Editing Agricultural subsidy (section)

== By region ==

=== Canada ===
Canadian agricultural subsidies are currently controlled by [[Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada]]. Financial subsidies are offered through the Canadian Agricultural Partnership Programs.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/programs-and-services/?id=1362151577626|title=Programs and services|last=Canada|first=Agriculture and Agri-Food|date=2013-07-11|website=www.agr.gc.ca|access-date=2019-11-26}}</ref> The Canadian Agricultural Partnership began in April 2018 and is planned to take place over five years with a combined federal, provincial and territorial investment of three billion dollars.<ref name="cap.alberta.ca">{{Cite web|url=https://cap.alberta.ca/CAP/|title=Canadian Agricultural Partnership - Home|website=cap.alberta.ca|access-date=2019-11-26}}</ref> Some programs offered surround issues including AgriAssurance, agricultural leveraging programs, promoting diversity in agriculture, crop and livestock insurance, marketing activities, risk mitigation, and more.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/about-us/key-departmental-initiatives/canadian-agricultural-partnership/?id=1461767369849|title=Canadian Agricultural Partnership|last=Canada|first=Agriculture and Agri-Food|date=2016-05-06|website=www.agr.gc.ca|access-date=2019-11-26}}</ref> Before the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, agricultural subsidies were organized under the Growing Forward 2 partnership from 2013 to 2018.<ref name="cap.alberta.ca"/>

=== European Union ===
{{Main|Common Agricultural Policy}}
{{See also|Intervention storage}}

In 2010, the EU spent €57 billion on agricultural development, of which €39 billion was spent on direct subsidies.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/budget/data/D2010_VOL4/EN/nmc-titleN123A5/index.html |access-date=1 January 2011 |title=Title 05 – Agriculture and rural development |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110719092134/http://eur-lex.europa.eu/budget/data/D2010_VOL4/EN/nmc-titleN123A5/index.html |archive-date=19 July 2011}}</ref> Agricultural and fisheries subsidies form over 40% of the EU budget.<ref>{{Cite book|url=http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/eu-budget-2010-pbKV3009138/downloads/KV-30-09-138-EN-C/KV3009138ENC_002.pdf?FileName=KV3009138ENC_002.pdf&SKU=KV3009138ENC_PDF&CatalogueNumber=KV-30-09-138-EN-C|title=EU Budget 2010|date=15 March 2024 |publisher=Publications Office of the European Union |isbn=978-92-79-13391-6 }}</ref> Since 1992 (and especially since 2005), the EU's Common Agricultural Policy has undergone significant change as subsidies have mostly been decoupled from production. The largest subsidy is the ''[[Single Farm Payment]]''.

=== Malawi ===
Increases in food and fertilizer prices have underlined the vulnerability of poor urban and rural households in many developing countries, especially in Africa, renewing policymakers' focus on the need to increase staple food crop productivity.

A study by the [[Overseas Development Institute]] evaluates the benefits of the Malawi Government Agricultural Inputs Subsidy Programme, which was implemented in 2006–2007 to promote access to and use of fertilizers in both maize and tobacco production to increase agricultural productivity and food security. The subsidy was implemented by means of a coupon system which could be redeemed by the recipients for [[Fertilizer Subsidies in Sub Saharan Africa#Input vouchers|fertilizer]] types at approximately one-third of the normal cash price.<ref name=malawi /> According to policy conclusions of the [[Overseas Development Institute]] the voucher for coupon system can be an effective way of rationing and targeting subsidy access to maximize production and economic and social gains. Many practical and political challenges remain in the program design and implementation required to increase efficiency, control costs, and limit patronage and fraud.<ref name=malawi>{{cite web|url=https://www.odi.org/publications/2464-towards-smart-subsidies-agriculture-lessons-recent-malawi|title=Towards 'smart' subsidies in agriculture? Lessons from recent experience in Malawi|date=September 2008|publisher=[[Overseas Development Institute]]}}</ref>

=== New Zealand ===
New Zealand is reputed to have the most open agricultural markets in the world<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3411 |title=Save the Farms – End the Subsidies |access-date=22 October 2008 |publisher=[[Cato Institute]] | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20081025124712/http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3411| archive-date= 25 October 2008| url-status= live}}</ref><ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/business/worldbusiness/02farm.html "Surviving without subsidies", NYT] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160722191728/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/business/worldbusiness/02farm.html |date=22 July 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Pickford |first=John |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3747430.stm |title=New Zealand's hardy farm spirit |work=BBC News |date=16 October 2004 |access-date=12 April 2012}}</ref> after radical reforms started in 1984 by the [[Fourth Labour Government of New Zealand|Fourth Labour Government]] stopped all subsidies.

<blockquote>In 1984 New Zealand's Labor government took the dramatic step of ending all farm subsidies, which then consisted of 30 separate production payments and export incentives. This was a truly striking policy action, because New Zealand's economy is roughly five times more dependent on farming than is the U.S. economy, measured by either output or employment. Subsidies in New Zealand accounted for more than 30 percent of the value of production before reform, somewhat higher than U.S. subsidies today. And New Zealand farming was marred by the same problems caused by U.S. subsidies, including [[overproduction]], [[environmental degradation]] and inflated land prices.</blockquote>

As the country is a large agricultural exporter, continued subsidies by other countries are a long-standing bone of contention,<ref name="TVNZ_2755476">{{cite web|url=http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/return-us-dairy-subsidies-sours-kiwis-2755476 |title=Return of US dairy subsidies sours Kiwis |date=25 May 2009 |work=[[Television New Zealand]] |access-date=15 September 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110921001757/http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/return-us-dairy-subsidies-sours-kiwis-2755476 |archive-date=21 September 2011 }}</ref><ref name="NZ_Herald_10633801">{{cite web |url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/agriculture/news/article.cfm?c_id=16&objectid=10633801&pnum=0 |title=Why bother with a US FTA? |date=23 March 2010 |work=[[The New Zealand Herald]] |access-date=15 September 2011}}</ref> with New Zealand being a founding member of the 20-member [[Cairns Group]] fighting to improve [[market access]] for exported agricultural goods.

=== Turkey ===
{{Excerpt|Agriculture_in_Turkey#Quotas and subsidies}}

=== United States ===
[[File:U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Fy2020-budget-summary (1).pdf|thumb|right|200px|USDA fiscal year 2020 budget summary<ref>{{Cite web|title=Budget Summary|url=https://www.usda.gov/obpa/budget-summary|access-date=2021-05-08|website=www.usda.gov|language=en}}</ref>]]{{See also|Agricultural policy of the United States|Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008}}
The [[Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002]], also known as the 2002 [[U.S. Farm Bill|Farm Bill]], addressed a great variety of issues related to [[agriculture]], [[ecology]], [[energy]], [[trade]], and [[nutrition]]. Signed after the [[September 11 attacks|September 11th attacks]] of 2001, the act directs approximately $16.5 billion of government funding toward agricultural subsidies each year. This funding has had a great effect on the production of grains, oilseeds, and upland cotton. The United States paid allegedly around $20 billion in 2005 to farmers in direct subsidies as "farm income stabilization"<ref>[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/fy10/sheets/hist03z2.xls] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120128135925/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/fy10/sheets/hist03z2.xls|date=28 January 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/07/02/GR2006070200024.html |title=Farm Subsidies Over Time |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=2 July 2006 |access-date=12 April 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Stephen Vogel |url=http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-sector-income-finances.aspx |title=Farm Income and Costs: Farms Receiving Government Payments |publisher=Ers.usda.gov |access-date=12 April 2012}}</ref> via [[United States farm bill|farm bills]]. Overall agricultural subsidies in 2010 were estimated at $172 billion by a European agricultural industry association; however, the majority of this estimate consists of food stamps and other consumer subsidies, so it is not comparable to the 2005 estimate.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.momagri.org/UK/press-reports/The-SGPA-Global-Support-to-Agricultural-Production--The-per-capita-farm-support-is-close-to-three-times-higher-in-the-United-States-than-in-the-European-Union_1123.html|title=The per-capita farm support is close to three times higher in the United States than in the European Union|publisher=Momagri|access-date=2 December 2018|archive-date=9 June 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190609042437/http://www.momagri.org/UK/press-reports/The-SGPA-Global-Support-to-Agricultural-Production--The-per-capita-farm-support-is-close-to-three-times-higher-in-the-United-States-than-in-the-European-Union_1123.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Agricultural policies of the United States are changed, incrementally or more radically, by Farm Bills that are passed every five years or so. Statements about how the program works might be right at one point in time, at best, but are probably not sufficient for assessing agricultural policies at other points in time. For example, a large part of the support to program crops has not been linked directly to current output since the [[Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996]] (P.L. 104–127). Instead, these payments were tied to historical entitlement, not current planting. For example, it is incorrect to attribute a payment associated with the wheat base area to wheat production now because that land might be allocated to any of a number of permitted uses, including held idle. Over time, successive Farm Bills have linked these direct payments to market prices or revenue, but not to production. In contrast, some programs, like the Marketing Loan Program that can create something of a floor price that producers receive per unit sold, are tied to production.<ref name='The_2002_Farm_Bill'>{{cite web
 |url=http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/263929/ap022_2_.pdf 
 |title=The 2002 Farm Bill: Title 1 Commodity Programs 
 |publisher=USDA 
 |date=22 May 2002 
 |access-date=6 December 2006 
 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061207052638/http://www.ers.usda.gov/Features/Farmbill/titles/titleIcommodities.htm 
 |archive-date=7 December 2006 
 |url-status=dead 
}}</ref> That is, if the price of wheat in 2002 was $3.80, farmers would get an extra 58¢ per bushel (52¢ plus the 6¢ price difference). Fruit and vegetable crops are not eligible for subsidies.<ref>{{cite news |last=Chrisman |first=Siena |date=14 September 2018 |title=American Farmers Are in Crisis |url=https://www.eater.com/2018/9/14/17855080/american-farmers-crisis-trade-war |work=Reports Policy |access-date=17 September 2018 }}</ref>

Corn was the top crop for subsidy payments prior to 2011.  The [[Energy Policy Act of 2005]] mandated that billions of gallons of ethanol be blended into vehicle fuel each year, guaranteeing demand, but US corn ethanol subsidies were between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion per year. Producers also benefited from a federal subsidy of 51 cents per gallon, additional state subsidies, and federal crop subsidies that had brought the total to 85 cents per gallon or more. However, the federal ethanol subsidy expired 31 December 2011.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sweet |first1=William |s2cid=208802093 |title=Corn-O-Copia |journal=IEEE Spectrum |date=January 2007 |volume=44 |issue=1 |pages=26–28 |doi=10.1109/MSPEC.2007.273036 }}</ref> 
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|+2018 U.S. Loan Rates<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/Price-Support/pdf/2018/2018cropyearsnationaverages.pdf|title=2018 National Average Loan Rates|date=7 April 2018|website=USDA}}</ref>
!Commodity
!Loan Rates per Unit
|-
|Corn
|$1.95/bushel
|-
|Upland cotton
|$0.52/pound
|-
|Wheat
|$2.94/bushel
|-
|Rice
|$6.50/hundredweight
|-
|Peanuts
|$355.00/ton
|-
|Soybeans
|$5.00/bushel
|-
|Grain Sorghum
|$1.95/bushel
|-
|Barley
|$1.95/bushel
|-
|Oats
|$1.39/bushel
|-
|Oilseed (sunflower, flaxseed, canola, rapeseed, safflower, mustard, crambe, sesame seed)
|$0.1009/pound
|}
=== Asia ===
{{expand section|date=June 2012}}
Agricultural subsidies in Asia vary significantly across countries, reflecting differing policy priorities, levels of development, and agricultural dependence. Several Asian nations allocate substantial government support to their agricultural sectors through subsidies for inputs, credit, infrastructure, and price support mechanisms.

Farm subsidies in Asia remain a point of contention in global trade talks.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/114947/|title=US, India, Japan Farm Subsidies Face WTO Ag Committee Scrutiny|publisher=ICTSD|access-date=13 June 2012|archive-date=3 December 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203061708/http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/114947/|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://theindianawaaz.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6802&catid=9|title=BRICS for end to rich nations' farm subsidies|publisher=The Indian Awaaz|author=Ashok B Sharma|date=2012-03-28}}</ref>

==== China ====
In 2016, China provided $212 billion in agricultural subsidies.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.worldwatch.org/agricultural-subsidies-remain-staple-industrial-world-0|title=Agricultural Subsidies Remain a Staple in the Industrial World {{!}} Worldwatch Institute|website=www.worldwatch.org|language=en|access-date=2018-11-01|archive-date=14 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181214120206/http://www.worldwatch.org/agricultural-subsidies-remain-staple-industrial-world-0|url-status=dead}}</ref> In 2018, China increased their subsidies for soybean farmers in their northeastern provinces. Corn farmers, however, received reduced subsidies due to Beijing's 2017 policy that set out to reduce its huge stockpile. Soybean farmers in Liaoning, Jilin, Heilongjiang, and Inner Mongolia provinces will receive more subsidies from Beijing than corn farmers. The cutting of corn acreage and the lifting of soybean acreage came in 2016 as a push from China to re-balance grain stocks. Subsidies for agriculture machinery and equipment will also be provided by Beijing to farmers.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-agriculture-subsidies/china-grants-more-subsidies-to-soy-farmers-as-it-cuts-corn-stocks-idUSKCN1HA176|title=China grants more subsidies to soy farmers as it cuts corn stocks|work=Reuters|access-date=2018-11-01|language=en-US}}</ref>

==== Indonesia ====
In 1971, as a method of expanding the rice supply in Indonesia, the government began subsidizing fertilizer to farmers after the discovery and introduction of new, high-yielding rice varieties.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hedley |first1=D |title=Fertilizer in Indonesian agriculture: the subsidy issue |journal=Agricultural Economics |date=March 1989 |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=49–68 |doi=10.1016/0169-5150(89)90038-8 |doi-broken-date=9 December 2024 |s2cid=154965004 |url=http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/172153/files/agec1989v003i001a003.pdf }}</ref> In 2012, Indonesia provided $28 billion in agricultural subsidies.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=http://www.worldwatch.org/agricultural-subsidies-remain-staple-industrial-world-0|title=Agricultural Subsidies Remain a Staple in the Industrial World {{!}} Worldwatch Institute|website=www.worldwatch.org|language=en|access-date=2018-05-02|archive-date=14 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181214120206/http://www.worldwatch.org/agricultural-subsidies-remain-staple-industrial-world-0|url-status=dead}}</ref>

==== Japan ====
Over the 2000s, Japan has been reforming its generous agricultural subsidy regime to support more business-oriented farmers.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Jentzsch |first1=Hanno |title=Tracing the Local Origins of Farmland Policies in Japan—Local-National Policy Transfers and Endogenous Institutional Change |journal=Social Science Japan Journal |date=1 August 2017 |volume=20 |issue=2 |pages=243–260 |doi=10.1093/ssjj/jyx026 |hdl=10.1093/ssjj/jyx026 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Yet, subsidies remain high in international comparison. In 2009, Japan paid US$46.5 billion in subsidies to its farmers,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.agrimoney.com/news/eu-farm-subsidies-fall-bucking-global-trend--1932.html|title=EU farm subsidies fall, bucking global trend|publisher=Agrimoney.com|date=2010-07-01|access-date=13 June 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130522171051/http://www.agrimoney.com/news/eu-farm-subsidies-fall-bucking-global-trend--1932.html|archive-date=22 May 2013|url-status=dead}}</ref> and continued state support of farmers in Japan remains a controversial topic.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.tokyofoundation.org/en/articles/2011/farming-survive-liberalization|title=Can Japanese Farming Survive Liberalization?|publisher=The Tokyo Foundation|author=Yutaka Harada|date=2012-01-17}}</ref> In 2012, Japan provided $65 billion in agricultural subsidies.<ref name=":0" />

==== South Korea ====
South Korea has made attempts to reform its agricultural sector, despite resistance from vested interests.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?biid=2012031703458|title=Coffee shop farmers|publisher=The Dong-A Ilbo|date=2012-03-17}}</ref> In 2012, South Korea provided approximately $20 billion in agricultural subsidies.<ref name=":0" />

====India====
Agricultural subsidy in India primarily consists of subsidies like, fertilizer, irrigation, equipment, credit subsidy, seed subsidy, export subsidy etc. Subsidy on fertilizers is provided by the Central government whereas subsidy on water and irrigation is provided by the local State governments.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Singh|first=Hemant|title=Different Types of Agricultural Subsidies Given to Farmers in India|url=https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/different-types-of-agricultural-subsidies-given-to-farmers-in-india-1445333409-1 |website=Jagran Josh|date=20 October 2015 }}</ref> Drawing on the most recent estimates, annual central government subsidies to farmers would be of the order of {{INRConvert|120500|c|lk=|year=2020}} as the sum of fertilizer subsidies ({{INRConvert|70000|c|lk=|year=2020}}, 2017/18), credit subsidies ({{INRConvert|20000|c|lk=|year=2020}}, 2017/18), crop insurance subsidies ({{INRConvert|6500|c|lk=|year=2020}}, 2018/19) and expenditures towards price support ({{INRConvert|24000|c|lk=|year=2020}} estimated for 2016/17).<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ramaswami|first=Bharat|date=March 2019|title=Agricultural Subsidies|url=https://fincomindia.nic.in/writereaddata/html_en_files/fincom15/StudyReports/Agricultural%20subsidies.pdf|journal=Study Prepared for XV Finance Commission}}</ref> Total subsidies to farmers in India is in the range of $45 billion to 50 billion, to the tune of 2%-2.5% of GDP. But per farmer the subsidy just about touches $48 in India, compared to over $7,000 in the U.S.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Gupta|first=Dipankar|date=2020-12-25|title=The farmers' protest, truths and half-truths|language=en-IN|work=The Hindu|url=https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-farmers-protest-truths-and-half-truths/article33413371.ece|access-date=2020-12-26|issn=0971-751X}}</ref>

==== Armenia ====
Direct subsidies, of the Ministry of Agriculture, include subsidies for fertilizers, improved seed, [[agrochemical|agricultural chemicals]], and fuel. The purpose of subsidies is to aid the smallest farmers in the sector. In particular, the maximum loan size for interest subsidies is minimal, and only farms with less than 3 ha are eligible for fuel, fertilizer, chemical, and seed subsidies. For loans of up to 3 million drams (about US$6,185 at current exchange rates), subsidies decrease interest rates from 10%–12% to 4%–6% in an effort to support Armenia's smaller farms.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Garry |first=Christensen |date=May 2017 |title=Sustainable, Inclusive Agriculture Sector Growth in Armenia |doi=10.1596/29699 |url=https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/29699?show=full |language=English}}</ref>