Global farm support drops to lowest level since 1986
Nevertheless, the value of government support aggregated to
$252 billion in 2011, “still a sizeable amount of money in absolute terms,” Frank
van Tongeren, agriculture and trade policy leader at OECD headquarters in
Paris, told a Farm Foundation Forum today in Washington.
OECD’s annual report Agricultural Policy: Monitoring and Evaluation 2012, points
out in 282 pages that the lower reliance on government support was due to
higher market income rather than any shift in government policy. For many
years, OECD has been a leading cheerleader for reductions in supports that
distort markets and trade.
While it notes general movement away from support directly
linked to production, toward more decoupled support systems, OECD says that production
and trade-distorting support amounts to nearly half of the total. In a prepared
statement, OECD Trade and Agriculture Director Ken Ash calls for farm support to
be aimed more at increasing agricultural and competitiveness.
The report shows that support levels vary widely across OECD
countries with New Zealand offering the lowest level of support to farmers at only
1% of farm income, followed by Australia (3%), Chile (4%) and the United States
(9%). Others below the 20 percent average for all OECD countries:
The European Union support level – which is often cited in
American farm circles as the rationale for continued farm support here – has reduced
its level of support to 20 percent of farm income, average for the OECD as a
whole. EU supports also increasingly are decoupled, based on history with no current
production required, the group observed.
At the other end of the scale, support to farmers is highest
in the Nordic countries and
With relatively high commodity prices over the medium-term, “markets
will provide farmers the income that many governments have until now sought to
provide through cash payments or artificially high prices,” the report says.
OECD sees the current situation as “a clear opportunity to turn farm policy
toward the most pressing policy goals, like boosting innovation across the food
and agriculture system.” Van Tongeren calls it “a good moment to relieve border
policies that contribute to international price volatility by trying to isolate
domestic markets” and an opportunity to “increase investments in public goods with
long term benefits such as innovation and productivity growth and
sustainability.”