It has been shown in previous studies that transaction costs (TC) of agri-environmental policy measures often are very large both in absolute terms and as a share of payments. As agri-environmental policy measures make up an increasingly large share of agricultural policies, not least within the European Union, it is becoming ever more important to improve the knowledge about the factors determining the level of transaction costs. This paper investigates the TC determinants of one Swedish agri-environmental policy measure. More specifically, it aims to investigate if the level of TC is attributable to economic factors, such as pasture density and distances, or if political factors, such as lobby groups and political majorities at the county level, influence the costs. To evaluate if the results are robust with respect to alterations in model specifications, a version of the extreme bounds analysis is applied. Although initial results indicate that political parties influence the level of transaction costs, the extreme bounds analysis reveals that those results are fragile. It shows that five of the economic variables are robust with respect to model specifications, but none of the political variables is.

One of the most challenging issues of EU agriculture is viability of farmers’ and family farms. These farms used to play a major role in new member states. However, the last decades are characterized by the significant decrease in the number of farmers’ farms. The paper deals with the issues of these farms’ viability and the role of support. A literature review on viability concept and indicators justify the selection of socio-economic viability criteria for the survey. The findings are based on the results of Lithuanian farmers’ opinion survey. The analysis of the selected socio-economic criteria of viability shows that crop production farms are characterized as the most viable. According to the survey results, the farms with less than 30 ha, and the farms operated by farmers aged 60 and older belong to the most vulnerable group. These farms are non-viable in the long-run. The risk estimation of staying in agricultural business if support is abolished for viable and non-viable farms shows dependence of farm’s behaviour and viability status.

The Federal Government of Nigeria has demonstrated a strong commitment to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the NEEDS Targets. Recognizing the importance of agriculture, as well as the challenges faced by the sector, in providing evidence for policymaking, the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (FMAWR) established the Agricultural Policy Support Facility (APSF), with the International Food Policy Research Institution (IFPRI) as its implementing partner and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) providing financial support. APSF aims to strengthen the capacity of FMAWR to design and implement agricultural policies by addressing the fundamental knowledge, capacity, and communication problems faced by the Government of Nigeria. In order to support evidence-based policymaking, it is essential to identify the current capacity within Nigeria for providing evidence for policymaking and for creating this capacity for future generations. In collaboration with the University of Ibadan, University of Agriculture-Abeokuta, FMAWR, and IFPRI, a consultation workshop on “Sustaining Capacity for Supplying Evidence for Agricultural Rural Development Policies and Strategies was held at the University of Ibadan on April 28, 2008. The objectives of this consultative workshop were to identify: specific capacity challenges confronting university professors who are teaching the next generation of policymakers, policy analysts, researchers and university professors; curriculum gaps within the university programs for building capacity for designing and implementing pro-poor, gender sensitive, and environmentally sustainable agricultural and rural development policies and strategies; employment opportunities for the university graduates in agricultural economics and extension and the required skills; existing capacity for undertaking agriculture and rural development policy research; and current methods used by researchers to convey their results to decisionmakers and other stakeholders.

Bridging the research and policy divide remains a top priority on the Nigerian federal government's agenda. This renewed commitment paved the way for the Agricultural Support Facility Project (APSF), which seeks to, among other things, create an environment and produce evidence on specific policy issues facing the Nigerian agricultural sector that allows for a more inclusive design and implementation of evidence-based, pro-poor, gender sensitive, and environmentally sustainable agricultural and rural development policies and strategies in Nigeria. The conviction that the policymaking process should benefit from stakeholders' active participation led APSF to organize a stakeholder workshop to serve as a forum for addressing issues emanating from the evidence being generated by the facility. The workshop objectives were to: share progress on implementing APSF; discuss current research findings; and dialogue with stakeholders on upcoming activities (see Appendix A for Agenda). The workshop brought together participants from the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (FMAWR), the National Planning Commission (NPC), the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), the Federal Ministry of Finance (FMF), the Federal Ministry of Commerce and Industry (FMCI), the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), the donor community, academia, farmers' organizations and the private sector. This executive summary provides an overview of the research findings, highlights key group discussion points, and provides next steps.

In recent decades, agricultural support policies in many countries have played an active role in promoting food production and reducing hunger and poverty. Remarkable achievements have been made globally in agricultural production, with rapid growth in output of agricultural products outpacing population growth. Populations’ food consumption has increased and the number of undernourished people has decreased significantly. Particularly in China, agricultural reforms that were initiated in the late 1970s have increased farmers’ incomes and improved dietary quality. By 2020, China had achieved a moderately prosperous society in all aspects and had eliminated hunger and poverty. This chapter reviews domestic and international agricultural support policies and their impacts. China's experience of developing agricultural support policies has been summed up in order to, on the one hand, provide a reference for other developing countries. On the other hand, China is now implementing new national development goals of nutrition and health, green and high quality development, common prosperity, and institutional opening. The analysis of the challenges being faced in the course of implementing the corresponding new agricultural support policies can help optimize these policies. | Non-PR | IFPRI4; 3 Building Inclusive and Efficient Markets, Trade Systems, and Food Industry; DCA | DSGD

China's economy has developed rapidly in recent years, achieved historic reductions in poverty, and has met the ambitious goal of creating a moderately prosperous society. In this new stage, the Chinese government has announced multiple development goals, including improving national nutrition and health, achieving green, low-carbon, and sustainable development, and achieving common prosperity, and made commitments to reach its carbon emission peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060. Great changes have taken place in China's agrifood systems in this process, with a significant increase in agricultural productivity, extension of supply chains, an increased supply of agricultural products, and a significant improvement in residents’ food consumption, nutrition, and health. Agricultural support policies have played an important role in promoting agrifood systems transformation, increasing agricultural production, ensuring food quantity, and providing residents with abundant and diverse food. | Non-PR | 2 Promoting Healthy Diets and Nutrition for all; 3 Building Inclusive and Efficient Markets, Trade Systems, and Food Industry; DCA; IFPRI4 | DSGD