This chapter examines developments in agricultural policy across the 56 economies covered in the OECD Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2026. It reviews the main international context shaping policy decisions in 2025-26, including macroeconomic pressures, extreme weather, geopolitical tensions, trade disruptions and volatile input markets. It analyses the latest estimated level, composition and distribution of government support to agriculture in 56 countries. An increase in support to agriculture by USD 121 billion between 2023 and 2025 has reversed the declining trend relative to production observed over past decades. The chapter concludes by identifying priorities for reform, including less distorting support and stronger emphasis on resilience, sustainability, and productivity.
Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2026
Abstract
Agricultural systems are increasingly shaped by interconnected shocks. This is reflected in 2025‑26 policy responses to address extreme weather risks, geopolitical tensions and macroeconomic developments. A systematic policy response that strengthens sustainability, resilience, risk management, innovation and productivity is key to addressing current challenges.
Recent developments suggest a reversal of long-term trends of lowering support relative to the size of the sector, with total support rising in each of the last three years. Increases in transfers to farmers generated by policies that increase prices (market price support) has been the fastest growing component, but budgetary support is also on the rise. This increase resulted in total support to agriculture exceeding USD 950 billion in 2025, more than USD 121 billion, or nearly 15% above 2023.
Three-quarters of all agricultural support continues to go directly to individual farmers, with the remainder shared between investments in general services and payments to consumers.
Market price support remains a central feature, with transfers to farmers from higher domestic prices averaging around 7.1% of gross farm receipts (GFR) in 2023‑25, while consumers bear costs of transfers to farmers equivalent to about 5.3% of consumer expenditures. OECD countries have partially shifted from market price support toward greater use of budgetary payments, while emerging economies have maintained a more stable support mix, with more price-based transfers and consistently lower overall support relative to farm receipts.
The share of support in large emerging economies has grown, with the People’s Republic of China (hereafter “China”) alone accounting for around USD 204 billion of annual transfers to farmers from price-related policies in 2023‑25 and India generating USD 119 billion per year in transfers to consumers whose cost is borne by farmers. India also provides significant amounts of import subsidies.
General services support is growing in absolute terms, but declining relative to production, reaching about USD 118 billion per year across the 56 countries covered by the report, but representing only 2.4% of production. On average, the emerging economies covered spend only slightly above half as much relative to their sector’s size as OECD countries.
Most support is provided without conditions, with around 79% of net producer support (USD 401 billion) delivered without mandatory or voluntary input constraints. When they exist, most constraints are related to improving environmental performance. The effectiveness of these policies is difficult to assess and varies across instruments and countries.
Commodity-specific support remains substantial and uneven across sectors, with net transfers reaching 21% of gross receipts for raw sugar and 18% for maize, while some commodities, such as milk, experience transfers from farmers to consumers equal to 12% of their receipts.
Agricultural production in 2025 continued at historically high levels, supported by productivity gains and generally favourable aggregate supply conditions. However, the sector operated in a more complex and risk-prone global environment, shaped by the interaction of extreme weather risks, geopolitical tensions and macroeconomic developments. These factors increasingly influenced not only market outcomes, but also the design and objectives of agricultural policies.
Global markets remained broadly resilient, but this resilience masked growing exposure to systemic shocks. Agricultural production, trade and input markets were affected simultaneously by extreme weather events, the economic impacts of which are increasing, policy-induced trade frictions and volatile input costs. This has reinforced a shift in policy frameworks toward managing risk, resilience and sustainability alongside productivity.
This chapter reviews the main drivers shaping agricultural policy developments and provides a description of overall developments of global support to agriculture based on the latest data available. Chapter 2 takes a more fine-grained look at some of the events affecting policy and how governments have responded, reporting on a country-by country basis.
Inflationary pressures ramping up in 2026, while GDP growth and labour markets are sound but slowing
Conditions in agricultural markets are strongly influenced by macroeconomic factors and agricultural exporters are operating in an increasingly uncertain global trading environment. The price of energy, which underpins many production inputs in agriculture, notably fuel for production and transportation of goods, chemicals and fertiliser, is another major influence. Energy prices also affect the demand for cereals, sugar crops and oilseeds through the market for biofuels produced from these feedstocks.
Under the assumption that disruptions in the Middle East will be short-lived, the OECD Economic Outlook projects global GDP growth to slow from 3.4% in 2025 to 2.8% in 2026 before picking up to 3.1% in 2027. Policy interest rates are expected to remain broadly stable this year in most major economies, with underlying price pressures generally projected to remain contained before easing slightly in 2027 (OECD, 2026[1]).
After a period of relative stability starting in mid-2023, inflation is looking to become more important in 2026. While energy prices are more strongly affected, food prices have not been immune to inflationary pressure (Figure 1.1, upper graph). Looking forward, annual consumer price inflation in the G20 countries is expected to rise to 4.0% in 2026 from 3.4% in 2025 before easing to 3.1% in 2027 as energy and food price pressures gradually fade (OECD, 2026[1]). Despite ample global supplies, grain prices have been rising, driven by weather-related risks, firm global demand, and rising energy and fertiliser costs (World Bank, 2026[2]). Dairy prices have been experiencing strong variability and have been heading downward since mid-2025, after strong increases (Figure 1.1, lower graph).
Fertiliser markets have experienced renewed volatility and generally higher prices (Box 1.1). The recent surge in prices in early 2026 largely reflects the impact on exports of fertilisers and inputs from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz (World Bank, 2026[2]).The World Bank Group’s fertiliser price index rose by more than 12% in the first quarter of 2026 over the previous quarter, marking the sixth increase over the past seven quarters.
Recent increases in the price of fertilisers, and especially urea, have already generated policy responses. Among exporters, policy focused on restricting outward supply to protect their domestic markets, whereas importers widely introduced short-term measures to protect domestic agriculture (FAO, 2026[3]).
This is not the first spike in the price of fertiliser (the most significant in recent history was in 2022). To look at how governments have responded to these price increases in the past, Producer Support Estimate (PSE) data were filtered to identify all programmes whose name contains a term similar to “nitrogen”, “fertiliser”, or “nutrient”. Most of the support identified directly target fertilisers in the form of payments based on variable input use and do not have corresponding use constraints. It is a form considered most potentially distorting of production and trade.
Plotting the resulting total against the price of urea, a close correspondence can be observed between the amount of spending on fertiliser subsides and the price of urea (Figure 1.2). The policies identified are a mix of ad-hoc policies responding to price spikes, support policies that are designed to respond to price changes and support programmes that deliver a constant level of support every year.
India is one of the largest providers of fertiliser subsidies in terms of total expenditure. Fertiliser programmes often focus on cost reduction for farmers. Approaches include subsidising manufacturers of fertiliser (India), providing low-cost fertiliser through government-controlled networks (Indonesia), providing payments based on the purchase of fertiliser (Kazakhstan) or area-based payments (Türkiye).
In some cases, fertiliser policies act to reduce fertiliser demand, thus easing market shortages and, at the same time, reducing the environmental harms of excess nutrient application. These programmes promote alternatives such as manure or increase efficiency of application through nutrient planning and soil testing (among other methods). Switzerland does this through the “Contribution for improvement of soil fertility” (Beitrag zur Verbesserung der Bodenfruchtbarkeit) and “Contribution for more efficient nitrogen use” (Beitrag für eine effizientere Stickstoffnutzung). Japan has a hybrid programme called “Support for soaring fertiliser prices” that provides both payments to reduce costs to farmers and incentives to improve the efficiency of fertiliser use.
The OECD Agri-Environmental Indicators show that nutrient surpluses showed marked decreases in 2022 and 2023. This likely reflects the response to shocks induced by high fertiliser prices in 2022 (OECD, 2026[4]). Policy responses focusing on improving nutrient use efficiency and alternative sources of nutrients can further lower surpluses and are expected to have positive long-term environmental and farm-level effects.
Extreme weather and environmental stress as a structural constraint
Hazards arising from intensified extreme weather events, such as droughts, floods and heatwaves, are having impacts on global agriculture. FAO estimates that disasters have caused cumulative losses of USD 3.26 trillion to agriculture over the past three decades, affecting crops, livestock and fisheries across all regions (FAO, 2025[5]). Environmental pressures are also contributing to declining productivity, with around 1.7 billion people living in areas where crop yields are reduced due to land degradation. Extreme heat can act as a “risk multiplier”, interacting with drought, water scarcity and pests to generate compound risks for agricultural production and food security (FAO and WMO, 2026[6]).
These dynamics were reflected in 2025‑26, with extreme weather affecting production in several key exporting regions. While global aggregate output remained high, localised production shocks contributed to market volatility, particularly for cereals and oilseeds. In this monitoring cycle, countries reported many policy responses to extreme weather events in 2025 and 2026 (Table 1.1). Most were in response to specific events, but many are designed to increase the resilience of the sector through either supportive systems or encouraging on-farm investments.
Note: Refer to individual country chapters and European Union Member State snapshots in Part 2 of this report for more information. Table covers reported responses between early 2025 and April 2026.
Geopolitical tensions impacting trade and supply chains
Global agricultural markets remain highly dependent on trade. Over the medium term, around 22% of global calories are expected to cross international borders, underlining the importance of open and predictable trade flows (OECD/FAO, 2025[7]). In 2025‑26, however, trade operated in a more uncertain and fragmented policy environment, characterised by tariff changes, export restrictions and other constraints.
Trade policy actions by major economies continued to influence agricultural markets, affecting both prices and trade flows. Export restrictions and controls remained an important feature of global markets for key commodities and inputs. For example, restrictions on fertiliser ingredients exports by major suppliers continued into 2025, limiting global availability and contributing to higher input costs (World Bank, 2025[8]). Similarly, export policies for staple foods remained an important driver of market dynamics, with earlier restrictions on rice exports by major suppliers and their subsequent easing contributing to significant price movements and shifts in trade flows (COFACE, 2025[9]).
In addition, some countries adopted measures aimed at strengthening domestic food security or reducing external dependence, including import restrictions, adjustments to tariff regimes and policies promoting domestic production. These developments, alongside broader geopolitical tensions, reinforced concerns about supply chain resilience and contributed to ongoing adjustments in sourcing strategies.
Logistics conditions improved compared to the disruptions seen in recent years, but key maritime chokepoints remained a source of systemic vulnerability. Constraints in the Panama Canal (due to low water levels) and disruptions in the Red Sea/Suez route highlighted in previous editions of this report illustrate the sensitivity of agricultural trade to shipping conditions. In 2025‑26, attention shifted to the Strait of Hormuz. Its disruption affects agricultural trade less directly than disruptions to the Panama or Suez canals, but can transmit to agricultural markets through higher energy and fertiliser prices and changes in biofuel demand. OECD-FAO modelling indicates that the resulting increases in agricultural commodity prices are likely to be delayed and moderate overall, but more pronounced in countries that depend heavily on imported fertilisers, with additional risks for vegetable oil markets (OECD, 2026[10])
Increasing interconnection of risks
A defining feature of the policy environment in 2025 is the growing interaction between these drivers. Intensified extreme weather events influence trade flows and prices; geopolitical tensions affect both trade and input markets; and macroeconomic conditions shape both demand and policy space. Confronting this landscape requires a holistic risk management strategy that ensures decisions are no longer made from a paradigm of reactivity, but from a more proactive “resilience” perspective instead. This implies focusing on preparedness, with improved information and contingency planning and ex-ante decisions on adaptation, diversification and use of market tools, with the goal of either reducing the negative impact of events or significantly reducing the likelihood that those events occur (OECD, 2020[11]).
This report provides a comprehensive and internationally comparable evidence base on the design and evolution of agricultural policies. It supports policymakers, analysts and stakeholders by enhancing transparency, enabling benchmarking across countries, and informing evidence-based policy reform. The report draws on a long-standing collaborative process with participating countries, who supply detailed information on their policy measures, budgetary transfers and regulatory frameworks in a harmonised manner. This joint effort ensures consistency, accuracy and comparability of data, while also allowing country-specific insights to enrich the analysis. Its broad country coverage strengthens the report’s analytical depth and global relevance. This 2026 edition adds two new countries, Egypt and Peru (Box 1.2), bringing the total coverage to 56 countries.
The inclusion of Egypt and Peru in this edition of the OECD Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation report broadens its geographical and analytical coverage, strengthening its role as a global reference on agricultural policy. The report now monitors policies in 56 economies, combining OECD members with a growing number of emerging and developing countries, which allows it to capture a large diversity of policy approaches shaping global food systems.
Egypt and Peru bring distinct structural characteristics that differ markedly from the typical OECD profile, thereby enriching cross-country comparisons.
Egypt’s agriculture operates under severe natural resource constraints, particularly acute water scarcity and a very limited land base, while remaining central to food security for a large and rapidly growing population. Its policy framework is characterised by extensive state intervention, including administered pricing, input subsidies, large-scale food subsidy programmes, and desert land reclamation.
In contrast, Peru combines a dynamic export-oriented agricultural sector with a large number of small-scale subsistence farmers, reflecting deep structural dualism and regional disparities. Such diversity contrasts with the more capital-intensive, technologically advanced, and often less dualistic farm structures prevailing in many OECD countries, where support is increasingly shifting towards innovation, environmental sustainability and decoupled payments.
The inclusion of these two countries adds significant value to the report by providing insights into policy settings where food security, resource constraints, informality, and institutional capacity play a more prominent role. Both countries illustrate challenges that are less pronounced in most OECD members, such as balancing self-sufficiency goals with efficiency, managing scarce water and land resources, integrating smallholders into markets, and designing large-scale consumer support schemes. At the same time, they highlight important policy trade-offs – between productivity growth, fiscal costs, food affordability, farmer livelihoods and environmental protection – that are increasingly relevant across all countries.
The addition of Egypt and Peru finally enhances the analytical depth of the Monitoring and Evaluation exercise. It supports benchmarking across a wider range of development contexts, and strengthens its usefulness for informing evidence-based policy reforms globally.
Further reading:
OECD (2026), Policies for the Future of Farming and Food in Egypt, OECD Agriculture and Food Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cab0cefd-en.
OECD (2026), Policies for the Future of Farming and Food in Peru, OECD Agriculture and Food Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4a2aa5b8-en.
This section provides an overview on developments in policy support in agriculture, building on OECD estimates of agricultural policy support that are comparable across countries and time. These show the diversity of support measures implemented across different countries and focus on different dimensions of these policies. Complete definitions are shown in Annex 1.A.
The Total Support Estimate (TSE) is the broadest of the OECD support indicators. It combines three elements:
transfers to farmers individually (PSE)
expenditures on services that support the agricultural sector as a whole (GSSE)
budgetary transfers to consumers of agricultural commodities (CSE) (Figure 1.3).
The Producer Support Estimate (PSE) measures all transfers to farmers individually. Two main types of transfers can be distinguished. Market Price Support (MPS) captures transfers arising from policies that create a gap between domestic and international reference prices. Where domestic prices exceed reference levels, policies generate transfers to farmers borne by consumers; where domestic prices are below reference levels, the incidence is reversed, with transfers borne by farmers and accruing to consumers. Budgetary support is financed by taxpayers and takes a variety of forms (Box 1.3). The PSE is expressed as a net measure, combining all transfers to farmers.
The General Services Support Estimate (GSSE) measures policy expenditures that support the primary agricultural sector as a whole rather than providing transfers to individual farmers or consumers. These expenditures are financed by taxpayers and are reported across several categories.
The Consumer Support Estimate (CSE) measures transfers affecting consumers of agricultural commodities. As with the PSE, it includes both market transfers associated with the price gap captured by MPS and budgetary transfers. Where domestic prices exceed reference levels, consumers bear the cost of policies through higher prices; where domestic prices are below reference levels, consumers benefit from lower prices, with the associated costs borne by farmers. To avoid double counting, only the budgetary component of the CSE is included in the TSE.
Note: *Market Price Support (MPS) is net of producer levies and excess feed cost.
Source: Annex 1.A.
The PSE is composed of MPS and budgetary support. Budgetary support is delivered in many different forms and allocated to different categories according to the PSE classification system. These budgetary categories identify the following distinctions in the way policies are implemented:
Payments based on current output of a specific agricultural commodity.
Payments based on on-farm use of inputs. These either reduce the cost of purchased inputs like fertiliser or chemicals, fixed capital, such as farm buildings and equipment, or on-farm services that reduce the cost of technical, accounting, commercial, sanitary and phytosanitary assistance, and training provided to individual farmers.
Payments based on current area, animals, revenue or income (A/An/R/I), requiring production.
Payments based on non-current (i.e. historical or fixed) A/An/R/I, with current production of any commodity required.
Payments based on non-current A/An/R/I, with current production of any commodity not required but optional.
Payments based either on the long-term retirement of factors of production from commodity production for the use of farm resources to produce specific non-commodity outputs of goods and services, or transfers provided equally to all farmers, such as a flat rate or lump sum payment.
Payments for which there is a lack of information to allocate them among the appropriate categories have their own miscellaneous category.
More information on the PSE classification system and the indicators used in this chapter can be found in Annex 1.A.
Support relative to production shows a long-term decline, with an increase since 2022
Across the 56 countries covered, total support to the agricultural sector averaged around USD 885 billion per year over 2023‑25 (Figure 1.4). Of this total, transfers affecting farmers individually (PSE) accounted for the largest share, USD 661 billion per year, driven primarily by policies that raised domestic prices above international reference levels (Market Price Support, MPS), together with budgetary support financed by taxpayers. Expenditures on general services (GSSE) amounted to approximately USD 118 billion per year, while budgetary transfers to consumers averaged around USD 106 billion per year.
At the same time, in a number of countries, domestic prices for some commodities were below international reference levels, resulting in transfers borne by farmers and accruing to consumers (negative MPS). On average over 2023 25, these transfers amounted to approximately USD 151 billion per year, offsetting part of the transfers to farmers generated by policies that raised domestic prices.
In nominal terms, total support has been increasing over time, with larger jumps observed in 2020 and 2025. Average support over 2023‑25 is higher than in earlier periods, reflecting increases across several components, including market price-related transfers, budgetary support to farmers and expenditures on general services. Consumer transfers also remain elevated compared to pre‑2020 levels. Preliminary estimates suggest that total support to agriculture exceeded USD 950 billion in 2025.
While total support has increased in nominal terms, its share in the value of agricultural production remained below earlier levels. Total support to the sector amounted to about 18% of the value of production on average over 2023‑25, compared to higher levels observed in the early 2000s. This reflected growth in the value of agricultural production alongside changes in support levels over time.
However, since 2022, the TSE as a share of the value of production has been increasing again. It is now at about the same level as it was in 2008, driven primarily by changes in price‑related transfers. MPS shows by far the largest increase in absolute terms in recent years, while other components – such as budgetary support to farmers and expenditures on general services – have risen more moderately. At the same time, transfers to consumers borne by farmers where domestic prices are below international reference levels have declined, thus further increasing net benefits to farmers from price policies.
The PSE is composed of policy measures with different characteristics. OECD analysis helps to identify the possible impacts of policies according to these characteristics (Box 1.4). Transfers associated with market price support and certain budgetary measures considered to be potentially most distorting of production and trade, such as payments based on current production or input use, continue to account for a large share of total transfers affecting farmers. Other forms of support represent a smaller share, with the relative composition of these categories remaining stable over time.
To be able to make recommendations to policy makers, the OECD has investigated agricultural support policies and their impacts since 2001. The term “potentially most distorting forms of support” used in this report derives from this research. The OECD uses quantitative models to estimate the relative effects of different support policies (Martini, 2011[12]; OECD, 2001[13]). These analyses have concluded that MPS, support based on output payments and the unconstrained use of variable inputs potentially exert the greatest distortion effect on production and trade. This report collectively refers to this group of policies as “potentially most distorting forms of support”.
This same research concludes that policies that are most distorting also tend to have low income benefits to farmers. This is because market distortions shift some of the benefits of the government transfer to other recipients, such as companies that sell fuel, seeds and fertiliser. How well funds flow from governments or consumers to producers is termed “transfer efficiency”. Input support has the lowest transfer efficiency; only 25% of transfers of this form made to producers actually accrue as additional income (Dewbre, Antón and Thompson, 2001[14]; OECD, 2001[13]). This research underpins the “positive reform agenda” (OECD, 2002[15]) calling for countries to identify and reform their most distorting policies, and find better alternatives when needed.
This research also finds that the distribution of support matters—when support is highly concentrated in a few countries or commodities, their distortionary effect is increased. This leads to deadweight losses and further reduced efficiency.
More recently, OECD work has considered how to encourage better food systems. This is the “triple challenge” of ensuring adequate and affordable food security and nutrition, addressing environmental challenges and sustainability, and providing opportunities for livelihoods for farmers and actors along the supply chain (OECD, 2021[16]). This idea was reflected in the 2022 Ministerial Declaration on Transformative Solutions for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems (OECD, 2022[17]).
OECD work has shown that the effects of policies that are potentially most distorting of production and trade have less clear-cut effects on the environment (Henderson and Lankoski, 2019[18]; Lankoski, Nales and Valin, 2025[19]). Policies linked to production or input use have the greatest potential to generate environmentally harmful impacts. That said, these impacts vary depending on the type of production or input targeted, whether there is a limit on production, and possible environmental conditions attached to the support. In contrast, agri-environmental payments, and, more particularly, well designed and implemented performance- or results-based payments directly tied to environmental outcomes are the most likely producer support policies to deliver environmental benefits. Local conditions, trade-offs between environmental dimensions and scales of analysis of the impacts (domestic or global level) need to be considered to better understand the impacts of support instruments and whether they are needed. Reforming or reorienting support policies can improve environmental outcomes and, in the case of budgetary support, provide additional resources for investment in targeted and beneficial measures (Valin, Henderson and Lankoski, 2023[20]).
OECD work on risk management is centred around a holistic framework that evolved from focusing on agricultural risk management tools to a much broader agricultural resilience lens. The initial framework provided a foundation by recognising the need to make risk management interventions commensurate to the type of risks considered (OECD, 2009[21]). In particular, it distinguished normal, market and catastrophic risks, each with consequences for farming and corresponding policy interventions.
Recommendations drawing on OECD work include the following:
Governments should reform, reorient and phase out where possible the most distorting forms of support and measures; that is, those that reduce the capacity of the international trading system to fulfil its role in balancing food supplies between surplus and deficit regions.
Governments should promote broad approaches to resilience that ensure preparedness and risk management systems that respond to the OECD’s established risk management framework.
Governments should reduce income support measures with low transfer efficiencies.
Governments should move towards more sustainability and resilience to address the triple challenge facing agriculture and food systems: ensuring food security and nutrition; addressing environmental challenges and providing opportunities for livelihoods for all farmers.*
Note: *As reflected in the country chapters of the report, policies in a number of countries emphasise in particular addressing challenges related to climate change.
The share of support has shifted towards large emerging economies, led by China and India
A small number of economies with large agricultural sectors account for the most transfers to farmers. Over 2023‑25, China, the European Union, the United States and Japan together accounted for around 69% of total transfers to farmers (positive PSE). However, their relative contributions have changed substantially over time (Figure 1.5). In 2000‑02, the European Union accounted for roughly 30% of these transfers, followed by Japan and the United States (each around 17%), while China accounted for about 7%. Mirroring its growing share in agricultural production, by 2023‑25 China’s share had increased to approximately 42%, making it the largest source of transfers to farmers among the economies shown. Over the same period, the share of the European Union declined to around 14%, while the United States and Japan accounted for about 6% and 4%, respectively.
When considering both transfers to farmers and transfers borne by farmers, India represents a substantial share of overall support flows. In 2023‑25, transfers to farmers in India averaged around USD 72 billion per year, while transfers borne by farmers where domestic prices are below international reference levels were of a similar or larger magnitude, averaging USD 119 billion per year. As a result, India is a key contributor to both sides of the overall support story. Its combined magnitude of transfers – both to and from farmers – makes it one of the most significant countries in shaping aggregate support patterns alongside China.
The composition of support to farmers differs between OECD countries and emerging economies
Since 2000, the composition of support has evolved differently in OECD countries and emerging economies. In OECD countries, transfers associated with domestic prices above international reference levels (MPS) have declined from around 15-16% of gross farm receipts in the early 2000s to about 6% in 2023‑25 (Figure 1.6). Over the same period, budgetary measures, such as payments linked to current production, input use and other categories, have become relatively more important and now account for a larger share of transfers to farmers. Overall, support as a share of farm receipts declined from around 27-30% in the early 2000s to around 14% in 2023‑25, with relatively limited variation since the mid‑2010s and an increase after 2022.
In emerging economies, the composition of support has been more stable over the same period. Transfers to farmers arising from higher domestic prices have generally accounted for around 7-9% of gross farm receipts since 2000, while transfers from farmers arising from domestic prices below reference levels have remained an important component, typically ranging between 4% and 8% of farm receipts. Budgetary support has remained more limited and accounts for a smaller share of total support than in OECD countries. Support as a share of farm receipts in emerging economies has remained within a relatively narrow range of around 6-9% since 2000.
Net transfers to farmers have increased since 2022, reversing a long-term decline in market price support
Overall, price gaps between domestic and international reference prices remain a significant component of transfers affecting farmers (Box 1.5), although their importance has declined over time (Figure 1.7). Across all 56 countries, transfers to farmers associated with higher domestic prices averaged around 7.1% of gross farm receipts over 2023‑25, compared to levels of around 12-13% in the early 2000s. Over the same period, transfers borne by farmers where domestic prices were below reference levels averaged around -2.9% of gross farm receipts, compared to about -1.6% to -2.0% in 2000‑02. Taken together, these components have resulted in net transfers to farmers of approximately 4-5% of gross farm receipts in recent years, compared to around 10-11% in the early 2000s.
All three transfer series show more pronounced movements during periods of higher market volatility. Transfers to farmers declined steadily after the early 2000s, while transfers borne by farmers increased in magnitude, notably around 2007‑2008, when they reached about -6% of gross farm receipts. As a result, net transfers to farmers declined sharply during this period and were nearly zero in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, driven by exchange rate volatility. Since then, net transfers have stabilised within a range of approximately 3% to 5%. In more recent years, transfers to farmers have increased from around 6.5% in 2022 to nearly 8% in 2025. The last time MPS transfers to farmers were that high was in 2015.
Market price support (MPS) estimates the benefit or loss farmers and consumers experience when there is a difference between domestic prices and world prices. This price gap is calculated by measuring the difference between the actual domestic market price and price that would have prevailed were there no price-distorting policies in place (OECD, 2016[22]).
The price gap for a specific commodity measures the difference between two prices: the average domestic price and a reference price calculated at the same level in the value chain (generally at the farm gate). This reference price corresponds to the country’s border price, i.e. the import price (for net-imported commodities) or the export price (for net-exported commodities). The reference price can be observed directly, estimated based on prices in similar or neighbouring countries or, in rare cases, using tariff or export tax data.
If the price gap is such that the domestic price is twice the reference price, the MPS as a share of commodity gross receipts should be 50% and producers receive double the revenue they would have otherwise (assuming there were no other forms of support offered). If domestic prices are five times border prices, the MPS as a share of commodity gross receipts would be 80%. If the domestic price is half the world price (such as would result from a 50% tax), MPS as a share of commodity gross receipts would be -100%, a transfer to consumers borne by farmers. Market developments (such as exchange rate movements affecting world prices expressed in local currencies) may influence the price gap, so changes in MPS do not always mean that a policy has changed.
The price gap is calculated only if policies exist that could cause such a gap, such as border measures that restrict or promote imports or exports, and government purchases, sales and intervention prices in the domestic market. If countries do not implement such policies, the price gap is assumed to be zero. The price gap for individual commodities is adjusted for differences in product qualities, processing and transportation margins, to compare like with like.
MPS is not a measure of public expenditures but an estimation of implicit or explicit transfers. MPS estimates published by the OECD, therefore, often differ from, and should not be confused with, those published by other organisations, including by the World Trade Organization, which may use very different concepts to calculate their indicators, despite similar names.
Source: OECD (2020[23]), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2020, https://doi.org/10.1787/928181a8-en.
Payments without input constraints dominate total support, while conditionality is mainly applied to payments based on area or input use
Payments made to producers are often subject to conditionality that sets out obligations that farmers must meet to be eligible. These conditions involve actions that may be “mandatory” or “voluntary”. Mandatory input constraints include requirements to comply with prevailing laws or regulations or complementing rules, while voluntary constraints go beyond legal requirements where farmers adopt or refrain from certain practices in exchange for receiving the payment. Within the voluntary input constraint label, a further distinction is introduced to identify the character of constraint, i.e. whether it concerns (i) environmental practices, (ii) animal welfare, or (iii) other practices. For example, in Canada, support provided under the Agricultural Clean Technology – Adoption Stream programme is contingent on producers adopting commercially available clean technologies, with funding prioritised for projects that achieve measurable reductions in greenhouse gas, fertiliser and methane emissions. Such programmes exemplify voluntary environmental constraints, where payments are tied to the uptake of practices that go beyond regulatory requirements. Market price support cannot be made conditional, as beneficiaries cannot be excluded from higher prices in the domestic market. Budgetary payments, however, can be, and often are, subject to mandatory or voluntary input constraints.
In 2023–25, 21% of support to all countries covered in this report was delivered subject to constraints, with most being mandatory input constraints (15% of support). This is an increase from 12% in 2000‑02. Voluntary environmental constraints apply to 5% of all transfers to producers, the same share as in 2000‑02, and other constraints account for about 1% (Figure 1.8). Constraints are almost always applied to support that is based on non-commodity criteria. More than half of support based on area, animal numbers, revenue or income have some conditions attached. Payments based on input use are less often subject to input constraints (about 11%).
Most transfers to farmers are not subject to input-related constraints (Figure 1.8). Across all policy instruments, around 79% of total support (USD 401 billion) is provided without input constraints or where such conditions are not applicable, as is the case for MPS. Support subject to mandatory input constraints accounts for approximately USD 77 billion (15%), while support with voluntary environmental constraints represents about USD 29 billion (6%). Support linked to voluntary animal welfare or other voluntary constraints remains limited, at around USD 2.4 billion (less than 1%).
The use of constraints varies significantly across policy instruments. Payments based on area, animal numbers, receipts or income (A/An/R/I) account for the largest share of support, with conditions attached, including around USD 66 billion with mandatory constraints and USD 16 billion with voluntary environmental constraints. Payments based on input use include around USD 4 billion with mandatory constraints and smaller amounts with voluntary conditions, while infrastructure-related measures (fixed capital formation) include both mandatory and voluntary constraints, at about USD 3.3 billion and USD 3 billion, respectively. Payments based on non‑commodity criteria are more frequently associated with voluntary environmental constraints, particularly for long‑term resource retirement programmes (around USD 4.6 billion).
Certain commodities receive relatively more support
Policies are often designed to affect specific commodities. By their construction, policies providing MPS and payments for outputs are commodity-specific, while other budgetary payments may or may not be targeted to a specific commodity. For example, a tariff on wheat imports makes imports more expensive, raising domestic prices and benefitting domestic wheat producers. Payments based on inputs or other production factors often stipulate terms that make them commodity-specific, such as when a fertiliser subsidy is granted only for the production of maize, or a payment that is made per head of livestock. The total value of such payments taken together with MPS are reported for each commodity as single-commodity transfers (SCT).
Transfers linked to individual commodities, expressed as a share of gross commodity receipts, vary widely across products (Figure 1.9). Net transfers to farmers (PSCT) may be substantially negative, for example, milk (-12%), oats (-5%) and sunflower (-4%), to relatively high positive levels, such as maize (18%), raw sugar (21%), rapeseed (12%) and several livestock products (around 11%). These patterns reflect differences across countries: transfers to consumers borne by farmers are concentrated in emerging economies, while for some commodities – particularly milk and certain livestock products – transfers to farmers borne by consumers associated with higher domestic prices are relatively large in many OECD countries. Overall, price gaps between domestic and international reference prices remain the main driver of commodity‑specific transfers, while other commodity‑specific payments account for a smaller share.
For some commodities, differences in policy approaches across countries result in net transfers that are close to zero when aggregated, but this masks substantial underlying transfers in both directions. Looking at the combined magnitude of transfers to farmers and transfers borne by farmers provides a more complete indication of the overall policy effort affecting a given commodity. For example, net commodity‑specific transfers for barley are close to zero in aggregate, but this reflects the presence of transfers to farmers in some countries and transfers borne by farmers in others.
Considered in this way, the commodities receiving the largest overall policy attention include sugar, rapeseed, maize and milk, where the combined magnitude of transfers is relatively high. While policies in some countries raise domestic prices for these commodities, in others they result in lower prices relative to international reference levels. As a result, similar commodities may be associated with different transfer patterns across countries, but with a comparable overall level of policy intervention when measured in absolute terms. Commodities with the lowest combined transfers are wool, eggs, barley and oats.
Commodity-specific support can influence production choices by changing the relative returns of commodities or groups of commodities. For example, a payment per bale of cotton produced can lead to more area being planted to cotton instead of other alternatives. In this way, support that is targeted to a few specific commodities can be more distorting of production than the same level of support that is distributed evenly across commodities or that is not commodity-specific. This can hinder farmers’ adaptive capacity when commodity-specific support makes them less likely to move away from a commodity when growing conditions change, potentially perpetuating reliance on government assistance.
Consumers remain net contributors, with amounts larger and more variable in emerging economies
Consumer‑oriented measures serve a range of policy objectives and their effects are closely linked to policies affecting farmers. Policies influencing domestic prices can result in consumers paying higher prices for agricultural commodities or benefiting from lower prices (Box 1.6). Consumers may also benefit from budgetary transfers. On balance across the countries covered in this report, policies resulted in transfers borne by consumers equivalent to 4.4% of gross consumer expenditures measured at farm gate prices (%CSE) on average over 2023‑25 (Figure 1.10).
The consumer support estimate (CSE) is composed of three elements. These are defined by the source and destination of the transfer generated by the policy.
Transfers from consumers to farmers. The largest component of the CSE in most countries is market price support (MPS), which raises domestic prices. Consumers pay a higher price for food and farmers receive a higher price for their production; therefore, the direction of transfer is from consumers to farmers (i.e. an implicit taxation of consumers). This is reversed when policies keep domestic prices low, which is negative MPS, in other words, a transfer from farmers to consumers (i.e. support to consumers). Some countries use a mix of both, though it is more common in OECD countries for MPS policies to only make transfers from consumers to farmers.
Other transfers from consumers. This is also a result of MPS policies. When a country uses MPS to raise the domestic price of a commodity and the country is also a net importer of that commodity, the government is the beneficiary of the transfer in the form of tariff revenue earned on the imported product. In rare cases, import quota holders could be the beneficiaries of these transfers.
Transfers from taxpayers to consumers. This is a result of budgetary policies (which are funded by taxpayers) that make transfers to consumers, such as in the form of reduced cost for school lunches or nutrition assistance programmes. In most countries, this is the smallest component of the CSE.
In OECD countries, transfers borne by consumers through higher prices for agricultural commodities have remained relatively stable over time, averaging around USD 95 billion per year in 2023‑25, with additional transfers from consumers of about USD 23 billion per year. These were partly offset by transfers to consumers financed by taxpayers, which have increased to around USD 71 billion per year in recent years.
In emerging economies, transfers affecting consumers are larger and more variable. Transfers borne by consumers through higher prices and other mechanisms averaged around USD 152 billion per year in 2023‑25, while additional transfers from consumers averaged about USD 66 billion per year. Transfers to consumers financed by taxpayers are smaller in comparison, averaging around USD 35 billion per year in recent years, and show less variation over time.
As a result, consumers in both groups of countries remained net contributors overall. This is reflected in the percentage Consumer Support Estimate (%CSE), which remained negative throughout the period. In OECD countries, the %CSE improved from around -11% in 2000‑02 to about -3.3% in 2023‑25. In emerging economies, the %CSE was -5% on average in 2023‑25, worsening from -0.9% in 2000‑02, with larger fluctuations across years.
The composition of transfers affecting consumers differs between country groups. In OECD countries, taxpayer‑financed transfers to consumers account for a larger share of total transfers and transfers borne by consumers are more stable over time. In emerging economies, transfers borne by consumers account for a larger share and vary more from year to year.
General services support has increased, with more diversified spending in OECD countries and greater concentration in emerging economies
Policy expenditures that support the primary agricultural sector as a whole, as opposed to providing transfers to individual farmers or consumers, have increased in both OECD countries and emerging economies since 2000, although with differences in composition and relative importance (Figure 1.11). In OECD countries, total general services support rose from around USD 38 billion in 2000 to about USD 57 billion in 2025, averaging approximately USD 56 billion over 2023‑25. Infrastructure (largely for irrigation projects) and agricultural knowledge and innovation systems (AKIS) represent the largest components, at around USD 20 billion and USD 17 billion per year in 2023‑25, respectively, while inspection and control averaged about USD 5.6 billion per year. The overall composition has remained relatively stable over time, with several components contributing to total spending. As a share of the value of agricultural production, general services declined gradually from around 5.5% in the early 2000s to about 3.6% in 2023‑25.
In emerging economies, general services support expanded more rapidly in absolute terms, increasing from around USD 19 billion in 2000 to about USD 63 billion in recent years, with an average of approximately USD 63 billion over 2023‑25. The composition is more concentrated than in OECD countries, with infrastructure accounting for about USD 35 billion per year and public stockholding forming a prominent component throughout the period, averaging around USD 13 billion in recent years. Other components, including AKIS (around USD 9.6 billion), and inspection and control (around USD 3.9 billion), account for smaller shares. Despite this growth, general services support represents a smaller share of the value of production than in OECD countries, declining from about 3.6% to around 1.9% over the same period.
Recent increases in total agricultural support are driven by price-related transfers
Support to agriculture remains substantial, exceeding USD 950 billion in 2025. Its share of the value of agricultural production declined over the long term as output grew more rapidly. Since 2022, however, support relative to production has increased again, largely because of changes in price-related transfers, though ad-hoc disaster payments also increased. Market price support remains central and shapes transfers between farmers and consumers
Price gaps between domestic and international prices remain an important source of support to agriculture, affecting both farmers and consumers. Although these price gaps became less important over the long term, they have widened again in recent years, increasing support to farmers. Consumers continue to bear part of the cost through higher prices, particularly in emerging economies, where these transfers tend to be larger and more variable. The composition of support to farmers differs across countries, with emerging economies playing a larger role
The composition and distribution of support to farmers vary significantly across country groups. In OECD countries, support has shifted towards more diversified budgetary measures, while in emerging economies, price‑related transfers continue to play a more prominent role. Large emerging economies, particularly China and India, account for an increasing share of both total production and total transfers, shaping global patterns of support.
General services support is growing but differs in structure and relative importance
Expenditures on general services have increased in both OECD countries and emerging economies, though with clear structural differences. Spending is more diversified in OECD countries, with infrastructure and knowledge systems as the largest components, while in emerging economies it is more concentrated, with infrastructure and public stockholding playing a larger role. Despite growth in absolute terms, general services is shrinking as a share of the value of production, especially in emerging economies.
Most support to farmers remains unconstrained, with conditionality concentrated in specific instruments
Some countries are increasing their efforts to link support to farming requirements motivated by environmental and other objectives. Across policy instruments, most support is provided without such requirements. Where conditions are applied, they mainly relate to compliance with requirements that are already mandatory. Such conditions may improve the environmental performance of existing programmes, but their additional effects are difficult to assess and vary across instruments and countries. The share of support subject to constraints has increased over time but remains limited relative to total support.
Commodity-specific support remains significant and varies widely across products
Support directed at individual commodities continues to play an important role, with large variation across products and across countries. For some commodities, opposing policy approaches across countries result in offsetting transfers when aggregated, masking substantial underlying policy effort. The intensity of policy intervention remains high for commodities such as sugar, rapeseed, maize and milk.
Recent developments point to a reversal of long-term trends in support
Recent increases in market price‑related transfers and overall support levels indicate a shift away from the long‑term decline in support relative to production observed in previous decades. While such adjustments may reflect short‑term responses to evolving conditions, they also highlight the importance of continuing to encourage less distorting forms of support. Given the continued importance of international trade in balancing food supply and demand, preserving open and predictable trade conditions remains an important consideration in the design of policy responses.
Interconnected risks call for a systematic policy response
Agricultural production in 2025 remained strong, but operated in an increasingly complex global environment shaped by macroeconomic pressures, geopolitical tensions and risks from intensified extreme weather events. These interacting factors contributed to higher volatility in input and output markets, and reinforced the importance of a systemic approach to resilience, sustainability and risk management within policy frameworks.
Overall, agricultural policies continue to reflect a combination of objectives related to productivity, income support, food security, sustainability and resilience. Increasingly interconnected risks and diversity of policy approaches across countries highlight the importance of considering both the level and composition of support when assessing its role in agricultural systems.
Policies that strengthen sustainability, resilience, risk management, innovation and productivity form key elements of a coherent approach to addressing current challenges. Measures that support preparedness, facilitate open and predictable trade and enhance the capacity of the sector to adapt to changing conditions can contribute to more effective policy outcomes. In this context, reorienting support towards less distorting measures and investments that support long-term productivity and sustainability can help align policy frameworks with the evolving risk environment facing agriculture.
References
[9] COFACE (2025), Rice: India lifts export restrictions causing global prices to plummet, https://www.coface.us/news-economy-and-business-insights/rice-india-lifts-export-restrictions-causing-global-prices-to-plummet.
[14] Dewbre, J., J. Antón and W. Thompson (2001), “The Transfer Efficiency and Trade Effects of Direct Payments”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 83/5, pp. 1204-1214, https://doi.org/10.1111/0002-9092.00268 (accessed on 8 March 2017).
[3] FAO (2026), Agrifood Policy Highights | May 2026, https://www.fao.org/agrifood-economics/news/detail-events/en/c/1758817/.
[5] FAO (2025), The Impact of Disasters on Agriculture and Food Security 2025, FAO, Rome, https://doi.org/10.4060/cd7185en.
[6] FAO and WMO (2026), Extreme heat and agriculture, FAO; WMO;, Rome and Geneva, https://doi.org/10.4060/cd9394en.
[18] Henderson, B. and J. Lankoski (2019), “Evaluating the environmental impact of agricultural policies”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 130, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/add0f27c-en.
[19] Lankoski, J., E. Nales and H. Valin (2025), “Assessing the impacts of agricultural support policies on the environment: Economic analysis, literature findings and synthesis”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 223, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/808f110c-en.
[12] Martini, R. (2011), “Long Term Trends in Agricultural Policy Impacts”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 45, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5kgdp5zw179q-en.
[4] OECD (2026), Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries 2026: Key Trends and Insights, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5bbd8f58-en.
[1] OECD (2026), OECD Economic Outlook, Volume 2026 Issue 1: Under Pressure, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2d1956f0-en.
[10] OECD (2026), “The impact of the conflict in the Middle East on agricultural markets”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 225, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3324cfee-en.
[17] OECD (2022), 2022 Ministerial Declaration on Transformative Solutions for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0483.
[16] OECD (2021), Making Better Policies for Food Systems, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ddfba4de-en.
[23] OECD (2020), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2020, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/928181a8-en.
[11] OECD (2020), Strengthening Agricultural Resilience in the Face of Multiple Risks, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2250453e-en.
[22] OECD (2016), OECD’S Producer Support Estimate and Related Indicators of Agricultural Support - Concepts, Calculations, Interpretation and Use (The PSE Manual), https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-issues/agricultural-policy-monitoring/producer-support-estimates-manual.pdf.
[21] OECD (2009), Managing Risk in Agriculture: A Holistic Approach, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264075313-en.
[15] OECD (2002), Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: A Positive Reform Agenda, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264199682-en.
[13] OECD (2001), Market Effects of Crop Support Measures, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264195011-en.
[7] OECD/FAO (2025), OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2025-2034, OECD Publishing, Paris/FAO, Rome, https://doi.org/10.1787/601276cd-en.
[20] Valin, H., B. Henderson and J. Lankoski (2023), Reorienting budgetary support to agriculture for climate change mitigation: A modelling analysis, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers No. 206, https://doi.org/10.1787/28248b95-en.
[2] World Bank (2026), Commodity Markets Outlook, World Bank, Washington, DC, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/9ce7cc02-3c2b-4578-b0cb-f35992a9004e/content.
[8] World Bank (2025), Fertilizer prices soften but remain constrained by trade policies, https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/opendata/fertilizer-markets-soften-but-remain-constrained-by-trade-polici.
Producer Support Estimate (PSE): The annual monetary value of gross transfers from consumers and taxpayers to agricultural producers, measured at the farm gate level, arising from policy measures that support agriculture, regardless of their nature, objectives or impacts on farm production or income. It includes market price support, budgetary payments and budget revenue foregone, i.e. gross transfers from consumers and taxpayers to agricultural producers arising from policy measures based on: current output, input use, area planted/animal numbers/receipts/incomes (current, non-current), and non-commodity criteria. PSE categories are defined in Box 1 A.1.
Market Price Support (MPS): The annual monetary value of gross transfers from consumers and taxpayers to agricultural producers arising from policy measures that create a gap between domestic market prices and border prices of a specific agricultural commodity, measured at the farm gate level. MPS is available by commodity, and sums of negative and positive components are reported separately where relevant along with the total MPS.
Producer Single Commodity Transfers (producer SCT): The annual monetary value of gross transfers from consumers and taxpayers to agricultural producers, measured at the farm gate level, arising from policies linked to the production of a single commodity such that the producer must produce the designated commodity in order to receive the payment. This includes broader policies where transfers are specified on a per-commodity basis. Producer SCT is also available by commodity.
Group Commodity Transfers (GCT): The annual monetary value of gross transfers from consumers and taxpayers to agricultural producers, measured at the farm gate level, arising from policies whose payments are made on the basis that one or more of a designated list of commodities is produced, i.e. a producer may produce from a set of allowable commodities and receive a transfer that does not vary with respect to this decision.
All Commodity Transfers (ACT): The annual monetary value of gross transfers from consumers and taxpayers to agricultural producers, measured at the farm gate level, arising from policies that place no restrictions on the commodity produced but require the recipient to produce some commodity of their choice.
Other Transfers to Producers (OTP): The annual monetary value of gross transfers from consumers and taxpayers to agricultural producers, measured at the farm gate level, arising from policies that do not require any commodity production at all.
Consumer Single Commodity Transfers (consumer SCT): The annual monetary value of gross transfers from (to) consumers of agricultural commodities, measured at the farm gate level, arising from policies linked to the production of a single commodity. Consumer SCT is also available by commodity.
Consumer Support Estimate (CSE): The annual monetary value of gross transfers from (to) consumers of agricultural commodities, measured at the farm gate level, arising from policy measures that support agriculture, regardless of their nature, objectives or impacts on consumption of farm products. If negative, the CSE measures the burden (implicit tax) on consumers through market price support (higher prices), that more than offsets consumer subsidies that lower prices to consumers.
General Services Support Estimate (GSSE): The annual monetary value of gross transfers arising from policy measures that create enabling conditions for the primary agricultural sector through development of private or public services, institutions and infrastructure, regardless of their objectives and impacts on farm production and income, or consumption of farm products. The GSSE includes policies where primary agriculture is the main beneficiary, but does not include any payments to individual producers. GSSE transfers do not directly alter producer receipts or costs or consumption expenditures. GSSE categories are defined below.
Total Support Estimate (TSE): The annual monetary value of all gross transfers from taxpayers and consumers arising from policy measures that support agriculture, net of the associated budgetary receipts, regardless of their objectives and impacts on farm production and income, or consumption of farm products.
Total Budgetary Support Estimate (TBSE): The annual monetary value of all gross budgetary transfers from taxpayers arising from policy measures that support agriculture, regardless of their objectives and impacts on farm production and income, or consumption of farm products.
Gross Farm Receipts (GFR): The annual monetary value of production, to which budgetary transfers to individual producers are added (i.e. VP + PSE – MPS).
Commodity Gross Receipts: The annual monetary value of production for an individual commodity, to which budgetary transfers to producers of that commodity are added (i.e. VP + producer SCT – MPS).
Percentage PSE (%PSE): PSE transfers as a share of gross farm receipts (including support in the denominator).
Percentage SCT (%SCT): Single Commodity Transfers as a share of gross receipts for the specific commodity (including support in the denominator).
Share of SCT in total PSE (%): Share of Single Commodity Transfers in the total PSE. This indicator is also calculated by commodity.
Producer Nominal Protection Coefficient (producer NPC): The ratio between the average price received by producers (at farm gate), including payments per tonne of current output, and the border price (measured at farm gate). The Producer NPC is also available by commodity.
Producer Nominal Assistance Coefficient (producer NAC): The ratio between the value of gross farm receipts including support and gross farm receipts (at farm gate) valued at border prices (measured at farm gate).
Percentage CSE (%CSE): CSE transfers as a share of consumption expenditure on agricultural commodities (at farm gate prices), net of taxpayer transfers to consumers. The %CSE measures the implicit tax (or subsidy, if CSE is positive) placed on consumers by agricultural price policies.
Consumer Nominal Protection Coefficient (consumer NPC): The ratio between the average price paid by consumers (at farm gate) and the border price (measured at farm gate). The Consumer NPC is also available by commodity.
Consumer Nominal Assistance Coefficient (consumer NAC): The ratio between the value of consumption expenditure on agricultural commodities (at farm gate) and that valued at border prices.
Percentage TSE (%TSE): TSE transfers as a percentage of GDP.
Percentage TBSE (%TBSE): TBSE transfers as a percentage of GDP.
Percentage GSSE (%GSSE): Share of expenditures on general services in the Total Support Estimate (TSE).
Share of potentially most distorting transfers in aggregated gross producer transfers (%): represents the sum of positive MPS, the absolute value of negative MPS, payments based on output and payments based on unconstrained use of variable inputs, relative to the sum of positive MPS, the absolute value of negative MPS, and all budgetary payments to producers.
Definitions of categories
Category A1, Market price support (MPS): Transfers from consumers and taxpayers to agricultural producers from policy measures that create a gap between domestic market prices and border prices of a specific agricultural commodity, measured at the farm gate level.
Category A2, Payments based on output: Transfers from taxpayers to agricultural producers from policy measures based on current output of a specific agricultural commodity.
Category B, Payments based on input use: Transfers from taxpayers to agricultural producers arising from policy measures based on on-farm use of inputs:
Variable input use that reduces the on-farm cost of a specific variable input or a mix of variable inputs.
Fixed capital formation that reduces the on-farm investment cost of farm buildings, equipment, plantations, irrigation, drainage, and soil improvements.
On-farm services that reduce the cost of technical, accounting, commercial, sanitary and phytosanitary assistance and training provided to individual farmers.
Category C, Payments based on current A/An/R/I, production required: Transfers from taxpayers to agricultural producers arising from policy measures based on current area, animal numbers, revenue, or income, and requiring production.
Category D, Payments based on non-current A/An/R/I, production required: Transfers from taxpayers to agricultural producers arising from policy measures based on non-current (i.e. historical or fixed) area, animal numbers, revenue, or income, with current production of any commodity required.
Category E, Payments based on non-current A/An/R/I, production not required: Transfers from taxpayers to agricultural producers arising from policy measures based on non-current (i.e. historical or fixed) area, animal numbers, revenue, or income, with current production of any commodity not required but optional.
Category F, Payments based on non-commodity criteria: Transfers from taxpayers to agricultural producers arising from policy measures based on:
Long-term resource retirement: Transfers for the long-term retirement of factors of production from commodity production. The payments in this subcategory are distinguished from those requiring short-term resource retirement, which are based on commodity production criteria.
A specific non-commodity output: Transfers for the use of farm resources to produce specific non-commodity outputs of goods and services, which are not required by regulations.
Other non-commodity criteria: Transfers provided equally to all farmers, such as a flat rate or lump sum payment.
Category G, Miscellaneous payments: Transfers from taxpayers to farmers for which there is a lack of information to allocate them among the appropriate categories.
Note: A (area), An (animal numbers), R (receipts) or I (income).
Definitions of labels
With or without current commodity production limits and/or limit to payments: Defines whether or not there is a specific limitation on current commodity production (output) associated with a policy providing transfers to agriculture and whether or not there are limits to payments in the form of limits to area or animal numbers eligible for those payments. Applied in categories A–F.
With variable or fixed payment rates: Any payments is defined as subject to a variable rate where the formula determining the level of payment is triggered by a change in price, yield, net revenue or income or a change in production cost. Applied in categories A–E.
With or without input constraints: defines whether or not there are specific requirements concerning farming practices related to the programme in terms of the reduction, replacement, or withdrawal in the use of inputs or a restriction of farming practices allowed. Applied in categories A–F. The payments with input constrains are further broken down to:
Payments conditional on compliance with basic requirements that are mandatory (with mandatory);
Payments requiring specific practices going beyond basic requirements and voluntary (with voluntary).
Specific practices related to environmental issues.
Specific practices related to animal welfare.
Other specific practices.
With or without commodity exceptions: defines whether or not there are prohibitions upon the production of certain commodities as a condition of eligibility for payments based on non-current A/An/R/I of commodity(ies). Applied in Category E.
Based on area, animal numbers, receipts or income: defines the specific attribute (i.e. area, animal numbers, receipts or income) on which the payment is based. Applied in categories C–E.
Based on a single commodity, a group of commodities or all commodities: defines whether the payment is granted for production of a single commodity, a group of commodities or all commodities. Applied in categories A–D.
Decomposition of PSE
Per cent change in PSE: Per cent change in the nominal value of the PSE expressed in national currency. The per cent change is calculated using the two most recent years in the series.
Contribution of MPS to per cent change in PSE: Per cent change in nominal PSE if all variables other than MPS are held constant.
Contribution of price gap to per cent change in the PSE: Per cent change in nominal PSE if all variables other than gap between domestic market prices and border prices are held constant.
Contribution of quantity produced to per cent change in the PSE: Per cent change in nominal PSE if all variables other than quantity produced are held constant.
Contribution of budgetary payments (BP) to per cent change in PSE: Per cent change in nominal PSE if all variables other than BP are held constant.
Contribution of BP elements to per cent change in PSE: Per cent change in nominal PSE if all variables other than a given BP element are held constant. BP elements include Payments based on output, Payments based on input use, Payments based on current A/An/R/I, production required, Payments based on non-current A/An/R/I, production required, Payments based on non-current A/An/R/I, production not required, Payments based on non-commodity criteria and Miscellaneous payments.
Change in Producer Price
Per cent change in Producer Price: Per cent change in Producer Price (at farm gate) expressed in national currency. The per cent change is calculated using the two most recent years in the series.
Decomposition of the change in the Border Price
Per cent change in Border Price: Per cent change in Border Price (at farm gate) expressed in national currency. The per cent change is calculated using the two most recent years in the series.
Contribution of Exchange Rate to per cent change in Border Price: Per cent change in the Border Price (at farm gate) expressed in national currency if all variables other than Exchange Rate between national currency and USD are held constant.
Contribution of Border Price expressed in USD to per cent change in Border Price: Per cent change in the Border Price (at farm gate) expressed in national currency if all variables other than Border Price (at farm gate) expressed in USD are held constant.
Note: The change in Producer Support Estimate (PSE) is not decomposed when PSE is negative for the current and/or previous year. The producer price change and the border price change are not calculated when both negative and positive market price support (MPS) occur at the commodity level for the previous year. Note that negative MPS estimates for livestock products may arise in cases of aligned product prices if there is positive MPS for feed commodities.
Agricultural knowledge and innovation system
Agricultural knowledge generation: Budgetary expenditure financing research and development (R&D) activities related to agriculture, and associated data dissemination, irrespective of the institution (private or public, ministry, university, research centre or producer groups) where they take place, the nature of research (scientific, institutional, etc.), or its purpose.
Agricultural knowledge transfer: Budgetary expenditure financing agricultural vocational schools and agricultural programmes in high-level education, training and advice to farmers that is generic (e.g. accounting rules, pesticide application), not specific to individual situations, and data collection and information dissemination networks related to agricultural production and marketing.
Inspection and control
Agricultural product safety and inspection: Budgetary expenditure financing activities related to agricultural product safety and inspection. This includes only expenditures on inspection of domestically produced commodities at first level of processing and border inspection for exported commodities.
Pest and disease inspection and control: Budgetary expenditure financing pest and disease control of agricultural inputs and outputs (control at primary agriculture level) and public funding of veterinary services (for the farming sector) and phytosanitary services.
Input control: Budgetary expenditure financing the institutions providing control activities and certification of industrial inputs used in agriculture (e.g. machinery, industrial fertilisers, pesticides, etc.) and biological inputs (e.g. seed certification and control).
Development and maintenance of infrastructure
Hydrological infrastructure: Budgetary expenditure financing public investments into hydrological infrastructure (irrigation and drainage networks).
Storage, marketing and other physical infrastructure: Budgetary expenditure financing investments to off-farm storage and other market infrastructure facilities related to handling and marketing primary agricultural products (silos, harbour facilities – docks, elevators; wholesale markets, futures markets), as well as other physical infrastructure related to agriculture, when agriculture is the main beneficiary.
Institutional infrastructure: Budgetary expenditure financing investments to build and maintain institutional infrastructure related to the farming sector (e.g. land cadastres; machinery user groups, seed and species registries; development of rural finance networks; support to farm organisations, etc.).
Farm restructuring: Budgetary payments related to reform of farm structures financing entry, exit or diversification (outside agriculture) strategies.
Marketing and promotion
Collective schemes for processing and marketing: Budgetary expenditure financing investment in collective, mainly primary, processing, marketing schemes and marketing facilities, designed to improve marketing environment for agriculture.
Promotion of agricultural products: Budgetary expenditure financing assistance to collective promotion of agro-food products (e.g. promotion campaigns, participation on international fairs).
Cost of public stockholding: Budgetary expenditure covering the costs of storage, depreciation and disposal of public storage of agricultural products.
Miscellaneous: Budgetary expenditure financing other general services that cannot be disaggregated and allocated to the above categories, often due to a lack of information.
More detailed information on the indicators, their use and limitations is available in OECD (2016), OECD’S Producer Support Estimate and Related Indicators of Agricultural Support - Concepts, Calculations, Interpretation and Use (The PSE Manual), https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-issues/agricultural-policy-monitoring/producer-support-estimates-manual.pdf.
Million USD
Note: p: provisional. NPC: Nominal Protection Coefficient. NAC: Nominal Assistance Coefficient.
A/An/R/I: Area planted/Animal numbers/Receipts/Income.
The OECD total for 1986-88 includes all 38 OECD member countries except Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia, for which data are not available. The OECD total for 2000-02 includes all 38 OECD member countries except Latvia and Lithuania. TSE as a share of GDP for 1986-88 for the OECD is an estimate based on available data.
1. Market Price Support (MPS) is net of producer levies and excess feed cost. MPS commodities: see notes to individual country tables.
Source: OECD (2026), “Producer and Consumer Support Estimates”, OECD Agricultural policy monitoring (database), https://data-explorer.oecd.org/.
Million USD
Note: p: provisional. NPC: Nominal Protection Coefficient. NAC: Nominal Assistance Coefficient.
A/An/R/I: Area planted/Animal numbers/Receipts/Income.
The Emerging Economies include Argentina, Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Peru, the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, Ukraine and Viet Nam.
1. Market Price Support (MPS) is net of producer levies and excess feed cost. MPS commodities: see notes to individual country tables.
Source: OECD (2026), “Producer and Consumer Support Estimates”, OECD Agricultural policy monitoring (database), https://data-explorer.oecd.org/.
Million USD
Note: p: provisional. NPC: Nominal Protection Coefficient. NAC: Nominal Assistance Coefficient.
A/An/R/I: Area planted/Animal numbers/Receipts/Income.
The All countries total includes all OECD countries, non-OECD EU Member States, and the Emerging Economies: Argentina, Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Peru the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, Ukraine and Viet Nam. The All countries total for 2000-02 includes data for all countries except Latvia and Lithuania, for which data are not available.
1. Market Price Support (MPS) is net of producer levies and excess feed cost. MPS commodities: see notes to individual country tables.
Source: OECD (2026), “Producer and Consumer Support Estimates”, OECD Agricultural policy monitoring (database), https://data-explorer.oecd.org/.