crop insurance products.
New liquidity‑enhancing and risk‑management measures were introduced in the European Union to increase farmers’ resilience, including higher advance payments under the CAP and targeted support to help farmers absorb market disruptions and weather‑related losses.
In response to crops and livestock losses related to severe weather conditions in 2024, Iceland provided targeted relief to farmers and initiated a review of natural hazard funding arrangements.
Australia’s first National Climate Risk Assessment was published in 2025, including an analysis of the exposure and vulnerability of agriculture to climate hazards and impacts based on different warming levels. The assessment informs the first National Adaptation Plan’s vision for climate change adaptation. Key priorities include investment in innovation, research and development, improving water use efficiency, addressing skills shortages and diversification.
National support measures in Croatia place increased emphasis on resilience to climate-related risks and crisis response. The national interventions are designed to complement CAP programmes in enhancing the overall adaptive capacity of the agricultural sector.
Estonia advanced several investment support schemes to strengthen resilience in the face of climate shocks, energy insecurity and severe livestock disease outbreaks – particularly foot and mouth disease (FMD) and African swine fever (ASF).
A new Drought Hardship Loan was established in Australia to help farmers finance short-term operating costs during droughts lasting at least 24 months.
Portugal introduced a risk management regime providing grants covering up to 100% of minor losses and up to 80% of losses for insured farms to restore production after natural disasters, highlighting increasing attention to farm resilience.
In 2025, Spain paid extraordinary support to producers in response to drought, rising costs linked to the war in Ukraine and damages caused by the October 2024 DANA storm. These payments were financed by the EU Agricultural Crisis Reserve and the state budget. In addition, extraordinary support was paid to producers affected by the wildfires of summer 2025.
Two new measures were introduced in Slovenia, extending coupled income support to vegetable farming and adding a new eco-scheme to preserve and enhance habitats for plants and animals in agricultural landscapes.
Greece provided emergency support to the livestock sector to address the sheep and goat pox outbreak that resulted in the culling of 5% of the herd in 2025 and caused significant losses in dairy and cheese production. State aid was also provided to aid recovery from various extreme weather events (drought, flooding, fire, hail).
Poland implemented a broad set of natural disaster relief instruments for farmers, including direct financial aid, reimbursement of the third and fourth instalments of the 2024 agricultural tax, preferential loans and family support. These measures aimed to address damages caused by droughts, extreme rainfall, frost, hail and storms in 2024 and 2025.
Italy strengthened several sector-specific disaster‑related support measures, including additional funding for the pig sector, kiwifruit disease control and compensation for losses linked to Xylella, Bluetongue and African Swine Fever.
In response to the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, Israel continues to implement emergency support measures in the agricultural sector in impacted regions, mostly at the southern and northern borders. Rehabilitation efforts are strongly embedded with investment in research, development and implementation of innovative agricultural methods.
Support for farmers in Viet Nam affected by natural disasters and pest outbreaks was expanded through increased provision of seeds, breeding stock and partial production cost support. Compensation levels for livestock culled due to disease outbreaks were raised and financial support was extended to individuals involved in disease prevention and control activities.
The rapid spread of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in South Africa prompted a review of relevant legislation. The Minister of Agriculture launched a 10-year strategy to contain and eradicate FMD and restore South Africa’s FMD-free status. Phase one of the strategy, spanning two years, involves a proactive vaccination programme with the goal of vaccinating 80% of the national cattle herd by December 2026 and reducing outbreak incidents by at least 70%.
To strengthen sanitary and phytosanitary risk management, a call for projects was launched in France under the PARSADA plan, supporting alternatives to certain plant protection products. Following the June 2025 lumpy skin disease outbreaks, research efforts will intensify, focusing on surveillance, vaccination, diagnostics, transmission and decision-support tools.
Food supply chain and consumer policies were aimed at food security and stabilizing food systems
Food safety and quality
Chile implemented plans to modernise sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) systems, improve border controls and digitalise extension services as part of the National Strategy for Sovereignty and Food Security (Estrategia Nacional de Soberanía para la Seguridad Alimentaria – ENSSA), with new measures under the Chile Feeds the Future programme, funded by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). Chile also approved the National Food Safety and Quality Policy 2026‑2036, establishing several new institutional and operational mechanisms to modernise food safety systems. As part of this, the Scientific Advisory Committee for Food Risk Assessment (CCERA) was created to formalise food risk evaluation. The policy also improves early‑warning capacity through the launch of the Food Information and Alert Network Portal (RIAL).
The Food Safety and Security Authority was established in Malta to strengthen food safety and oversee both food safety and supply chain security. It brings together regulatory and enforcement functions related to food safety within a single institutional framework.
The amended Animal Protection Law in Austria prohibits pig husbandry on fully slatted floors by June 2034, six years earlier than originally planned. The law prescribes more space, structured bays, air conditioning and more activity material for the animals.
Food affordability and availability
The United States mandated changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), including limiting future benefit amount increases, expanding work requirements and modifying rules for administrative and benefit cost sharing.
New measures were introduced in Canada to mitigate the impact on domestic food price inflation over 2025‑26 in response to uncertain trade and supply chain conditions experienced in 2025. Funding was provided to help agriculture and agro-food businesses manage supply chain disruptions, including targeted support to small and medium-sized enterprises via a new Food Security Fund.
The Slovak Republic implemented a combination of fiscal and regulatory measures aimed at mitigating inflationary pressures and influencing consumer behaviour towards healthier consumption patterns, including the reclassification of selected food products across VAT categories. These measures comprise a reduction in the VAT on selected food products from 10% to 5%, alongside a broader adjustment of VAT rates on food products from 20% to 19%.
Sweden reduced the VAT rate on food from 12% to 6%. It also indicated that it would monitor price developments to ensure that the VAT cut is passed on to consumers rather than absorbed through higher retail prices.
In Hungary, a price margin cap (between purchase and sales prices) from March 2025 limits the margins larger retailers can apply on certain essential food products.
Kazakhstan eased retail price controls for socially significant foods, abolishing maximum prices and reorienting efforts to monitoring compliance with the 15% trade margin limit. The list of socially significant foods was temporarily expanded from 19 to 31 products, and a “digital food voucher” was introduced for recipients of state social assistance.
Latvia developed and approved an Action Plan for improving school catering systems for 2025‑2027, which targets improving the procurement systems, setting quality criteria, strengthening local sourcing of products, linking educational content to sustainability and nutrition, setting nutritional standards and promoting student meals.
Bulgaria launched “Shop for the People” state-owned retail aimed at improving access to affordable essential goods and giving priority to products from Bulgarian producers. It creates partnerships with co‑operative and regional networks, with mark-ups of up to 10% on selected basic goods.
The Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) programme in Indonesia increased greatly in operation. The programme provided meals to 56.13 million people in 2025 and is expected to feed 83 million in 2026.
A new law supporting the construction of horticultural greenhouses aims to increase Luxembourg’s low level of self-sufficiency in fruit and vegetable production, with a call for projects launched in September 2025 inviting farmers to apply. The measure provides a policy framework and financial support mechanism for greenhouse development projects.
A new Avoidable Food Loss and Waste Prevention Act was adopted in Spain in 2025. It requires food chain operators to implement prevention plans. When surpluses cannot be avoided, the law mandates a hierarchy of uses, prioritising human consumption and with disposal as a last resort.
To increase the sales of organic agricultural products the Netherlands started a new subsidy scheme called “Vabiola”. The scheme allocates public funding to support activities linked to the marketing and distribution of organic products.
In July 2025, Romania approved a state aid scheme complementing CAP Strategic Plan (CSP) intervention DR-23 to support investments in the processing and marketing of agro-food products. The programme aims to strengthen domestic processing capacity and increase value added in the agro-food sector.
The Food Sovereignty Fund was established in Italy to reduce reliance on imports by strengthening supply chain contracts in strategic sectors. The fund finances measures for the expansion of arable land, increases in livestock numbers and the protection of native breeds.
Domestic stockholding targets for rice and maize in Indonesia were increased, from 2 million to 3 million tonnes for rice and 1 million tonnes for maize. This is a strengthened and quantified commitment for maize; previously maize intervention purchases were focussed on price stabilisation and did not have an explicit target on the volume of reserves.
In February 2025, the Philippines declared a food security emergency on rice, following sustained increases in domestic retail prices. The measure authorised the release of National Food Authority (NFA) buffer stocks to government agencies and local distribution channels, reinforcing the use of public stockholding as an instrument for retail price stabilisation.
Rural development, governance, and land use policies were aimed at resilience in the agriculture and rural economy
Governance
Japan amended its Basic Plan for Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas. The plan strengthens food security by focusing on ensuring stable access to high-quality food at reasonable prices, while systematically embedding sustainability and resilience objectives across the agro-food system.
Slovenia adopted the Agriculture Act, the Food Act, Food and Feed Safety Act, the Animal Protection Act and the Agricultural Land Act to renew its policy framework. The reforms aim to improve farmers’ incomes, strengthen rural development and support farm succession, while simplifying rules. They also introduce an integrated farm-to-consumer approach to enhance quality and transparency across the agro-food chain, alongside measures to protect agricultural land, boost self-sufficiency and promote sustainability.
Finland’s National Food Strategy 2040 sets a long-term vision for a sustainable, resilient and competitive food system. Its implementation will occur through four-year action plans, with the first report to Parliament in early 2026.
In Viet Nam, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment were merged to form the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment (MAE). Agricultural policy implementation was decentralised through the abolition of the district level of administration, establishing a two-tier local governance system at provincial and commune levels.
The Greek Payment Authority for Agricultural Subsidy Schemes was reformed and integrated into the Independent Authority for Public Revenue, the centralised tax authority under the Ministry of Finance, initialising a new system of payments and controls, with greater use of digital tools.
Ukraine advanced EU-aligned reforms by renovating its agricultural support framework, which redefines support concepts and introduces a paying-agency model with stronger monitoring and transparency. Ukraine also strengthened policy digitalisation via the State Agrarian Register as the mandatory entry point for support. In parallel, EU systems for farm-level data collection (FSDN) and for managing, monitoring and controlling agricultural payments (IACS) are being progressively integrated.
Measures to reduce the administrative or operational burden on farmers in Switzerland were launched. This includes a simplification of rules for insurance and support related to landscape quality or biodiversity networks. Some new reporting obligations were put on hold and agreement was reached in September 2025 to loosen the obligations related to farm inspection.
Land use
In Colombia, Agricultural Protection Areas for Food Production (APPA) have been established to protect fertile soils and give priority to agri-food production within territorial planning frameworks. Territorial governance instruments have also been extended to support community-based land management, tenure security, and local food autonomy, including through the establishment and consolidation of Peasant Reserve Zones (ZRC) and the recognition of Peasant Agri-food Territories (TECA)..
Two schemes were launched in Malta to improve access to and use of agricultural land. A pilot scheme leases government-owned vacant agricultural land to young farmers and new entrants for a 10‑year period. The second scheme promotes temporary transfers of agricultural land from owners to either young farmers or a government agency to ensure that the land remains in productive use.
The Act on the State Land Office in Czechia was amended. It will expand municipal access to state land, strengthen preferential access for young farmers, accelerate land-consolidation procedures and enhance the state’s role in soil protection.
Norway introduced a system of regular soil monitoring on arable land. It builds on monitoring systems established in 2024 for pastureland and forest soils, with the aim of documenting the status of soils and tracking changes in soil properties over time.
Lithuania strengthened drainage policy through higher public funding and a new governance approach. In 2026, national funding for state-owned drainage infrastructure increased by EUR 15 million. Lithuania also moved towards basin-based management to improve system-wide planning, clarify responsibilities and strengthen resilience to excess moisture and flooding.
Ukraine substantially expanded its agricultural land-demining capacity to deal with explosive-ordnance contamination caused by the war. This has been supported by an increase in certified operators, the scaling‑up of market‑based demining through a fully electronic public procurement platform, updated compensation rules and the launch of the Ground Rehabilitation through Innovation Technologies (GRIT) digital platform to coordinate and monitor clearance activities.
Amendments to the Land Code in Kazakhstan reduced the amount of time that agricultural land may sit idle before it can be forcibly seized, basing monitoring on satellite remote sensing. Lease contracts for agricultural land are now subject to mandatory review every 10 years, and lease of state-owned land is provided exclusively through electronic auctions.
Rural development and livelihoods
Japan expanded its “Enhancing Linkages between Private Sector and Small-scale Producers” (ELPS) initiative to commodity-specific partnerships, including the Rwanda macadamia project, to deliver societal and environmental benefits alongside supply-chain resilience. The interventions help small-scale producers meet certification requirements, improving access to inputs and technical knowledge, and strengthening post-harvest process, while boosting productivity and product quality.
Peru increased public investments in infrastructure and acted to speed up formalisation of agricultural land property rights and employment, and promote co‑operatives and associative value chains. New guidelines prioritise climate‑resilient infrastructure and the use of agro‑climatic information platforms to reduce production risks. Peru reinforced support for the market integration of small and medium‑sized producers, and expanded financial instruments for vulnerable farmers, increasingly through co‑financing with international partners.
Colombia continued implementing the Comprehensive Rural Reform (Reforma Rural Integral) through land redistribution, property formalisation, and agrarian justice measures. These included institutional and voluntary land-purchase mechanisms, land allocation to peasant families, and steps to operationalise the Special Agrarian and Rural Jurisdiction. Policies also addressed the recognition of peasants as subjects of special constitutional protection and linked land access with productive support.
Austria supports a vocational high school degree for apprentices focussed on professions in an integrated agriculture and forestry system. The new guideline establishes provisions for combining vocational training with formal educational qualifications in these sectors.
Policies for the agricultural workforce in Korea shifted towards improving the competitiveness of young farmers through tailored training and regional networking. The introduction of the co‑principal farm manager system and expanded health screenings strengthened support for women farmers. Korea strengthened its rural revitalisation agenda through the formulation of the First Master Plan for Community-based Economic and Social Services (2026‑28). This will address service gaps by promoting diversified forms of rural residency models and integrated spatial planning.
Switzerland established mandatory social security coverage for spouses working on farms as a strict requirement for payment eligibility as of 2027. Spousal rights under the Rural Land Law were also improved, as well as the legal framing of farms as personal businesses.
Countries implemented policies supporting innovation, digitalisation and structural transformation to drive productivity growth
Innovation
Sweden began construction of a national reference laboratory for plant pest diagnostics. The laboratory will serve as a knowledge centre for diagnosing plant pathogens and harmful insects, strengthening Sweden’s capacity to detect and contain outbreaks that threaten plant health.
The focus of the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) in Croatia moved into an operational phase in 2025. To accelerate the uptake of innovative and sustainable farming practices, more effort was made to tailor advisory and training activities to farmers’ needs.
In 2025, Denmark launched the “Accelerating Future Green Solutions” plan. The mission-driven approach supports the scaling-up and demonstration of bio-solutions, strengthens the agricultural innovation system and reinforces public‑private collaboration.
Estonia enhanced its AKIS by clarifying roles among implementing bodies, improving the Agricultural European Innovation Partnership (EIP-AGRI) innovation support (continuous applications, wider eligibility including co-operatives, shorter processing times) and tightening advisory service compliance rules with adjusted co-financing to better target support and ensure availability of funds throughout 2023‑2027.
Digital transformation
A technical standard mandating electronic individual identification for all bovines, buffalos and cervids was approved in Argentina. As of January 2026, animals of these species cannot be moved or remain on their birth farm after weaning without an official electronic device (a visual tag plus a radio-frequency identification (RFID) component). This measure will allow complete tracking from primary production to the meat industry once fully implemented.
The BharatVistaar Artificial Intelligence platform advances India’s digital agriculture agenda, signalling a stronger policy emphasis on data-driven tools for agricultural extension. By providing farmers with guidance on crop management, input use and market conditions, it can support broader government efforts to raise productivity, encourage crop diversification and strengthen rural infrastructure.
Regulatory reforms in Korea allowed the installation of vertical farms on agricultural land, facilitating high-tech investment. In parallel, the Green Bio and Foodtech Industry Promotion Acts established a robust legal framework for innovation in high value-added sectors. These changes are part of the First Smart Agriculture Promotion Master Plan (2025–29), which is designed to accelerate the digital transformation.
This section presents the results of the latest support estimates. Chapter 1 provided an overview of support for OECD and emerging economies/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 focus on policy support to farmers, many of the 56 countries in the report use a mix of price support benefitting farmers (positive market price support MPS) or consumers (negative MPS). In three countries, India, Argentina and Viet Nam, more price support is directed at consumers (Argentina also uses these policies to raise revenue, through export taxes). The composition of support is also quite varied, with some countries reliant on market price support, while others hardly using it at all.
While data for 2025 are preliminary, they provide a first look at how the support landscape is changing in response to recent events. Major changes are most often driven by global price movements, as these can drive changes in support levels without an explicit policy change made by the government. (Box 2.1).
The largest changes between 2024 and 20251,2 occurred in market price support, which can vary strongly with price changes. Livestock commodities were particularly volatile, with support moving more in favour of consumers of poultry in India and Argentina (negative MPS). At the same time, price support for poultry farmers increased substantially in Egypt as domestic prices surged on higher input costs. For crops, price support for rice rose in China as higher global supplies pushed down world prices and for cotton in India on tight domestic supplies and lower global prices.
Input support doubled in Argentina, Peru and Türkiye. Support for on-farm investments in Peru increased broadly across several programmes. Türkiye increased grants for capital development, in particular, for livestock improvements.
Area payments increased in the United States with the introduction of the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP) that provides direct, one‑off payments to farmers to offset losses from falling commodity prices and rising input costs. Türkiye also provided additional area-based support for yield loss.
In the General Services Support Estimate (GSSE), support increased significantly in Peru, driven by spending on agriculture knowledge and innovation systems (AKIS) and higher expenditures on administrative management. Japan increased expenditures on pest and disease control by 80%, and on storage and infrastructure by 53%.
1. This is a selection of results from the Producer Support Estimate (PSE) data collection for this report. It is not a comprehensive list, but is intended to provide additional insights into the content of the database. They are chosen based on the estimated percentage 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.
2. 2025 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. Percentage changes are calculated on a USD basis and may not match changes in national currency. These numbers give a good indication of overall movements, but the specific changes should be interpreted with caution.
Source: OECD (2026), “Producer and Consumer Support Estimates”, OECD Agricultural policy monitoring (database), https://data-explorer.oecd.org/.
Countries offer widely differing levels of support
Support to farmers averaged 14.3% of gross farm receipts (%PSE) in OECD countries and 7.6% in emerging economies over 2023 to 2025. Support in the OECD has declined by 14 percentage points since 2000‑02, equivalent to a 49% reduction relative to the initial level. In contrast, support in emerging economies increased by 3.2 percentage points, a relative increase of 72% compared to 2000-02 (Figure 2.1).
The highest levels of support remain concentrated in the OECD area: Iceland, Switzerland, Norway and Korea all offer support greater than 40% of gross farm receipts (GFR). By contrast, policies in India, Viet Nam and Argentina reduce returns to farmers relative to international market conditions. Notable changes between 2000‑02 and 2023 25 include Viet Nam, where policy effects shifted from supporting to reducing farm receipts; China and Kazakhstan, where support to farmers has more than doubled as a share of GFR and Peru, where support declined by 72%.
In most countries, support for general services is less than 5% of the production value
General services support (GSSE) generally accounts for a smaller share of the value of agricultural production (VP) than producer support. Only Japan, Switzerland, Korea, Türkiye and the Philippines provide GSSE exceeding 5% of the value of production (Figure 2.2). In contrast, 13 countries covered in this report provide GSSE at less than 2% of VP. Persistently low levels of GSSE may constrain sustainable productivity growth if farmers lack access to the knowledge, infrastructure and services needed to optimise production.
Expenditure on infrastructure is the largest component of GSSE, accounting for 47% on average across the countries covered in this report. Such spending is often directed towards irrigation systems, as in Japan, where substantial investment supports paddy rice production. In several other countries – including India, Egypt, Türkiye, Korea, the Philippines, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Viet Nam – more than half of GSSE is allocated to infrastructure.
The agriculture knowledge and innovation system (AKIS) is the second-largest GSSE component, representing 23% of total GSSE on average. Norway, the European Union, Australia, Brazil, the United Kingdom and Argentina each allocate more than half of their GSSE to AKIS. This includes spending on knowledge generation, education, extension services and advisory systems. For example, Australia devotes a signification portion of its AKIS expenditure towards agricultural research and extension research, while in Norway the majority of AKIS spending is directed towards education.
Consumer support reflects the impact of price policies on consumers, with most countries facing higher domestic prices
Across countries, the consumer support estimate, expressed as a share of consumption expenditure (%CSE), indicates that agricultural policies continue to affect consumers primarily through their impact on prices. On average over 2023‑25, the %CSE is estimated at -3.2% in OECD countries and -5.0% in emerging economies (Figure 2.3). In most countries, this reflects policies that raise domestic prices relative to international levels, thereby reducing consumer spending power.
Market transfers (reflecting the consumer incidence of MPS) are the dominant component of the CSE and capture the effect of price policies on consumers. The largest impacts on consumers are observed in Iceland, Korea, Switzerland and Japan, where domestic prices are substantially above international levels. By contrast, in a smaller number of countries, including Ukraine, Argentina, Viet Nam and India, policies lower domestic prices relative to world markets, generating transfers from farmers to consumers.
Budgetary transfers to consumers are generally limited and offset only a small share of the effects of price policies. A notable exception is the United States, where budgetary transfers correspond to nearly 20% of consumption expenditure, while price policies are negligible (impacting only sugar). India also combines policies that lower domestic prices with sizeable budgetary support to consumers.
Overall, the composition of the CSE highlights the predominance of price-based policies in shaping consumer outcomes. In most countries, consumers bear part of the cost of agricultural support through higher prices, while direct budgetary transfers to consumers remain comparatively small.
Reliance on potentially most distorting policy measures varies widely across countries A substantial share of support to farmers continues to be delivered through policy instruments that are closely linked to production decisions, including market price policies, payments based on output and support for the unconstrained use of variable inputs. These measures affect production and trade outcomes by influencing the prices received by farmers and the incentives to use inputs. They also tend to be less efficient in transferring income and are often less well targeted to households most in need. The importance of these measures varies widely across countries, ranging from very limited use to being the dominant form of support.
On average, these production-linked measures account for 6.6% of gross farm receipts in OECD countries and 14% in emerging economies, indicating a greater reliance on such instruments in the latter (Figure 2.4). In most countries, they operate primarily through policies that raise domestic prices relative to international market conditions. This is particularly evident in Iceland, Korea, Japan and Switzerland, where a large share of farm receipts is supported through higher domestic prices for key commodities.
In several countries, these measures instead reflect policies that lower domestic prices relative to world markets, thereby reducing returns to farmers, while still influencing production incentives. This is the case in Argentina, Viet Nam and India, where market price policies play a central role in shaping production decisions despite reducing farm receipts. In India, for example, these measures account for a large share of total support and correspond to around 40% of farm receipts.
At the other end of the spectrum, support linked to production and input use remains limited in countries such as Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, this support often reflects concessional financing and represents only a very small share of farm receipts. Similarly, in Chile and the United States, such support accounts for less than 1% of gross farm receipts. In Chile, it is primarily related to input use, including programmes to improve agricultural soils, while in the United States it reflects a combination of price support for sugar, feed assistance and energy support.
In countries with higher overall levels of support to farmers, these production-linked measures often represent a significant share of total support. However, this share has declined in some cases. In Norway and Switzerland, for example, a growing part of support is now provided through measures that are less directly linked to production decisions. Similarly, the European Union and the United States rely less on production-linked measures relative to their overall level of support, indicating a shift towards policy instruments that have a more limited direct influence on production choices.
Market price support is often concentrated in a limited number of commodities
Market price policies are unevenly distributed across commodities in most countries. While average levels of support provide an indication of the overall policy stance, they can mask substantial variation across commodities. In many countries, the median level of support is close to zero, indicating that at least half of the commodities covered are not subject to policies that significantly raise or lower domestic prices, even where some commodities receive substantial support (Figure 2.5).
This concentration of support is reflected in large differences between the least and most supported commodities. In Japan, for example, the median level of MPS is 12% of gross receipts, while the most supported commodity reaches 64% and at least three commodities receive no price support (of 19 commodities for which MPS is calculated, 16 have non-zero support). Similarly, in the European Union, the median is zero and the maximum reaches 37%, indicating that MPS is concentrated in a limited number of products despite a relatively low overall average (4.8% of gross farm receipts).
In countries with higher overall levels of support, a larger share of commodities is affected, but support remains uneven. In Korea, all 11 commodities covered receive support, with a minimum of 6%, a median of 41% and a maximum of 77%, indicating consistently higher domestic prices across the sector. In Switzerland, 10 out of 11 commodities are supported, with a median of 37% and a maximum of 77%, while in Iceland 4 out of 7 commodities receive support, but the maximum still reaches 66%, showing a high concentration on specific products.
In many countries, support is applied selectively to a subset of commodities, even where overall levels are moderate. In China, 16 out of 18 commodities receive some support, with a median of 14% and a maximum of 49%. In Mexico and Türkiye, the median level of support is much lower (3% and 1%, respectively), while maximum values reach 39% and 33%, indicating that a small number of commodities account for most MPS.
In several countries, policies affect commodities in different directions, with some experiencing higher domestic prices and others lower prices relative to international markets. This is particularly evident in Kazakhstan, where the least supported commodity shows domestic prices around 74% below international levels, while the most supported commodity reaches 41%. Similar patterns are observed in Egypt (-20% to +48%), Indonesia (-18% to +42%) and Peru (-7% to +43%). These wide ranges illustrate the extent to which market price policies vary across commodities within the same country.
In countries with lower overall levels of support, both the coverage and the scale of market price policies may be limited. In Canada, only 3 (supply managed) out of 16 commodities receive MPS, with a maximum of 22% and a median of zero. In Brazil and South Africa, fewer than half of commodities receive support and median values are also zero, indicating that most commodities are unaffected by price policies. Australia shows no measurable market price support across commodities.
Overall, the data show that market price policies are rarely applied uniformly across the agricultural sector. Instead, they are typically concentrated on a limited number of commodities, often those considered more sensitive for food security, income support or trade objectives. This selective application, combined with large differences in support across commodities, can have important implications for production patterns by encouraging resources to shift towards the most supported activities.
Relative magnitude of product-specific market price support by country percentage of commodity gross receipts, 2023‑25
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 median MPS as share of gross farm receipts for the country as a whole.
Source: OECD (2026), “Producer and Consumer Support Estimates”, OECD Agricultural policy monitoring (database), https://data-explorer.oecd.org/.
Less production-linked support has increased in some countries, with limited but growing use of policy constraints
Support to farmers that is less directly linked to production and trade outcomes are mainly those in categories C through F of the PSE structure. These are payments based on current or past area, animal numbers, revenue or income (that may or may not require current production), as well as payments based on non-commodity criteria.
The level of such support varies widely across countries (Figure 2.6). It is highest in Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and the European Union. In Norway, these measures represent close to 29% of gross farm receipts in 2023‑25, in the form of a cultural landscape payment and structural support to milk producers. In Switzerland, support increasingly takes the form of payments based on non-current and non-commodity criteria (focused on conserving landscape and biodiversity), together exceeding 10% of gross farm receipts. In the European Union, payments based on current production parameters declined from about 11.6% of gross farm receipts in 2000‑02 to 4.7% in 2023‑25, offset by an increase in payments based on non-current parameters (now the Basic Income Support Scheme). Mexico also stands out as an important user of support based on non-commodity criteria with its Sembrando Vida agro-forestry programme.
Elsewhere, these forms of support remain more limited but have expanded in some cases. In the United Kingdom, they amount to around 8% of gross farm receipts, largely through payments based on non-current criteria. In Japan and Korea, such support has increased to around 3‑4%, while in China and Türkiye it remains below 3%. In many other countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Brazil, these measures account for less than 1% of gross farm receipts. While the absolute size of this support relative to gross farm receipts may be small in these countries, such support may form a large proportion of support provided. Support in categories C through F of the PSE are more than 50% of the total in Australia the United States, Canada, Israel, Norway, the European Union and the United Kingdom,
In several countries, the expansion of less production-linked support has been accompanied by greater use of mandatory or voluntary constraints attached to payments. Mandatory constraints require compliance with existing statutory requirements as a condition of receiving benefits. Voluntary constraints have to do with programmes that provide compensation for farmers taken or avoiding actions to provide some benefit that goes beyond legal minimum standards.
The share of support subject to such constraints increased in Switzerland (from about 19% to 21% of GFR) and in the European Union (from around 6% to 9%). In Japan and Korea, this share also rose, to around 4%, while in Norway it remained stable at close to 20% of GFR.
Overall, less production-linked forms of support have become more prominent in some countries and are increasingly associated with policy conditions. However, their importance remains uneven and, in many cases, they still represent a relatively small share of total support to farmers.
Use and composition of support that is less linked to production by selected countries and percentage of gross farm receipts, 2000‑02 and 2023‑25
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 2023-25 period. Countries are ranked according to the total share of payments for 2023‑25. The European Union refers to EU15 for 2000‑02, and EU27 for 2023‑25. No data available for the United Kingdom for 2000‑02.
Source: OECD (2026), “Producer and Consumer Support Estimates”, OECD Agricultural policy monitoring (database), https://data-explorer.oecd.org/.
Levels of support to farmers vary widely and have declined relative to farm receipts
Support to farmers, measured as a share of gross farm receipts (%PSE), remains a central indicator of the scale of agricultural policy intervention. Levels vary widely across countries, reflecting different policy objectives and approaches. Support remains highest in Iceland, Switzerland, Norway and Korea, where it exceeds 40% of gross farm receipts, indicating a strong role for policy in shaping farm incomes. In contrast, policies in Argentina, Viet Nam and India reduce farm receipts relative to international market conditions.
Across countries, %PSE has declined over the past two decades, largely because the value of agricultural production has grown faster than support. In nominal terms, however, support levels remain high. China stands out as a major exception, where support to farmers has increased substantially, rising from around 5% of gross farm receipts in 2000‑02 to around 13% in recent years.
Support remains largely linked to production decisions, though composition is evolving
The composition of support varies markedly across countries. In some, a large share of support is linked to production decisions through market price policies, output payments or unconstrained support to input use. These measures continue to play a central role in several countries, including Iceland, Korea and India. By contrast, in other countries including Australia, Chile and the United States, such measures account for a very small share of farm receipts, reflecting limited reliance on price-based or production-linked support. Over time, there has been a gradual shift in some countries away from support based on current production towards payments based on non-current parameters or non‑commodity criteria, although this transition has been uneven and has slowed in recent years.
Across countries, market price policies are often applied selectively to specific commodities rather than uniformly across the agricultural sector. In many cases, a small number of commodities receive substantial support, while others are little affected. In some countries, including India, Kazakhstan and Viet Nam, policies raise domestic prices for certain commodities and lower them for others, resulting in large differences in support across products and complicating the interpretation of aggregate indicators.
Less production-linked support has expanded in some countries but remains uneven
Support that is less directly linked to production, such as payments based on historical entitlements, non-current parameters or non-commodity criteria, has become more prominent in some countries. This is most evident in Norway, Switzerland and the European Union, where such measures account for a significant share of gross farm receipts. In the European Union, successive CAP reforms have shifted support away from payments based on current production towards those based on non-current parameters.
In many other countries, however, these forms of support remain limited, often accounting for less than 5% of gross farm receipts. Payments based on non-commodity criteria continue to play a relatively small role overall, although they are more prominent in a few cases, including Switzerland and Mexico.
Where less production-linked support is more important, it is increasingly associated with policy conditions. The amount of support subject to mandatory or voluntary constraints as a share of GFR has increased in several countries, including Switzerland and the European Union, while remaining high in Norway. These conditions often relate to environmental or animal welfare objectives. In most other countries, however, the use of constrained support remains limited.
Support for general services remains relatively modest
Spending on general services that support the agricultural sector, such as the AKIS, infrastructure, or inspection systems, remains modest relative to the value of production. Averaging 2.4% of production value, it rarely accounts for more than 5% of it. Expenditure is dominated by investments in infrastructure, particularly irrigation, while spending on knowledge and innovation systems represents a smaller but important share. In some countries, notably Switzerland, Norway and Korea, AKIS is the largest part of spending on general services.
Consumers continue to bear much of the cost of agricultural policies
Agricultural policies continue to affect consumers primarily through their impact on prices. In most countries, policies raise domestic prices relative to international markets, increasing the cost of food for consumers. In a smaller number of countries, including India, Viet Nam and Argentina, policies lower domestic prices for some commodities, generating transfers from farmers to consumers.
Direct budgetary support to consumers remains limited in most countries. Notable exceptions include the United States and India, where targeted transfers play a significant role. Overall, however, the effects of agricultural policies on consumers are driven mainly by price measures rather than direct transfers.
← 1. The Agreement has since entered into force provisionally on 1 May 2026.