Cotton: Enlightenment From US Agricultural Subsidy Policy

< p style= "text-align: center" > img border= "0" alt= "align=" center "src=" /uploadimages/201408/18/20140818113930_sj.JPG "/" < < > >

< p > every five years or so, the US Congress will revise the bill "a href=" http://www.91se91.com/ > agriculture < /a >. Its high subsidies have caused many countries' discontent and been subjected to countervailing action in the international market.

The most typical case is that Brazil's lawsuit against US cotton support subsidy policy in 2003 violated the WTO rules, which caused Brazil's interests to suffer losses and demanded that the United States abolish its corresponding policies.

In order to avoid more countervailing disputes and to strengthen the support of domestic farmers, the US agricultural bill abolished direct price subsidies such as direct payment (DP), counter cyclical payment (CCP) and average crop income selective payment (ACRE), and only retained the differential subsidy of marketing loans, and implemented more covert and indirect support policies for farmers by adding other subsidy projects.

< /p >

< p > now the new cotton policy of the United States, we can call it the cumulative income risk protection plan (STAX).

Once the actual income of cotton growers is less than 90% of the expected revenue, STAX will provide 10% to 30% loss insurance for cotton growers.

In addition, the federal government will pay 80% of the insurance premiums for cotton farmers and subsidize insurance companies providing STAX services.

STAX will be implemented in 2015, and the pitional policy is being implemented.

The subsidy policy is calculated according to the annual average price of 44.6 kg / mu of land cotton, 60% of the planting area in 2014 and 36.5% of the planting area in 2015.

< /p >

< p > in addition, the 2014 US agricultural bill has retained agricultural products loan projects, of which the target price of Pima cotton is 79.77 cents, and the loan maturity of export credit guarantee projects has been shortened to 24 months from the previous 36 months.

< /p >

< p > the US agricultural bill has been constantly adjusted. The new agricultural bill has been established "a href=" http://www.91se91.com/ > agriculture < /a > income risk protection plan to ensure that the US agricultural safety net is more solid.

In this process, there are some experiences for us to learn from and learn from.

< /p >

< p > first, the core goal of ensuring farmers' income is consistent.

Although the US agricultural bill is constantly revised, the core content of protecting farmers' income remains unchanged.

For example, STAX not only subsidize farmers' insurance, but also more importantly, the amount of compensation is not the same as simple, general commercial natural disaster insurance compensation.

< /p >

< p > in order to protect the cotton farmers' income, China has implemented the collection and storage < a href= "http://www.91se91.com/ > policy < /a >, but from the implementation results in the past three years, the cotton planting area has been shrinking.

Perhaps the policy has not yet achieved some farmers' income expectations.

< /p >

< p > Second, allowing farmers to apply for loans for agricultural production.

Marketing assistance loan is the cornerstone of the US agricultural bill. China should also study the feasibility of similar policies as early as possible, or provide agricultural production loan services to farmers through the Agricultural Development Bank of China.

For us marketing assistance loans, farmers who produce designated crops can obtain a 9 month non recourse loan with the expected crop yields before production.

After harvest, when the market price is higher than the loan interest rate and interest rate before the loan maturity, farmers can sell agricultural products and repay loans in the market; when the market price is lower than the loan rate and interest sum, farmers can repay the loan with the mortgaged crops.

< /p >

< p > Third, preferential subsidy processing enterprises, indirectly subsidizing farmers, stipulate that the raw materials used by processing enterprises that are subsidized must be agricultural products produced domestically.

At the same time, the subsidized processing enterprises must pay additional amount to producers as production subsidies when purchasing raw materials, and obtain relevant evidence from producers, so that farmers can get indirect subsidies.

< /p >