Farm Price Supports And Protection Goals

Although the agricultural sector contributes only 0.5% to Trinidad and Tobago’s GDP, it accounts for over 4% of employment and is important for the diversification of the economy. The Government of Trinidad and Tobago supports agriculture through a combination of incentives to agricultural producers, support for research and infrastructure, and border protection measures. Support to producers averaged 22.4% of gross farm receipts in 2013-2015, and a significant share of that support (44%) was provided in the form of transfers to general services. At the same time, total transfers arising from agricultural policy amounted to only 0.34% of the national GDP. Reorienting agricultural policy towards goals and actions that are less production-distorting, and that address agricultural productivity and profitability, will help create a possibly small, but efficient agricultural sector, as well as exploit certain specific competitive advantages.

Public support mechanisms for agriculture in many cases hinder the transformation towards healthier, more sustainable, equitable, and efficient food systems, thus actively steering us away from meeting the Sustainable Development Goals and targets of the Paris Agreement. This report sets out the compelling case for repurposing harmful agricultural producer support to reverse this situation, by optimizing the use of scarce public resources, strengthening economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, and ultimately driving a food systems transformation that can support global sustainable development commitments. The report provides policymakers with an updated estimate of past and current agricultural producer support for 88 countries, projected up until 2030. The trends emerging from the analysis are a clear call for action at country, regional and global levels to phase out the most distortive, environmentally and socially harmful support, such as price incentives and coupled subsidies, and redirecting it towards investments in public goods and services for agriculture, such as research and development and infrastructure, as well as decoupled fiscal subsidies. Overall, the analysis highlights that, while removing and/or reducing harmful agricultural support is necessary, repurposing initiatives that include measures to minimize policy trade-offs will be needed to ensure a beneficial outcome overall. The report confirms that, while a few countries have started repurposing and reforming agricultural support, broader, deeper, and faster reforms are needed for food systems transformation. Thus, it provides guidance (in six steps) on how governments can repurpose agricultural producer support – and the reforms this will take.

To understand the impacts of support programs on global emissions, this paper considers the impacts of domestic subsidies, price distortions at the border, and investments in emission-reducing technologies on global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture. In a step towards a full evaluation of the impacts, it uses a counterfactual global model scenario showing how much emissions from agricultural production would change if agricultural support were abolished worldwide. The analysis indicates that, without subsidies paid directly to farmers, output of some emission-intensive activities and agricultural emissions would be smaller. Without agricultural trade protection, however, emissions would be higher. This is partly because protection reduces global demand more than it increases global agricultural supply, and partly because some countries that currently tax agriculture have high emission intensities. Policies that directly reduce emission intensities yield much larger reductions in emissions than those that reduce emission intensities by increasing overall productivity because overall productivity growth creates a rebound effect by reducing product prices and expanding output. A key challenge is designing policy reforms that effectively reduce emissions without jeopardizing other key goals such as improving nutrition and reducing poverty. While the scenario analysis in this paper does not propose any particular policy reform, it does provide an important building block towards a full understanding the impacts of repurposed agricultural support measures on mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to climate change. That full analysis is being undertaken in subsequent work, which will also take account of land-use change and alternative forms of agricultural policy support to align objectives of food security, farmers’ income security, production efficiency and resilience, and environmental protection.