Che materia stai cercando?

Anteprima

ESTRATTO DOCUMENTO

Appendice

Il sostegno alle agricolture nei paesi sviluppati

Agricultural Support: How is it Measured and What

1

does it Mean?

OECD governments have a long history of pursuing agricultural policies,

with objectives ranging from supporting farm incomes to securing safe food and

environmental quality. Policy measures are equally varied, including instruments

such as import tariffs, export subsidies and a host of different government

payments to farmers. Many of these policies share the common feature that they

transfer money to farmers, and thereby impact on production decisions, incomes,

international trade and the environment.

Governments of OECD member countries have an interest in learning

more about each others’ policies, to benefit from best practice experience and

minimize negative spillover effects of policies both domestically and

internationally. In order to support them in these efforts, the OECD invests heavily

in policy analysis. One basic ingredient into any such analysis is the ability to

describe agricultural policy developments over time, in a way that is accurate and

comparable across countries.

What is required is a common yardstick that can measure the “size” and

“shape” of the transfers from the many disparate agricultural policy instruments,

in order to assess the progress made in achieving policy goals in more effective

and efficient ways. The monetary value of the transfers to agriculture through the

various policy instruments is one such yardstick. Each year since the mid-1980s,

the OECD has been measuring the monetary transfers associated with agricultural

policies in OECD countries (and some non-OECD countries), using a standard

method. The results are published annually by the OECD, and are the only

available source of internationally comparable and transparent information on

support levels in agriculture. They have established a sound basis for international

policy dialogue on agriculture, and contributed significantly to the formulation of

: OECD, Agricultural Policies in Oecd Countries – Monitoring and Evaluation,

1

Parigi, 2005

internationally binding commitments on domestic support in the WTO following

the Agreement on Agriculture concluded in the Uruguay Round.

Over the years many questions have been asked about the way in which

the OECD builds its yardstick to measure agricultural support, what the data

mean, and how it is used and interpreted. This Brief is a response to those

frequently asked questions, addressed primarily to the non-technical reader. For

those who want to dig deeper, a selected list of publications and contact points is

given at the end of this Brief.

What is meant by agricultural support?

In public discussion, words such as support, subsidy, assistance, and aid

to producers are often used interchangeably to describe the transfers provided to

farmers or the agricultural sector as a whole, which result from government

policies that raise farmers’ revenues or reduce their costs. The OECD uses the

neutral term “support” to estimate the monetary value of transfers resulting from

agricultural policies – whatever the intended objectives of those policies.

The OECD produces several indicators of agricultural support. The most

important and central one is the Producer Support Estimate (PSE), which shows

the annual monetary transfers to farmers from policy measures that:

maintain domestic prices for farm goods at levels higher (and occasionally

• lower) than those at the country’s border (market price support);

provide payments to farmers, based on criteria such as the quantity of a

• commodity produced, the amount of inputs used, the number of animals

kept, the area farmed, or the revenue or income received by farmers

(budgetary payments).

The key point is that contrary to popular opinion, support not only

comprises budgetary payments that appear in government accounts, but also the

price gap for farm goods between domestic and world markets, as measured at a

country’s border. In fact, the latter constitutes the lion’s share of support in most

countries.

How is farm support expressed?

PSEs are calculated and shown by OECD country (the European Union

with its Common Agricultural Policy is treated as one country) and by

commodity. Increasingly PSE calculations are also produced for selected countries

outside the OECD area. Market Price Support, the largest component of the PSE, is

based on calculations for commodities accounting for around 70% of overall

commodity production in the OECD area, with some differences in shares across

countries. The PSE indicators are expressed in both absolute monetary terms, such as

billions of dollars, and in relative terms – as a percentage of the value of gross farm

receipts (%PSE), per hectare of farmland and per full time farmer equivalents.

The monetary value of the PSE is influenced by the size and structure of

the country’s agricultural sector, as well as the country’s rate of inflation. The PSE

expressed per farmer or hectare is also influenced by differences in farm structures

across countries. Support expressed as a percentage of gross farm receipts shows

the amount of support to farmers irrespective of the sectoral structure and

inflation rate of a country, making the %PSE the most widely acceptable and

useful indicator for comparisons of support across countries, commodities and

time. This Brief concentrates on the measurement and interpretation of support,

rather than on the actual results. But, by way of illustration, Figure 1 shows the

trend in OECD agricultural support in current monetary terms and as a percentage

of farm receipts. It is clear that while there has been little change in the value of

support at current prices since the mid-1980s –

with producer support in the aggregate of the 30 OECD countries currently

amounting to about 240 billion US$ per year – there has been a modest reduction

in the %PSE. Even so, a PSE of 31% means that only 69 cents of every dollar of

farmers’ gross receipts for the average OECD farmer comes from sales of products

valued at world market prices.

How is farm support measured?

Farm support is measured by adding up two elements: the difference

between domestic and world prices for commodities multiplied by the amount

produced, and budgetary transfers. Budgetary transfers include payments to

farmers and budgetary revenue foregone through lowering the cost of farm inputs.

Tariffs, quotas and other restrictions on imports as well as subsidies on exports,

together with government intervention to boost domestic prices through for

example stock-building, create a gap between domestic market prices and world

prices for commodities at the border. Multiplying that price gap by the amount of

domestic production gives the market price support to producers in the PSE. At

the same time that domestic producers receive higher prices for commodities,

consumers also have to pay those higher prices. In other words, market price

support channels transfers from consumers to farmers.

Figura 1

Figura 2

Policies

Budgetary payments may be granted to farmers, based on such factors as

what they produce or the area of land farmed, or to input suppliers to compensate

them for charging lower prices to farmers. These are taken from published budgets

in OECD countries and included in the PSE. However, some countries make

payments to farmers to hold stocks of farm goods on their farms or to public

purchasing agencies to accumulate such stocks. The operational costs of acquiring,

holding and disposing of public stocks are a budgetary cost to implement market

price support policy but do not provide support to farmers over and above market

price support, and so are not included in the PSE, but in the TSE.

Energy tax rebates, subsidised irrigation water and interest concessions

are examples of potential reve-nue foregone by the government. These are

measured by the gap between the tax, water charge or interest rates paid by

farmers and those paid by others in the domestic market.

Why are transfers to farmers from consumers through higher prices added to

taxpayer transfers?

Policies come in many different forms, but often have much the same

effect. For example, the US is a net exporter of wheat and support to wheat

farmers is delivered by (among other ways) a government pay-ment for each

tonne of wheat produced, which raises the price farmers receive but not the price

paid by consumers. Japan, by contrast, is a net importer of wheat and applies

import tariffs (market price support) which raise both the price paid by consumers

and received by farmers. In both cases, the result for farmers is that they receive

prices higher than the market would generate. Whether provided through a

government payment or a border measure, a given price increase delivers the

same amount of support and has the same effect on domestic production and farm

income. This is illustrated in Figure 2.

As both payments per tonne and market price support raise farm

commodity prices by the same amount and both affect production, trade and

income, the PSE as a yardstick would do a poor job if only payments were

included. After all, as Figure 3 shows, market price support still remains the

largest part of overall support, accounting for nearly two thirds of the PSE in the

OECD area.

Are actual border prices appropriate benchmarks to measure price support?

In calculating market price support, the OECD estimates the gap between

domestic and world prices at each country’s border. However, it is sometimes

argued that actual world prices are not the appropriate benchmarks because they

are distorted through production-enhancing policies, import barriers and export

subsidies. Therefore, world prices that might prevail in the absence of all such

policies should be used as the benchmarks. Which is the correct approach to adopt

here? As in so many cases it depends on what we want to measure. If the aim is to

provide an overall picture of the global state of affairs in world agriculture, then

calculating world prices in the absence of all policies may have merit. But that is

not the purpose of OECD’s evaluation of agricultural policies, which is to compare

the interventions governments make in pursuit of their policy objectives. How

much effort a government makes to ensure its farmers obtain a particular level of

domestic price obviously depends on the actual world price. After all, this is the

basis on which governments choose tariff levels and other price support

instruments.

More specifically, the focus of OECD analysis is to monitor progress in

policy reform and to assess whether current policies are best serving countries in

achieving their objectives. Therefore, the OECD calculation of support must be an

indicator able to say something about the efforts made to support its farmers and

progress in the reform of current policies. The market price support element of the

PSE would not be able to do this and would therefore provide the wrong guidance

to policy makers, were it to be based on world prices that do not exist in reality.

Governments and stakeholders are, however, interested in knowing what

might happen to domestic and world prices in the process of agricultural policy

reform. The OECD, as well as others, has examined this issue, but the analysis

must start from the actual prices that exist in domestic and world markets. Thus

the measured price gap is a crucial input into modelling what might happen under

different assumptions about policy reform. What these models show is that

reforming policies and removing trade barriers changes both domestic and world

prices, narrowing the price gap. But the extent of changes in world prices will

depend on whether such reform occurs in one or several or all countries.

Moreover, not only will reforming policies have effects on market price support,

but also on budgetary payments that bridge the gap between world prices and

those that governments consider farmers should receive.

Isn’t the gap between domestic and world prices caused by factors other than farm

policies?

The PSE provides a snapshot of support provided in a given time period

due to agricultural policies, in the context of given macro-economic conditions and

economywide policies. The benchmark is the absence of agricultural policies of the

country concerned, a situation where farm receipts are entirely generated in the

i.e.

market. In that case, prices received by farmers would reflect changes in world

market conditions and exchange rates. When world prices decline, domestic

producer prices in a well functioning market follow, and vice versa.

In many cases the PSE tends to fluctuate with changing world market

conditions. This is typically the case where governments pursue policies that

insulate domestic producer prices against swings in world market prices. Under

these conditions, when world market prices decline, say because of abundant

world supplies, then the PSE tends to rise. Is this therefore a non-policy effect,

which should be excluded from PSE calculations?

Where a government deliberately shields domestic producer prices from

such changes in world markets, it effectively alters market signals, even though

seemingly only through doing nothing, i.e. by keeping the domestic support price

constant behind trade barriers. In a situation like that, the relative stability of the

domestic price is clearly an effect of farm policy. The government provides more

support to domestic farmers the further the world market price declines, and vice

versa. The PSE should pick this up – and it does.

Similarly, even if world prices do not change, a country’s exchange rate

might appreciate or depreciate. In a well functioning market without government

interference, this would result in a decrease or increase in domestic prices in

national currency. As in the previous example, if a government blocks this price

adjustment through its policies, this results in a change in the value of market

price support, even though the only “visible” change that has occurred is in the

exchange rate.

These simple examples serve to demonstrate that when there are border

measures that impede the transmission of world prices to domestic markets,

changes in market price support that result from a change in world prices at the

border can legitimately be assigned to policy measures that are in place. In

evaluating policy developments the OECD deals with this by identifying and

measuring the contribution of the various factors included in the measured price

gap, and thereby provides information that helps policy makers in interpreting

year-on-year changes in the PSE.

What do farm support indicators tell about agricultural policy reform?

Countries pursue a variety of goals with their policies. Although they use

different mixes of policy measures to do so, it is the way in which the measures are

implemented in the context of the conditions in each country that determines the

impacts on production, consumption, income, trade and the environment. In order

to provide a basis for more in-depth policy analysis, the OECD not only calculates

overall support levels, but also reports their composition using different categories

of policy measures that reflect how the policies are implemented. The

implementation criteria tell us something about how different policies may affect

farmers’ decisions to produce farm goods.

Some policy measures deliver support directly related to the amount of a

specific commodity produced (market price support and payments based on

commodity production) or inputs used. These policy measures are the ones that

have the strongest influence on production incentives, although this incentive can

be weakened in those countries that place constraints on output produced or

inputs used. Policy measures that deliver support based on the current area

planted or animal numbers, but are not dependant on the amount of a specific

commodity produced have somewhat less influence on production incentives.

Other policy measures provide support based on criteria such as past production

history, the overall farm area, the income situation of the farmer, or for the

provision of environmental services, for example. Such measures have the least

influence on production incentives.

This classification of policy measures highlights the different production

and trade incentives of various policy categories. In assessing policy

developments, the OECD takes care to highlight the trends in the policy mix, with

particular emphasis on the most production and trade distorting measures –

market price support, and output and input payments. It is thus possible to assess

policy reform in terms of the trends in the level of support and the shift towards

less production and trade distorting policies.

Agricultural policy measures in many OECD countries have become more

diverse and complex. Policies not only influence production through their effects

on prices but also on their effects on wealth and risks facing farmers. At present

the OECD is in the process of revising the PSE classification to accommodate these

developments. This mainly involves better classifying policy measures that

provide support based on a mixture of current and past production variables and

those that deliver support not based on farm commodity production – which will

help to evaluate progress in policy reform.

So what do the support indicators say about the extent of policy reform?

Figure 4 shows that some reform has occurred in the shift away from the most

distorting policy measures (market price support, input and output based

payments), which have fallen since the mid1980s. Nevertheless, such measures still

account for about three quarters of support to farmers.

How much does support increase farm incomes?

The PSE measures transfers from taxpayers and consumers that raise farm

receipts. This transfer does not mean that farmers’ incomes change by the same

amount. In order to receive a transfer, farmers usually have to produce a

commodity or service, or use an input, and thus they incur extra costs. The transfer

is greater than the farm income generated by the amount of these extra costs.

Other work in the OECD calculates the “transfer efficiency” of a policy measure,

which is the share of support that translates into extra farm income. In fact, one

extra dollar of market price support actually results in a rise in farm incomes of no

more than 25 cents, while the share for payments based on historical entitlements

is about one-half. Only in the case of a transfer that does not require the farmer to

incur any extra costs (such as a lump sum payment) is support translated entirely

into extra farm income.

It would also be wrong to assume that the amount of support provided to

farmers in the rich countries is an indicator of the extra income that developing

country farmers might gain if agricultural policies in the OECD countries were

eliminated. Certainly, farmers in many developing countries would be better of if

OECD countries no longer pursued policies that distort trade and depress world

market prices. But the current level of OECD farm support would not necessarily

translate into extra income for farmers in poor countries.

Figura 3

Tabella 1 OECD: Estimates of support to agriculture (EUR million)

1986-88 2002-04 2002 2003 2004p

Total value of production 540 270 672 161 692 530 659 933 664 020

(at farm gate)

of which share of MPS 72 68 68 68 70

commodities (%)

Total value of consumption 506 464 667 725 690 697 664 285 648 194

(at farm gate)

Producer Support Estimate 220 776 231 072 240 279 227 268 225 670

(PSE)

Market price support 171 253 141 973 151 620 139 080 135 221

of which MPS commodities 123 600 97 013 102 798 94 146 94 096

Payments based on output 11 146 10 023 9185 9 156 11 728

Payments based on area

planted/animal

numbers1 14 418 35 917 35 215 34 698 37 838

Payments based on 489 10 956 10 759 11 303 10 808

historical entitlements

Payments based on input 18 402 20 560 21 717 20 664 19 297

use

Payments based on input 2 723 8 263 8264 8 423 8101

constraints

Payments based on overall 2 077 3 325 3 197 3 764 3 015

farming income

Miscellaneous payments 268 54 323 178 –337

Percentage PSE 37 30 31 30 30

Producer NPC 1.57 1.29 1.30 1.29 1.28

Producer NAC 1.60 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.43

General Services Support 37 157 55 805 59 362 54 905 53 149

Estimate (GSSE)

Research and development 3 624 6 127 6 477 5 979 5 924

Agricultural schools 692 1 583 1648 1 529 1571

Inspection services 992 2 144 2 236 2 130 2 066

Infrastructure 12 231 17 635 18 342 17 720 16 843

Marketing and promotion 11 617 22 881 24 350 22 481 21 812

Public stockholding 6 032 1 967 2479 1 785 1637

Miscellaneous 1 968 3 469 3 830 3 282 3 297

GSSE as a share of TSE (%) 13.4 17.9 18.0 17.8 17.4

Consumer Support –156 –135 –146 –136 –123

Estimate (CSE) 261 270 014 485 312

Transfers to producers –171 –140 –150 –138 –133

from consumers 090 863 088 619 881

Other transfers from –15 765 –23 835 –25 718 –26 871 –18 917

consumers

Transfers to consumers 19 716 27 616 29 426 27 123 26 300

from taxpayers

Excess feed cost 10 879 1 811 365 1 882 3 185

Percentage CSE –32 –21 –22 –21 –20

Consumer NPC 1.59 1.33 1.34 1.33 1.31

Consumer NAC 1.47 1.27 1.28 1.27 1.25

Total Support Estimate 277 648 314 494 329 068 309 295 305 119

(TSE)

Transfers from consumers 186 856 164 698 175 806 165 490 152 798

Transfers from taxpayers 106 558 173 631 178 980 170 676 171 238

Budget revenues –15 765 –23 835 –25 718 –26 871 –18 917

Percentage TSE (expressed 2.33 1.17 1.17 1.18 1.16

as share of GDP)2

p: provisional. NPC: Nominal Protection Coefficient. NAC: Nominal

Assistance Coefficient.

MPS is net of producer levies and excess feed costs. MPS commodities: see notes to

individual country tables in Part II.

1. This category provisionally includes the US counter-cyclical payments from

2002.

2. TSE as a share of GDP for 1986-88 for the OECD total excludes the Czech

Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak

Republic as GDP data is not available for this period.

Source: OECD, PSE/CSE database 2005.

Tabella 2 OECD: Producer Support Estimate by country

2002-

1986-88 2003 2004p

2002

04

Australia USD mn 1 321 1 068 1 058 1 063 1 085

EUR mn 1 219 980 1 123 941 876

Percentage 8 4 5 4 4

PSE

Producer NPC 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Producer NAC 1.09 1.05 1.06 1.04 1.04

Canada USD mn 6 082 5 521 4 798 6 051 5 714

EUR mn 5 548 5020 5 091 5 357 4 613

Percentage 36 22 21 25 21

PSE

Producer NPC 1.40 1.14 1.12 1.16 1.13

Producer NAC 1.57 1.29 1.26 1.34 1.27

Czech Republic1 USD mn 1 350 1 003 967 1 165 n.c.

EUR mn 1 097 1 012 1 026 1 031 n.c.

Percentage 31 26 25 29 n.c.

PSE

Producer NPC 1.54 1.20 1.21 1.22 n.c.

Producer NAC 1.49 1.35 1.33 1.40 n.c.

European 91 118 133

101

USD mn 114 274

Union2 407 028 386

672 96 104 107

EUR mn 92 308 103 050 989 474 686

Percentage 41 34 34 36 33

PSE

Producer NPC 1.80 1.32 1.31 1.34 1.29

Producer NAC 1.71 1.52 1.52 1.56 1.49

Hungary1 USD mn 880 1 573 1 871 1 685 n.c.

EUR mn 716 1 592 1 986 1 492 n.c.

Percentage 16 28 33 28 n.c.

PSE

Producer NPC 1.15 1.19 1.19 1.22 n.c.

Producer NAC 1.20 1.39 1.49 1.39 n.c.

Iceland USD mn 196 195 165 204 216

EUR mn 177 177 175 180 175

Percentage 70 70 72 69

77

PSE

Producer NPC 4.37 3.15 3.13 3.28 3.03

Producer NAC 4.36 3.37 3.36 3.53 3.23

44

Japan USD mn 48 976 46 924 47 874 48 737

162

46 42 377 39 346

EUR mn 44 408 42 861 859

Percentage 61 58 58 59 56

PSE

Producer NPC 2.47 2.27 2.29 2.33 2.20

Producer NAC 2.58 2.37 2.39 2.43 2.28

17

Korea USD mn 12 075 18 253 17 334 19 849

575

18

EUR mn 10 840 16 672 15 344 16 025

648

Percentage 70 63 65 61 63

PSE

Producer NPC 3.33 2.59 2.76 2.46 2.55

Producer NAC 3.39 2.72 2.88 2.59 2.67

Mexico3 USD mn 8 255 7 024 8 961 6 661 5 452

EUR mn 6 718 6 602 9 508 5 896 4 401

Percentage 28 21 26 19 17

PSE

Producer NPC 1.35 1.17 1.27 1.14 1.09

Producer NAC 1.39 1.26 1.35 1.24 1.20

New Zealand USD mn 474 186 103 198 257

EUR mn 451 164 109 176 208

Percentage 2 2 2 3

11

PSE

Producer NPC 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.02 1.02

Producer NAC 1.13 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.03

Tabella 3 OECD: Producer Support Estimate by country (cont.)

1986-88 2002/04 2002 2003 2004p

Norway USD mn 2 812 2 902 2 755 2 995 2 955

EUR mn 2 545 2 653 2 923 2 651 2 385

Percentage PSE 71 71 74 72 68

Producer NPC 4.29 2.80 3.27 2.73 2.41

Producer NAC 3.45 3.52 3.88 3.54 3.12

Poland1 USD mn 1 433 2 065 2 681 1 224 n.c.

EUR mn 1 180 2 161 2 844 1 084 n.c.

Percentage PSE 11 14 19 8 n.c.

Producer NPC 1.08 1.15 1.19 1.10 n.c.

Producer NAC 1.13 1.17 1.23 1.09 n.c.

Slovak USD mn 540 348 343 469 n.c.

Republic1 EUR mn 440 346 364 415 n.c.

Percentage PSE 28 21 21 25 n.c.

Producer NPC 1.17 1.13 1.14 1.20 n.c.

Producer NAC 1.40 1.27 1.27 1.34 n.c.

Switzerland USD mn 5 457 5 343 4 885 5 336 5 807

EUR mn 4 925 4 865 5 184 4 723 4 688

Percentage PSE 78 71 73 71 68

Producer NPC 5.10 2.57 2.81 2.54 2.36

Producer NAC 4.59 3.41 3.66 3.40 3.16

Turkey USD mn 3 162 9 365 5 614 10 846 11 635

EUR mn 2 868 8 317 5 957 9 601 9 393

Percentage PSE 16 25 20 29 27

Producer NPC 1.17 1.28 1.20 1.36 1.30

Producer NAC 1.20 1.34 1.26 1.40 1.36

United USD mn 36 390 40 409 39 105 35 618 46 504

States EUR mn 33 295 36 855 41 493 31 527 37 544

Percentage PSE 22 17 18 15 18

Producer NPC 1.14 1.09 1.10 1.07 1.11

Producer NAC 1.28 1.21 1.22 1.18 1.22

OECD4 USD mn 242 867 254244 226451 256752 279527

EUR mn 220 776 231072 240279 227268 225670

Percentage PSE 37 30 31 30 30

Producer NPC 1.57 1.29 1.30 1.29 1.28

Producer NAC 1.60 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.43

p: provisional. n.c.: not calculated. NPC: Nominal Protection Coefficient. NAC:

Nominal Assistance Coefficient.

1. For the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic, 1986-88 is

replaced by 1991-93,

and 2002-04 by 2001-03.

2. EU12 for 1986-94 including ex-GDR from 1990; EU15 for 1995-2003; EU25 from

2004. The value of producer support

(PSE) in the EU15 for 2004 is estimated to be EUR 100 236 million (USD 124 192

million).

3. For Mexico, 1986-88 is replaced by 1991-93.

4. Austria, Finland and Sweden are included in the OECD total for all years and in

the EU from 1995. The OECD total

does not include the six non-OECD EU member states.

Source: OECD, PSE/CSE database 2005.

Tabella 4 OECD: Producer Support Estimate by commodity

1986-88 2002/04 2002 2003 2004p

14 17

Wheat USD mn 18 665 16 656 097 330 18542

14 15 14969

15 089

EUR mn 17 033 957 339

Percentage PSE 47 35 36 36 33

Producer NPC 1.69 1.08 1.06 1.11 1.08

Producer NAC 1.92 1.54 1.57 1.57 1.49

Maize USD mn 12 693 10 989 9 169 8 816 14983

EUR mn 11 632 9876 9 728 7 804 12096

Percentage PSE 40 25 23 21 31

Producer NPC 1.30 1.10 1.03 1.06 1.20

Producer NAC 1.67 1.34 1.31 1.27 1.44

Other USD mn 11 182 9 230 7 602 9 212 10875

grains EUR mn 10 221 8 333 8 066 8 154 8 780

Percentage PSE 51 42 41 40 43

Producer NPC 1.97 1.09 1.06 1.07 1.15

Producer NAC 2.13 1.71 1.71 1.67 1.76

21 23 26532

Rice USD mn 26 964 23 923 869 366

23 20

21 769

EUR mn 24 504 21420

204 683

Percentage PSE 81 76 78 76 75

Producer NPC 4.91 4.04 4.30 4.05 3.76

Producer NAC 5.24 4.24 4.53 4.24 3.96

Oilseeds USD mn 5 383 7 042 5 193 6 916 9 017

EUR mn 4 876 6 304 5 510 6 121 7 280

Percentage PSE 26 23 20 21 27

Producer NPC 1.27 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.06

Producer NAC 1.36 1.29 1.25 1.27 1.36

Sugar USD mn 5 778 6 963 5 888 7 197 7 803

EUR mn 5 258 6306 6 247 6 371 6 299

Percentage PSE 54 55 49 58 58

Producer NPC 2.33 2.27 2.03 2.42 2.36

Producer NAC 2.19 2.24 1.97 2.38 2.38

39 41

Milk USD mn 49 374 40 048 39127

638 378

42 36

EUR mn 44 883 31588

36 758 059 626

Percentage PSE 61 42 47 43 36

Producer NPC 2.84 1.65 1.79 1.66 1.50

Producer NAC 2.59 1.73 1.88 1.74 1.57

Beef and USD mn 22 316 31 163 26 33 33676

veal 372 443

27 29

28 257

EUR mn 20 345 27187

982 602

Percentage PSE 32 35 34 35 34

Producer NPC 1.41 1.27 1.28 1.28 1.26

Producer NAC 1.47 1.53 1.51 1.55 1.52

Sheepmeat USD mn 4 676 4 447 2 894 5 524 4 925

EUR mn 4 207 3 978 3 070 4 889 3 976

Percentage PSE 55 38 33 45 37

Producer NPC 1.87 1.22 1.20 1.26 1.19

Producer NAC 2.23 1.63 1.49 1.80 1.60

Table 5 OECD: Producer Support Estimate by commodity (cont.)

1986-88 2002/04 2002 2003 2004p

Wool USD mn 288 135 150 125 129

EUR mn 262 125 159 110 104

Percentage PSE 7 6 6 6 6

Producer NPC 1.01 1.02 1.01 1.02 1.02

Producer NAC 1.07 1.06 1.07 1.06 1.06

10 10 13

Pigmeat USD mn 8 763 11 350 153 882 014

10 10

EUR mn 7 938 10 304 9 633

773 506

Percentage PSE 18 21 22 21 21

Producer NPC 1.30 1.22 1.23 1.23 1.22

Producer NAC 1.23 1.27 1.28 1.27 1.26

Poultry USD mn 4 893 7 654 6 864 6 698 9 400

EUR mn 4 389 6 934 7 283 5 929 7 589

Percentage PSE 20 18 19 17 20

Producer NPC 1.33 1.20 1.19 1.17 1.23

Producer NAC 1.25 1.23 1.23 1.20 1.24

Eggs USD mn 2 638 1 444 1 354 1 168 1 810

EUR mn 2 399 1 311 1 437 1 034 1 462

Percentage PSE 17 7 8 6 9

Producer NPC 1.22 1.06 1.06 1.04 1.07

Producer NAC 1.20 1.08 1.09 1.06 1.09

Other 75 84 89

USD mn 69 254 83 201

commodities1 210 698 694

79 74 72

EUR mn 62 830 75 729 803 972 412

Percentage PSE 29 25 25 25 24

Producer NPC 1.40 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.24

Producer NAC 1.41 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.32

All 226 256 279

254 244

USD mn 242 867

commodities 451 752 527

240 227 225

EUR mn 220 776 231 072 279 268 670

Percentage PSE 37 30 31 30 30

Producer NPC 1.57 1.29 1.30 1.29 1.28

Producer NAC 1.60 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.43

p: provisional. NPC: Nominal Protection Coefficient. NAC:

Nominal Assistance Coefficient.

1. The PSE for other commodities is the residual of the PSE for all commodities

minus the PSE for the commodities

listed above.

Source: OECD PSE/CSE database 2005.

Figura 4

Tabella 6 OECD: Total Support Estimate by country

1986-88 2002/04 2002 2003 2004p

Australia USD mn 1 710 1 504 1 412 1 505 1 595

EUR mn 1 570 1 373 1 498 1 332 1 287

Percentage of 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3

GDP

Canada USD mn 7 577 7 160 6 261 7 729 7 490

EUR mn 6 907 6510 6 643 6 841 6 047

Percentage of 1.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.7

GDP

Czech USD mn 1 386 1 117 1 076 1 303 n.c.

Republic1 EUR mn 1 126 1 127 1 141 1 153 n.c.

Percentage of 4.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 n.c.

GDP

European USD mn 117 216 128 881 103643 132431 150568

Union2 EUR mn 106 372 116 251 109972 117223 121557

Percentage of 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2

2.8

GDP

Hungary1 USD mn 901 1 876 2 219 2 024 n.c.

EUR mn 733 1 897 2 355 1 792 n.c.

Percentage of 2.5 2.8 3.4 2.4 n.c.

GDP

Iceland USD mn 260 215 182 226 239

EUR mn 233 195 193 200 193

Percentage of 5.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.9

GDP

Japan USD mn 57 644 58 881 55 489 60 304 60 850

EUR mn 52 200 53 794 58 877 53 379 49 126

Percentage of 2.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3

GDP

Korea USD mn 13 217 21 247 20 460 20 753 22 528

EUR mn 11 860 19 422 21 709 18 370 18 187

Percentage of 9.3 3.5 3.7 3.4 3.4

GDP

Mexico3 USD mn 10 874 7 848 9 685 7 573 6 287

EUR mn 8 846 7 352 10 276 6 703 5 075

Percentage of 3.0 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.0

GDP

New USD mn 578 304 194 320 398

Zealand EUR mn 545 270 206 283 322

Percentage of 1.7 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4

GDP

Norway USD mn 3 162 3 146 2 974 3 252 3 212

EUR mn 2 863 2 876 3 155 2 879 2 593

Percentage of 3.5 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.3

GDP

Poland1 USD mn 1 693 2 414 3 107 1 622 n.c.

EUR mn 1 391 2513 3 296 1 436 n.c.

Percentage of 2.2 1.2 1.6 0.8 n.c.

GDP

Slovak USD mn 612 405 407 541 n.c.

Republic1 EUR mn 498 403 431 479 n.c.

Percentage of 4.2 1.6 1.7 1.7 n.c.


PAGINE

48

PESO

743.39 KB

AUTORE

Atreyu

PUBBLICATO

+1 anno fa


DESCRIZIONE DISPENSA

Materiale didattico per il corso di Politica energetica per lo sviluppo sostenibile del Prof. Antonio Piccinini, all'interno del quale sono affrontati i seguenti argomenti: il sostegno all'agricoltura nei paesi sviluppati, lo stato di salute della Politica Agricola Comune dell'Unione Europea (PAC).


DETTAGLI
Corso di laurea: Corso di laurea in cooperazione internazionale e sviluppo
SSD:
A.A.: 2011-2012

I contenuti di questa pagina costituiscono rielaborazioni personali del Publisher Atreyu di informazioni apprese con la frequenza delle lezioni di Politica energetica per lo sviluppo sostenibile e studio autonomo di eventuali libri di riferimento in preparazione dell'esame finale o della tesi. Non devono intendersi come materiale ufficiale dell'università La Sapienza - Uniroma1 o del prof Piccinini Antonio.

Acquista con carta o conto PayPal

Scarica il file tutte le volte che vuoi

Paga con un conto PayPal per usufruire della garanzia Soddisfatto o rimborsato

Recensioni
Ti è piaciuto questo appunto? Valutalo!

Altri appunti di Politica energetica per lo sviluppo sostenibile

Politiche ambientali dell'Unione Europea
Dispensa
Cambiamento climatico e biocarburanti
Dispensa
Bioetanolo e consumo del suolo
Dispensa
Mercati agricoli a pronti e a futures
Dispensa