vv-rez-'rI CA _ 0~~Oa. I"5l WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPER NUMBER 291 Surveillance of Agricultural Price and Trade Policies A Handbook for Chile Alberto Valdes and Barry Schaeffer in collaboration with Felipe Errazuriz and Emilio Francisco R K ;, * L.,*_ RECENT WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPERS No. 216 Carr, Improving Cash Crops in Africa: Factors Influencing the Productivity of Cotton, Coffee, and Tea Grown by Smallholders No. 217 Antholt, Getting Readyfor the Twenty-First Century: Technical Change and Institutional Modernization in Agriculture No. 218 Mohan, editor, Bibliography of Publications: Technical Department, Africa Region, July 1987 to December 1992 No. 219 Cercone, Alcohol-Related Problems as an Obstacle to the Development of Human Capital: Issues and Policy Options No. 220 Kingsley, Ferguson, Bower, and Dice, Managing Urban Environmental Quality in Asia No. 221 Srivastava, Tamboli, English, Lal, and Stewart, Conserving Soil Moisture and Fertility in the Warm Seasonally Dry Tropics No. 222 Selvaratnam, Innovations in Higher Education: Sin?gapore at the Competitive Edge No. 223 Piotrow, Treiman, Rimon, Yun, and Lozare, Strategies for Family Planning Promotion No. 224 Midgley, Urban Transport in Asia: An Operational Agendafor the 1990s No. 225 Dia, A Governance Approach to Civil Service Reform in Sub-Saharan Africa No. 226 Bindlish, Evenson, and Gbetibouo, Evaluation of T&V-Based Extension in Burkina Faso No. 227 Cook, editor, Involuntary Resettlement in Africa: Selected Papersfrom a Conference on Environment and Settlement Issues in Africa No. 228 Webster and Charap, The Emergence of Private Sector Manufacturing in St. Petersburg: A Survey of Firms No. 229 Webster, The Emergence of Private Sector Manufacturing in Hungary: A Survey of Firms No. 230 Webster and Swanson, The Emergence of Private Sector Manufacturinig in the Former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic: A Survey of Firms No. 231 Eisa, Barghouti, Gillham, and Al-Saffy, Cotton Production Prospectsfor the Decade to 2005: A Global Overview No. 232 Creightney, Transport and Economic Performance: A Survey of Developing Countries No. 233 Frederiksen, Berkoff, and Barber, Principles and Practicesfor Dealing with Water Resources Issues No. 234 Archondo-Callao and Faiz, Estimating Vehicle Operating Costs No. 235 Claessens, Risk Management in Developing Countries No. 236 Bennett and Goldberg, Providing Enterprise Development and Financial Services to Women: A Decade of Bank Experience in Asia No. 237 Webster, The Emergence of Private Sector Manufacturing in Poland: A Survey of Firms No. 238 Heath, Land Rights in Cote d'lvoire: Survey and Prospectsfor Project Intervention No. 239 Kirmani and Rangeley, International Inland Waters: Conceptsfor a More Active World Bank Role No. 240 Ahmed, Renewable Energy Technologies: A Review of the Status and Costs of Selected Technologies No. 241 Webster, Newly Privatized Russian Enterprises No. 242 Barnes, Openshaw, Smith, and van der Plas, What Makes People Cook with Improved Biomass Stoves? A Comparative International Review of Stove Programs No. 243 Menke and Fazzari, Improving Electric Power Utility Efficiency: Issues and Recommendations No. 244 Liebenthal, Mathur, and Wade, Solar Energy: Lessonsfrom the Pacific Island Experience No. 245 Klein, External Debt Management: An Introduction No. 246 Plusquellec, Burt, and Wolter, Modern Water Control in Irrigation: Concepts, Issues, and Applications No. 247 Ameur, Agricultural Extension: A Step beyond the Next Step No. 248 Malhotra, Koenig, and Sinsukprasert, A Survey of Asia's Energy Prices No. 249 Le Moigne, Easter, Ochs, and Giltner, Water Policy and Water Markets: Selected Papers and Proceedingsfrom the World Bank's Annlual Irrigation and Drainage Seminar, Annlapolis, Maryland, December 8-10, 7992 No. 250 Rangeley, Thiam, Andersen, and Lyle, International River Basin Organizations in Sub-Saharan Africa No. 251 Sharma, Rietbergen, Heimo, and Patel, A Strategyfor the Forest Sector in Sub-Saharan Africa No. 252 The World Bank/FAO/UNIDO/Industry Fertilizer Working Group, World and Regional Supply and Demand Balancesfor Nitrogen, Phosphate, and Potash, 1992/93-1998/99 No. 253 Jensen and Malter, Protected Agriculture: A Global Review (List continues on the inside back cover) WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPER NUMBER 291 Surveillance of Agricultural Price and Trade Policies A Handbook for Chile Alberto Valdes and Barry Schaeffer in collaboration with Felipe Errazuriz and Emilio Francisco The World Bank Washington, D.C. Copyright C) 1995 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America First printing October 1995 Technical Papers are published to communicate the results of the Bank's work to the development com- munity with the least possible delay. The typescript of this paper therefore has not been prepared in accor- dance with the procedures appropriate to formal printed texts, and the World Bank accepts no responsibili- ty for errors. Some sources cited in this paper may be informal documents that are not readily available. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author(s) and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility whatso- ever for any consequence of their use. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this volume do not imply on the part of the World Bank Group any judgment on the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The material in this publication is copyrighted. Requests for permission to reproduce portions of it should be sent to the Office of the Publisher at the address shown in the copyright notice above. The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally give permission promptly and, when the reproduction is for noncommercial purposes, without asking a fee. Permission to copy por- tions for classroom use is granted through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., Suite 910, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Massachusetts 01923, U.S.A. The complete backlist of publications from the World Bank is shown in the annual Index of Publications, which contains an alphabetical title list (with full ordering information) and indexes of sub- jects, authors, and countries and regions. The latest edition is available free of charge from the Distribution Unit, Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A., or from Publications, The World Bank, 66, avenue d'I6na, 75116 Paris, France. ISSN: 0253-7494 Both authors work in the Latin America Technical Department of the World Bank. Alberto Valdes is an agricultural adviser; Barry Schaeffer is an agricultural economist. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Vald6s, Alberto. Surveillance of agricultural price and trade policies: a handbook for Chile / Alberto Vald6s, Barry Schaeffer. p. cm. - (World Bank technical paper; no. 291) Includes bibliographical references (p. ). ISBN 0-8213-3323-2 1. Agricultural prices-Government policy-Chile-Statistics. 2. Farm produce-Chile-Statistics. 3. Produce trade-Chile- Statistics. I. Schaeffer, Barry, 1957- . II. Title. III. Series. HD1877.75.V35 1995 338.1'883-dc20 95-32643 CIP Contents FOREWORD .........................................................v ABSTRACT ........................................................ vii PREFACE ........................................................ ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................... xi INTRODUCTION ......................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1: PROTECTION INDICATORS DEFINED ..........................................................3 Definition of Indicators ........................................................ 3 Data Assembly ........................................................ 3 Nominal Rate of Protection (NPR) ............................. ........................... 5 Effective Protection Rate (EPR) ......................... ................................ 7 Producer Subsidy Equivalent (PSE) ........................................................ 12 Effective Rate of Assistance (ERA) ......................................................... 14 CHAPTER 2: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS .................................... 17 Overview ......................................................... 17 Who Received the Hidden Income Transfer? ..................................................... 18 NPRs and Import Tariffs ........................................................ 19 Real Prices Have Fallen During the 1990s ........................................................ 19 Individual Commodities ........................................................ 27 APPENDIX: COMMODITY CHARTS AND PROTECTION INDICATOR CALCULATION TABLES ........................................................ 41 111 FOREWORD Latin America and Caribbean countries are at different stages of a policy reform process involving their overall economies and their agriculture sector. Agricultural trade and price policy reform are emerging as particularly complex and controversial topics. The Surveillance project, for which this Handbook was prepared, was undertaken by the Advisory Group of the Technical Department in the Latin America and Caribbean Region to offer a framework for the analysis and monitoring of agricultural price and trade policy reforms. Each Handbook presents a quantitative analysis of the structure of incentives for agricultural activities and measures income transfers as a result of government policies for the country concerned. Quantification, and the resulting transparency, can be an effective deterrent against discriminatory treatment regarding agricultural pricing and trade. Sri-ram Aiyer Director Technical Department Latin America and the Caribbean Region v ABSTRACT This is one of a series of handbooks which have arisen from a Surveillance project to evaluate agricultural price and trade interventions in eight Latin American countries for seven commodities for the period 1984 to 1994. The countries included in this Surveillance project are Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Paraguay and Uruguay. The aim of the project is to make transparent the effects of agricultural trade and price policies on agricultural incentives. The level and extent of protection and export taxation is often largely unknown, due to policy instruments and administrative measures that are difficult to quantify. To achieve this goal of transparency and comparability across products and countries, a common methodology was applied to each country to calculate four policy indicators: Nominal Protection Rate (NPR), Effective Protection Rate (EPR), Effective Rate of Assistance (ERA), and Producer Subsidy Equivalent (PSE). This Handbook presents and discusses the results and methodology for Chile on apples, grapes, beef, maize, milk, sugarbeets, and wheat for 1984-1993. vii PREFACE How level is the playing field for agriculture after the initiation of trade and price reforms? Agricultural price interventions in Latin America were predominantly implemented using restrictions such as discretionary import and export licenses, direct price regulations, burdensome customs clearance procedures, and fixed and variable tariffs. The level and extent of protection and export taxation -- the hidden income transfers -- was largely unknown, due to the use of complex policy instruments. With the maze of overlapping effects it was virtually impossible to ascertain the effect of these impacts across subsectors. An outgrowth of this lack of transparency within the framework of price incentives is insufficient political pressure to attain a fair playing field within the agricultural market. Like most countries in Latin America, Chile does not have a 'transparency institution' providing greater public awareness of the way in which activities in agriculture and other sectors can sometimes receive preferential treatment. More recently, most countries in Latin America are embarking on a unilateral process of tariffication with bound tariffs, eliminating quota restrictions and removing export taxes. Chile preceded the other countries within the region by implementing a bold trade reform program during the second half of the 1970s. The Surveillance project addresses a major gap in the analysis of trade and price policy for agriculture. To provide transparency, countries require a mechanism which enables vigorous screening and monitoring of price interventions. Once reforms are undertaken what indicators can be used to analyze surveillance of price interventions? For this report a quantitative assessment of trade and price policy interventions has been carried out involving seven commodities for eight Latin American and Caribbean countries during 1984-1994. These countries are Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Paraguay and Uruguay. Four policy indicators, Nominal and Effective Rates of Protection (NPR and EPR), Producer Subsidy Equivalent (PSE) and the Effective Rate of Assistance (ERA) were used. To achieve comparability across products and countries, a common methodology and formatting of the data was applied to calculate the four policy indicators. Gauged annually, these indicators expose subsidies and taxes in specific commodity markets. It is proposed that such surveillance be institutionalized and undertaken periodically as a monitoring mechanism to assess agricultural trade and price reform. The results for Chile are presented in Chapter 2. Alberto Valdes Agricultural Adviser Latin American and the Caribbean Advisory Group ix I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank our collaborators Felipe Errazuriz and Emilio Francisco for their substantial contribution to this document. Felipe Errazuriz and Emilio Francisco were responsible for assembling the raw data series used in this document; for providing a number of background computations; for supplying us with information on the market structure of each of the agricultural commodities covered in the study; and, for commenting on our interpretation of the results derived from the study. The authors are particularly grateful to Melanie Meyer for her excellent assistance in the various revisions of this report. Alberto Valdes and Bany Schaeffer xi INTRODUCTION The Surveillance Study seeks to provide a consistent framework and yardstick with which to measure the progress of price and trade reforms. As a part of that study, this Handbook has the following goals: * to explain each quantitative tool used to assess trade and price policy with respect to a commodity (Chapter 1); and * to present the results along with supporting documentation for the calculation of protection indicators (Chapter 2 and the Appendix). Beginning in 1984 and continuing through 1993, this project's goal is to assess historical agricultural price policy (i.e., prior to reforms), and current agricultural price policy. Four policy indicator measures of assessment have been applied to several major importable and exportable agricultural commodities; they are: Nominal Protection Rate (NPR); Effective Protection Rate (EPR); Producer Subsidy Equivalent (P SE), and Effective Rate of Assistance (ERA). Chapter 1 explains these policy indicators. Each is subject to limitations and is an approximation. Using the four indicators together means that the NPRs and EPRs are complementary to the PSEs and ERAs. The first two are effective in measuring the structure of incentives as affected by price interventions. The latter two are effective in quantifying the combined effect of price and non-price policies on income transfers between producers and the rest of the economy. Combined, the four provide insight into a sector's aims and incentives. A tariff-equivalent approach based on direct border/domestic price comparison was used to estimate the market price support component to these indicators. While we expect that trade and price policy intervention explain most of the observed price wedge, one cannot rule out that domestic market structure in the particular activity will also influence the results. Thus, not all of the price wedge observed is policy induced. The four indicators help readers to see the results in terms of a broad picture. However, depending on how the question is posed, different analysts can arrive at very different numbers (for the same product in a given year). Thus, it is necessary to provide detailed information concerning the background computations. The analysis of these indicators allows policymakers to examine various policy issues. For example, which activities help or hinder agricultural price and trade policy? Are transfers price-based, or do they exist as direct income transfers? Are reforms already in place that reduce the level of protection? How much and how accurately do the quantitative indicators reflect exogenous shocks, such as changes in border prices? How uniform 1 is the structure of incentives across various activities? Does the trade regime result in significant anti-export bias? Below are examples, discussion and results directly related to Chile. For the interested reader, a summary of the protection indicators appears in Tables 5 and 6 (at the end of Chapter 2). The main results are shown on pages 11 and 12, figures la and Ib, and tables 5, 6 and 8. Figures la and lb, and table 8 illustrate income transfers. Figure lb (importables) shows that income transfers from price and non-price interventions have declined significantly since 1985. By 1992, the impact on income transfers from price and non-price interventions was low, and in some cases negative. Figure la shows that transfers for exportables have had little impact on producer's incomes. The exception was the year 1989. 2 CHAPTER 1 PROTECTION INDICATORS DEFINED Definition of Indicators In order to measure periodically the structure of incentives for various agricultural activities, and to produce a consistent, quantitative assessment of income transfers between agriculture and the rest of the economy, indicators must be comparable over time, across commodities, and across countries. Further, they must be easy to measure and understand, and must accurately reflect the incentive structure of the underlying policy instrument(s). Data Assembly The first step is to examine and understand the data used to calculate the indicators. A review of the characteristics of the indicators follows a discussion of the process by which the data were assembled. The Surveillance Project's analysis begins with a broad overview of a given commodity's marketing chain in the country concerned, followed by information gathering. Is a commodity exportable or importable? How many steps exist in the chain? Is any significant processing required? A typical chain involves transport to processor - processing - transport to the wholesaler - wholesaler's activity - transport to port facility - lading and shipment. Once the marketing chain has been delineated, each step of the chain can be analyzed with cost and price estimates. The NPR, EPR, PSE and ERA all involve comparison of a domestic price with its border equivalent. This is true for both inputs and outputs. The next logical step in the surveillance process is to focus on pricing instruments using the marketing chain derived above as a sequential series of "price points." Relevant domestic prices of both outputs and inputs need to be obtained before assembling the database to calculate protection rates. It is also necessary, in the case of inputs, to acquire the technological coefficients of converting input into output. Domestic prices should ideally be acquired at the farm level. In reality, however, most prices are based on those at the central market, warehouse or auction (outputs) or at retail (inputs). This information can be obtained from farm budget data. Direct payments through subsidies, and such costs as taxes and payments to marketing boards should be accounted for at the farm level in addition to those prices paid and received directly. After delivery of the commodity to the central market, transportation and marketing costs are an important consideration as are any necessary processing costs. Internal transport and related costs can be substantial, and provide for a 'natural' rate of protection to producers of importables 3 and an implicit tax to the producers of exportables. Physical transformation of the raw product, i.e., wheat ground into flour, soybeans crushed into oil and meal, and cotton ginned into seed and fiber, should also be taken into account. Thus, conversion factors must take into consideration such processes. Moreover, price subsidies and taxes may exist in addition to the direct costs. Transportation should also be considered a major cost unless the processing center/central market is close to the port of entry/exit. At the port of entry/exit in the marketing chain all tariffs, taxes, subsidies, port charges and other costs associated with either the importation or exportation of a commodity must be accounted for. This stage in the marketing chain is the most difficult to examine because it is here that the government (or other interested party) is most likely to intervene. Additionally, border prices of the commodity and its inputs are identified at this stage. For example, the government may charge large user fees that are implicit tariffs if state trading is a factor. Border prices, when converted to domestic currency from world prices, reflect the opportunity cost to the economy of producing the commodity. This focus on the use of opportunity cost as a benchmark against which trade and price policy is assessed is the essence of the economic approach used in this study. Many problems exist in selecting the world price benchmark. If grade and quality differences exist between the internationally traded product and the local commodity, problems arise because one could be comparing dissimilar products. Thus, the estimate of protection may be measuring differences in the two products and not protection. An example would be white vs. paddy rice. Moreover, the world price itself can be misleading if the markets are thinly traded (for example, white maize). At this stage in the marketing chain a proper exchange rate should be identified. The criterion for selection in the Surveillance report was the exchange rate farmers/processors/exporters receive for their product. In most cases it was the official exchange rate. However, existence of multiple exchange rates or some other form of indirect taxation using the exchange rate complicates the task of defining a valid rate. The Surveillance Project did not include an adjustment for indirect effects of economywide policies in the real exchange rate . Thus, all calculations of the four indicators, NPRs, PSEs, ERAs, and EPRs, are at the relevant nominal exchange rate. A critical step before the calculation of the indicators is price adjustment. In determining the adjustments three decisive factors are taken into consideration. The first is whether the commodity is an exportable or importable. The second is the place or point of competition between the domestically produced commodity and its overseas counterpart. The third is the point in the marketing chain at which the two prices are to be compared. l See Maurice Schiff and Alberto Valdes, "The Political Economy of Agricultural Pricing," Economics in Developing Countri, vol. 4 (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992). 4 For the exportable, the point of competition is normally the port. Using the central farm marketing point as the place of comparison, the costs of the marketing chain must be subtracted from the f.o.b. border price to obtain the farm-level price. The net result is a border equivalent price that can be meaningfully compared to the domestic price. For an importable, the point of competition is frequently the processor. Again using the central farm marketing point as the place of comparison, the marketing chain cost must be added to the c.i.f. border price until the point of competition is reached. The costs are then subtracted from the central farm marketing point. These adjustments provide an accurate comparison between the domestic price and its efficiency benchmark. Below, an example of the calculation together with actual illustrations of these adjustments is given along with discussions of each indicator. Nominal Rate of Protection (NPR) In this study the Nominal Protection Rate is defined as the ratio of the prevailing domestic price relative to the appropriate adjusted border price in the absence of intervention. Thus, our NPR is an 'equivalent tariff' measure and does not necessarily coincide with the explicit tariff for the commodity in question. The formula for the NPR for commodity i is the following: NPRi =P,-1E PiwEo where Pd is the domestic price, pw is the world price of commodity i, and Eo is the exchange rate. While this calculation is relatively simple, it is very important to select accurate prices for the ratios, and it is essential to have a thorough understanding of the domestic markets where the prices are formed.2 Once the NPR is calculated, the results can be interpreted. Values can range from positive to negative and each has its own meaning regarding policy. A positive NPR means the producer is receiving a higher price for the commodity than he would without intervention, and the consumer is paying more for the product. Positive protection is frequently associated with importables. A negative NPR signals that the producer is being discriminated against relative to the prevailing border prices. 2See chapters 2, 3 and 4 in Isabelle Tsakok, Agricultural Price Policy (Ithaca, NY: Comell University Press, 1990) for a useful reference on the NPR, EPR and PSE. 5 TABLE 1 Standardized Format Nominal Rate of Protection Country: Chile Type: Iportable Commodity: Wheat Point of Cv,npetition: Processor 1984 18 12 1987 188 w 8 1= 11 3.2 1993l 1. UNADJUSTED BORDER PRICE Enchange Rate CHII Per Doltr 98.5 160.9 192.9 219.4 245.0 267.0 304.9 349.2 362.58 388.91 Border Price WUS CIF Too I a i 133.6 118.8 96.5 108.0 139.7 153.3 121.9 95.0 120.2 134.4 Border Price in Local Currency 13,152.8 19,108.1 18,615.8 23,885.3 34,221.1 40,916.8 37,160.7 33,163.7 43,585.7 52,281.2 2. BORDER ADJUSTMENTS Taridff/Subuidits/Adjustmennt Import Tariff Ic) 3,206.6 4,935.1 3,723.2 4,737.1 5,133.2 6,137.5 5.574.1 4,311.3 4,794.4 5,750.9 Pon Chsrges Custowm Ep. 13%) 394.9 573.5 558.8 710.8 1,026.9 1.227.8 1.115.1 995.2 1,307.9 1,568.9 Custom Agent 1.2%) 28.3 38.2 37.3 47.4 68.5 81.9 74.3 66.3 87.2 104.6 StoragelHanding/Loss Border Price Equivalemt (with interventionl 16,780.5 24,853.0 22,935.0 29,180.6 40,449.6 48,363.9 43,924.2 38,536.5 49,775.2 59,705.5 Border Price Equivalent (ithout intervention) 13,573.8 19,717.9 19,211.8 24,443.6 35,316.4 42,226.4 38,350.1 34,225.2 44.980.8 53,954.6 3. COSTS FROM BORDER TO PROCESSING (WHOLESALE MARKET) Terdifs/Subeidi.elAdiu.tentms Tr.nuportation Trane. Santiago 987.7 1,581.3 1,796.2 2,031.6 2.171.1 2,397.2 2,942.3 3,492.2 3,625.8 5,444.7 Other ener of Credit (1.5%i 135.7 197.2 192.1 244.4 353.2 422.3 383.5 342.3 449.8 539.5 Interest Costs (90 Days) 635.7 808.8 703.5 924.3 1,402.4 1,790.8 1,542.1 1,194.8 1,336.2 1,532.7 Border Price Equi-elnt fter Processing (with intervention) 18,539.6 27,240.2 25,626.8 32,381.0 44,376.2 52,974.2 48,792.1 43.565.8 55,187.1 67.222.5 Border Price Equivalent after Processing (without intervention) 15,333.0 22,305.1 21.903.6 27.643.9 39.243.1 46,836.6 43,218.0 39,254.5 50,392.6 61,471.6 4. PROCESSING COST (WHOLESALE MARKET) Taritff/Sub.idi.s/Adiustments ( b (139.6) (1,990.2) 8,123.2 619.0 (9,126.2) (9.224.2) (6,154.2) 12,663.0 (1.863.8 2,567.5 Processing Costs Marketing Margins Other Conversion 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Border Price Equiol-eet before Processing (with intervention) 18,400.0 25.250.0 33.750.0 33,000.0 35.250.0 43.750.0 42.637.9 56.228.8 67,050 8 69,790.0 Border Price Equi-e-t before Processing (without intervention) 15,333.0 22,305.1 21,903.6 27,643.9 39,243.1 46,836.6 43,218.0 39,254.5 50,392.6 61,471.6 S. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POINT (FARM) TO PROCESSOR TariffslSubsidies/Adjustsnts. Transporation Other Border Price Eqoivs1ent at Collection Point Iwith intervention) 18,400.0 25.250.0 33,750.0 33.000.0 35.250.0 43,750.0 42.637.9 56,228.8 67,050.8 69,790.0 Border Price Eqoivaent et Collection Point (without intervention) 15,333.0 22,305.1 21,903.6 27,643.9 39,243 1 46.836.6 43.218.0 39,254.5 50,392.6 61,471.6 6. DOMESTIC PRICE Border Who1.a..e 18,400.0 25,250.0 33,750.0 33,000.0 35,250.0 43,750.0 42,637.9 56.228.8 67,050.8 69,790.0 Col(ectioo Point (Farmw 18,400.0 25,250.0 33,750.0 33,000.0 35,250.0 43,750.0 42,637.9 56,228.8 67,050.8 69,790.0 7. NPR Border Wholesale 20.0% 13.2% 54.1% 19.4% -10.2% -6.6% -1.3% 43.2% 33.1% 13.5% Collection Point lFarwl 20.0% 13.2% 54.1% 19.4% -10.2% 6.6% -1.3% 432% 33.1% 13.5% a. First uewster only. b. Represents warket strocture and govervwenl intervenion through thu price band systew. u. General lmpon Tariffs are as fol(ow.: 1284 1982 *986 1982 1S88 1982 1990 1991 1992 1993 24.38% 25.83% 20.00% 20.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 13.00% 11.00% 11.00% Source: Surveillance Project. LA TAD, 1995 A zero NPR suggests that the structure of protection is neutral, i.e., producers face domestic prices comparable to border prices. The following NPR calculation will illustrate the above. The commodity depicted is the importable wheat. Table I is a standardized format designed to approximate the marketing chain of a commodity. Section 1 in the table determines the correct exchange rate and border price. Using 1993 as an example, the appropriate border price is US$134.4 per ton CIF. This represents the cost of I ton of wheat purchased in the U.S. plus shipping charges to the port in Santiago. Since this study does not adjust for a possible exchange rate misalignment, the official exchange rate is used.3 For 1993, the exchange rate is 388.91 Chilean pesos (CH) per US dollar. The costs associated with importing the commodity are then examined. These costs are reported in section 2. In the example, two port costs, both related to customs, are accounted for in this section. Chile also has a general import tariff that has risen from 10% in 1982 to its peak of 25% in 1985, and thereafter has gradually reduced to 11% in 1992. In 1993, the import tariff is a cost of CH$5,750.9. In addition, customs expenses amount to CH$1,568.9, and the custom agent charged CH$ 104.6. The next step is to examine costs associated with the marketing chain. Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Table 1 account for these costs. Three costs are reported for Chilean wheat: transportation costs from the port in San Antonio to Santiago; a letter of credit, and financing cost to purchase the commodity. For 1993, transportation costs are CH$5,444.7, the letter of credit is CH$539.5, and the financing costs to purchase, transport, process and distribute the wheat amount to CH$1,532.7. Finally, in many cases after accounting for all the costs, a difference still exists between the border equivalent and the domestic price. Market structure is the main cause of the difference between the two prices. Therefore, to account for these differences, an adjustment is made in section 4. In 1993, the adjustment was CH$2,567.5. It is important to note that with this adjustment the border equivalent price with intervention (section 5) will equal the domestic price reported in section 6. In Section 6 the appropriate domestic prices are selected. In 1993, the domestic price was CH$69,790.0. The NPR estimates appear in section 7. To calculate the NPR for 1993, the difference between the domestic and border equivalent price ($CH69,790.0 - $CH61,471.6 = CH$8,318.4) is divided by the border equivalent price. The estimate for 1993 is 13.5%. Chapter 2 discusses the results. Effective Protection Rate (EPR) In most cases, trade policy extends beyond output prices and into the input markets. The Effective Protection Rate (EPR) indicator accounts for these additional interventions. The EPR 3For a comparison of the NPRs with and without the exchange rate misalignment correction for eighteen developing countries, see Schiff and Valdes, "The Political Economy of Agricultural Pricing." 7 measures how trade barriers on a product and its tradable inputs jointly affect value-added in a particular activity. This indicator has the advantage of examining the resource allocation effect of a tariff structure. Previous work has shown that the same tariff (or NPR) can imply different Effective Rates of Protection, depending on the level of taxation on the imported inputs and on their importance in the production process. By including inputs, the EPR becomes a more encompassing instrument and, at the same time, more difficult to calculate. Inputs are often subject to both tariffs and quantitative restrictions. Product quality and defining an appropriate border price for a direct price comparison can be a problem. This study considers the principal purchased inputs including fertilizers, chemicals, seed, and the cost of operating farm machinery and equipment (tractors, combines, milking equipment, plows and fuel consumption). Calculation of the EPR is very similar to that of the NPR. Instead of being a ratio of the output prices, as is the NPR, the EPR is a ratio of the value-added at domestic prices (intervention) to value-added at world prices (without intervention). Value-added is defined as the value of output less input costs. The formula for the EPR for commodity i is the following: EPI=VA~ VA w'E,0 VArEO where VAd and VAW are value-added at domestic and world prices, and EB is the appropriate exchange rate. Interpretation of the EPR is similar to the NPR. For positive EPRs, the returns eamed through the activity with intervention are greater than those earned without intervention. For negative EPRs, the reverse is true. Finally, for EPRs equal to zero, the protection factor is neutral and the returns are the same. Since EPRs are, in fact, NPRs which have been extended to include inputs, similar behavior between the two indicators is expected under certain conditions. For example, if the inputs are a small proportion of the value of output, calculating the EPR is of little value. Although the EPR provides more information, it also contains biases because of input substitution possibilities. In practice, however, these biases tend to be ignored because elasticities of substitution are virtually impossible to obtain. Again, an actual EPR calculation illustrates the above discussion (see Table 2). The commodity depicted is, once again, the importable wheat in 1993. Section 1 contains both the domestic and border equivalent price of 1 ton of wheat. The domestic price is CH$69,790 and the border equivalent price is CH$61,471. It is important to 8 TABLE 2 Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Country: Chile Type: Importable Commodity: Wheat (irrigated) Level: Farm 1984 i85 1286 MI2 198 1989 l99O 1221 2 19 3 1. OUTPUT Domestic Price Per Ton 18,400 25,250 33,750 33,000 35,250 43,750 42,638 56,229 67,051 69,790 QuantitV # of Tons 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Value at Domestic Prices 18,400 25,250 33,750 33,000 35,250 43,750 42,638 56.229 67,051 69,790 Border Price Equivalent Per Ton 15,333 22,305 21,903 27,644 39,243 46.837 43,218 39,254 50,391 61,471 Quantity lof Tons 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Value at Border Price Equivalent 15,333 22,305 21,903 27,644 39,243 46,837 43,218 39,254 50.391 61,471 2. TRADABLE DIRECT INPUTS Urea Quantity Kg Per Ton 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Domestic Price S Per Kg 43.43 46.17 34.75 44.80 69.70 56.12 83.81 94.25 99.24 98.04 Domestic Cost $ Per Ton 2,171.7 2,308.5 1.737.5 2,240.0 3,485.0 2,806.0 4,190.7 4,712.7 4,962.0 4,902.0 Border Price Eq. Price $ Per Kg 39.62 38.81 31.14 38.43 65.67 50.55 78.24 87.90 93.77 91.49 Border Price Eq. Cost S Per Ton 1,980.8 1,940.7 1,557.1 1,921.6 3,283.6 2,527.7 3,912.1 4,394.9 4,688.4 4,574.7 Phosphate Quantity Kg Per Ton 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 Domestic Price S Per Kg 35.67 38.34 42.17 56.10 63.40 63.36 78.98 82.80 87.2 87.27 Domestic Cost $ Per Ton 970.1 1,042.8 1.146.9 1,525.9 1,724.5 1,723.4 2,148.3 2,252.2 2,371.8 2,373.7 Border Price Eq. Price S Per Kg 32.05 33.16 37.57 50.14 58.20 56.86 72.59 76.45 81.76 81.41 Border Price Eq. Cost S Per Ton 871.7 902.0 1,022.0 1,363.9 1,582.9 1,546.5 1,974.5 2,079.4 2,223.8 2,214.3 Herbicide Quantity Kg Per Ton 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Domestic Price 4 Per Kg 2,940 4,167 4,400 5,560 7,328 6,983 8,430 9.052 9,840 8,900 Domestic Cost S Per Ton 979.9 1,388.8 1,466.5 1,853.1 2,442.3 2,327.4 2,809.6 3,017.0 3,279.7 2,966.4 Border Price Eq. Price $ Per Kg 2,787 3,916 4,100 5,219 6,946 6,568 7,955 8,643 9.483 8,509 Border Price Eq. Cost $ Per Ton 928.8 1,305.4 1.366.5 1,739.4 2,315.2 2,189.0 2,651.5 2,880.9 3,160.7 2,836.2 Insecticide Quantity Kg Per Ton 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Domestic Price S Per Kg 917 1,100 1,350 1,620 1,767 2,090 2,520 2,654 2,895 2,895 Domestic Cost S Per Ton 153.1 183.7 225.5 270.5 295.1 349.0 420.9 443.1 483.5 483.5 Border Price Eq. Price S Per Kg 843 980 1,206 1,456 1,584 1,890 2,293 2,509 2,758 2,745 Border Price Eq. Cost $ Per Ton 140.8 163.6 201.4 243.2 264.6 315.7 382.9 419.0 460.6 458.4 Total Direct Inputs (Domestic Prices) 4,274.8 4,923.7 4,576.4 5,889.6 7,946.9 7,205.8 9,569.5 10,425.0 11,097.0 10,725.6 Total Direct Inputs (Border Price) 3,922.2 4,311.8 4,147.0 5,268.1 7,446.3 6,578.8 8,921.1 9,774.2 10,533.6 10,083.7 Source: Surveillance Project, 1995 TABLE 2 (cont.) Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Country: Chile Type: Importable Commodity: Wheat (irrigated) Level: Farm 3. TRADABLE INDIRECT INPUTS Plow Quantity Kg Per Ton 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Domestic Price $ Per Kg 1,666 1,833 1,950 2,075 2.222 2,559 2,775 2,775 3,212 3,620 Domestic Cost $ Per Ton 666.3 733.2 780.0 830.0 888.9 1,023.6 1,109.8 1,109.8 1,284.9 1,448.1 Border Price Eq. Price 0 Per Kg 1,454 1,581 1,763 1,876 2,073 2,395 2,578 2,591 3,059 3,459 Border Price Eq. Cost 8 Per Ton 581.7 632.3 705.2 750.4 829.4 958.2 1,031.4 1,036.4 1,223.7 1,383.7 Harrow Quantity Kg Per Ton 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 Domestic Price S Per Kg 1,666 1,833 2,400 2,700 3,040 3,320 3,771 3,771 4,366 4,921 Domestic Cost $ Per Ton 449.8 494.9 648.0 729.0 820.7 896.4 1,018.2 1,018.2 1,178.8 1,328.6 Border Price Eq. Price 0 Per Kg 1,435 1,548 2,184 2,467 2.861 3,122 3,535 3,547 4,178 4,721 Border Price Eq. Cost 6 Per Ton 387.6 418.0 589.6 666.0 772.5 843.0 954.4 957.8 1,128.0 1,274.8 Seeding Quantity Kg Per Ton 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Domestic Price $ Per Kg 1.500 1,833 2,150 2,680 2,866 2,956 3,127 3,127 3,667 4,133 Domestic Cost $ Per Ton 374.9 458.2 537.5 670.0 716.6 739.0 781.8 781.8 916.8 1,033.2 Border Price Eq. Price $ Per Kg 1,160 1,360 1,764 2,249 2,516 2,561 2,658 2,672 3,275 3,714 Border Price Eq. Cost S Per Ton 290.0 340.1 441.1 562.2 628.9 640.3 664.4 667.9 818.9 928.4 Harvesting Quantity Kg Per Ton 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 Domestic Price 0Per Kg 3,876 5,142 5.743 6,111 7,866 8,590 9,700 9,817 11,366 12,809 Domestic Cost 6 Per Ton 839.8 1,114.1 1,244.4 1,324.1 1,704.4 1,861.2 2,101.7 2,127.0 2,462.6 2,775.3 Border Price Eq. Price $ Per Kg 3,272 4,101 4,805 5,016 6,913 7,500 8,411 8,534 10,240 11,592 Border Price Eq. Cost S Per Ton 708.9 888.6 1,041.2 1,086.8 1,497.7 1,625.0 1,822.4 1,849.1 2,218.7 2,511.6 Total Indirect Inputs (Domestic Prices) 2,330.8 2,800.4 3,209.9 3,553.1 4,130.6 4,520.2 5,011.6 5,036.9 5,843.1 6,585.2 Total Indirect Inputs (Border Price) 1,968.2 2,279.1 2,777.0 3,065.4 3,728.5 4,066.5 4,472.5 4,511.2 5.389.3 6,098.4 4. VALUE ADDED Direct Inputs Only At Domestic Prices 14,125.2 20,326.3 29,173.6 27,110.4 27,303.1 36,544.2 33,068.4 45,803.8 55,953.9 59,064.4 At International Prices 11,410.5 17,992.7 17,756.0 22,375.5 31,796.9 40,258.2 34,297.1 29,479.3 39,857.6 51,387.4 Direct & Indirect Inputs At Domestic Prices 11,794.4 17,525.9 25,963.7 23,557.4 23,172.5 32,024.0 28,056.8 40,766.9 50,110.8 52,479.3 At International Prices 9,442.3 15,713.7 14,979.0 19,310.1 28,068.4 36,191.7 29,824.6 24,968.1 34,468.3 45,289.0 5. EPR 24.9% 11.5% 73.3% 22.0% -17.4% -11.5% -5.9% 63.3% 45.4% 15.9% Source: Surveillance Project, 1995 note how these two prices are derived. Referring back to Table 1 the two prices can be found in Section 5. Their ratio minus 1 is the NPR. In effect, the concept of EPR starts where that of the NPR ends (the relationship between the domestic and border output price) and expands the NPR concept to include input prices (both domestic and border). The example incorporates four tradable direct inputs into the calculation (see Section 2 of the table). The direct tradable inputs used are urea, phosphate, herbicides and insecticides. The domestic and border prices are shown along with a technical coefficient for each input. The technical coefficient is the amount of input needed to produce I unit of output. For wheat the unit is I ton. Using 1993 as an illustration, it required 50 kgs of urea, 27.2 kg of phosphate, .33 It of herbicide and .17 It of insecticide to produce 1 ton of wheat. Each of these inputs is valued at both its domestic cost (CH$98.04 per kg for urea) and border cost (CH$91.49 per kg for urea). The sum of the direct tradable inputs valued at their domestic prices is CH$10,725.6 and at border prices is CH$10,083.7. In Section 3, the tradable indirect inputs take into account the cost of machinery and equipment used for plowing, harrowing, seeding and harvesting. Section 3 follows the same format as section 2. Combined, section 2 and 3 will add up to the cost of the inputs in producing I ton of wheat. Using the year 1993 for illustration purposes, the use of a tractor and plow for .4 hours, tractor and harrow for .27 hours, tractor and seeder for .25 hours, and a harvester for .22 hours were required to produce I ton of wheat. Each of these inputs were valued at both their domestic cost (CH$3,620 per hour for plowing) and border cost (CH$3,459 per hour for plowing). The sum of the indirect tradable inputs valued at domestic prices is CH$6,585.2 and at border prices is CH$6,098.4. Section 4 tabulates value-added at both domestic and border equivalent prices. Value- added at domestic prices is the domestic price of output per ton, less the sum of the four directly tradable and four indirectly tradable inputs valued at their domestic price. Value-added at border equivalent prices is the border equivalent price of the output (determined from NPR calculations) less the sum of the same inputs valued at border equivalent prices. For 1993, the value of I ton of wheat at domestic prices is CH$69,790 and CH$61,471 at border equivalent prices. The sum of the costs (tradable direct and indirect) valued at domestic prices is CH$17,310.8 (CH$10,725.6 + CH$6,585.2). The same costs valued at border prices is CH$16,162.1 (CH$10,063.7 + $6,098.4). Therefore, value-added at domestic prices CH$52,479.3, and at border prices is $45,289. Section 5 shows the calculations for the EPRs. For 1993, the EPR is the difference between value-added at domestic and border prices (CH$52,479.3 - CH$45,289 = CH$7,190.3), divided by value-addet3 at border prices. The EPR resulting from this calculation is 15.9%. Chapter 2 discusses the results. 11 Producer Subsidy Equivalent (PSE) Governments intervene in a variety of ways in an attempt to assist agricultural producers. Although price interventions represent an important form of assistance, non-price measures could be important as well. The PSE can be defined as compensation to farmers for the loss of income resulting from the removal of domestic agricultural policy measures at a given level of production. Specifically, it is the sum of net output market support, input subsidies, marketing/transport/storage subsidies, deficiency payments, and non-price transfers (research, extension, irrigation)4. Expressed as a sum, the PSE is an absolute aggregate monetary figure and can be calculated both for individual commodities or as an overall sector PSE. However, to make the PSE comparable across commodities and countries, the aggregate PSE should be expressed as a ratio. The PSE is then a ratio of policy transfers compared to the total value of domestic production (valued at domestic prices). The formula for the PSE for commodity i is as follows: ((P pdP_wEJ)Q,)+f((pj -psjwE.)TCijQW)+ DP,+ NPTi PSEi,-P pdQ where pd and pW are the domestic and world price of commodity i, p and p w are the domestic and world prices of inputj for commodity i, TC is the technical coefficient of inputj for commodity i, Q is the total production of commodity i, DP and NPT are the deficiency payments and non-price transfers payable to producers of commodity i, and Eo is the exchange rate. In addition to price interventions, this instrument can capture a variety of non-border types of assistance to producers. Non-border transfers cover a range of expenditures, from agricultural research and extension, public investment in irrigation, and credit subsidies, to broader benefits like tax concessions. The PSE herein covers only those public expenditures allocated to the specific commodities being analyzed.5 As a measure of iso-income rather than a unit subsidy at a given level of output, the PSE is a lump-sum budgetary substitute for both price transfers (as measured by EPR) and non-price transfers. The net income of farmers from transfers through the output and input market remains unchanged. It is important to note that this definition differs from other estimates because non-price transfers have not been included in the denominator. Our decision not to include non-price transfers is based on our opinion that farm income, as perceived by the agriculture sector and many government census departments, does not include government expenditure on research and extension, and irrigation. 4 For a more detailed explanation of the PSE, see GATT, "Quantitative Measurement of Support: The PSE", Technical Paper 87-1315 (Geneva, Switzerland: GATT), September 8, 1987. 5 The coverage of the non-price transfers can differ arnongst various studies. For a discussion on this see Tim Josling and Stefan Tangerman, "Measuring Levels of Protection in Agriculture: A Survey of Approaches and Results" in Agicultue and Governments in an Interdcpendent World: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of Agricultural Economists= edited by A. Maunders and A. Valdes (Brookfield, VT: Gower Publishing Co, 1990). 12 TABLE 3 STANDARIZED FORMAT PRODUCER SUBSIDY EQUIVALENT Country: Chile Type: Importable Commodity: Wheat Level: Farm 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Market Value of Output Output (Thousands of Tons) 1,165 1,626 1,874 1,734 1,766 1,718 1,589 1,557 Price Per Ton ICH$) 25,250 33,750 33,000 35,250 43,750 42,638 56,229 67,051 Total Market Value of Output (Millions CH$) 29,416 54.878 61,842 61,124 77,263 73,251 89,328 104,398 Assistance (Millions CH$): Market Price Support 3,431 19,261 10,039 (6.925) (5,450) (997) 26.968 25,932 Tariff (Subsidies) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Input Policies (1,234) (1,271) (1,886) (1,379) (1,689) (1,809) (1,678) (1,417) Credit Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Research & Extension 661 718 737 1,098 1,321 1,261 1,412 3,436 Total Assistance 2,858 18,708 8,890 (7,206) (5,818) (1,545) 26,702 27,951 Producer Subsidy Equivalent 9.7% 34.1% 14.4% -11.8% -7.5% -2.1% 29.9% 26.8% Source: Surveillance Project, LA TAD, 1995 Interpretation of the PSE is similar to the other indicators. A positive PSE reflects that the producer is receiving positive income transfers. A negative PSE means the producer is being taxed. Zero PSE implies a neutral policy. Unfortunately, the PSE reflects the costs of providing assistance (non-price interventions), and not the actual benefits received by farmers. Thus, the PSE will be inflated by the difference between cost of the program and actual benefit received by producers (the difference being the costs of administration), and the amount of inflation is determined by the government's efficiency in providing the benefits to the producers. Table 3 illustrates a calculation of the PSE for Chilean wheat. It has two parts. The top section displays a calculation of the total market value at domestic prices. The lower section, 'Assistance', lists the per year cost of the various government transfers. For wheat, this includes market support (tax), a tax on inputs, and research and extension. The results are located at the bottom of the table. For a numerical example, refer to the year 1992. Production of wheat was 1,557,000 tons and the domestic price was CH$67,051 per ton. Thus, the total market value of wheat in 1992 was CH$104,398 million. Transfers included market price support of CH$25,932 million, an input tax of CH$1,417 million, and research and extension of CH$3,436 million. The total of all the transfers divided by the total market value (at domestic prices) of wheat yields a PSE of 26.8%. Effective Rate of Assistance (ERA) The Effective Rate of Assistance (ERA) is conceptually close to the PSE and the EPR. It is similar to the PSE in that it attempts to capture non-price as well as price assistance, but is dissimilar in that the ERA measures effects on value-added. The ERA is the difference in domestic and international aggregate value-added prices added to transfers from marketing, transport and storage subsidies, deficiency payments, and non-price transfers (research, extension, irrigation) relative to aggregate international value-added prices. The ERA can be defined as the percentage change in returns per unit of output to an activity's value-adding factors due to the entire assistance structure;6 ((VA -VA1wEO)Q,)+ DPi+ NPTi ER,U=- - VAI'v&Q, where VAd and VAW are value-added per unit of output for commodity i at domestic and world prices, Q is the total production of commodity i, DP and NPT are the deficiency payments and non- price transfers payable to producers of commodity i, and Eo is the exchange rate. The ERA represents the broadest indicator of protection used in the study. This means, however, that the data required for calculations are difficult to obtain and manipulate. 6 For a reference on the origin and concept of the ERA, see GATT, "Effective Rate of Assistance and Related Methods," Technical Bulletin UR-89-0392 (Geneva, Switzerland: GATT), November 20, 1989. 14 Interpretation of the ERA is much the same as the other indicators of protection. A positive ERA indicates government intervention in favor of the producer. A negative ERA indicates that the producer is being penalized. A zero ERA implies that government interventions have little effect in either direction. Table 4 uses the importable wheat as an example. Section 1 estimates output assistance. Total assistance for the ERA is measured using a monetary absolute. In this case, total output is multiplied by both the domestic and border price equivalent giving the total revenue with and without intervention. Using the year 1992 as an example, total output is 1.56 million tons while the domestic and border equivalent prices are CH$67,051 and CH$50,391 respectively. Total output assistance will be total output value at domestic prices less total output value at border equivalent prices. In section 2, input assistance is estimated using the same methodology as output assistance. Cultivated area or output is multiplied by the appropriate technical coefficient. This figure is then multiplied by the domestic price and the international price of the input to obtain an estimate of total output cost. In the case of Chile eight inputs were used in the calculation: urea, phosphate, herbicide, insecticide, and the tradable component of plowing, harrowing, seeding, and harvesting. Sixteen estimates of total individual input cost were calculated, eight at domestic prices and eight at border equivalent prices. For an example, refer to the input urea during 1992; presented in the first line of this section is the technical coefficient of 50 kg of urea needed to produce one ton of wheat. The second line represents the total amount of urea needed to produce 1.56 million tons of wheat (technical coefficient multiplied by the annual production for 1992). Thus, the total amount of urea used in 1992 was 78 million tons. The total value of urea at domestic and border prices is then calculated. The domestic price per ton is CH$99.24 and the border price per ton is CH$93.77. By multiplying these prices per ton by the amount of urea used, the total value of urea valued at the domestic price (CH$7,724 million) and at the border price (CH$7,298 million) can be calculated. Each of the above steps is carried out for all eight of the inputs. Section 3 illustrates non-price assistance. Data for this frequently comes from government budget data and are aggregate totals allocated to a specific commodity. As a result, money absolutes are used in many cases. During the time period of the study, two programs existed in Chile. The first is a transfer based on research and extension. The second is a subsidy to commercialize wheat. In 1992, CH$3,436 million was transferred through research and extension, and CH$219 million was transferred through the wheat commercialization program. The composite value-added calculation at both domestic and border equivalent prices is shown in Section 4. In 1992, aggregate value-added at domestic prices was CH$84,581 and at border prices CH$56,412. Section 5 shows the calculated ERA. In the above example, dividing CH$84,581 by CH$56,412, and subtracting one yields an ERA for wheat of 49.9% in 1992. 15 TABLE 4 Standardized Format Effective Rate of Assistance Country: Chita Type: Importable Cotmmodity: Wheat Level: Farm 1. OUTPUT ASSISTANCE Tota Output Millions of Tons 1.16 1.63 1.87 1.73 1.77 1.72 1.59 1.56 Doomestic Price CH$ Per Ton 25,250 33,750 33,000 35,250 43,750 42.638 568229 67,051 Total Output Value at Domestic Prioes Millions of CH5 29,406 54,871 61,846 61.131 77,242 73.261 89,329 104,371 Int.rnational Price CH$ P.r Ton 22,305 21.903 27,644 39.243 46,837 43,218 39.254 50,391 Total Output Value at International Pric Millions of CH9 25,978 35.610 51,607 68,055 82,692 74.256 62.361 78,438 2. INPUT ASSISTANCE Total Output MilSon of Tons .1e 1.63 1.87 1.73 1.77 1.72 1.59 1.56 Ursa Inputs Use Kg Per Ton of Output 50.0 50.0 50.0 SO.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 60.0 Inpurs's Total Use Millions of Kg 58 61 94 87 as 86 79 78 Domestic Price Par Kg 46.17 34.75 44.80 69.70 56.12 83.81 94.25 99.24 fnpuFt Total Value@ Domestic Pric Milins of CH9 2,689 2.825 4,198 6,044 4,954 7,200 7,487 7,724 tnternationel Price Par Kg 38.81 31.14 38.43 65.67 50.55 78.24 97.90 93.77 Input's Total Value@ Int.raational Millions of CH 2,260 2,532 3,601 5,694 4,463 6,722 6,982 7.298 PhoSohate Input's Use Per Kg Per Ton of Output 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 Inputs's Totl1 Usa Millions of Kg 32 44 51 47 48 47 43 42 Domestic Price Par Kg 38 42 56 63 63 79 83 87 Input's Total Value@ Domestic Pric Millions of CHR 1,215 1,865 2,860 2.991 3,043 3,691 3,578 3,692 Intarnational Pric Per Kg 33 38 60 58 57 73 76 82 Input's ToVal.Values fo ernratinal Millions of CH8 1,051 1.662 2,556 2,745 2,730 3,393 3,303 3,462 Herbicide inputs Use Per Lt Per Ton of Output 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Inputs's Total Use Millions of Lt 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Domestic Price Par Lt 4,167 4.400 5,560 7.328 6,983 8,430 9,052 9.840 Input's Total ValueQ Domestic Pric Millions f CH* 1,617 2.384 3,473 4,235 4,109 4,828 4.793 5,10l Internationl Price Par Lt 3,916 4,100 5.219 6,946 6.568 7.955 8,643 9,483 Input's Total Value@ f Iternetrunl Millions of CH9 1,520 2.222 3,260 4,015 3,865 4,556 4,577 4,920 Insecticide Input's Use P.r Lt Par Ton of Output 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Inputs's Totel Use Millions of Lt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Domestic Price Per Lt 1100.00 1350.00 1620.00 1767.24 2089.66 2520.34 2653.56 289500 Input's Total Value@ Domestic Pric Millions of CHR 214 367 507 512 616 723 704 753 International Price Per Lt 979.90 1205.96 1456.19 1584.29 1890.35 2292.70 2509.21 2758.21 Input's Total Value Internadional Millions of CH$ 191 327 456 459 557 658 666 717 1.,b1 Input's Use Per Inputs's Total Use Dom,sric Pric. input's Total Value@ Domestic Prices 2,362 3,977 4,768 4,788 6,819 6,023 6,411 6,390 Inrernet-nal Pric Inputs Toal Value nern.tional Prices 1,841 3,402 3,926 4.186 5,134 5,132 4,538 5,630 3. NON-PRICE ASSISTANCE Direct Payments Credit Subidi.a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tae Eoemptions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rese rch & Entansion 881 718 737 1,098 1,321 1,261 1,412 3.436 Other Commericalizee WhretTravels 0 3 120 90 103 197 232 219 ___________ ~~ ~~~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. VALUE ADDED Aseretd Val Added lOomD stiPricel 21,993 44,178 47,018 43,839 60.228 52,450 659232 84,581 Unassisted Value Added llnrernainal Pricsl 19,115 25,466 38,008 50,958 65,943 53.798 42,297 56,412 5. ERA 15.1% 73.5% 23.7% -14.0% -8.7% 2.5% 63.7% 49.9% a. Due to spac limitations. the indireft tradabies plowing, harroing, seding, and haroesting hens been combined into a single figure. b. Inputs and technicil coaficiants used bove ar for irrigated wheat. ncluded in this lin is an adjustment for nn.-irrigard what. Source: Surveillance Project, LA TAD, 1995 CHAPTER 2 PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Overview A summary of the protection indicators for Chile is shown in Tables 5 and 6. For a more detailed account of the calculations for the NPR, EPR and PSE, see the standardized worksheets in the Appendix. Table 5 presents a composite, exportable and importable weighted annual average of the four protection indicators. The weights are the total revenue of the commodity (valued at domestic prices) relative to the aggregate value of all commodities included in this study. The general tren is no subsidies or taxes imposed on exportables. and importables show declining protection from 1985 to 1990. After 1990 protection rises. Most of the increase in the levels of protection from 1991 to 1992 can be attributed to the implementation of price bands on importables and a decline in 1991 world prices (see figure 2d through 7d). These trends are evident in all of the protection indicators. TIhe agricultural sector was taxed slightly through the input market because inputs were subject to the import tariff and non-price transfers do not significantly contribute to producers' incomes, Table 6 shows the protection estimates by commodity. In the last three years NPRs have ranged from a high of 56.5% (see sugarbeets in 1992) to a low of -9.8% ( see beef in 1991). The exportable commodities in Chile are unique in that the producer/exporter is not subject to an export tax. As a result, no protection exists and the coefficients are zero. The importable NPRs follow a pattern characteristic of importables -- positive protection. Milk and sugarbeets have consistently demonstrated positive protection. Protection indicators for beef, maize and wheat display volatility in the NPRs. Fluctuations in border prices, market structure, quality differences and government intervention (price bands) all play a role in this volatility. Inputs can influence the protection indicators (EPR, PSE and ERA) in two ways: first, the input market can be characterized by higher domestic prices relative to the border prices. The reason for higher domestic prices in Chile is an annual import tariff on all inputs. Second, the relative share of tradable inputs in total cost also affects the input market. Table 1 in the appendix illustrates this relationship by commodity. The exportables, in this case fruits, are characterized by low input shares in the range of 13-21%. Thus, the import tariff has little influence on the resulting EPR, and the NPR and EPR are similar. On the other hand, the importables have a larger share (in the range of 20-43%). As a result, a greater difference exists between the NPRs and EPRs due to both the larger share of cost and the import tariff. Commodities are analyzed individually and in more detail later in this chapter (wheat is on page 30). However, due to its importance within the agricultural sector and its long history of 17 intervention (including price bands), summary of the results for wheat is presented here. Figure 7b shows positive protection for most of the period of study. The exception was 1988-1990 when Chile was self-sufficient and the floor price of the price band was not binding. In recent years imports have grown and positive protection existed. Table 7c in the appendix shows that a substantial increase in the relative importance of output price support was experienced in 1991- 1992 compared to 1987-1991. Out of a total transfer of CH$27.951 million (PSE of 26.8%), output price support added CH$25.932 million to the gross income of wheat growers (out of a total value of production of CH$104.398 million at domestic prices or CH$78.459 million at border prices) in 1992. Table I in the appendix also shows the average output price, cost and returns expressed in monetary absolutes (current U.S. dollars). The effect of policies on returns on land, labor and capital is expressed using the EPR. Table 5 shows a slight taxation of producers of exportables through the input market. This trend is in contrast to the substantial subsidy given to producers of importables (mostly the food crops). Sugarbeet producers, followed by milk and beef, captured the highest price related subsidies on a subsidy per ton basis. As reflected by the PSEs, exportables generally have had very small transfers.7 Importables, on the other hand, have consistently had high and positive PSEs which were the direct result of price intervention rather than non-border related transfers. Maize and wheat PSE estimates are volatile and correspond closely in direction and magnitude to the NPR. The close association between the NPR and the PSE means that the major transfer in these two commodities was due to direct price intervention. The ERA closely corresponds to the EPR in all commodities, and this close association between the two indicators means non-price transfers insignificantly contributed to producers' incomes. Who Received the Hidden Income Transfer? The question remains as to which agricultural commodities benefited from the trade regimes in place during the time period of the study. Previous measures of the EPR and PSE reported the transfer per unit of output. Here we present both the absolute monetary value of the transfer for each commodity and the transfer per unit (see table below). Figures Ia, lb and table 8 show the total transfers to exportables and importables. Taken together, these two graphs and table illustrate which products have benefited most from the trade regime. With the exception of 1989, the exportables (see figure Ia) have received very little in the way of transfers when compared to the importables. The importables (see figure lb) milk, wheat, sugarbeets and especially beef all received sizable positive transfers during the period 1985-1987. In the peak year, 1986, the beef sub-sector benefited from a US$80.6 million transfer while wheat, milk and sugarbeets received US$93.2, US$71.3, and US$60.4 million in transfers (see table 8). This trend changed, however, after 1987. By 1992, however, all importable were receiving positive transfers again. Milk and sugarbeets were the only commodities that received positive assistance throughout the entire period 7The one exception was 1989 when fruit exports from Chile were banned in the U.S. due to the discovery of cyanide in a sample of two grapes. 18 of the study. These findings indicate that milk and beef producers have gained the most while the others profited only slightly. Various monetary per MT measures by commodity are presented in the table below. The first line shows the domestic price per MT of the commodity. These figures are included for comparative purposes. The second line is the most important. This row shows the actual transfer per MT of the commodity produced (in US dollars). When compared to the domestic price, one can see how important, in monetary terms, the transfer is to the producer. The third line shows the PSE expressed as a percentage of production valued at domestic prices. Once again, this line is included for comparative purposes. As an example, the exportable red apples has an average domestic price per MT of $US279 for 1991-1992. The transfer paid per ton of red apples was $US 0.33; in this case, a very small tax is paid by the producers. Wheat producers received an average price of $US173 per MT in 1991-1992. The total transfer per ton to growers as measured by the PSE calculation was $US43.49. Most of this was in the form of price-related transfers. See appendix tables 2(c,g,k,o) and 3d-7d for more details concerning the composition of the PSEs for all the individual commodities in local currencies. 1991-92 Average Price and PSE Measures (Current US Dollars) Red J Green Thompson Red Beef Maize Milk Sugarbeet Wheat Apple Apple Grape Grape Domestic $279 $234 $509 $655 $2,150 $137 $185 $51.50 $173 Price (MT) I PSE Per -$.33 -$.34 -$3.24 -$3.23 $101.76 -$2.72 $54.49 $15.73 $43.49 M TIIIIIIII PSE (%) -.2% -.4% -.7% -.5% 4.1% -2.4% 30.2% 31.3% 28.4% Note: PSE (°) are calculatedfrom appendix tables 2(c,g,ko) and 3c-7c, and are based on total transfers and value of production. The results cannot be duplicated using information provided in this table. NPRs and Import Tariffs Table 7 compares the NPR and tariffs/export taxes for 1991 and 1992. The exports do not have an export tax whereas the importables had a 13.0% and 11.0% ad-valorem tariff in 1991 and 1992 respectively. A comparison of the NPRs and tariffs for importables shows very little correlation between the two. Milk, sugar and wheat show NPRs much higher than the tariffs while beef and maize each exhibit a situation in one year were the tariff is positive and the NPR is negative. For maize, this has been attributed to market structure. Real Prices Have Fallen During the 1990s Almost all tradable crops faced higher real prices during the second half of the 1980s. Underlying these higher real prices were four main factors: (a) a higher real exchange rate, (b) 19 higher import tariffs, (c) the protection provided by the price band system implemented in 1983 for wheat, sugar and edible oil, and (d) the additional protection of wheat through the operations of COTRISA. The period 1990-1992 witnessed a reversal from this positive trend. The real exchange rate declined by 12% (as compared to 1985-89) and the border prices of most products declined in 1991 and 1992. As a consequence, virtually all real prices for crops and exportables declined during 1990-1992, compared with 1985-1989. At the same time, real wages in rural areas during were considerably higher 1990-1992 than those prevailing in the mid-1980s. Thus, most crops and fruits faced lower profitability in the early 1 990s. 20 TABLE 5. Chilean Weighted Average Protection Indicators 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 COMPOSITE Wt. Ave. NPR 36.6 44.5 26.7 16.1 9.6 -0.7 13.2 26.7 Wt. Ave. EPR 96.0 92.6 55.6 20.8 8.3 -3.7 18.1 36.5 Wt. Ave. PSE 18.8 31.8 16.5 9.4 10.1 -3.6 7.8 18.8 Wt. Ave. ERA 98.6 95.1 57.3 22.1 17.1 -2.7 21.9 39.4 EXPORTABLE Wt. Ave. NPR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wt. Ave. EPR -2.6 -1.4 -1.3 -1.4 -1.7 -1.7 -0.8 -0.7 Wt. Ave. PSE -2.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 40.2 -1.2 -0.6 -0.3 Wt. Ave. ERA -2.2 -1.1 -1.1 -1.2 63.7 -1.6 -0.7 -0.4 IMPORTABLE Wt. Ave. NPR 41.5 52.5 32.7 19.4 10.9 -0.8 16.4 32.3 Wt. Ave. EPR 109.3 109.6 68.3 25.4 9.7 -4.1 22.7 44.2 Wt. Ave. PSE 21.6 37.7 20.4 11.5 6.0 -4.0 9.9 22.7 Wt. Ave. ERA 112.2 112.4 70.4 26.8 10.9 -2.9 27.4 47.6 Source: Surveillance Project, LA TAD, 1995 21 TABLE 6. Chile: Summary of Protection Indicatorsa ----- EXPORTABLES - . - ---------------- -- ------ --------------------- -------- . . ..-.. 1985 196 19 18 i18 19 90 1991 1992 1993(c) Apples, Red NPR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 EPR < 0 -2.1 -1.1 -1.1 < 0 -1.5 -0.6 -0.3 < 0 PSE -27.3 -1.1 -0.7 -0.6 143.8 -0.9 -0.4 0.0 ERA < 0 -1.3 -0.8 0.7 221.9 -1.0 -0.4 -0.1 Apples, Green NPR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 EPR -16.8 *2.5 -1.7 -1.1 < 0 -0.9 1.1 -0.3 < 0 PSE -5.6 -1.6 -1.2 -0.7 138.0 -0.6 -0.7 0.0 ERA -12.2 -2.0 -1.4 -0.8 200.0 -0.7 -0.8 0.0 Grapes, Thompson NPR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 EPR -2.1 -1.1 -1.2 -1.4 -1.9 -2.4 -0.8 -1.6 -1.1 PSE -1.7 -0.9 -1.0 -1.1 23.8 -1.7 -0.7 -0.7 ERA -1.9 -1.0 -1.1 -1.3 40.7 -2.3 -0.8 -1.2 Grapes, Flame Seedless NPR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 EPR -1.0 -1.2 -1.4 -2.1 -2.7 -1.2 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 PSE -0.5 -0.9 -1.0 -1.5 9.5 -1.0 -0.5 -0.4 ERA -0.5 -1.0 -1.2 -1.9 14.8 -1.2 -0.6 -0.5 --------------- IMPORTABLES ---------------- .---------------- ---------------- --- ------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Beef NPR 64.7 60.1 27.2 37.4 28.0 -11.2 -9.8 24.8 30.2 EPR 61.4 56.8 23.7 33.7 24.3 -16.0 -13.0 21.5 26.5 PSE 34.5 32.9 18.8 24.0 19.5 -10.3 -8.8 16.9 ERA 62.6 57.8 24.3 34.4 24.9 -14.7 -12.7 22.6 Maize NPR N.A. -2.7 2.3 7.9 -15.7 -26.2 -5.5 4.5 -2.1 EPR N.A. -13.1 -6.7 9.4 -29.4 -42.7 -13.1 3.7 -7.4 PSE -5.6 -6.2 -2.3 5.2 -21.2 -37.8 -8.0 3.3 ERA N.A. -11.4 -5.1 11.7 -28.4 -42.0 12.2 6.0 Milk NPR 15.6 N.A. 53.4 27.1 15.3 38.9 42.8 42.7 37.4 EPR 15.6 N.A. 70.8 31.7 16.2 44.7 50.2 50.1 42.1 PSE 13.5 100.4 33.9 21.6 13.7 27.5 29.4 31.0 ERA 20.2 N.A. 74.4 35.2 18.6 46.9 52.2 54.2 Sugarbeets NPR 98.5 94.3 78.7 38.3 23.0 6.2 42.4 56.5 37.7 EPR 563.6 424.0 326.4 102.4 45.5 6.1 79.4 123.8 67.9 PSE 45.4 45.5 40.8 25.1 16.1 3.5 27.7 34.8 ERA 570.4 426.9 329.3 104.0 46.6 6.8 80.3 126.0 Wheat (Non-irrigated) NPR 13.2 54.1 19.4 -10.2 -6.6 -1.3 43.2 33.1 13.5 EPR 11.5 68.2 21.0 -15.2 -10.2 -4.6 56.7 41.7 15.4 PSE 9.7 34.1 14.4 -11.8 -7.5 -2.1 29.9 26.8 ERA 15.1 73.5 23.7 -14.0 -8.7 -2.5 63.7 49.9 a. Evaluation at the point of price determination. In most cases, unless otherwise noted. it corresponds to the processing center (mills for grain, auction center for beef. etc-I. b. The high values tor 1989 are the result of the cyanide affair in the U.S.. c. First semester only Source: Surveillance Project, LA TAD, 1995 Figure la. Chilean Agricultural Exports. Income Transfer Due to Price and Non-Price Intervention, 1985-1992. 400- , Red Flame Grapes '& 300- Thompson Grapes a - .° Green Apples E 200- Red Apples C') co m4- 0 -100 -20010= ' A , I ' , 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1993. Figure lb. Chilean Agricultural Imports. Income Transfer Due to Price and Non-Price Intervention, 1985-1992. 400.0 350.0 - 300.0 -*MWheat U Sugarbeets 250.0 - U Milk 03 Maize c O Beef ° 200.0 - cn 150.0 - 0) (50.0) ej IJ i, (1 00.0) - (150.0) 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Source: Surveillance Project, LA TAD, 1995. TABLE 7. Comparison of NPRs with Tariff for Chile. 1991 1992 NPR Tariff (1) NPR Tariff (1) Exportables Apples 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grapes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Importables Beef -9.8 13.0 24.8 11.0 Maize -5.5 13.0 4.5 11.0 Milk 42.8 13.0 42.7 1 1.0 Sugarbeets 42.4 13.0 56.5 11.0 Wheat 43.2 13.0 33.1 11.0 1. In the case of exports, this would be an export tax. The tariff on on imports is an ad-valorem tax. TABLE 8. Chile's Agricultural Income Transfers (Expressed in Current US$ Millions) Total Assistance Across All Commodities (By Program) 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Market Price Support 153.4 311.7 176.8 99.7 122.9 (34.5) 114.1 265.1 Market Subsidies 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Input Policies (22.3) (17.9) (20.0) (14.9) (17.6) (16.7) (15.0) (13.0) Credit Assistance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Research & Extension 6.3 5.7 4.3 6.3 7.0 5.3 5.2 13.0 Total Assistance 137.3 299.4 161.1 91.0 112.2 (45.9) 104.2 265.0 Total Assistance Across All Commodities (By Commodity) Red Apples (0.2) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) 17.2 (0.2) (0.2) 0.04 Green Apples (0.2) (0.3) (0.3) (0.2) 14.4 (0.2) (0.1) (0.01) Thompson Grapes (1.2) (0.8) (0.9) (0.9) 21.1 (1.3) (0.9) (0.4) Red Flame Grapes (0.0) (0.1) (0.3) (0.4) 2.5 (0.5) (0.3) (0.2) Beef 76.2 80.6 50.6 73.0 70.7 (38.4) (39.9) 75.0 Maize (5.0) (4.7) (1.4) 4.2 (25.1) (41.4) (9. 1) 3.9 Milk 9.4 71.3 29.6 22.7 19.7 41.7 48.1 59.1 Sugarbeets 44.8 60.4 46.9 26.7 18.6 3.6 34.4 63.2 Wheat 13.7 93.2 37.2 (33.9) (26.7) (9.2) 72.4 64.5 Total Assistance 137.3 299.4 161.1 91.0 112.2 (45.9) 104.2 265.0 Source: Surveiance Project, LA TAD, The Worild Bank, 1995 Individual Commodities Fruits The study's coverage included Thompson and Red Flame Seedless Grapes, and Red and Green Apples. However, since the markets and behavior of the protection indicators are very similar for each product, they are discussed as a group instead of individually. Fruits represent a large and growing export market for Chile. See figures 2a and 2g. Whereas apple exports have leveled off to approximately 350 million MT during the 1986-1990 period, grape exports have continued to grow to a high of 450 million MT in the most recent year reported, 1991. Trade and price intervention (either positive or negative) does not exist in the Chilean domestic fruit market. The domestic price is equal to the international price, adjusted for quality, marketing costs, and transportation. As a result, the NPR (figures 2b,c,h,i) for both grapes and apples is zero. The EPR also exhibits very little intervention. Although the estimate is close to zero, it is consistently negative in the example. This negative bias reflects slightly higher domestic prices for inputs due to an import tariff. For 1992-1993, the import tariff was 11 %. The PSE and ERA, with the exception of 1989, also demonstrate very little intervention for fruits. The year 1989 represents an aberration. In that year the Food and Drug Administration of the United States claimed to have discovered traces of cyanide in a sample of grapes from Chile. As a result, a temporary ban was placed on fruit imports from Chile while additional testing was performed. The loss to growers and exporters, estimated at US$300 million, was compensated for by direct disaster payments from the government. These payments are reflected in the PSEs and ERAs by the larger values for that particular year. For example, the transfer to apple producers totaled CH$8,541 million (see tables A-2c and A-2f) and the transfer to grape producers totaled CH$6,647 million (see tables A-2g and A-21). Beef Chile has continued to increase its imports of beef since 1984 (see figure 3a). In 1991, for example, imports were 9,180 MTs. This figure is considerably higher than the 2,288 MTs reported in the previous year. Although protection is declining, beef has historically been a protected industry (see figure 3b). The NPRs have ranged from a high of 64.7% to a low of -11.2%. The NPR for the most recent year, 1993, is 30.2%. The protection demonstrated by the NPRs is due to two factors. First, a uniform tariff that varies annually is applied to all imports. Second, some quality differences 27 affect international and domestic prices. Chile is the only South American country that has eradicated Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), and therefore does not allow the importation of either live cattle or meat containing bone. Consequently, the domestic price contains a sanitary premrium that is not a part of the international price. These standards, enforced by Chile, mean that two distinct qualities of beef are available on the international market; one potentially with and one without FMD. Very little information is provided by the EPR. The reason for this is that the value of tradable inputs is a very small part of total value-added. Market support is still an important part of the beef market. These support payments are reflected through the value of the PSE. From a high in 1984 of 34.5%, the indicator has declined to -10.3% in 1990. Although in 1992 there is a sharp increase from CH$714 million to Ch$1,956 million in research and extension (see A-3c), the main program affecting the level of the PSE is market support. In 1992. transfers from this program resulted in an increase in income to producers of CH$26,578 million. In the previous year, farmers were taxed CH$14,610 million. Finally, the calculation of the ERA gives no information that is not provided by the EPR. The values for both are very similar. Therefore, non-price transfers are a insignificant source of income to beef producers. Maize Figure 4a shows that imports of maize have increased in recent years to a high of 284,800 MT. Unlike many other LAC countries who use maize as a basic food staple, Chile's primary use is in the poultry and pork industry. Although maize is an importable and has been subject to an import tariff (11% in the years 1992 and 1993), in eight of the 13 years reported it experienced a negative NPR (see figure 4b). Further examination of domestic and world prices yielded the following: prior to 1985 the two prices did not appear to have any connection whereas after 1985 some correlation existed. This behavior of the NPR can be attributed to market structure. There exists considerable concentration in the market for maize among the buyers and Chile is relatively self-sufficient, as shown in figure 4a by the lack of trading in recent years. Since the EPR is generally lower than the NPR, this suggests that producers are taxed through the input market. Input cost relative to the value of output is very high (60% or higher). Since domestic prices for inputs are higher than their international counterparts, the cumulative effect of the higher domestic prices is a lower EPR in many years. The higher domestic price is the result of the uniform import tariff during the period examined. For an example of this relationship, refer to the year 1993 in tables 4a and 4b of the appendix. The NPR for 1993 is -2.1%. However, its corresponding EPR is -7.4%. If the domestic and international input prices are examined the cause of the difference is evident. The domestic price of urea is CH$98.04 per MT, insecticide 28 CH$5,397 per LT, and plowing CH$3,620 per hectare, whereas their corresponding international prices are CH$91.49, CH$5,073 and CH$3,459 respectively. The PSEs are generally near zero with a slightly negative bias. The years 1989 and 1990 are exceptions. Referring to table 4c in the appendix, large negative transfers of CH$5,899 and CH$11,810 million existed for market support. Transfers from input policies and research and extension did not significantly affect the indicator. Milk Figure 5a shows that Chile has been a net importer of milk. In 1990, for example, the country imported 10% of its total consumption. Figure 5b shows the protection indicators. Although the levels vary from year to year, the industry as a whole benefits from protection. This point is exhibited through the NPR which ranges from a high of 74.2% in 1984 to a low of 15.3% in 1989. Since 1990, the NPR has consistently been close to 40%. Closer examination of domestic and world prices reveals that although the two prices change in a similar pattern, they are actually very different. In particular, the difference is attributable to trade policy. Chile has a specific set of rules concerning the price of imported milk. It is a minimum import price scheme that compensates for foreign subsidies. These price setting procedures attempt to establish a non-subsidized border price for milk that becomes the minimum border price in Chile. Since the corrected border price of milk is normally higher than the world price, these compensatory procedures serve as a price support system for the domestic price and help give rise to the positive NPR. In addition to the compensatory procedures, an import tariff is also in existence. In most years, the EPR is slightly higher than the NPR. This reflects the import tariff imposed on all imported goods during the period concerned. The difference is a small one due to the fact that the input share has averaged only 15% for the past six years. The PSE is positive and averages around 34%. From figure 5c, one can see that the majority of the subsidy comes from market support. Finally, the ERA is very close to the EPR. This close association means non-price transfers did not contribute greatly to milk producers' incomes. Sugarbeets Figure 6a reveals that sugar has been consistently imported since 1984. It has benefited from positive protection during this period (figure 6b). This protection, however, has declined from 98.5% in 1985 to near 40% in the last three years. Three factors contribute to this high protection: an import tariff on all imported goods, the application of import surcharges (in 1983 it became a price band system), and the existence of a monopsony, IANSA. IANSA is the sole purchaser and refiner of all domestically produced sugarbeets. This firm is regarded as one of the most efficient processors in the world, and does not appear to seek monopsony rents from producers. However, it 29 does set the price paid to farmers in advance of the harvest season. The reason behind this forward price scheme is to elicit a certain volume of production (acreage) of sugarbeets that will supply processing plants at prices that will cover their cost of processing. The EPR is exceptionally high. This is especially true for the 1983-1988 period. The very high values are a function of the very low world prices during this period. World prices were at such a low level that the value at international prices was almost equal to the world production costs, and as a result, value-added at international prices was very small when compared to value- added at domestic prices. For example, table 6b in the appendix shows value-added at world prices was CH$512.5 per ton. However, the support price program that was in place allowed domestic value-added to be considerably higher at CH$1,605.5. The EPR for the year was 213.2%. As world prices climbed during the second half of the decade the EPR returned to a more reasonable level. The estimate in 1993, although still very high in terms of protection, is a good example of a more reasonable absolute level. Domestically priced value-added was $CH 12,946.6 and internationally priced value-added was CH$7,709. 1. The EPR for this year was 67.9%. The PSE, although declining, reflects a large positive transfer to producers. This is shown in figure 6c where large price support transfers are present. For example, table 6c in the appendix shows that the transfer in 1992 was CH$24,900 million. The ERA is very close to the EPR. As for the other commodities, this means non-price transfers were very small. Wheat Chile has been a consistent importer of wheat until 1987 when it became self-sufficient; beginning in 1991, imports began to increase. With the exception of 1985, imports average around 10,000 MT per year. As expected for an importable, protection has generally been positive. For the period 1991-1993, the NPRs have been 43.2%, 33.1% and 13.5%. The prior three years to this period the NPRs were negative because the country was self-sufficient. The government has had a long history of intervening within the wheat market. Beginning in 1983, a minimum import price was established and sustained through variable import levies. Within the domestic market, COPAGRO, a quasi-government marketing arm, operated in the wholesale wheat market. In 1984, the minimum import scheme was extended into a price band system. With this high degree of intervention, the movements of world and domestic prices have had very little relation with each other (see figure 7d). The EPRs show very little intervention within the input market. The PSE follows the direction and magnitude of the NPR (see figure 7b). The reason for this apparent correlation is that direct price intervention is the most substantial component of the PSE calculation. Since the NPR is designed to measure direct price intervention, the two indicators should behave in a similar manner. Table 7c in the appendix shows that in 1991 and 1992 a substantial increase in the relative importance of output price support occurred when compared to 1987-1991. In 1992, from a total 30 transfer of CH$27.951 million (PSE of 26.8%), output price support added CH$25.932 million to the gross income of wheat growers (out of a total harvested value at CH$104.398 at domestic prices or CH$78.459 at border prices). Research and extension transfers equaled CH$3.436 million while a higher domestic input price (when compared to border prices) reduced producers' revenue by $1.417 million. Fluctuations in the ERA values can be observed of which all movement cannot be attributed to policy interventions. For example, the negative values during 1988-1990 correspond to years of self-sufficiency regarding wheat in Chile, and thus the floor price of the price band was not binding. Without the floor price, the domestic price fell below the import price (and since the ERAs are computed relative to the import price, the resulting protection indicators were negative). Alternatively, the export border price could have been used as a reference during the self-sufficient years; this was rejected, however, since Chile was a net importer for the majority of the time. In addition, the years 1991-92 show a considerable increase in the ERA value; this increase is in part attributable to the fall in the border price (see fig 2a). 31 Figure 2a. Imports / Exports of Apples Figure 2b. Protection Indicators for Chile Red Apples In Chile 400000- 250- 5Imports 200P RA 300000 E Exports 10 2500001 *1 200000- a)10 E 2 oo >0 150000 18 100000- 50000- 0 0-5 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 -501 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 199 0 19 91 1992 Source: FAO Trade Yearbook, various years. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD,1995. Figure 2c. Protection Indicators for Figure 2d. Red Apple Producer's Green Apples in Chile Income Transfers In Chile 250 18- 200- ERA 16-1s PRe.erhiExtenslon 150- Input Policie 12-c * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Prie Support o *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c 10 o 5 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2- EPR ~~~~~~~~~~~~0 1984 18 1986 1987 1688 1989 1990 19'91 1 992 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989'1990 1991 1992 Sourre: SurveIllance Project, LATAD, 1995. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Figure 2e. Green Apple Producer's Figure 2f. Domestic and Border Income Transfers In Chile Equivalent Apple Prices in Chile 360 I Red Domestkc & 16t 300 Border EqL#vabtnt Prisw 14 G 14 X r~~~~~~~~~~O"Mh/Ex bnsion 260>\ 12 Input Policies t C,1 Prim SuppIs wl C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C w ore SrelanePoec,LTD 1995 ioureouvllac rjc AA,1e 4- 2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -2- 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 18 9618 9718 9919 9119 Note: Both prices measured at the point of competition. Border Equivalent Price Is what the domestic price would be withouit Interventlon. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, I99a Figure 2g. Imports / Exports of Grapes Figure 2h. Protection Indicators for Chile Thompson Grapes in Chile 500000 45- 450000- 40- 400000- Imports 35/ 350000- Exports 30- 3W=- ~~~~~~~~~~~~25- 0250000 20- 6 2000 2 >| 15 LsW -,AX 1 00000- 0 5 S 50000- 0- 0- 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 -51 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Source: FAO Trade Yearbook, various years. L Source: Surveillance Project. LATAD. 1995. Figure 21. Protection Indicators for Figure 2j. Thompson Grape Producer's Red Flame Seedless Grapes in Chile Income Transfers in Chile 16 14F 252I 12 E1 202. 1`|06MMltffixtenslon lnputl Polk s | 8 15. Prke Support 6- ~ ~~~~~~A.2 -O. 1984 1986 1908 0 0. -2 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Source: Surveillance Project. LATAD, 1995. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Figure 2k. Red Flame Grape Producer's Figure 21. Domestic and Border Income Transfers In Chlle Equivalent Grape Prices in Chile 1200, 3- 1100- Red Flame Domesttc & Border Equwvatetie 100 2.5-FeerWEtnlr Input Policies ________________________ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. 8~~~~~~~~~~ Th7ompson Domnestic & Border Equivaen Pric Support =0 (D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 U, 300 1985 1986 1987 1988 19899841985198 197919801899990 991199 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 ~~~~~~Note: Both prices measured at the point of competition. Border Equivalenit Price Is what the domestic price would be withot intervention, Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD. 1995. source: Surveilliance ProjecL LATAD, 1 gga Figure 3a. Imports / Exports of Beef Figure 3b. Protection Indicators for Chile Beef In Chile 10000 703 9000l-I60- 8 , _ , ,_Imports -0- IE]I 50~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IER R c 7000 Exports 3 40 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 30 - 201 OD 4000 C E 10 PS 3000-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2000- 1000- -10 1984 1985 1986 1987 19881989 -1990 1991 201984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Source: FAO Trade Yearbook, various years. Source: Surveillance Prolect, LATAD, 1995. Un Figure 3c. Beef Producer's Figure 3d. Domestic and Border Income Transfers in Chile Equivalent Beef Prices in Chile 3500- 100- 80' 3000j-jj IL F- 2500- 20 ' 2000 0. -20 Resea,chdExtenslon ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~160-Border EqUA'ateflt PnCe Input Policies PrIce Suppod t 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1i90 1~911 199 -60 ~~~1Note: Both prices measured at the point of competition. Border Equivalent 60 1985 `1986 1987 1988 1989 "1990 1991 1992 Price Is what the diomestic price would be withot Intervention. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Source: Surveilliance Project, LATAO, 1ig3a Figure 4a. Imports / Exports of Maize Figure 4b. Protection Indicators for Chile Maize in Chile 300- 20- 10- 25 I1mports1 0 ;0IEZ 0 200 -10 4)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a 10 150- Co a) -30- ~~~~~~~~~100~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ E 100- M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PR, EPR A ERA 40 r surt _41000^ CompstoNC|o > 50-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 601992 Source: FAO Trade Yearbook, various years. Prce Illance dojet, price 1995n , . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Source: Survelillance Project. LATAD, 1995 Figure 4c. Maize Producer's Figure 4d. Domestic and Border Income Transfers in Chile Equivalent Maize Prices in Chile 10- 190- 1 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~170- 1 so 20~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 140- U) R&ecSf,9 150- -2020 m Inpu Policie -4- Price Support .5 1985 1986'1987'1988'1989'1990'1991 1992 1984 1985 1986 1987 198 1989 1990 1991 1992 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Source: Surelac ric.LTD 95 ore urveillance Project LATAD, i gm Figure 5a. Imports / Exports of Milk Figure 5b. Protection Indicators for Chile Milk in Chile 30000 110 10 25000S Impoarts vis l 1 1 1 i ' 1X F11 90 .15000 - 1E-1 2 60- NPR E S) 50- > 10000 40- 5000- 30- 20 NR P R 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 10 Note 1985 1§86 1987 1988 1989 1990B 1991u 1992 Source: FAQ Trade Yearbook, various years. Source: Surveillance Project LATAD, 1995. Figure 5c. Milk Producer's Figure 5d. Domestic and Border Income Transfers In Chile Equivalent Milk Prices in Chile 3200- 70-RevNxmo 2800 60- Input Policis IL 2600 co 50- Price Supped ~ ~ ~ ~ ~2400 40 -.2200- 40-'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 30- 10 1961f ore Etvaet rc 20 -io10 9518'9718'9919'9119 1 984 1 985 1 986 1 987 1 988 19i89 19~90 1 911 1 992 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 ~~~~~~Note: Both prices measured at the point of compebtiton. Border Equivalent Price Is what the domestic price would De withot Intervention. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Source: Survetiance Project, LAIAD, Iga Figure 6a. Imports / Exports of Sugar Figure 6b. Protection Indicators for Chile Sugarbeets In Chile 250- 600 -- 200- Imports 500- EPRSERA Exports w 150 | 400 § 100- 2 300- 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ E 200- E i 50 100- 0 1 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 0 1984 1985 19486 1987 1988 1989 199 1991 1992 Source: FAO Trade Yearbook, various years. 0u Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Figure 6c. Sugarbeet Producer's Figure 6d. Domestic and Border Income Transfers in Chile Equivalent Sugarbeet Prices in Chile 70 60 _ search/xtenslon 50-N Input Polici m u 4cr _') Source: Survelilance ProlecPrice Support C 40_ 40_ 0 30- o. 36 30 10- 25- -1 9518 9718 9919 9119 941985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Note: Both prices measured at the point or competition. Border Equivalent Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. ~~~~~~~~~Price is what the domestic price would be wfthot Intervention. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995.ce SrvellaceProec, LTA, 193 Figure 7a. Imports / Exports of Wheat Figure 7b. Protection Indicators for Chile Wheat In Chile 10ooo 80- 900- 70 EA[I c 80 Imports 6 ~2700- IE50-LI ~600 40prt 40) C3 500- 230- C) OD~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a 4004 19518a9718818.9019 20 2. 0- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~20- E 300 1 > 200 0- 100 -1 0 1984 1 9 89 1991 -20 1984 1985 1986 1987 198184 1951198819891189198 1999199 109 Source: FAO Trade Yearbook, various years. Source: FAO Trade Yearbook, various years. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Figure 7c. Wheat Producer's Figure 7d. Domestic and Border Income Transfers In Chile Equivalent Wheat Prices in Chile 190- 200- 180- 150-' 1708 INput PoBiot pe Source: Surveilbr e 160L Puce SuppoSt 50 14014 130- -50 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~120- -100 - 1 1 c 1985 1986'1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1 984 1 985 1 986 1987 1 988 1 989 1 990 1991 199 Note: Both prices measured at thepoint or competition. Border Equivalent Souirce: Surveillance Prolect, LATAD, 1995. Price Is what the domestic price wotid be withot irtervention. ____________________________________________________________________Source: Survefliance Protect. LATAD, IM~ APPENDIX COMMODITY CHARTS AND PROTECTION INDICATOR CALCULATION TABLES The Appendix presents standardized tables which provide detailed information on the calculation of the protection indicators for each commodity included in the study. The processed data used in the tables are based on the raw data series provided by the collaborators. Please note that the figures presented in the tables are rounded and that replicating the results using the tables may yield slightly different numbers due to such rounding. Throughout the Handbook, numbers appearing in parentheses denote negative values. 41 TABLE A-1 1991-92 AVERAGE INPUT SHARES AND COST STRUCTURE FOR CHILE EXPORTABLES IMPORTABLES Red Green Thloon Red Fam krgled Non-nilga'd Appls Appls Gape. GMp G ize Wheat Whet Sugabeeb (Ejphsin Awotdf Cd*W VaJ) Seeds 6.9% Urea 12% 1.3% 0.8% 0.5% 11.8% 72% 6.5% 2.5% Podlum 23% Phoaptuft 3.5% 3.5% 2.3% 3.5% Herbicde 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.9% 4.6% 112% lnsecdckdn 2.3% 2.8% 0.5% 0.3% 82% 0.7% 7.2% Fungicide 0.9% 1.0% 5.1% 3.3% Glbwok Acid 4.8% 3.1% Plowing 8.7% 9.9% 7.7% 5.3% 1.6% 2.0% 3.4% 10.0% Hsarwing 1.5% 1.0% 4.3% 1.8% 3.7% Sedng 1.1% 1.4% 0.9% FHrwellng 5.4% 3.8% 3.9% Total Coat 13.5% 15.3% 20.9% 13.8% 43.7% 25.0% 19.8% 37A% Retums to Land Labor & Caplal 86.5% 84.7% 79.1% Je2% 56.3% 75.0% 80.2% a.4% (EI_hNedhi AWnWI U. Do" Ouput Price PerTon $172 $154 $381 $526 $138 $182 $182 so Coat Per Ton of Output $23 $23 $80 $72 $0 $46 $1 S2D Return. to Land, Labor&CapblJPerTon $149 $132 S300 $44 $77 $137 $14S S3 Note: Owbca.Mmtn dofocat v,o4gkullyconsaucb foruwe bI7 cauhng Itl EPf. andUt onltyhx IMw .acblb ooeonwt i o o sdaNtm dD not uA,idM hboratbdWdto um uw drn yandequ1pwit 43 TABLE A-2a Standardized Format Nominal Rate of Protection Country: Chbi Type: Exportable Commodity Apples, Ped Point of Competition: Border _19(1 1971991990191 92193(11 1. UNADJUSTED BORDER PRICE E.tihwge Rots cH4PverUs 98.5 160.9 192.9 219.4 245.0 267.0 304.9 349.2 362.58 388.91 Border Prim -USFOBTon 270.0 250.0 350.0 440.0 400.0 210.0 400.0 490.0 613.9 255.4 Border Pric in Local Corrncy 26,588.9 40,214.4 67,524.9 96,537.1 98,015.4 56,060.4 121,961.2 171,117.8 222,570.7 99,324.3 2. BORDER ADJUSTMENTS Twriffs/Subsidies/Adpsmt 2t_ PonrtChwges Export Commission (2,393.01 (3,619.3) (6.077.2) (8.688.31 (7,841.2) (4.484.8) (9,756.9) (13.689.4) (17,805.7) (7.945.9) SNpping (1.142.3) (1.865.9) (2,334.4) 12,742.5) i3.234.51 (3.523.5) i4.177.21 (4.7i4.3) 14.815.11 15.318.4) Storteg/lHndling/Lost. Border Price Equsvaent (with interventionr 23,053.6 34.729.1 59,113.2 85,106.2 86.939.6 48,051.8 108,027.1 152,644.1 199,949.9 86,059.9 Bord.r Price Equivient (without intervention) 23,053.6 34.729.1 59,113.2 85,106.2 86.939.6 48,051.8 108,027.1 152.844.1 199,949.9 86,059.9 3. COSTS FROM bORDER TO PROCESSIhG IWHOLESALE MARKET) TwilftSubsidiej/Adparmtrents Tranportation (1.447.6) (2,364.6) (2.951.8) (3.485.5) (3,749.1) (4.298.0) (5.183.3) 16,111.4) 16.150.7) t6.793.6) Otth r Border Price Eqavr ftteer Processing (with interrention) 21,606.0 32,364.5 56,161.4 81.617.7 83,190.5 43.753.8 102,843.8 146,532.7 193,799.3 79,266.4 Berder Price Equtvebnt ftwr Procesting (without intervention) 21,606.0 32,364.5 56.181.4 81,617.7 83,190.5 43.753.8 102,843.8 146,532.7 193,799.3 79,266.4 4. PROCESSING COST (WHOLESALE MARKET) TwrifflsSubuid.es/Adjustments Processing Costs Mnstitels Seices 119.075.1) (31.158.1) 131,215.5) (33,151.7) (42.097.6) 151,415.4) t61,224.5) 170,123.4) 170.574.5) (77,951.4) Mwrketing Mergins Other Conr.wesion 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Border Price Eqiv,lentl before Proclsing (with intervention) 2,530.9 1,206.4 24.945.6 48,466.0 41,092.9 7,661.6) 41,619.2 76,409.4 123,224.8 1,315.0 Order Price Equvdent before Procesfing (whhout internetion) 2.530.9 1,206.4 24,945.6 48,466.0 41,092.9 )7.661.6) 41,619.2 76,409.4 123,224.8 1.315.0 5. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POINT iFARMI TO PROCESSOR Tlrlff eSubsidles/Adjustments Trensportetion Other _ BordlerPricmEqwvletemt CollectionPoint(withintervention) 2,530.9 1,206.4 24,945.6 48,466.0 41,092.9 (7,661.6) 41,619.2 76.409.4 123.224.8 1,315.0 Border Pric Eq.vdetb It Collection Point (without intrention) 2,530.9 1,206.4 24.948.8 48,466.0 41,092.9 (7.661.6) 41,619.2 76,409.4 123,224.8 1,315.0 8. DOMESTIC PRICE Border Whobleed 2,530.9 1,206.4 24,945.6 48,466.0 41,092.9 (7,661.6) 41,619.2 76,409.4 123,224.8 1,315.0 Coection Point (FormI 2,530.9 1,206.4 24,945.6 48,466.0 41,092.9 (7,661.6l 41,619.2 76,409.4 123.224.8 1.315.0 7. NPR Border Whol.sse 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% CoNection Poin (FPrrm) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% a. Firt ventestemr orgy. Source: SurveilAnce Project, LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-2b Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Contry; Ch. Type: Edolbl Com..odit: Apple.. Red L"ale: Fonn 1984 1 96 LU 1 98 l at t I= I= s I= t I9= 1. OUTPUT Doo-.c Price P.r KG 2.530.9 1,206.4 24,946.8 49,466.0 41,092.9 (7,661.o1 41,619.2 76,409.4 123,224.9 1,316.0 OwanotY of KG 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 VokoateDomrticPri.. 2.530.9 1,206.4 24,945.e 48.469.0 41,092.9 (7,851.61 41,819.2 7e.409.4 123,224.8 1,315.0 Bordr Pr. Equi,cedt Pi KG 2,530.9 1,206.4 24.945.0 48,466.0 41,092.9 (7,61.61 41.619.2 76.409.4 123,224.8 1,315.0 o.ueite * of KG 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Veic at O8. Price Eq.W.Imt 2,530.9 1,206.4 24,945.8 49.466.0 41,092.9 (7,6e1.61 41,e19.2 76,409.4 123,224.9 1,315.0 2. TRADABLE DIRECT INPUTS (Sea uo.tly Kg P.r KRo 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.60 7.50 7.50 7.60 7.60 7.50 Do,o,stic Prie P.r Kg 43.43 4e.17 34.75 44.80 69.70 56.12 93.91 94.26 99.24 96.04 Doe,Is4ic Cost * P.r Kilo 325.8 346.3 260.8 336.0 522.8 420.9 628.8 708.9 744.3 736.3 order Prk Eq. Price . P. Kg 39.92 39.81 31.14 38.43 85.67 50.55 79.24 97.90 93.77 91.49 Borde Prce Eq. Coot $ Per Kio 297.1 291.1 233.6 28.2 492.5 379.2 596.8 859.2 703.3 68U.2 HI5d. Ooftty Ks P.r Kil. 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.08 Doroe rce Pn.. 1 P r Ka 1,907 2.316 3,034 3,026 2.795 3,414 3,650 3,387 3,491 3,385 Domoetc Colt I Per KU. 143.1 173.6 227.8 227.0 209.7 256.0 266.2 254.0 281.9 253.9 Brr Prkt Eq. Pd. S Pr Kg 1,777 2,102 2,7e0 2,736 2,472 3,061 3,147 3,186 3,331 3,192 Borde Prd Eq. Cost o P.r KNo 133.3 157.7 206.5 205.2 186.4 229.8 236.1 237.4 249.6 239.4 I nsororde tSrst.-twy Ks P. Kilo 0.99 0.96 0.9s 0.96 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.96 o.96 0.96 Do-oetkc Price 1 P. Kg 623 745 706 799 854 974 1,0o9 1.380 1,465 1,670 DO ts Cot $ P.r KEo 59.1 713.0 675.4 764.7 917.4 931.8 1,090.0 1,320.4 1,401.6 1,501.9 order Prim Eq. Pri 1 Pr Kg 593 897 648 733 780 093 1.006 1,310 1,403 1,500 4:11 aord. Prk Eq. Cost t Pr KA. 547.6 9e6.8 619.6 701.4 748.6 564.7 982.0 1,263.2 1,342.1 1,435.0 l.A Fre.ie Os.tity Ka Pw Kilo 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.0 O.OS 0.0 0.05 0.05 Don_.t P., I Pt Kg 3,021 3,897 6,600 6.079 6,966 7,996 68327 9,291 10,179 10,790 Do.osmo, Cost S P.r Ki 161.1 207.8 299.7 324.2 371.5 426.4 444.1 496.6 542.9 576.6 Borde Pri.e Eq. Pric t Par Kg 2.760 3,471 5,0e9 5,498 6.317 7,288 7,519 8,824 9.789 10,379 Boder Prdc. Eq. Coot OPtr PKR 147.2 185.1 271.4 293.2 336.9 388.7 401.0 470.6 622.1 653.4 Totl Dir ect Inp (Doronti PrIel.l 1.229.0 1,440.7 1.462.2 1,a51.9 1,921.3 2,035.1 2,369.0 2,776.9 2.950.6 3,066.3 Toted 0 Ist.s l(BoMPre Pl 1,146.3 1.3005. 1,333.1 1,488.1 1,781.5 1,852.2 2,195.9 2,920.5 2,917.2 2,914.0 3. TRADABLE INDIRECT INPUTS Plow Qu ntity Ir. Per Too 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 Ooet PniPs 9 Per Hr. 1,666 1.933 1,950 2.075 2,222 2,559 2,776 2.776 3,212 3.820 Domc-tic Cosl * P.r Too 44.4 48.9 52.0 56.3 69.3 69.2 74.0 74.0 96.7 96.6 Borde Price Eq. Prc. 1 Per Hr. 1,454 1,681 1,763 1,976 2.073 2,395 2.579 2,591 3,059 3.459 Border Pr.. Eq. Cott a Pt Too 39.9 42.2 47.0 60.0 55.3 93.9 89.8 69.1 91.9 92.2 Eq. Plow. Conty Hr. P. To 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.67 1.57 1.57 1.67 DoM.ti. Prd Pr. Hr. 1.968 1,833 1,950 2,075 2,222 2.669 2.775 2,776 3,212 3,620 Dorrtk Cost Pe. To 2,820.9 2,983.8 3,089.0 3,294.7 3,496.3 4,026.2 4,365.3 4,365.3 6,054.0 6,696.9 Barde Prt) Eq. Prit S Pe. H. 1,464 1,581 1,793 1,876 2,073 2,396 2.78 2,691 3.059 3,459 Border Pr)s Eq. Col P. To 2,288.1 2.47.2 2,773.8 2,961.6 3,262.3 3,766.8 4,056.7 4.079.5 4,813.2 5,442.4 Toted lodot 1rr4c (Do. tk Prick) 2,e69.2 2,932.7 3.120.0 3.320.0 3,565.5 4,094.4 4,439.3 4,439.3 5,139.6 5,792.4 To)edI K%ctwopst(9OrdrPrce) 2,326.9 2.529.4 2,820.8 3,001.5 3,317.6 3.832.7 4,125.4 4,145.9 4,994.8 5,634.9 4. VALUE ADDED Direct opuur,dY AtDomo-etJtPricm 1,304.9 (234.31 23,493.4 460,14.1 39,171.6 (9,996.71 39,230.3 73,632.6 120,274.3 (1,751.31 At Intotiond Prices 1,3aS.9 (94.0) 23,912.6 46,977.9 39,331.5 19,513.8) 39,433.3 73,789.9 120,407.9 (1,59S.0) Dicaeti k6eWputs At o-Wtoic Pdcs (1,360.4) (3.167.0) 20.363.4 43,494.1 35,616.1 (13.791.1) 34,790.9 69,193.2 116.134.9 (7,643.7) AtloeroatoPd s (941.31 (2.23.4) 20,791.7 43,976.4 36,013.9 (13,349.41 35,307.9 89.643.3 115,512.8 (7.133.6) S. ER I c0) I <0) -2.1% *1.1% -1.1% ( <0) .1.5% 40.6% 40.3% <0 I SD:wce Sierv1ce Awhct, LA TAD, 1996 TABLE A-2c STANDARIZED FORMAT PRODUCER SUBSIDY EQUIVALENT Country: Chile Type: Exportble Commodlty Apples, Red Level: Farm 1960 1961 1952 1063 106" 19n IN 1927 l" 19601 190 1991 1902 Mket Valwu of Output Output (Thousnds of Tons) 117 148 176 199 169 201 245 271 Price Per Ton (CH$ 1,206 24.946 46,468 41,093 16.936 41,619 75.409 123,225 TotalMarketValueofOutput(MIglonsCCH$) 0 0 0 0 0 141 3.692 6,530 8.17a 3,201 6,365 16,797 33,394 Asiatance (Millions CH$)z Market Price Support 0 0 0 0 4,653 0 0 0 Tarif (Subsidies) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Input Polies (63) (63) (65) (79) (84) (104) (111) (103) Credit AssIstanoe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Research & Extension 25 23 26 29 35 31 37 119 Total Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 (38) (40) (59) (50) 4,604 (72) (74) 16 Producr Subsidy Equivalent -27.3% -1.1% -0.7% -0.0% 143.6% -0.9% -0.4% 0.0% 1. Due to the cyanide scwe in the U.S., the governmont provided direct pay'ment of CH$ 4,653 million to producers. This dkect payment is reflected in the price per ton. TABLE A-2d Standardized Format Nominal Rate of Protection Cou*y: ChM Typ: Edpotb COuMoity ApOe. Orenm Ponl of Cornpe(tc Bode nmi nU nm nml nsa 3in nsa Im ns n 1. U TNADJTEO IOROER PRCE Eadin Rt CH$ PLr USP 91.5 130.3 192.3 213.4 245.0 267.0 304.9 343.2 362.55 333.31 order Pic $US FPO Ton 260.0 230.0 330.0 360.0 400.0 0 4.0 30.0 01.3 203.3 _orber ic in Local Curency 23,304.1 46.644.7 113.63 .3 78.84.9 93.015.4 56.060.4 141,353.4 132.703.6 218.007.1 1,622.3 2. SORDER ADAIST1WHS Pot ChwO s Exrt Ceorlsow (2.304.4) (4.136.4) (5.720.01 (7.0111.81 (7S841.2) 44.114.81 (11.706.3) 110.61S.31 017.440.01 (6.529.8) Sh)op (1.142.3 (1I.B65.91 42.334.4) (2.742.5) t3.234.5) (3.523.91 (4.177.2) (4.764.31 14.315.1) (4.630.3) r *irPrkc E4sjv4 (wiS ineVento 22.157.4 40.564.4 53,601.9 *S133.7 56,933.6 435051.3 130.44S.0 117.303.0 1l6f751.4 70.201.S SorrPrice 6vn (wid interve"Cion) 22,137.4 40.534.4 35,601.9 33.133.7 u.933.6 4.051.6 130,463.0 117.303.0 193,751.4 70.201.S 3. COSTS FROM DORER TO PlOCESSMIOWHOLESALE MARKET) TorffflubeelSee/AdWsbrwasne___________ Trwortb_ (1,447.6) (2.364.6) (2.ff1.3) (3.41J.5) (3.743.1) (4.233.0) (S.13.3l (6,0111.4) (6.150.7) 06 247.5) 05w __ _ - rderPriceljquive antedrrocelkl(ith(nfVvor_ol 20.7096. 33,213.7 52,650.1 S5,645.2 53.150.5 43.753.3 125,264.6 111,131.7 186.400.8 63,54.3 gordr Pric Ievdiat tw Proces 4tw~ wnevetion) 20.70S.3 3S.213.7 52.650.) 65,645.2 53,1S0.5 43,753.S 125284.6 Il11t1S.7 16S,00.3 63,354.3 4. PROCESSO COST (WLESALE MARKET) PreeeeinS Costs Matenis 5 Sevice. (13,075.1) 031.1tS.1) (31,215.0) (33.151.7) (42.097.0) (51.411.4) (61,224.5) (62,545.3) (70.574.5) (71.U135.O CeniorW n 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 orer Priwe Euoilhef uProing(widein.uuetin) 1634.7 7.061.6 21,434.3 32.433.5 41,0S2.3 (7U641.60 S4.060.1 46.646.4 11t,026.3 (7.731.2) rer Pri EidtW* beore Proceen wI uetion) 1.634.7 7,061.6 21,434.3 32.493.3 41.092.3 47.661.60 34.060.1 46.64,.4 113.026.3 (7.731.2) S. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POIT (FAMr TO PROCESSOR Toriff0kedoWiueAdOAMMMt _________ Trwmpor(t ___________ Tgdl oe Price Eqeviet at Cdeecen Point (with hrwe on 1,634.7 7.061.3 21,434.3 32,4S3.5 41,0S2.9 (7.61.6) S4O060.1 4S6464.4 113,024.3 (7,731.21 orre Priceiv_sIatocdl P- (eawb Intervendon 1,634.7 7,061.6 21.434.3 32.493.5 41,062.3 (7,641.6) 64.060.1 46,644.4 119.026.3 (7,731.21 6. OoSTIC CE B_rder Wh_loub 1,634.7 7.061.6 21,434.3 32,433.5 41.0S2.3 (7.641.3) S4,060.1 46.646.4 113.026.3 (7,731.2) Coedkon Poin (Fwm) 1,634.7 7,061.6 21,434.3 32,433.5 41.092.3 (7.641.6) S4,060.1 46.644.4 113,026.3 (7,731.2) 7. HPR Bde Whole_do 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% CdleciDn Pokn (Fom) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% a F e or d¶. Smoc.: SwvurNcv PA*Ct, LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-2e Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Country: Chile Type: Exportable Commodity: Applee. Green Level: Farm 1a98 198 198 198 Ia 199 199 na 19 93 1. OUTPUT Domestic Price Per KG 1,634.7 7,061.6 21,434.3 32,493.5 41,092.9 (7,661.6) 64,060.1 48.846.4 119,026.3 (7,731.2) Ouantity I of KG 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Value at Domestic Prices 1,634.7 7,061.6 21,434.3 32,493.5 41,092.9 (7,661.6) 64,060.1 46,646.4 119,026.3 (7,731.21 order Price Equivalent Per KG 1,634.7 7,061.6 21,434.3 32,493.5 41,092.9 (7.661.6) 64,060.1 48.646.4 119,026.3 (7,731.2) Quantity l of KG 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Value at ordser Price Equivalent 1,634.7 7,061.6 21.434.3 32,493.5 41,092.9 (7.661.6) 64,060.1 48,646.4 119,026.3 (7,731.2) 2. TRADABLE DIRECT INPUTS Urea Quantity Ku Per Kilo 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 Domestic Price $Per Kg 43.43 46.17 34.75 44.60 69.70 56.13 63.61 94.25 99.24 96.04 Domestic Cost 6 Per Kilo 325.8 346.3 260.6 336.0 5922.8 420.9 628.6 706.9 744.3 735.3 Sorrer Price Eq. Price $ Per Kg 39.62 36.61 31.14 36.43 65.67 50.55 78.24 87.90 93.77 91.49 border Price Eq. Cost 6 Per Kilo 297.1 291.1 233.6 288.2 492.5 379.2 586.8 659.2 703.3 666.2 Herbicide Ouantity Kg Per Kilo 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 Domestic Price S Par Kg 1,907 2,315 3,034 3.026 2,795 3,414 3.550 3,367 3,491 3.385 Domestic Cost 6 Per Kilo 143.1 173.6 227.6 227.0 209.7 256.0 266.2 254.0 261.9 253.9 Sorder Price Eq. Price S Per Kg 1,777 2,102 2,780 2,736 2,472 3,061 3,147 3,166 3.331 3,192 Sorder Price Eq. Cost 6 Per Kilo 133.3 157.7 206.5 205.2 165.4 229.6 236.1 237.4 249.6 239.4 Insecticide Ouentity Kg Pm, Kilo 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Domestic Price S Per Kg 623 745 706 799 654 974 1,096 1,360 1,465 1.570 Domestic Cost 6 Per Kilo 596.1 713.0 675.4 764.7 617.4 931.8 1.050.0 1,320.4 1,401.5 1,501.6 Sorder Price Eq. Price $ Per Kg 593 697 648 733 780 893 1,006 1.310 1,403 1,500 Sorder Prhce Eq. Cost $ Per Kio 567.6 666.6 619.6 701.4 746.6 854.7 962.0 1,253.2 1,342.1 1,435.0 00 Fungicide Quantity Kg Per Kilo 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Domestic Price S Per Kg 3,021 3.897 5.600 6,079 6,966 7,996 8.327 9,291 10,179 10.790 Domestic Cost $ Per Kilo 161.1 207.6 298.7 324.2 371.5 426.4 444.1 495.5 542.9 575.5 Sorder Price Eq. Price $ Per Kg 2,760 3,471 5.089 5,498 6,317 7,288 7,519 8,824 9,789 10,376 Sorder Price Eq. Cost S Per Kilo 147.2 185.1 271.4 293.2 336.9 388.7 401.0 470.6 522.1 553.4 Total Direct Inputs (Domestic Prices) 1,226.0 1,440.7 1,462.2 1,651.9 1,921.3 2,035.1 2,389.0 2,776.9 2,950.5 3,066.3 Total Direct Inputs SBorder Price) 1,145.3 1,300.5 1,333.1 1,488.1 1,761.5 1,852.2 2,185.9 2.620.5 2,817.2 2,914.0 3. TRADABLE INDIRECT INPUTS Plow Quantity Hr. Per Ton 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 Domestic Price $ Per Hr. 1,666 1,833 1,950 2.075 2,222 2.559 2,775 2,775 3.212 3,620 Domestic Cost S Per Ton 44.4 48.9 52.0 55.3 59.3 68.2 74.0 74.0 85.7 96.5 orrder Price Eq. Price $ Per Hr. 1,454 1,561 1,763 1,876 2,073 2.395 2.570 2,591 3,059 3,459 Sorder Price Eq. Coot 6 Per Ton 38.8 42.2 47.0 50.0 55.3 63.9 68.8 69.1 81.6 92.2 Eq. Plow Quantitv Hr. Per Ton 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 Domestic Price S Par Hr. 1,666 1,833 1,950 2,075 2,222 2,559 2.775 2.775 3,212 3,620 Domestic Cost S Per Ton 2,620.8 2,883.8 3,066.0 3,264.7 3,496.3 4,026.2 4,365.3 4,365.3 5,054.0 5,695.6 Sorder Price Eq. Price i Per Hr. 1,454 1,561 1.763 1,676 2,073 2,395 2,578 2,591 3,059 3,459 ordri Prike Eq. Cost S Pm Ton 2,268.1 2,467.2 2,773.6 2,951.5 3,262.3 3,766.8 4,056.7 4,076.5 4,813.2 5,442.4 Total Indirect Inputs lOomeutic Prices) 2,665.2 2,932.7 3,120.0 3,320.0 3,555.5 4,094.4 4,439.3 4,439.3 5,139.6 5,792.4 Total Indirect Inputs (border Price) 2.326.9 2,529.4 2,820.6 3,001.5 3,317.6 3,632.7 4,125.4 4,145.6 4,694.6 5,534.6 4. VALUE ADDED Direct Inputs Only At Domeetic Prices 406.7 5.620.9 19,972.1 30,841.6 39,171.6 (9,696.7) 61,671.1 45,669.5 116,075.8 (10,797.4) At International Prices 469.4 5,761.2 20,101.2 31,005.4 39,331.5 19,513.6) 61,674.2 46,025.9 116.209.1 (10,645.2) Direct & Indirect Inpots At Domestic Prices 12,256.5) 2,666.2 16,652.1 27,521.6 35,616.1 (13,791.1) 57,231.6 41,430.2 110,936.1 (16,569.8) At International Prices 11,637.4) 3,231.8 17,280.4 26,003.9 36,013.9 (13.346.4) 57.748.7 41,680.3 111,314.4 (16,179.8) 5. EPR 1<0 -16.6% -2.5% -1.7% .1.1% I <01 -0.9% -1.1% -0.3% (<01 Source: Surveillance PAtroect, LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-2f STANDARIZED FORMAT PRODUCER SUBSIDY EQUIVALENT Country: Chile Type: Exportable Commodity: Apples, Green Level: Farm 1985 1986 1987 1988(a) 1989 1990 1991 1992 Market Value of Output Output (Thousands of Tons) 89 143 158 156 144 126 161 178 Price Per Ton (CH$) 7,062 21,434 32,494 41,093 19,340 64.060 48,646 119,026 Total Market Value of Output (Millions CH$I) 629 3,065 5,134 6,411 2.785 8.072 7,832 21.187 Assistance fMillons CH$): Market Price Support 0 0 0 0 3,888 0 0 0 Tariff (Subsidies) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Input Policies (49) (61) (76) (62) (64) (65) (72) (67) Credit Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Research & Extension 14 13 14 16 19 17 20 64 Total Assistance (351 (491 (621 (461 3.843 (49) (521 (31 Produesr Subsidy EquIvaent -5.6% -1.6% -1.2% -0.7% 138.0% 40.6% -0.7% 0.0% a. Due to the cyanide scare in the U.S., the government provided direct payment of CH$ 3,888 million to producers. This direct payment is reflected in the price per ton. Source: Surveillance Project,, LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-2g Standardized Format Nominal Rate of.Protection Country: Chile Type: Exportable Commodity: Graes, Thompson Seedless Point of Competition: Border 1984 1222 1286 1287 12 199 I222 1991 1922 1993 tl) 1. UNADJUSTED BORDER PRICE Exchnge Rate CHI Per USS 98.5 160.9 192.9 219.4 245.0 267.0 304.9 349.2 362.58 388.91 Border Price gUS FOB KG 1,050.0 930.0 1,130.0 1,030.0 910.0 770.0 720.0 1,070.0 724.0 876.7 Border Price in Local Currency 103,401.3 149,597.5 218,009.0 225.984.5 222,985.0 205,554.8 219,530.1 373,665.5 262,516.5 340.975.7 2. BORDER ADJUSTMENTS Terihfs/Subsidies/Adjustments PortCharges ExportCommission 19,306.11 t13,463.81 (19,620.8) 120,338.6) 120,068.6) 116.444.4) 117,562.41 129,893.21 121,001.3) 128,982.9) Shipping (1,319.61 (2,155.5) (2,353.7) 12,676.7) (3,087.5) (3,363.6) (3,841.8) (4,679.5l (4,915.6) (6,440.0) Storage/Handling/Loss Border Price Equivalent (with intervention) 92,775.6 133,978.2 196,034.5 202,969.2 199,828.8 185,746.8 198,125.9 339,092.7 236,599.5 305,552.7 Border Price Equivalent (without intervention) 92.775.6 133,978.2 196,034.5 202,969.2 199,828.8 185,746.8 198,125.9 339,092.7 236,599.5 305,552.7 3. COSTS FROM BORDER TO PROCESSING (WHOLESALE MARKET) Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments Transportation (1,319.61 (2.155.51 (2,585.21 (3,093.6i (3,651.1) (3,977.61 (4,848.01 (5,971.71 (6,272.91 (8,218.21 Other Border Price Equivalent alter Processing (with intervention) 91.456.0 131.822.7 193,449.2 199,875.6 196,177.8 181,769.2 193,278.0 333,121.0 230,326.6 297,334.4 Border Price Equivalent after Processing (without interention) 91.456.0 131.822.7 193,449.2 199,875.6 196,177.8 181,769.2 193,278.0 333,121.0 230,326.6 297,334.4 4. PROCESSING COST WHOLESALE MARKET) Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments Processing Costs Materials & Services (24,855.7) (40.600.4) (43,003.71 (48.970.6) (63,489.51 (71,463.71 (84,305.71 (99,213.41 (104,218.1) I136,538.31 Marketing Margins Other Conversion 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Border Price Equivalent before Processing (with mtervenlionn 66,600.3 91,222.3 150.445.5 150,905.0 132,688.3 110,305.5 108,972.3 233,907.6 126,108.6 160,796.2 Border Price Equivalent before Processing without intervention) 66,600.3 91,222.3 150,445.5 150,905.0 132,688.3 110,305.5 108,972.3 233,907.6 126,108.6 160,796.2 9. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POINT (FARMI TO PROCESSOR Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments Transportation Other Border Price Equivalent at Collection Point (with intervention) 66,600.3 91,222.3 150,445.5 150,905.0 132,688.3 110.305.5 108.972.3 233.907.6 126,108.6 160,796.2 Border Price Equivalent at Collection Point (without interventionl 66,600.3 91,222.3 150.445.5 150,905.0 132.688.3 110.305.5 108,972.3 233,907.6 126,108.6 160,796.2 6. DOMESTIC PRICE Border Wholesale 66.600.3 91.222.3 150,445.5 150,905.0 132,688.3 110,305.5 108,972.3 233,907.6 126,108.6 160,796.2 Collection Point (Farm) 66,600.3 91.222.3 150,445.5 150,905.0 132.688.3 110.305.5 108,972.3 233,907.6 126,108.6 160,796.2 7. NPR Border Wholesale 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Collection Point (Ferm) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% a. First semester only. Source: Surveillance Project. LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-2h Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Countre cile Type. Esporr-bil Con-modit Gropes, Thnm-pon Leo-i Farm 1994 Lu5 13 137 1966 36o 1990 1255 I9 1993 1 OUTPUT QmecIc Price _er KG 66.600 3 91,222 3 t5,405 5 150,905 0 132,688 3 110,305 V 10t,9ot 3 233,907 6 126,108 6 160,796 2 Qiiarr *nI of KG I 0 t 0 1 0 1 0 1.0 1.0 1 0 t 0 1 0 1 0 Vas. at Domestl Pricet 66,6003 91.222.3 150.445.5 150.905.0 132.688 3 110,3055 108,9723 233,907.6 126,10a.6 1t0.796.2 BordePrice Eq-i-aterr Per KG 66,600.3 91,2223 150,445 5 150,9050 132,688 3 110,3056 108,9723 233,907 126,108 6 160,796.2 Ouan-ti # of KG 1 0 1 0 t 0 1 0 1.0 1 0 1.0 t 0 1 0 1 0 Value1 tBorder Pr Equiva-eo 66,6003 91.222.3 150.4455 150.9050 132,6883 110,3056 108,9723 233.907.6 126,108.6 160,796 2 2 TRADABLE DIRECT eNPIJTS tnsoctrc_de Quantity Eg Per Kg 0 21 0 21 0.21 0.21 0 21 0 21 0 21 0.21 0 21 0 21 Domesic Price $ Per Kg 1,736 2.271 1,745 2,017 2.157 2,324 2.909 3.230 3,412 3.412 Dom-otc Cost S Pe Kg 364.5 477 0 366 4 423 6 493 1 4B6 1 610 6 678 3 716 6 716.6 Border P-ic Eq Price $ Per Kg 1.677 2,175 1,629 1,365 2,010 2,164 2,726 3,046 3.226 3.232 BorPi Price Eq Cost $ Per Kg 352 1 456.7 342.1 395.9 422.1 6544 572.4 639.6 677 9 678.7 Hetbicide Oca.tity Li Per Kq 0 18 0 19 0 I1 0 18 0 16 0 18 0 15 0 19 0 16 0 18 DOmesti Pro.e 8Per Lt 1,944 2,333 3,076 3,062 2,667 3,559 3,757 3,651 3,611 3,652 Domestic Cost SPet Kg 3500 420.0 554.1 551.1 516.0 640.7 676.3 657.1 666.0 6934 Bosdes Price Eq.Pice *Per Lt 1,802 2.101 2.600 2.745 2,513 3.175 3,317 3,417 3,634 3,632 Bo.rd. Price Eq. Cus $9 Per Kg 324.4 376 3 504 0 494 2 452 4 571 4 597 1 615 1 654 1 663.6 Puogroide Qugotit. Kg Pet Kg 1 .W 1.00 1 00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 DO Domesic Price 6 Pe K 2,221 2,865 3,396 4,061 4.350 5,201 6,256 6.493 7.133 7,575 Domesic Cost Per Kg 2.221 2.865 3,396 4,081 4,350 5,201 6,288 6.493 7,133 7.675 Bolder Rt-e Eq Proe 0Pt Ks 2 144 2,738 3,245 3,908 4.157 4.991 6,046 8,214 6,806 7 171 Bordel Price Eq Cost Pe Kg 2,143.5 2,736.4 3.244.6 3,906.3 4,156.7 4.991.0 6.048.3 6,213.9 6,605.5 7,171 1 Grb-oeli Acid Qus-tl'Y aset Pei Kg 11 76 11 76 11 76 11 76 11.76 11.76 11.76 11.76 11 76 11 76 Domestic Price Per Tablet 250 355 450 650 660 790 690 920 850 312 Doeestc Cost SP.rKg 2,941.2 4.176.5 5.294.1 6.470.6 8,002.0 9,290.1 10.466.8 10,822.5 10.000.0 3.665.7 Border Price Eq Proe $ Per Tablet 229 321 409 503 628 733 825 672 808 286 'ill Boldet Price Eq Cost * Pet Kg 2,693 2 3,771 4 4,806 2 5,918 0 7,384 9 8,617 8 9,700 7 10,260 6 9,507 9 3.364 7 Urte Qu..",r KgPetToc 11 76 11 76 11 76 11.76 11 76 11 76 11.76 11 76 11.76 11.76 Dom-sc- Prlce 6 Per Kq 43 43 46 17 34 75 44 80 69 70 56 12 83 61 94.25 99 24 98.04 DOeestic Cost 6 Per Tm 511 0 543 2 4066 527 1 620 0 660 2 965.0 1,106 9 1,167 5 1,153 4 Bolde,r Pice Eq Prce $ Per Kq 39.62 36.61 31.14 38.43 65 67 60 55 78.24 67.90 93.77 91.49 Botrde Proc Eq Cost 8 Per Ton 466.1 456 6 366 4 452.1 772 6 594 6 920 5 1,034.1 1.103 2 1.076.4 Teta Ditet Ispots (Domestc Proes) 6,387 7 6,481 6 10,019 9 12,053 4 14,140 7 16.280.3 19.030 1 19.760 2 19,703 2 13.805 0 TotalDirect 1,potsBorder PrIcol 5.979.3 7.601.3 9.265.3 11,166.6 13.168.7 15.229.4 17,8390 18.763.2 16.746.5 12.944., 3 TRADABLE INDIRECT INPUTS ro. Q-uantty Hr Per TuiI 0.30 0.30 0.30 0 30 0 30 0.30 0.30 0 30 0.30 0.30 Domesto Prc6 SPer Hr 1.666 1.833 1,950 2,075 2.222 2.559 2.735 2,775 3.212 3.620 Domesto Cost $ Per Too 499 7 549 9 585 0 622 5 666 7 7 7 832 4 832.4 963.7 1,086.1 Border Pros Eq. oe $ Petr "T 1,854 1,581 1,763 1,676 2,073 2,395 2,576 2.591 3059 3.459 8ordet Proce Eq Cost S Pet Ton 436 3 474.3 528 9 562 8 622.0 716.6 773.5 777.3 917.8 1,037 7 _ Hattos Qusat..y Hr PerTon 04i 047 0.47 047 047 047 047 047 047 047 Domestcrce 8PertHr 1,666 1,833 2,400 2,700 3,040 3,320 3,771 3,771 4.366 4.921 D.o.:to. Cos-t Per Too 782 9 61.5 1,1 28 0 1,269 0 1,428.6 1,560 4 1.772.5 1,7725 2.052.1 2,312 7 Botdor R-i Eq Prce Petr Hr. 1,436 1,548 2,164 2.467 2,B61 3,122 3,535 3,547 4,176 4.721 Bodet Pree Eq Cost 8 PeTo 6746 727.7 1.026,3 1.168,3 1,344.7 1,467.5 1,661 3 1.6673 1.9636 2,218.0 Eq Pow 000051t6 Hr. Per Ton 2.94 2.94 2.94 2.94 2 94 2.94 2.94 2 94 2 94 2.94 Dsmssse Prce $ Per Hr 1,668 1,833 1,950 2,075 2,222 2,569 2,775 2,775 3,212 3,620 Domestc Cost PertTo 4.897,4 5,38.8 5,733.0 6,100.S 6,533.3 7,523.6 8.1;7.3 8.;17.3 9.644.1 1=6.3,5 Bordet Prce Eq. Pr-ce Per Hr 1,404 1 581 1.763 1.876 2.073 2,396 2.578 2.591 3.059 3,489 Bordet Roc Eq. Cost 8 Pet Ten 4,2755 4,5477 5,1833 5,5153 5,095.1 7.0425 7,5S0 1,5175 6,996.2 16,159 TotaMl tditectlptDs-tWomesto Rices) 6.180.0 6.800.2 7,446.0 7.992.0 8,628.6 9.861.6 10,762.1 10,762.1 12,469.9 14.0423 Total Ird-ect Irtpts lOolder PRcel 5.3866 9.849 6 6.738.5 7.237 4 8.062 8 9.224 6 10.015.3 10.062.1 11,875 5 13,426 6 4 VALUE ADDED D-itcrteBts orly At Doemest Proes 60,212.6 62,740.7 140,4256 136,851 6 118,5476 94,0252 89,9422 214,1474 106,405.4 146.891 1 At tsmatioh- Proes 60.621.0 63.421.0 141,160.2 139,7354 119,499.6 95,076.1 91.1333 216,144.4 107.360.1 147.861,5 Direct & baited Iso-to At Domest-I Pes 54,0326 75,9405 132,9796 130.8596 109,9190 84,1737 79.1801 203.3853 93,9456 132,948.9 At t-ter -tosl Prose 55,2345 77,571 3 134,441 5 132,4990 111,436.7 85.8475 81,1180 205,0823 95,4845 134,4249 5 EP -2 2% 2.1% 1 1% 1.2% 1 6% -1 9% -24% -0.8% -1 6% -1 1% SOarC. S-e1na..ca Pe,ect. LATADA. 1995 TABLE A-2i STANDARIZED FORMAT PRODUCER SUBSIDY EQUIVALENT Country: Chile Type: Exportable Commodity: Grapes. Thompson Level: Farm 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989(a) 1990 1991 1992 Market Value of Output Output (Thousands of Tons) 131 121 134 159 161 218 202 198 Price Per Ton (CH$) 91,222 150,446 150.905 132,688 146,795 108,972 233,908 126,109 LA Total Market Value of Output (Millions CH$) 11,950 18,204 20,221 21,097 23,634 23,756 47,249 24,970 Assistance (Millions CH$): Market Price Support 0 0 0 0 5,875 0 0 0 Tariff (Subsidies) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Input Policies (214) (177) (220) (242) (269) (422) (342) (243) Credit Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Research & Extension 17 15 17 20 23 21 25 80 Total Assistance (197) (162) (203) (223) 5,629 (401) (317) (164) Producer Subsidy Equivalent -1.7% -0.9% -1.0% -1.1% 23.8% -1.7% -0.7% -0.7% a. Due to the cyanide scare in the U.S., the government provided direct payment of CH$ 5,875 million to producers. This direct payment is reflected in the price per ton. Source: Surveillance Project,, LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-2j Standardized Format Nominal Rate of Protection Country: Chle Type: Exportable Commodity: Grapes, Flame Seedleso Point of Competition: Border l9U 1985 129 1987 1988 12 1990 1991 1922 1993 111 1. UNADJUSTED BORDER PRICE Exchange Rate CHO Per USS 98.5 160.9 192.9 219.4 245.0 267.0 304.9 349.2 362.58 388.91 Border Price SUS FOB Ton 1.570.0 1,340.0 960.0 900.0 890.0 640.0 920.0 1,130.0 982.1 855.8 Border Price in Local Currency 154,609.6 215.549.1 185,211.2 197,462.2 169,076.5 170,850.7 280,510.7 394,618.7 356.100.2 332,832.6 2. BORDER ADJUSTMENTS TsriffslSubsidres/Adjustments Pon Charges Evport Commission (13.914.9) (19,399.41 (16.669.0) (17.771.6) (1.216.9) (13,668.1) (22,440.9) (31,569.5) (28,488.0) (28.290.8) Shipping (1.319.6) (2,155.5) (2,353.7) (2.676.7) (3,087.5) (3,363.6) (3.841.8) (4,679.5) (4,915.6) (5.237.9) Storage/Htmndlingl/Lo se Border Price Equivalent (with interention) 139,375.1 193,994.2 166.188.5 177,013.9 150,772.1 153,819.0 254,228.0 358.369.6 322,696.6 299,303.9 Border Price Equialent (withoutintervention) 139,375.1 193,994.2 166,188.5 177,013.9 150,772.1 153,819.0 254.228.0 358,369.6 322,696.6 299,303.9 3. COSTS FROM BORDER TO PROCESSING (WHOLESALE MARKET) TssritlaSubsidies/Adjustments Transportation (1.319.61 (2.155.5) (2.585.2) (3,093.6) (3.651.1) (3,977.6) (4,848.0) (5.971.7) (6,272.91 (6,684.2) Other Border Price Equivalent aftr Processing (wrth intervention) 138,055.5 191,838.7 163,603.2 173.920.3 147,121.1 149,841.4 249.380.1 352,398.0 316,423.7 292,619.8 Border Price Eqivalent after Processng (withoutemterventionr 138,055.5 191,838.7 163,603.2 173,920.3 147,121.1 149.841.4 249,380.1 352,398.0 316,423.7 292,619.8 4. PROCESSING COST (WHOLESALE MARKET) TwhifsjSubusdies/Adoiutments Processing Costs Materials & Servics (24.855.7) (40.600.4) (43.003.7) (48.970.6) (63,489.51 (71,463.71 (84.305.71 (99,213.41 ((04.218.1) (111,051.0 Maketing Margins Other Conversion ' 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Border Price Equivalent brtoreProcessing (withinter,ention) 113,199.8 151,238.2 120,599.5 124,949.7 83,631.6 78,377.8 165,074.4 253,184.5 212,205.6 181,568.7 Border Price Eqwa(antbetoreProcesng (withoutintervention( 113.199.8 151,238.2 120,599.5 124.949.7 83,631.6 78,377.8 165,074.4 253,184.5 212,205.6 181,568.7 S. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POINT (FARM) TO PROCESSOR Ttti(f6sSubsidiesjAdjustments Transportation Other Border Price Equivalent at Collection Point (with ntervention) 113.199.8 151,238.2 120.599.5 124,949.7 83.631.6 78,377.8 165,074.4 253,184.5 212,205.6 181,568.7 Border Price Equivlent at Collection Point (wthout intervention) 113,199.8 151,238.2 120,599.5 124,949.7 83,631.6 78,377.8 165,074.4 253,184.5 212.205.6 181,568.7 6. DOMESTIC PRICE Border Wholesale 113.199.8 151,238 2 120,599.5 124,949.7 83,631.6 78,377.8 165,074.4 253.184.5 212.205.6 181.568.7 Collection Point (Farm) 113,199.8 151,238.2 120,599.5 124,949.7 83,631.6 78,377.8 165,074.4 253,184.5 212,205.6 181,568.7 7. NPR Border Wholesale 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Collection Point (Fsrm) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% a. First semester only. Source: Surveillance Project. LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-2k Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Counr: CH° To: EKxporrt. Comm-dy: On.. R. .. nS.dd.. L-a: F.m- 3m 3m 3M 382 3m 3D 3M0 3m 3m 3 1. OUTPUT DodcrPnoF P. KG 112199.8 151,238.2 120.599.5 124949.7 83,831.0 78,377. 155.074.4 253,184.5 212,205.5 181,568.7 Onriy InfKG 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Vie .1 Do-oo Pdo.. 113,199.8 151,238.2 120,599.5 124,849.7 93,831.8 78,377.a 185,074.4 253.154.5 212.205.8 181,563.7 Swdm Pdi Eq-wni Pm KG 113,19.8 151,238.2 120,589.5 124,949.7 83.831.8 79,377.9 165.074.4 253,184.8 212,205.6 151,568.7 earnly 0of G0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Vik. arSwdm Pin. Equni-n 115,199.9 151.238.2 120,599.5 124.949.7 83,531.8 78,377.5 165,074.4 253,154.5 212.205.8 191,568.7 2. TtADAM.E DIRECT WPUTS 8r.oorw. CO-nUty KaP, K, 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 Dnrr.5 PrIc. 9 Pm K 1.73a 2,271 1,745 2.017 2.157 2.324 2.908 3.230 3.412 3,412 n.n..On Coor FP Kg 328.9 431.9 331.5 303,3 409.9 441.8 552.7 813.7 849.3 649.3 Swim Pdo EK. Po. 9 Pm Kg 1.677 2.175 1.629 1.889 2.010 2,184 2.72 3D048 3228 3.232 Swm Pdc Ea. Co S Pm Kg 219.5 413.2 30D.s 255.2 3911.9 411.1 517.8 578.7 613.3 614.1 I4O-bMn5y I Pm K. 0.1 0.601'.601O.1 .801 .601 DH- P, PP LI 1 .44 2.335 30,79, 3.062 3.887 3'558 loi. 3.,77 3.8511 3.ilos911 316.55 Oorago Can 8Pm Kg 311.1 373.3 492.5 499.9 455.7 569.5 801.1 994.1 608.9 616.3 imP i. Ec Po 9P LI 1 . 02 . 3101 2O'0 2745I 2"I13 3.175 3317 2417 *.634 5622 S-wm MOO Eq. Coot 9Pm Kg 29. 2381.2 480 4383 4021.1 30. 3.4.7 581.4 591M,1 reIoli 04wly Kg Pm Ko 0.9 0.89 0.6 0.83 0.99 0.96 0.8 0.99 0.39 0. Onrg.i .l. 6 Pm Ka i2221 2.8695 3396 4.~861 4,350 9.20i1 828 6492 7,133, 7.575 oma Co 9P Kg 1.117.2 2,963.4 3,039.8 369S5.4 3,991.7 4,6.3.7 5,928.4 0,07 6,2.9 8,77.7 Unti Pin. Sq Pl. 9Pm Kn 2.144 2,738 3,245 3.008 4.15 4.981 6.044 6.214 7.0 .17 si Plo Eq. C.t 9Pm Kg 1,817.8 2.480,1 2,803.1 3.44e9 3,718.1 4,445.7 5,411.6 5.553,8 .08i 6,416.2 ON-ft Add 04mev TOWS Pm Kg 10.1 18.9 10.5 10.8 10.1 10.5 10.1 10.5 10.5 10.6 Damn. Pidn T8P T2 80 35 40 5 0 790 8oo 926 s8o 312 D. . co 6 P. 2,632 3,73.2 4,38.5 7. 1622 3.3191 9349.9 9,4.7 .9100.9 32,1.3 ,wim Pie 6g. Pin I 8Pm Tailo 221 321 409 S"5 629 732 935 972 906 298 Sim Pi. Eq. Cow 9 P Kg 2.410.8 9,371.6 4.303,6 9,298.3 6,051.9 7,713.3 8,682. 6,1 $3.7 8,910.0 3,011.6 18. 04mfly Ka P,Tmr 10.62 10.S3 10.13 18.53 10.13 10.93 10.59 10.53 16,13 10.3 O..io Mo rJ_ cP. K, 43.43 48.17 34.79 44.80 69.78 S6.12 £2.81 94.29 99.24 90.04 LA. Og.8iowCnl0 9PmTe 4117.2 4468.0 369.8 476 732.7 590.7 882.3 992.1 1,064.3 1,3. 4S.M. Phro . P. 9 Pm Kg 39.62 38.31 31.14 3.43 6S.67 98.11 78.24 87.90 iS.77 il.48 Sw Po. Eq:. Coa 9 P. Ta 417.0 40.6. 27.8 404.0 6 1.3 132.2 823.6 926.2 997.0 86.1 TonDi nbo k D-I o 1,717.3 7,992.5 897.3 10,787.7 12,696.2 14.570.6 17,022.4 17.646.1 17.,62.9 12,356.2 Tor I D0r bn Sw PtW 1 .3 6,993.7 9,282. 8,5.9 11,604.4 13,630.2 519,. 16,794.2 11,780.8 11,886.1 3. TRADABLE NONOCT .a,rs Plow D_C_wy Wm Pm Tee 0.28 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 SmePlo Clo ,,,,jffl,, 1.4f542 41991 1.763 1e76 2.073 2.35 e2,17 2912 3019 3,458 Heri 04wino lbe Pm ToHl 0.42 0.40 0.42 8.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 042 0.e4 2 Omaoool Pin.t 8Pm 1. 166 1,8132 2.400-2700 3,00 232 371 2,771 4362 4,8210 Donos Coot 8Pm Tee 701. 771.8 o1,010.9 1,1736.8 1,279.9o 1387.92 1,57.9t 1,8.8 138 2,071.9 SwEm Pdn. Kg. _400 Hr,J,f~j9,,,,,, 1.421 I 540 2,194 2.487 2.361 3 122 3I.S 3 57 . 47S 4 721 d_. Pie Coot 9 P.Tn 60. 4 69.4 1,028.6 1,204.7 1,314.5 1,481.3 1.49,7 1,799.1 1,867.9 Kg. Prow Gantry Hr. Pm Ton 2.83 2.63 2.63 2.63 2.83 2.83 2.63 2.63 2.63 2.63 Doo P 9Pm H8 1888 * 41,92 1,950 42075 2,222 62,6.9 2775 2.775 3,22 3,20 Dw hi Pt. 6 P.IW 1.4 1,531 1763 276 2.073 2365 2576 7561 7.4 3494 wi Pmq6 Coal 9 Pm Ton 3,829.6 4,159. 4,637.7 4,834.8 9,494.4 8,301.2 6,782,5 6,815.7 6,067.4 9,089.3 Tori ingot Irmot. (Omneorlo 4003.3 5,524.4 6,075.8 6,556.5 7,144.7 7,714.0 0,607.1 8,821.3 9,621.3 111391 12,553.9 Tori loilnoollrc ool.u SwimrrPI 4,815.1 5.229,0 6,024.0 6,470.2 7,20P.2 8,250.2 3,953.7 6,990.6 10,016.7 12,003.4 4. VALUE ADDED DOcloont Input. Or Al Donrettos Po.07,402.0 143,945.8 411.632,2 114,12.0 70,.75. 63,807.2 14,042.1 235,40.0 194570.2 19,212.9 Al.-dgl Po 107,947.5 442.4 112307.5 11,953. 71,927.3 4747.6 149107.9 226.290,4 195424,7 1,982.6 Diaci & Iniroor Input. Al Sorn Pnc.. 101.957,0 137,567D0 10, 971.7 107 0173 62 ,261.4 5.. 0 138.420,6 225,876.7 183,421.1 158,50.8. Al lnn o. Pl..P. 10-3,02.4 138.025 106.283.4 1,48.6 54,818.1 56,97.3 140,15.2 2276,94.8 147,06.0 57,979.2 5, 85 1.47 1.24 .1.2% .1 3% 1271 2.7A .1.2 .0.74 .0.7% 0.0% Source: Sur,,6Awce Pf*ct, LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-21 STANDARIZED FORMAT PRODUCER SUBSIDY EQUIVALENT Country: Chile Type: Exportable Commodity: Grapes, Flame Level: Farm 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989(a) 1990 1991 1992 Market Value of Output Output (Thousands of Tons) 10.9 26.36 49.03 75.64 79.63 87.13 78.93 74.92 Price Per Ton (CHS) 151,238 120,600 124,950 83,632 88,069 165,074 253,185 212,206 Total Market Value of Output (Millions CH$) 1,648 3,179 6,126 6,326 7,013 14,383 19,984 15,898 Assistance (Millions CH$): Market Price Support 0 0 0 0 772 0 0 0 Tariff (Subsidies) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Input Policies (16) (35) (72) (103) (119) (151) (120) (102) Credit Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Research & Extension 8 8 9 10 12 10 12 39 Total Assistance (8) (27) (64) (93) 665 (141) (108) (63) Producer Subsidy Equivalent -0.5% -0.9% -1.0% -1.5% 9.5% -1.0% -0.5% -0.4% a. Due to the cyanide scare in the U.S., the government provided direct payment of CH$ 722 million to producers. This direct payment is reflected in the price per ton. Source: Surveillance Project,, LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-3a Standardized Format Nominal Rate of Protection Country: Chile Type: Importable Commodity: Beef Point of Competition: Processor 1. UNADJUSTED BORDER PRICE Exchange Rete CH$ Per US$ 98.48 160.86 192.93 219.40 245.04 266.95 304.903 349.22 362.58 388.91 Border Price LUS CIF Ton 1,653 1,089 1,238 1.734 1,609 1.835 2.497 3.148 2.496 2,094 Border Price in Local Currency 162,737.0 175,171.2 238,852.1 380.509.7 394,270.8 489,785.6 761,440.9 1.099,289.4 904.928.3 814,188.8 2. BORDER ADJUSTMENTS Tariffs/S.bsidies/Adjustments Import Tariff (b) 39,675.3 45,246.7 47,770.4 76,101.9 59,140.6 73.467.8 114,216.1 142,907.6 99,542.1 89.560.8 Port Charges Customs Ep. 13%) 4,882.1 5,255.1 7,165.6 11,415.3 11,828.1 14,693.6 22,843.2 32,978.7 27.147.8 24.425.7 Custom Agent 1.7%) 1,139.2 1,226.2 1,672.0 2,663.6 2,759.9 3,428.5 5,330.1 7.695.0 6.334.5 5,699.3 Storage/HandlingfLoss, Border Price Equivalent (with intervention) 208,433.5 226,899.2 295,460.1 470,690.4 467,999.5 581,375.5 903,830.4 1,282,870.8 1,037.952.7 933,874.6 Border Price Equivalent (without intervention) 168,758.3 181,652.5 247,689.6 394,588.5 408,858.9 507,907.6 789.614.2 1,139.963.1 938,410.6 844,313.8 3. COSTS FROM BORDER TO PROCESSING (WHOLESALE MARKET) Tariffs/Subsidies/Ad justments Transportation Trans. Santiago 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other Letter of Credit (.6%) 1,012.5 1,089.9 1,486.1 2,367.5 2,453.2 3,047.4 4,737.7 6,839.8 5,630.5 5,065.9 Interest Costs 190 Days) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Border Price Equivalent after Processing (with intenvention) 209,446.1 227,989.1 296,946.2 473,058.0 470,452.6 584,422.9 908,568.0 1.289,710.5 1,043.583.2 938,940.4 Border Price Equivalent after Processing (without intervention) 169,770.8 182,742.4 249,175.8 396,956.0 411,312.0 510,955.1 794,351.9 1,146,802.9 944,041.1 849,379.7 4. PROCESSING COST (WHOLESALE MARKEn Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments (c) 13,636.2 77,326.8 106,490.0 35,095.0 99,435.3 74,419.5 (205.874.5) (257,582.2) 140,271.9 173,499.1 Processing Costs Marketing Margins Other Conversion 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Border Price Equivalent before Processing (with intervention) 223,082.3 305,315.9 Border Price Equivalent before Processing (without intervention) 169,770.8 182,742.4 249,175.8 396,956.0 411,312.0 510,955.1 794.351.9 1,146,802.9 944,041.1 849,379.7 5. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POINT (FARM) TO PROCESSOR Tariffs/Subsidies/Adiustments Transportetion Other Border Price Equivalent at Collection Point (with intervention) 223,082.3 305,315.9 403,436.2 508,153.0 569,888.0 658,842.4 702.693.5 1,032,128.3 1,183,855.1 1.112,439.6 Border Price Equivlent at Collection Point (without intervention) 169,770.8 182,742.4 249,175.8 396,956.0 411,312.0 510,955.1 794.351.9 1,146,802.9 944,041.1 849.379.7 6. OOMESTIC PRICE Border Wholesale 229,699.0 312,035.0 411,058.0 519,704.0 582,738.0 675.791.0 726,278.0 1,059.185.0 1,183,855.1 1.112,439.6 Collection Point (Farm) 223,082.3 305,315.9 403,436.2 508,153.0 569,888.0 658,842.4 702.693.5 1,032,128.3 1,183,855.1 1.112,439.6 7. NPR Border Wholesale 35.3% 70.8% 65.0% 30.9% 41.7% 32.3% -8.6% -7.6% 25.4% 31.0% Collection Point (Farm) a. First semester only. b. Genera) Import Tariffs are as follows: i9m 1im 1986 1987 198B 1989 1859 1991 1992 1993 24.38% 25.83% 20.00% 20.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 13.00% 11.00% 11.00% c. Estimate of market structure and quality premium from the eradication of Foot and Mouth Disease. Source: Surveillance Project, LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-3b Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Country: Chile Type: Importable Commodity: Beef Level: Farm 1984 nan 1 98 1fi 19 8 n2 n9 199 nsa 1. OUTPUT Domestic Price Per Ton 229,699 312,035 411,058 519,704 582,738 675,791 726,278 1,059,185 1,208,133 1,133,756 Quantity a of Tons 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Value at Domestic Prices 229.699 312,035 411.058 519,704 582,738 675,791 726.278 1,059,185 1.208.133 1,133.756 Border Price Equivalent Per Ton 178.340 189,476 256.803 408,454 424,174 527.722 817.856 1,173,886 968,343 870,724 Ouantity # of Tons 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Value at Border Price Equmalent 176.340 189,478 256,803 408,454 424,174 527,722 817.856 1.173.886 968,343 870,724 2. TRADABLE DIRECT INPUTS Insecticide Quantity C.C. Per Ton 351.8 351.8 351.8 351.8 351.8 351.8 351.8 351.8 351.8 351.8 Domestic Price 8 Per CC 2.90 4.98 6.27 7.49 8.79 10.05 12.05 14.73 14.99 16.41 Domesti Cost B Per Ton 1,021.8 1,752.5 2,207.0 2,635.3 3,090.4 3,535.2 4,239.6 5,181.6 5,271.9 5.771.6 aorder Price Eq. Price l Per CC 2.66 4.54 5.84 6.98 8.33 9.53 11.43 14.07 14.42 15.78 Border Price Eq. Cost 8 Per CC 936.5 1,597.4 2,055.8 2.454.8 2,931.6 3,353.5 4,021.8 4,947.7 5,070.8 5,551.1 Panscur Quantity CC. Per Ton 117.3 117.3 117.3 117.3 117.3 117.3 117.3 117.3 117.3 117.3 Domestic Price SPar CC 24.0 41.3 51.9 82.1 72.8 83.3 100.0 109.0 113.1 121.3 Domestic Cost i Per Ton 2,818.6 4,849.3 6.087.7 7,283.2 8,536.7 9,769.7 11,731.0 12,780.6 13,269.6 14,233.2 Border Price Eq. Prrce 8 Per CC 10.5 17.4 20.8 23.7 25.2 28.2 28.4 31.1 30.8 31.5 Border Prce Eq. Cost S Per CC 1,228.6 2,037.8 2,444.1 2,779.4 2,980.5 3,068.7 3,326.2 3,645.8 3,615.1 3,695.2 WSoorwn Quantity CC. Per Ton 234.5 234.5 234.5 234.5 234.5 234.5 234.5 234.5 234.5 234.5 Domestic Price * Per CC 3t.5 54.0 68.1 81.4 95.3 109.2 130.8 t86.6 173.0 185.S Domestic Cost $ Per Ton 7,389.9 12,674.5 15,970.5 19,087.7 22,352.7 25,603.3 30,673.4 39.062.5 40,556.9 43,502.1 Border Price Eq. Price S Per CC 10.9 18.8 23.7 28.3 33.1 37.9 45.4 58.0 90.2 64.8 Border Price Eq. Coot * Per CC 2,563.4 4,413.4 5.564.8 6,637.0 7,757.4 8,889.2 10,653.5 13,594.1 14,114.2 15,139.1 Total Direct Inputs (Domestic Prices) 11,230.3 19,276.3 24.265.1 29,006.2 33.979.8 38,908.2 46,643.9 57,024.7 59,098.4 63,506.8 Total Direct Inputs (Border Price) 4,728.5 8.048.7 10,064.7 11,871.2 13,649.5 15,311.4 18,001.4 22,187.5 22,799.8 24,385.4 3. TRADABLE INDIRECT INPUTS Owuantity Domestic Price 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dometic Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Border Price Eq. Price 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Border Price Eq. Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Totil Indlirect Inputs Domestic Pricesl 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tote) Indirect Inputs IBorder Price) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4. VALUE ADDED Direct ints Only At DOeotc Pricem 218,488.6 292,759.2 388,792.8 490,697.8 548,758.6 636,882.9 879,634.3 1,002.1e803O 1,149.034.2 1,070,248,9 At International Prices 171,811.9 181,427.7 248,738.8 398,582.5 410,524.7 512,410.2 799,854.8 1,151.698,0 945.542,7 848,338.5 Direct B Indirect Inputs At Domestic Prices 218,468.6 292,759.2 386.792.6 490,897.8 548.758.8 636,882.9 679,634.3 1,002,160.3 1,149,034.2 1,070,248.9 At Intemetntl Prics 171,811.9 181,427.7 24e.738.8 398,582.5 410,524.7 512,410.2 799,854.8 1,151,698.0 945,542.7 848,338.5 5. EPR 27.3% 61.4% 56.8% 23.7% 33.7% 24.3% -15.0% -13.0% 21.5% 28.5% Source: Survnence Prject. LA TAD, 79985 TABLE A-Sc STANDARIZED FORMAT PRODUCER SUBSIDY EQUIVALENT Country: Chile Type: Imporbbie Commodity. Bel Level: Farm 1980 1981 1922 1933 1984 1965 1986 1987 1968 1989 1990 1991 1992 Mwket Value of Output Output (Thousends of Tons) 175 177 175 107 221 242 230 200 t_1 Price Per Ton (CHS) 202,636 206,944 337,500 376,435 438,864 471,651 687,783 644,848 OO TotalMarket Valu of Output(MllionsCCHS) 0 0 0 0 0 35,462 47,249 59,063 74.552 96,989 114,140 158,190 168,970 Asistance (Millions CH$): Market PrIoe Support 11,877 15,144 10,766 17,299 18,170 (12,307) (14,510) 26,578 Tenr (Subsidies) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Input Policlis (27) (27) (32) (31) (40) (53) (54) (40) Credit Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reearch & Extension 402 432 376 606 735 642 714 1,956 Totl Assistface 0 0 0 0 0 12,252 15,549 11,112 17,878 18,865 (11,718) (13,950 28,494 Producw Subsidy Equivalent 34.5% 32.9% 18.8% 24.0% 19.5% -10.3% -6.6% 16.9% TABLE A-4a Standardized Format Nominal Rate of Protection Country: ChbI Type: Importable Commodity: Maile Point of Competition: Processor 1l4 lUI 1an 2 1am 1221a 1982 199o 1211 1922 1993 AM 1. UNADJUSTED BORDER PRICE Exchane Rate CH$ Per US) 98.5 160.9 192.9 219.4 245.0 267.0 304.9 349.2 362.58 388.91 Border Price *US CIF Ton 171.3 90.3 81.4 97.0 130.2 157.7 125.4 113.0 119.5 Border Price in Local Currency 16,871.6 0.0 17.429.3 17,852.6 23,756.6 34,755.6 48,074.2 43,792.2 40,955.9 46,490.3 2. BORDER ADJUSTMENTS Tarifs/SubsidiestAdjustmentg ImportTerdifflb 4,113.3 0.0 3,485.9 3.570.5 3,563.5 5,213.3 7,211.1 5693.0 4,505.2 5,113.9 Port Charges Customs ExP. 3%) 506.1 0.0 522.9 535.6 712.7 1.042.7 1,442.2 1,313.8 1,228.7 1,394.7 Custom Agent (.2%) 33.7 0.0 34.9 35.7 47.5 69.5 96.1 87.6 81.9 93.0 StoragelHandling/Loss Border Price Equivalent (with intervention) 21,524.8 0.0 21,472.9 21,994.4 28,080.3 41.081.1 56,823.7 50.886.5 46.771.7 53,091.9 Border Price Equivalent (without intervention) 17,411.5 0.0 17,987.0 18,423.9 24,516.8 35,867.7 49,612.6 45,193.5 42,266.5 47,978.0 3. COSTS FROM BORDER TO PROCESSING (WHOLESALE MARKET) Tariffs/Subsid.es/Adjustments Transportation Trans. Santiago 987.8 0.0 1.796.2 2,031.6 2,171.1 2,397.2 2,942.3 3,492.2 3,625.8 5,444.7 Other Letterof Credit (1.5%) 104.5 0.0 107.9 110.5 147.1 215.2 297.7 271.2 253.6 287.9 Interest Costs (90 Days) 814.9 0.0 658.3 696.4 973.3 1,520.8 1,994.4 1,672.2 1,255.3 1.362.6 (A Border Price Equivalent after Processmig (with interention) 23,431.9 0.0 24,035.3 24,833.0 31,371.8 45,214.3 62,058.1 56,322.0 51.906.4 60,187.1 0 Border Price Equivalent efter Processmigl (without interventionl 19,318.6 0.0 20,549.5 21,262.5 27,808.3 40,000.9 54,847.0 50,629.1 47,401.3 55.073.2 4. PROCESSING COST (WHOLESALE MARKET) Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments Icl (9,431.9) 18,750.0 (4,035.3) (3.083.0) (1,371.8) (11.498.8) (21.558.1) (8,491.5) (2.355.4) (6,247.1) Processing Costs Morketing Margins Other Convarsion 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Border Price Equivalent before Processing (with interventron 14,000.0 18,750.0 20,000.0 21,750.0 30,000.0 33.715.5 40,500.0 47.830.5 49,551.0 53,940.0 Border Price Equivalent before Procesing (without interventon) 19.318.6 0.0 20,549.5 21,262.5 27.808.3 40,000.9 54,847.0 50,629.1 47,401.3 55,073.2 5. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POINT (FARM) TO PROCESSOR Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments Trenaportatio. Other Border Price Equivalent at Collection Point (with intervention) 14,000.0 18,750.0 20,000.0 21,750.0 30,000.0 33,715.5 40,500.0 47,830.5 49,551.0 53,940.0 Border Price Equivalent at Collection Point (without intervention) 19,318.6 0.0 20,549.5 21,262.5 27,808.3 40,000.9 54,847.0 50.629.1 47,401.3 55.073.2 6. DOMESTIC PRICE Border Wholesale 14,000.0 18,750.0 20,000.0 21,750.0 30,000.0 33.715.5 40,500.0 47,830.5 49,551.0 53,940.0 Collection Point (Farm) 14,000.0 18,750.0 20,000.0 21,750.0 30.000.0 33.715.5 40,500.0 47,830.5 49,551.0 53,940.0 7. NPR Border Wholesale -27.5% N.A. 2.7% 2.3% 7.9% -15.7% -26.2% 5.5% 4.5% -2.1% Collection Point (Farml -27.5% N.A. -2.7% 2.3% 7.9% -15.7% -26.2% .5.5% 4.5% -2.1% a. First semester only. b. General import Tarifs are es follows: 1984 1982 11i 1987 1983 1989 19999 24.38% 25.83% 20.00% 20.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 13.00% 11.00% 11.00% c. Estimate of cost of market structure. Source: Surveillance Project, LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-4b Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Ceojoy: C50 Tvp.: he Coedtevty: MS.. Ie_: Fmn i. oun-trr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ an ia an an an in Jim ian ian a 1. OIJTWU D.. PW PEA. 14.000 18.750 20.000 21.750 30000 33.716 40.500 47,831 4".5I ss340 DiatdtyDlT I I I 1 I 1 I I I I Va. e D-ft Pd 14.0E0 18,750 20.000 21,750 30.000 33.716 40.500 47.031 41.151 W3.S40 Sedr Pdc E.w.ds Pm To 19,315 0 30.850 21,262 27.810 40.002 54.84 50.629 47.402 55.074 _dly I dTof Te I I I i 1 I 1 1 I V.eltoetrd PD. Eqsnant 15218 0 20.510 21.262 27.810 40,002 54,548 50.528 47,402 55,074 2. TRADABLE DIRECT aMPTS Sed 0 'o.-y KU Pm Too 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Doa PDoe 5I Pm Ks 260.00 418.00 S18.40 862.07 842.00 1072.00 1300.00 1272.20 1249.57 1586.7 Oome-t Cowl 9 Pm Too 700.0 1040t.0 1.388,0 1,705.2 2,105.0 25560.0 3.285.0 3.180.5 3.123.9 3.98888 Seede Pfi Eq. Pfi. I P._ K 250.00 416.00 SS8.40 e82.07 842.00 1072.00 1300.00 1272.20 1249.57 1584.7 Sed P.. Eq. Ce 6 Pm Tin 700.0 1,060.0 13,86.0 1,705.2 2,105.0 2,80.0 3,265.0 3.180.5 3,123.8 35,88. umr Do.nDi Kq Pm Ton 82.0 82.0 82.0 52.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 Dom .it Pdtos Pm Ke 42.43 48.17 34.75 44.50 8.70 58.12 813.81 4.25 98.24 86.04 D o Cow 6 PmT 2.632.5 2,882.5 2,154.5 2,777.7 4.321.4 3,479.5 5,154.4 5842.8 6.152.9 8.078.5 herd. No. Eq. Ndo. S PeK 38.62 3S.81 31.14 38.43 68.67 50.50 78.24 87.30 83.77 01.49 94 P.o. Eq. Cowl PmTut 2,458.2 2,406.5 1,830.8 2,.32.5 4,071.8 3,134.4 4,551.0 5,44.7 0813.8 3.872.7 Ph.osh-t o-nblt Ke Pm Ton 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 Do-oeit P4o. 1 Pm K0 35.67 38.34 42.17 58.10 63.40 82.56 70.98 82.80 87.2 87.27 Dom. Cow 5 Pm Too 748.0 8os.1 855.5 1,178.0 1,331.4 1,330.8 155.8 1,738.9 1.831.2 1,032.7 Sd N-o Eq. PM 8 Pe Ke 32.05 33.16 37.57 50.14 58.20 58.86 72.58 78.45 81.78 51.41 Seed. No. Eq. Cowl 8Pm Too 073.0 898.4 789.1 1,053.0 1,222.1 1,154.0 1,524.5 1,805.4 1.71.0 1.70.6 Hubiodie Doentity eK P. Ton 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Do.tl No. 5 Pm K6 1000 1.218 1.300 1.350 1,450 1.320 1,930 2,270 2,285 2,25S Dot-tlo Co 6 Pm To 200.0 243.2 280.0 270.0 290.0 284.0 385.9 454.1 453.0 453.1 Sedee POos Eq. M P .o P K0 855 1.142 1.211 t I248 1,337 1.197 1.730 2.182 2.187 2,145 seed. Pd.. Eq. Co.st Pm To 160.8 225.4 242.3 249.8 267.5 2319.4 357.9 432.3 433.5 429.1 Intoiade Oe.n.t.y K6 Pm Too 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.3 0 0.6 Deeneotlo POos S Ps 00 ~~~~~~ ~~~~1.98 2.848 311"I1 3'878 3.80 4401 493 5.228 5249 5337 D to.l Co. P. To" 1.568.7 21 8.3 2489.0 2,842.3 3,088.1 3,584.1 3,847.8 4,130.6 4,199.2 4,317.8 See-1 Poos Eq. No.. 9Pm Ke 183 2,18 2,5 3.502S 3.883 4,2 44880 4.1 4881' 5073 Sed. Pdrtq. oo Pm 1,500.5 2,015 2,385.2 2,801.5 2030.De"8 ,412. 3,752.1 3,2!.8 3,;98.4 4,058.4 Tots D-o I :tlDo.... Prtol 5.91 t.5 7,000.1 7,135.0 8,573.2 11.135.9 11338.2 14,45S3. 15,397.5 15.780.2 l,845.8 Tot: Dt I ot. Itd PN.) 5.528.8 8,388.4 8.723.3 8,132.2 10,587.0 o1088.5 13,750.5 14,820.8 15,056.4 15,538.5 3. TRADAILE INDIRECT INPUTS Plow QOo.ty K1 PM TOo 0.T24 0.2 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 04 0.24 0.24 Domtjo No Pd. P_ Ks 6e I 888 1833 1950 2,075 2222 2.55 2,775 2,775 3,212 38620 DomocDo Cost P Too 398.8 439.9 468.0 498.0 533.3 814.2 885.8 885.8 770.9 s88.9 Sed. PN. Eq P1. 3 P. I 454 I 581 783 K 41 878 2,073 2 2 51_75 2,581 3008 3.459 SeedI. P1c Eq. Cos.. P o 580 7. 4231 45. 4807.8 574.8 8181.8 73. 802 Htnow QOentity K. Pm Too 0.43 0.45 0.43 0.48 0.43 0.48 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48 D-m15i0 Po 3 P. K, I 855 Il833 2 400 2.700 3.040 3.20 3,771 3,771 4.38 4821 D- Co.,etoCost6 PmToo 73 3e78.3 1,152.0 ,2i9870 S,458.0 1,583.8 l302 13,8170.2 205.,7 27,38.9 Seede ft..8 Nq . 3Pm K, 1g.435 . 41,4 2. I84 2.487 2,81 3.122 353 3, 5347 ,7 4 ,721, S=d Io.i Eq. Cost IP_ To o 8e.0 743.2 1,04a.2 1,154.0 1,373.3 1,4 7 1,89.8 1,702.8 2.00.4 2,288.3 sodn9 Ko, tPy 0 PmTo 0 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.1 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Donet NoSP 0 I50 3 ,5 20 '.680 2,888 2,3S58S I 31'27 310,I27 30.887 40 1'33 DontDtlo Cow S P. To 224.9 274.9 322.5 402.0 430.0 443.4 469.1 449.1 550.1 81 3.3 edP.o Eq. . n Pm K. 10 380 174 2248 2.518 2,51 2,8SS 2.872 3.275 3.714 seed.- Ptd. Eq. Cost 3Pm Too 174.0 204.0 284.8 337.3 377.3 384.2 398.7 400.8 491.3 557.0 Hoosise Docotiou.m KE P. Too 0.2 02.3 23 03 0.23 0.23 02.23 0.3 0.23 Don..o. No. 8Pm K, 3.978 5,12 5,743 8,1 7.8B.58 9.720 9,2317 101.366 12,308 D-oe Co Cs IP. Too 391.5 1,182.8 1,321.0 1.405.5 1,808.3 1,975.8 2.231.1 2,237.9 2,814.1 2,964.1 Sed_ Pe .- Eq. Nos 8Pm K, 3272 4.101 450 50 8.913 7.500 8.41 8.534 10240 11.12 BeedM Nco.00 Cost 3PM Too 752. 43.3 1,105.3 1,153.7 1,S58. 1,725.0 1,334.5 1,882.8 2,355.3 2,688.1 Tots ItMo-l 1 INes 23,15. 2.,777.3 3.283.5 3,801.3 4,231.8 4,828.8 51:78.2 5,201 8,030.8 8,788.8 Tots Idssot tryol. ISord. P110.1 1,884.8 2,288.9 2,S41.2 3,125.2 3,839.2 4,12.8 4.84.8 4,88s.2 53.2 8.319.8 4. VALUE AD4E0 l lots O.dy Al Domoso Noes Pd.088_5 11,880.9 12,83.0 12,578.3 13,384.1 22,377.3 2.046.2 32,432.7 3.760.8 37.281.4 At lobootelloojel Noss 13,792.1 (8.386.41 13,828.4 13,.30 17,212. 28,341.1 4,0987.0 38,008.5 32,345.2 39.237.2 Di-t & Ittnsol Inos A Dotlod Noe 5,772.7 8.903.6 9.551.5 8.275.3 14,632.5 17,750.4 20,570.0 27,229. 27,759.8 30,484. At nleentst)onPd No.. 11,527.5 (8,.58.3) 10,895.2 9,944.0 13,374.8 25.58.3s 38448.4 31 ,320. 28.7S9.1 32,917.8 S. EPA .51.2% N.A. .13.1% -6.7% 0.4% -29.4% 42.7% -13.1% 3.7% -7.4% SourCe: SurvehiAnce Project, LA TAD. 1995 TABLE A-4c STANDARIZED FORMAT PRODUCER SUBSIDY EQUIVALENT Country: Chile Type: lmporfable Commodity. Maize Level: Farm 1980 1i81 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Mwket Value of Output Output (Thousands of Tons) 772 721 017 681 938 823 836 911 Price Per Ton (CH$) 18,750 20000 21,750 30,000 33,716 40,500 47,831 49,551 TotalMarketValueofOutput(MillionsCCHS) 0 0 0 0 0 14,475 14,420 13.420 19,830 31,626 33,332 39,987 45,141 Aasitance (Millions CHS): Market Price Support 0 (397) 302 1,447 (5,899) (11,810) (2,339) 1,958 TarNf (Subsidies) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Input Policies (918) (638) (714) (616) (1,053) (1,013) (1,080) (1,048) Credit Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Research & Extension 114 134 100 199 241 208 224 552 Total Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 (804) (901) (312) 1,030 (8,711) (12.615) (3,195) 1,474 Producer Subsidy Equivalent -5.6% -6.2% -2.3% 5.2% -21.2% -37.8% -8.0% 3.3% TABLE A-5a Standardized Format Nominal Rate of Protection Country: Chie Type: Importable Commodity: Milk Point of Compethion: Processor 1984 122 186 au8 1988 1989 192Q 1993bnl 1. UNADJUSTED BORDER PRICE Exchange Rate CHIt Per USS 98.48 160.85 192.93 219.40 245.04 268.95 304.903 349.22 362.58 388.91 Brder Price CtFMTPolIo Nationa 1,194.1 1,226.0 0.0 1,089.1 1,426.2 1,833.2 1,504.7 1,515.0 1.730.0 1,755.0 BorderPriceinLocalCursency 117,590.3 197.211.3 0.0 238,953.7 349,473.7 489,386.3 458,777.4 629,068.3 627,263.4 682,537.1 2. 6OROER ADJUSTMENTS TariffwSubsidie/Adiustonentes Imoon Tariff (bI 28,668.6 50,939.7 0.0 47,790.7 52,421.1 73,407.9 68,816.6 68,778.9 68,999.0 75,079.1 Pon Chage Customs Exp. 13%) 3,527.7 5.916,3 0.0 7,158.6 10,484.2 14,581.6 13,763.3 15,872.0 186817.9 20,476.1 Custom Agent (.2%) 235.2 394.4 0.0 477.9 698.9 578.8 917.6 1,058.1 1,254.5 1,355.1 Stwaaiir~023 Bard PrIce Eqtvalnt (with I trountnl 150,021.8 254,481.7 0.0 254,391.0 *13.077.9 578,454.6 642,274.9 514,777.4 716,334.8 779,457.3 Brds Pri Equlnt (wthu ltrh tiond 121,353.2 203,522.1 0.0 246,800.2 360.656.8 505,044.7 473,456.3 545,998.5 647,335.8 704,378.2 3. COSTS FROM BORER TO PROCESSING (WHOLESALE MARKET) Twfsffub0tweAuTsc " Tnnapautton Tprtn os Plan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oth er Letr Crd (.68W1 728.1 1.221.1 0.0 1,479.6 2,163.9 3,030.3 2.840.7 3.276.0 3,584.0 4,226.3 rInten Cosa (90 Dave) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 B oBr FdcesqdEvIent ftwrPr8cessinglwithintroikwr 150,748.9 255,882.9 0.0 295,870.6 415,241.8 581,484.9 545,116.6 618,053.4 720,218.8 783,683.6 ArrPrice Eqvalnt at PocessIng wutotm htrntsn 122,081.4 204.743.2 0.0 248,079.8 362,820.8 508,077.0 476,299.0 549,274.5 651,219.8 708,604.5 4. PROCESSING COST (WHOLESALE MARKET) Tarlffs.lSushelAwA rantms 70,058.8 (tS,883.11 0.0 96,268.2 65,383.7 12,488.1 133,030.3 18,277.8 242,947.8 222,105.6 Proaaal CONs Maketn M-gpUs 0.0 0.0 0.0 24903.83 36326.08 50792.48 47698.81 55018.913 65168.679 71060.0796 othe Pakghii 0.0 0.0 0.0 -11480.78 .12937.29 -15707.35 -20000 -24008.875 -4532.25 -4861.375 0.0 C nrsian (c) IS. 14.3 0.0 15.07222 14.0896 13.65171 14.51282 14.721037 14.444506 14.4837238 Bards Prke Eqivnt before Plrcesng tWt Wteveti0n) 14.266.3 16,737.7 0.0 26,018.6 33.402.3 42,830.1 46,727.4 54.638.2 56.60.5 59,442.7 Bord rric EEqulvs beforePRacessiag(WwA ianutSvft 7,887.6 14,290.8 0.0 16,459.4 25,751.0 37.491.7 32,819.2 37,312.2 45,054.3 48,924.2 5. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POINT (FARM) TO PROCESSOR TwI ubeSt Ad wtuunt Trnsporation _0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oter BardrPnMe Equlvalnt et Colectonn Pint (wih interntfonl 14,266.3 16,737.7 0.0 26,018.6 33,402.3 43,630.1 46,727.4 54,538.2 68.680.5 69,42.7? Bar0e Price Equdvalent at C0wcion Pain (_wi Intervention) 7.887.8 14,290.8 0.0 16.459.4 25,751.0 37,491.7 32,819.2 37,312.2 45.084.3 48,924.2 6. DOMESTIC PFUCE Bards wholesal 14,286.3 16,737.7 0.0 26.018.6 33,402.3 43,830.1 48,727.4 54,638.2 88.650.5 69.442.7 Co'lecdin Point (Fwrm) 14,266.3 16.737.7 0.0 26,018.6 33,402.3 43.830.1 46,727.4 54,638.2 66,680.5 69,442.7 7. NPR Barder Wholale 60.9% 17.1% N.A. 58.1% 29.7% 16.9% 42.4% 46.4% 47.9% 41.9% Collecton Point IFrm) 80.9% 17.1% N.A. 58.1% 29.7% 16.9% 42.4% 46.4% 47.9% 41.9% a. First eamnet only. b. Gral Imponrt Tariffs re ex olows: L9m I 18 188 j 18 19 19 19 24.38% 25.83% 20.00% 20.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 13.00% 11.00% 11.00% c. Reprels a convwon flcor from the rgionnl markt In PovI to the Nationa lev. Source: Surveilance Project. LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-5b Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Country: Chile Type: Importable Commodity: Milk Leel: Farm ~~~~129 8 1896 6 lf 198 8 1989 1262O 122 1991 122 1993 1. OUTPUT Dometic Price Per Ton 15,183 18.476 19.955 27.889 3r.389 48.238 50,370 58,550 73.140 76,506 Quantiy # of Tons 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Value at Domestic Prices 15,183 18,476 19.955 27,889 36,389 48,238 50,370 58.550 73,140 76.506 Bordar Price Equmvlent Per Ton 8.805 16.029 0 18.330 28,738 41.899 38,462 41.224 51,544 55,987 ounthty Io Tonf 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Value at Border Price Equialemt 8.805 16,029 0 18,330 28,738 41,899 36.482 41,224 51.544 55.987 2. TRADABLE DIRECT INPFTS Concer;tal Ouemnty C.C. 1.1 1.1 N.A. 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Domestic Price s Per CC 84.7 110.9 N.A. 168.8 195.6 223.7 268.3 323.7 329.4 Domenic Coat II Pr Ton 69.7 119.8 N.A. 179.8 210.8 241.2 269.2 349.0 355.1 0.0 Border Price Eq. Price $ Per CC 59.2 100.9 N.A. 155.2 185.4 212.1 254.3 309.1 316.8 Border Price Eq. Coal 1 Pr CC 83.8 108.8 N.A. 167.3 199.8 228.6 274.2 333.2 341.5 0.0 NA. Semen Quantity Dose Per Unt 1.8 1.8 N.A. 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 Domestic Price 6 Pr Dose 1.122 1,818 N.A. 2,710 2,862 2,816 3.028 3,711 4,284 3,900 Domestic Coat 1 Per Unit 2,019.0 3.271.8 N.A. 4,877.3 5,151.7 5.069.5 5,449.8 86880.1 7,874.7 7,020.0 bordr Prke Eq. Prie $ Per Doe. 1.001 1,610 N.A. 2,492 2.672 2,599 2,771 3,427 4,037 3.8e0 Bordr Pric Eq. Coat 8 Pe rDoo 1,802.4 2.898.8 N.A. 4,484.8 4,809.8 4,678.7 4,987.6 6,169.2 7,269.7 6.,68.8 M14k Subnde Quanvtty Kiss Per UnIt 2.1 2.1 N.A. 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 Domeetic Price I Per Ko 107 173 N.A. 254 313 411 458 468 b33 536 Domntic Cost 8 Per Unit 228.4 371.2 N.A. 545.0 871.8 881.8 975.6 1.003.6 1.142.7 1,148.2 Border Pice Eq. Price Per KSo 91 149 NA. 223 281 373 407 409 490 491 Bordr PriF Eq. Cost * Per Udt 195.7 318.7 NA. 478.7 803.1 799.7 873.3 877.5 1.050.6 1.053.2 Mikingt Equlenwn Quanity Per Unhi 1.0 1.0 N.A. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Domenkt Pri 8 Per Kko 96 158 N.A. 205 229 261 309 342 442 474 Domsti Cost * Pr Unit 96.3 1U8.2 N.A. 205.3 228.8 261.5 309.2 341.8 442.2 474.3 b8rder Prk Eq. Prkcs Pr Kilo 78 127 N.A. 172 200 228 270 298 400 429 Border Pric Eq. Cost 1 Par LUt 77.8 128.5 NA. 171.9 199.7 228.2 269.9 298.4 400.3 429.4 Coolig Twn* Quantity Per Unt 1.0 1.0 N.A. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Domenkst PrIce Per KLo 182 299 N.A. 388 432 494 564 645 681 730 Domestic Cost I Per Unit 181.7 298.7 N.A. 387.8 431.8 493.6 583.8 645.3 680.5 72989 Border Price Eq. Price I Per Kilo 147 239 N.A. 325 377 431 510 563 616 "I1 Border Price Eq. Cot 6 Per Unit 146.9 238.8 N.A. 324.6 378.9 430.8 509.6 563.3 616.0 660.7 Total Deet Inptms IDomstic Price 2.595.0 4,219.5 N.A. 6,195.0 6.694.9 6,947.2 7,807.7 9.019.8 10.295.2 9,372.4 Total Derse Inputs (Border Pricel 2,286.7 3,691.7 N.A. 5,627.3 6,189.3 6.366.0 6,914.8 8,241.6 9,674.9 8.732.0 3. TRADA8LE INDIRECT INPUTS Domasic Pnce 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Domenic Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Border Price Eq. Pre 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Border PFc Eq. Cost 0.0 0. 0 o0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total indirect Inpu (Domenic Prncev 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total krdect Inputs (Border Pirie) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4. VALUE ADOED Diret Inputs Only At Domestic Price 12.588.3 14,256.2 N.A. 21,694.1 29,694.0 41,290.6 42,762.5 49,530.2 82,844.8 67.133.5 At Intamewtonal Price 6,517.9 12,337.2 N.A. 12,702.5 22.548.2 35.533.4 29.547.4 32,982.4 41,868.8 47,255.5 Doct & Ibdirect inpjs At Domestic Price 12,588.3 14,256.2 N.A. 21,694.1 29.694.0 41,290.8 42.762.5 49,530.2 62.844.8 87,133.5 At International PrIces 8,517.9 12,337.2 N.A. 12.702.5 22,548.2 35,533.4 29,547.4 32,982.4 41.868.8 47,255.5 5. EPR 93.1% 15.8% N.A. 70.8% 31.7% 16.2% 44.7% 50.2% 50.1% 42.1% Source: Surveillance Proect. LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-5c STANDARIZED FORMAT PRODUCER SUBSIDY EQUIVALENT Country: Chile Type: lmportble Commodity: Milk Level: Farm 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Mwket Value at Output ON Output (Thousands of Tons) B07 587 687 702 794 918 977 989 Price Per Ton (CHS 18,476 19,955 27,889 36,389 48,238 50,370 58,550 73,140 TotalMarket ValuoofOutput (MtlionsCH$) 0 0 0 a 0 11,215 13,709 19,180 25,545 38,301 48,240 57,203 72,335 Assitanco (Millions CH$): Market Price Support 1.485 13,709 8,569 5,373 5.036 12,766 16,927 21,351 Tarif (Subsidies) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Input Policies (320) (333) (390) (355) (482) (836) (780) (608) Credit Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Research& Extension 347 387 316 558 673 585 641 1.694 Total Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 1.512 13,783 8,495 5,574 5,247 12,715 18,808 22,439 Producw Subsidy Equivalent 13.5% 100.4% 33.9% 21.8% 13.7% 27.5% 29.4% 31.0% TABLE A-6a Standardized Format Nominal Rate of Protection Country: Chile Type: Importable Comrnmodity: Sugvrbeeto Point of Competition: Proceasor lBS fl lA 1982 1211 1211 1099 121 19113 1. UNADJUSTED BORDER PRICE Exchange Rate CHS Per US$ 98.5 160.9 192.9 219.4 245.0 267.0 304.9 349.2 362.58 388.91 Border Price US$ Per Ton CIF 124.2 91.9 10.4 118.5 164.6 219.3 300.2 233.0 265.4 308.1 Border Price in Local Currency 12,231.2 14,775.0 20.325.2 25.998.9 40,321.3 58,528.8 91,537.1 81,368.3 98,236.0 119,819.3 2. bORDER ADJUSTMENTS TgRiffSubsidies/Adjutments Impon Twiff (c) 2.982.0 3,816.4 4,065.0 5,199.8 6.048.2 8,779.3 13,730.6 10,577.9 10,586.0 13,180.1 Port Charges Port Agent (.2%) 24.5 29.5 40.7 52.0 80.6 117.1 183.1 182.7 192.5 239.6 Port Fees (3%) 366.9 443.2 609.8 780.0 1,209.8 1,755.9 2,746.1 2.441.0 2,887.1 3,594.6 StoregeMHndlinglLoaa Trensport to Santiago 1,184.7 1,899.8 2,155.0 2,437.5 2,604.8 2,877.7 3,530.7 4,190.6 4,351.0 6,222.6 BordwrPrice Equivsl nt(withintarvention) 16,789.3 20,963.9 27.195.8 34,468.2 50,264.6 72.058.7 111,727.6 98,740.6 114.252.5 143,056.2 Border Price Equivelnt (without intervention) 13,807.3 17,147.5 23,130.6 29.268.4 44.216.4 63.279.4 97,997.0 88,182.7 103,666.5 129,876.1 3. COSTS FROM BORDER TO PROCESSING (WHOLESALE MARKET) TeriftjSubsaAdjustments Tranportabon Other Lettr of Credit (1.0%) 18.8 21.0 27.2 34.5 50.3 72.1 111.7 98.7 114.3 143.1 ON lntrematcosetloaeD"sl 646.2 703.0 846.6 t.106.3 1,755.4 2,683.0 3,939.5 3,262.0 3,076.9 3,686.5 Bord rPric Equivsl ntttwrProca"ing(withintervention) 17,452.3 21,687.9 28,069.4 35,609.0 52,070.2 74,813.9 115,778.8 102,101.3 117,445.6 146,887.7 Border Pric Equivalnt after Processing (without intervention) 14,470.3 17,871.6 24,004.4 30,409.2 46,022.0 68,034.5 102,048.2 91,523.4 106,859.6 133,707.6 4. PROCESSING COST (WHOLESALE MARKET) TriffSSubsidibs/Adjustments (a) 12,487.7 38,197.3 44,146.8 42.415.4 24,339.6 15,244.1 (4.524.1) 49,392.5 69.517.3 52.002.5 Processing Costs Packaging 6,372.3 8,055.3 9453.75 11480.75 12937.25 15707.36 20000 23187.5 4532.25 4861.25 Muratirig Mrgins (10%) 1,447.0 1,787.2 2400.439 3040.921 4602.205 6603.454 10204.82 9152.3444 10685.964 13370.7595 Other Transportetion 1436.55 2302.60 2613.969 2955.92 3157.127 3489.415 4279.64 5080.8231 7000 8167.11 Convention Ib) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Border Pric Equivalent before Processing with intervention) 4,490.6 7,335.1 8.604.6 9,368.5 9.507.5 11,132.0 13.720.6 17,481.0 19.216.7 20,612.2 Border Price Equivalent before Processing (without intervention) 3,150.4 3,695.4 4.427.9 5,243.5 6,874.9 9,050.8 12.923.1 12,265.6 12,277.2 14,965.3 5. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POINT (FAWM) TO PROCESSOR Tariffa/Subteidea/Adjuatmants Transporttion Othe _ BorderPric EquivalentatColsectionPoint(withinteivention) 4,490.8 7,335.1 8,604.6 9.366.5 9,507.5 11,132.0 13,720.6 17,461.0 19,216.7 20,612.2 Borde Price Equivelant at Collection Point (without intervention) 3,150.4 3,695.4 4,427.9 5,243.5 68,74.9 9,050.8 12.923.1 12,265.8 12,277.2 14,965.3 6. DOMESTIC PRICE Borde WhollYale 4,490.6 7,335.1 6,604.6 9,388.8 9,507.5 11,132.0 13,720.6 17,461.0 19,216.7 20.612.2 Collection Point (Prm) 4,490.8 7,335.1 8,604.6 9,368.5 9,507.5 11,132.0 13,720.8 17,461.0 19,216.7 20,812.2 7. NPF Border Whoseale 42.5% 98.5% 94.3% 78.7% 38.3% 23.0% 6.2% 42.4% 56.5% 37.7% Colection Point (Farm) 42.5% 98.5% 94.3% 78.7% 38.3% 23.0% 6.2% 42.4% 58.5% 37.7% a. Due to the non-lmnewity of the corvereion equation in note b below, thee figures wer not e tru estimaion of mrket etrueture inefficiancies. They only repreaent correction factors to obtain the correct ugarbat aqtivalent prices. b. Procesad augar is converted to sugarbeet equivalent by the following formLds: Price augarboet - 1,094.96 + .0899321aPric uger) c. GeaEl inport Twifae ae foiloawa: J984 jfij 1 9S87 11 9 Inn inn 199 19n( 24.38% 25.83% 20.00% 20.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 13.00% 11.00% 11.00% Source: Suveiifance Project, LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-6b Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Counry: Chile Type: t,Irort.ble Commditc: Scgerbeets Le-e: Frm. 1294 129 IiS 1292 u i8i 129 in12 m 'In nn t. OUTPUT Domestic P-ce PFt Ton 4.491 7,335 e,eos 3.368 9,507 11,1 32 13,72t 1 7,461 19.21t7 20,t12 Ocaritity MT 1. tO .0 1.0 1.0 1.0 t.0 1.0 t.0 1.0 t.0 Vatlue at Dometic Prices 4,491 7,335 6.606 9.368 9,501 11,132 13,721 1 7.461 19.217 20.612 Border Puce Equivalen Pet Too 3.150 3,695 4,428 5,243 6.835 9,051 12.923 12.265 12,27e 14.965 O-ntity MT 1.0 1.0 t.0 . 0 1 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Voice at Border Pi1cc Eq-celst 3,1950 3,695 4.428 5.243 e,e 75 9SOOt 12.923 12,265 1 2.2 78 14.965 2. TRADABLE DIRIECT INPUJTS Ph~qochm, Ocantity Ku. Put Ton 8.0 9.0 e.o e.o e.o 8.0 e.o eo e.o 8.0 Dometi Price $ Put Kg 35.67 38.34 42.1 7 56.10 83.40 63.36 79.98 82.80 97.2 67.27 Domesic Cur 8 Put Tuc 286.3 306.7 33 7.3 448.8 507.2 506.9 631.9 662.4 897.6 098.2 Border Puce. Eq. Puce ft Ka 32.06 33.18 27.57 50.14 08.20 56.66 72.69 76.46 41.76 81.41 Border Pric Eq. Coat, P.r Too 256.4 265.3 300.6 401.1 465.6 464.8 690.7 611.6 654.1 801.3 Puta..eico Du..tity Ka. Pet Too 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Domestic Pric I Put Kg 4.1 520 483 6.06 76.67 3071 979 0.1 109 19.2 Do.mesic Cos 5 P.t Toe 184.9 224.8 219.3 2 76.3 306.7 314.6 391.7 Cr 7.2 443.6 47. Botdet Puce Eq. Pru 5 Put Ka 40.86 47.36 68.16 60.12 70.38 70.22 89.23 95.78 103.60 10.83 Border Price Kq. Cos 5 Pet Too 163.5 199.6 192.8 240.6 281.5 260.9 366.9 383.1 414.4 439.3 Ute t2os-ity Ks. Pee, Ten 5.0 5.0 6.0 1.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 Domeoti Pric * Put Ka 43.43 46.17 34.76 44.90 89.70 56.12 83.91 94.25 99.24 98.04 Domesti Cos 1 Put, Ton 21 7.2 230.8 173.8 224 0 346.5 260.6 419.1 471.3 496.2 490.2 Botdet Price Eq. Print B Per Ka 39.62 36.81 31.14 38.43 66.67 60.85 78.24 87.90 93.77 91.049 Bctdet Puce. Eq. Cost 5 Put Too 198.1 194.1 166.7 192.2 328.4 262.9 381.2 438.5 466.8 467.5 Herbicide Dos-ty Kg. Put, Too 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 D-meoic Pric 8 Pet, Kg 2,788 3,661 4,769 5.862 6,424 6,301 9.122 9.823 11,061 11,205 Domesi cost 6 Per Tou 553.0 330.3 953.9 1,172.5 1,284.9 1,660.3 1,824.5 1,960.3 2,210.2 2,241.0 Border Pric EqM. Pric Pu Ka 2.67 3 4.91 4.676 543 6,79 .3 .1 9,346 10.610 1.0.7,26 ON odrPieEq ot se o 673I 69. 1.3 1,126.6 1,36. 1,8089" 1,763.5 1,669.6 2121.9 2,153 te...oticids O.enIty Lt. Putr Too 0.28 0.29 0.26 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.28 DomstcPrue Lt. Put T.. 2.128 2.882 3.108 3,430 3.634 4,083 4.524 48917 5.138 5,167 Dometi Cost S Per Toe 099 07.1 1989. 980.5 998.6 1,~1'43.1 1,2866. 1,3674.7 1,43.6 1,446.8 Border Pros Eq. Pros Lt. Per Ton 2,6 270 272 327`.6 386 4,1 ,69 486 .7 BorIder Price Eq Coot CPt, Too 5 76.7 775.8 832.1 91 7.6 941.7 1,091.0 1,207.0 1,301.6 1,387.8 1364.1 Tote Direc nos (oesi Price 1,840.3 2.299.7 2,554.1 3,082.0 3,436.9 3,905.6 4,533.7 4,892.3 5,286.2 5,353.0 Tota Direc ppto Border Prmel) 1,731.8 2.122 6 2,396.3 2,880.0 3,253.1 3,666.4 4,289.4 4,805.4 5,026.6 5,057.5 3. TRADABLE INDIRECT INPUITS Prose G-soity Hro. Put Ton 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 D.e.esi. Puc SPur Hi. 1,888 1,833 1.850 2,075 2.222 2.669 2,7 76 2.775 3,212 3,620 Doroesic cuss iPur -Too 369. 39. 21.2 44. 600 627 6993 09. 89391 782.0 Border Price Eq. Price $ Per Hr. 1.454 1~~~~~~I,58 1,783I 1,4876 28073 2,385 2578 2,69~13 3,059 3,4509 BoDMt Puce Eq. Cost SPu rTo 314.1 341.6 360.8 405.2 447.9 81 7.4 558.9 559.7 660.6 747.3 Eq. Plum Ou...tity Hre. Per Ton 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 Domesic Pros 6 PurHt. 1,686 1,833 1,950 2,076 2,322 2,569 2,776 2,776 312 3.620 Domestic Costli S Put Tso 813.0 674.6 717.81 763.8 81 7.6 941.7 1,021. 1,21.0 1,12. 1332.2 Border Prc q rc Put Ho. 1,54 168 173 1'.87 ,7 ,8 2,676 2,61 309 3. 3459 Bode .Pp Eq. Cost Pur Ton 5.2 581,8 648.9 890.4 763.0 881.8 946.9 963.5 1,128.8 1.273,0 S-&-ari Do-tey Rep Pet Tor 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 Doetic Prcs 8I Put Hr. 1,500 1,933 2,160 2,880 2,8668 2,958 3,127 3,127 3,887 4.132 Doeesic Cost - -Pee -Too 72.0 86.0 183.2 128.8 13. 41.9 1 60.1 1510,1 178.0 198. order Prr Eq. Pk6cc SPurs. 1180 1,380 1,784 2.249 2.6178 2,581 2,88 2,7 3,275 3, 71 Beed. Pri- K, C.e. I Pusr Too 8,7 8. 84.7 107.8 120.7 122.9 127.8 2. 8. 7. T-.Il Isdecu Ikp,t1 Iflessess P.iceI 1,044.8 1,158,4 1,2412.9 1,240.4 1,436.4 1,828,3 1,770.6 1,770.5 2,052.0 2,212.8 Total Iteec lepote lled.ePeies 908.0 988.5 1114.3 1,038.5 1.331,7 1,621.9 1,823.4 1,841.0 1,943.8 2.198,4 4. VALLIE ADDED DVep spie Dray At Doenrsse Puce 2,80. :8025.4 8,8. ,8. 8008 7382 9,8. 2687 13,828.5 15,258,2 Att lsfsttario Price 1:",417. 5,72.6 32,02. 2,282. 3,8201.8 8384.8 8,823.7 7,6850.0 7,260.6 9,807.5 Dissc&htssctkws.A Al Dos-stct.Peri 1,808.8 3,677.0 4,808.8 4,848.8 4,836.3 8,889.9 7,418.5 18,768.32 1 1,8B78. 12, ~948.8' As ktn-ras-s Peso 512.8 664.2 817.7 1,168.0 2,280.1 3,842.8 8,990.4 9,88. 5,07.1 7.7091 212.2% 882.8% 424.016 328.4% 102.4% 46.8% 8.1I% 78.4% 123.8% 87.9% Sosoto Sw,.CBtsc Psn4ect LATAD, 1995 TABLE A-6c STANDARIZED FORMAT PRODUCER SUBSIDY EQUIVALENT Country: Chile Type: Importable Commodity: Sugarbeet Level: Farm 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1988 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Miwket Value of Output Output (Thousands of Tons) 2165 2973 2698 2747 2788 2301 2484 3588 Price Per Ton (CHS) 7,335 8,805 9,368 9.507 11,132 13721 17.481 19,217 TotalMarket Valueof Output(MillionsCH$) 0 0 0 0 0 15,880 25,583 25,256 26,118 30,791 31.572 43,373 68,951 Assistance (Millions CH$): Market Price Support 7,878 12.414 11,120 7,232 5,757 1,835 12,90W 24.900 Tarif (Subsidies) 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 Input Policies (751) (848) (914) (790) (924) (854) (1,033) (1,319) Credit Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Research & Extension 87 81 90 102 122 110 131 417 ToJW Aa Aistance 0 0 0 0 0 7,214 11,647 10,296 6,544 4,955 1,091 12,004 23,998 Produer Subsidy Equivalent 45.4% 45.5% 40.8% 25.1% 16.1% 3.5% 27.7% 34.8% TABLE A-7a Standardized Format Nominal Rate of Protection Couwtry: Clib Type: Importablo Conwnodity: What Point of Competition: Processor fiR 12E1987 fiS 12 fU 199110 flU 1993 li 1. UNADJUSTED BORDER PRICE Exchag RAt CHO Per US* 98.5 180.9 192.9 2t9.4 245.0 267.0 304.9 349.2 362.58 398.91 border Prco $US CIF Ton 133.6 118.8 96.5 108.0 139.7 153.3 121.9 95.0 120.2 134.4 Bordr Pries in Local Curancy 13,152.6 19,106.1 18,615.8 23,685.3 34,221.1 40,916.8 37,160.7 33.163.7 43,595.7 52,281.2 2. BORDER ADJUSTMENTS Terilfw/SbaideA4asrannuts Imoort Twi lci 3,206.8 4,935.1 3,723.2 4,737.1 5,133.2 8,137.5 5,574.1 4,311.3 4,794.4 5,750.9 Port Chargw Custom ExP. (3%) 394.9 573.5 558.8 710.8 1,026.9 1,227.8 1.115.1 995.2 1,307.9 1.568.9 Custom Agent (.2%) 26.3 38.2 37.3 47.4 68.5 81.9 74.3 68.3 87.2 104.8 StorMeg/eHnrdgoss Border Prto Equvant (with iteventioni 16,780.5 24.653.0 22,935.0 29,180.6 40.449.6 48.363.9 43,924.2 36.536.5 49.775.2 59,705.5 Brer Prka Erquwnt (without Intervention) 13,573.8 19,717.9 19,211.8 24,43.8 35,318.4 42,226.4 38,350.1 34,225.2 44,980.8 53.954.6 3. COSTS FROM BORDER TO PROCESSING (WHOLESALE MARKET) 10.0 9.8 9.3 9.3 8.9 9.0 9.7 10.0 10.0 14.0 Tari W /9SLs Armants Transportation Trans. Santago 987.7 1,581.3 1,796.2 2,031.6 2,171.1 2,397.2 2.942.3 3.492.2 3,625.8 5,444.7 otile Lttr of Credit 0.5%i 135.7 197.2 192.1 244.4 353.2 422.3 383.5 342.3 449.8 539.5 Inte Coots (90 Dave) 835.7 808.8 703.5 924.3 1,402.4 1,790.8 1.542.1 1,194.8 1,336.2 1,532.7 Border Pri Eqrivist after Processn (with Intvention) 19,539.6 27.240.2 25,626.8 32,381.0 44,376.2 52.974.2 48,792.1 43,565.8 55.187.1 67,222.5 Border Pri Eqvalent aftr Processin (without Intervention 15,333.0 22,305.1 21,903.6 27,643.9 39.243.1 46,836.8 43,218.0 39,254.5 50,392.6 61.471.6 4. PROCESSiNG COST (WHOLESALE MAARKEn TwieffeSubodi*/A4utmret ib) (139.8) (1.990.2i 8,123.2 619.0 (9,128.2) (9,224.21 (6,154.21 12,663.0 11,863.8 2.567.5 Proceosing Coos Mmtotf Magn Othe__ _ Convrs ion 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Border Price Equivmt beore Procese (with lnrantloni 18.400.0 25.250.0 33,750.0 33,000.0 35,250.0 43,750.0 42,637.9 568228.8 67,050.8 69,790.0 Bordrr Price Equrilnt betor Proceueg (wihout intlevntioni 15,333.0 22.305.1 21,903.6 27,843.9 39,243.1 46,836.6 43,218.0 39.254.5 50,392.8 61.471.6 5. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POINT (FARM) TO PROCESSOR Twiff/Subeldies/Adi,lsments Tradpon Othr Border Pric Equrilent I Coon Point (with htebrvenion 18,400.0 25,250.0 33,750.0 33,000.0 35,250.0 43.750.0 42.637.9 58.228.8 67,050.8 89,790.0 Border Pric Equrnt at Colecion Poin (w*hout itewrntion) 15,333.0 22,305.1 21,903.6 27,643.9 39,243.1 46,838.8 43.218.0 39,254.5 50,392.6 61,471.6 6. DOMESTIC PRICE Borde Wholesale 18,400.0 25.250.0 33,750.0 33,000.0 35,250.0 43,750.0 42,637.9 56,228.8 67.050.8 69,790.0 Colction Point (Farm) 18,400.0 25,250.0 33,750.0 33,000.0 35,250.0 43,750.0 42,637.9 56,228.8 87,050.8 69,790.0 7. NPR Border Wholesale 20.0% 13.2% 54.1% 19.4% -10.2% -6.6% -1.3% 43.2% 33.1% 13.5% Collction Point (Fame) 20.0% 13.2% 54.1% 19.4% -10.2% -8.6% 1.3% 43.2% 33.1% 13.5% a. Fire sonester orty. b. Represents market structura ad "goverment intevention through the pric band astm. c. General Impon Taiffs e er a folowo: 1984 1985 198 1987 198 fItH 199 1991 fl 199 24.38% 25.83% 20.00% 20.00% 15.00% 15.00% 15.00% 13.00% 11.00% 11.00% Source: Survillance Project, LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-7b Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Couroor: Chl. Typo; imrpsblv Commodity: Mmest (iVgsted) Level: F.m, 1. OUTPUT D-emt. P-c0 P.r Ton 16.400 25.250 33.750 33,000 35,250 43,750 42.638 56,229 57,051 69.790 DostOy I ao To. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Voeu Domestic Pces 19,400 25,250 33.750 33.000 35.250 43,750 42,638 56.229 67,051 59.790 Borde Prv Eq-iv,leMt Per To 15,333 22,305 21,903 27,644 39.243 46,937 43,218 39.254 50.391 61,471 Oc.tity * of Tom 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V.I. t Border Priceoqurosiot 15,333 22.305 21.903 27.644 39,243 45*.37 43.218 39,254 50,391 51.471 2. TRADABLE DIRECT INPUTS ums ouotity Ko Per Ton 50 SO 50 SO 50 SO SO 50 50 50 Domestic Prie Pr Ks 43.43 46.17 3475 44.50 69.70 56.12 83.81 9425 99.24 98.04 Domestic Cos S P.r Toy 2,171.7 2.305 5 1,737.5 2.240.0 3,485.0 2,806.0 4,190.7 4,712.7 4.962.0 4,902.0 B.ed, Price Es. Price Pro Ks 39.52 35.81 31.14 35.43 55.57 50.55 76.24 67.90 93.77 91.49 Borde PNic Eq. Cost ,P.t Ton 1,980.8 1,940.7 1,557.1 1.921.6 3,2863.6 2,527.7 3,912.1 4,394.9 4,688.4 4,574.7 Ph.osote Or.osty Kg Per Ton 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 27 2 27.2 27.2 27 2 27.2 Domei PcNice Per Ko 35.67 35.34 42.17 56.10 63.40 63.36 78.95 52.80 87.2 57.27 O-esti Cost I Per,To 970.1 1,042.5 1.1459 1,525.9 1,724.5 1,723.4 2,146.3 2.252.2 2,371.8 2,373.7 Border Pnce Eq. Pfcs 5 Pm K 32.05 33.16 37.57 50.14 55.20 56.66 72.59 76.45 61 76 81.41 rder Poc. Eq Cost I Per Toy 571.7 902.0 1,022.0 1,363.9 1,552.9 1,5455 1,974.5 2.079.4 2,223.5 2,214.3 Herlbicide Ocntiry Kg Per Too 0 33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Domestic Prce Per Kg 2,940 4,157 4.400 5,560 7,328 65983 8,430 9,052 9.840 8.900 Domcestr Cost S Pe Ton 979 9 1,3558.8 1,66.5 1,553 1 2.442 3 2.327.4 2,509.6 3,017.0 3,279.7 2.966.4 Border Pce Eq. Privy SPerKg 2,7B7 3,915 4,100 5,219 6,946 5,556 7.955 8543 9.463 8,509 Border Pne Eq. Cost 6 Per Ton 928.5 1,3054 1,366.5 1,739.4 2,315.2 2,159.0 2.651S 2,880.9 3,160.7 2,836.2 Insecticide Ouosorty Kg Per Ton 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Dostic Pnc 6 Per Kg 917 1,100 1,350 1,820 1,767 2,090 2,520 25654 2,895 2,895 Doe-s Cost S Per Ton 153.1 1837 2255 2705 295.1 3490 4209 443.1 483.5 483.5 Border P0cc So. Pric $1 Per Ks 543 950 1.205 1,455 1,554 1.590 2.293 2.509 2.758 2,745 ON Bordor Price Eq Coot 8 Per TKg 1840.5 1^B63.5 201.4 243.2 264.6 315.7 382.9 419.0 460.56 45.4 Tots -Direct npr (Domesic Pkes) 4,274.8 4,9237 4,575.4 5.8996 7,948.9 7,2058 9,5695 10.4250 11,097.0 10,725.6 Tots) D.et npots (Border.Nice) 3,9222 4,311.5 4,147.0 5,258.1 7,445.3 6.5758 5,921.1 9,774.2 10,533.5 10,083.7 3. TRADABLE INDIRECT INPTS Mom GreMoty Ko Per Ton 0.4 0.4 0.4 0 4 0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0 0.4 D-omeei Pir6PrE1.5133 1o 95 2075 2,222 2,559! 2,4775 2.775 3.2412 3.5420 Domestic Cost 5 Per Ton 66653 733.2 750.0 530 0 5a889 1.02365 1.10979 1,109.5 1,29549 1.448 1 Bordr Pri EEq Nov I SPotKa 1,454 1.581 1.763 1.875 2.073 2,395 2,575 2.591 3.059 3,459 Border PNice Eq. Cost 6 Per Ton 551 7 632 3 705 2 750.4 829.4 958 2 1.031 4 1,036.4 1,223.7 1,383.7 Sorrow 10nt.ty Kg Per Too 0.27 027 027 027 0.27 0.27 027 027 0.27 027 Domestic Nice 5 Per Kg 1,556 1.533 2,400 2,700 3.040 3,320 3,771 3,771 4 366 4 921 DomesticCst Per Ton 449.8 4949 6450 729.0 820.7 8964 1,0182 1.0182 1,178.8 1,328.5 Border Prior Eq. Price $ Per Ks 1 4351 1.5458 2,184 2,457 2,8551 3.1~2.2 3.535 3.547 4.1 75 4,721 Border Price Eq Cocr S Per Too 387.5 41 .0 589 6 666.0 772 5 43.0 954.4 957 8 1,128 0 1,274.8 Seedi.o OcentitV Ka Per Ton 0 25 0. 0.25 0 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 25 Domestic Pric Per Kg 1,5D0 1.833 2,150 2.680 2,866 2.956 3.127 3.127 3,567 4.133 Domeo Cot 8 Per Ton 3749 4552 537.5 570.0 7156 7390 751.5 751.5 9158 1,033.2 BrePirS.Prio 0 Per,E Kg1 1350 175 7,249 2,5151 2.551 2,65 2,674 2 3.2 75 3,7.14 Sordo Price Eq, Cos Per Too 290 0 34061 441.1 562.2 6259 54093 004.4 667.9 5159 928.4 H..ovsti,n Qoo-trto Kg Per Ton 0 22 0 22 0 22 0.22 0.22 0 22 0.22 0.22 0 22 0 22 Domeeric Prior 5P7 K 3.876 5,142 5.743 6,111 7,566 5.590 9,700 9.517 11,366 12,809 Domestic Cost 6 Pci Too 39 8 1,114 1 1.244 4 1,324.1 1,704 4 1.561 2 2.101 7 2 127.0 2.452 6 2.775"3 Border Poce Eq Prio $ Per Ko I,2.72 410 4,00 5,15 6.9)3 7,500 43,411 0,3 1.240 1152 Border Prior Eq Cost 6P7r Ton 705.9 5E50c ,0401.2 15 14 1,5250 1.522.4 1,849.1 2,218 7 2,511 6 Tol lndirect lprts ZDo1oertic Pricer) 2,330.8 2.800 4 3.209 9 3,553.1 4,130 6 4,520 2 5,01 1 6 5.036.9 5,843 1 6,585.2 Tos londpirot loyis Boidri Puce) 1.96s2 2.2791 2,7770 3,0654 3.7255 4,066.5 4,472.5 4,511 2 5.3593 6,0954 4. VALUE ADDED DireotoInpoo nol At Domestic Price 14,12.2 20,3263 29,1736 27,1104 27,303.1 36,5442 33.0665 45,503.a 55,9539 59.0544 At inrnsn.tol Priceo 11.4105 17,992.7 17.7560 22,3755 31.7969 40.2552 34,297 1 29.4793 39,557.6 51,3574 Dirc & lndodiecibnp.o Ar DoreoiroProc 11,7944 17,5259 25.963.7 23,5574 23.1725 32,0240 2800568 40.7669 50,110.5 52,4793 Aln-oreretioorlPices 9,442.3 15,7137 14.9790 19,3101 25,0654 36,191 7 29.5246 24,968.1 34.4683 40,259.0 S EPR 24.9% 11 5% 73 3% 220% -174% 11 5% 59% 63.3% 454% 15.9% Source: Surveillance Project, LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-7c Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Country: Ch. Type: Impooable Commocty: Wheat (nanktgatedl Lwvd: Farm 1SB4 122 1988 1287 1988 198S 1i22 1221 1222 122 1. OUTPUT Domestic Prince Per Ton 18,400 25,250 33,750 33.000 35.250 43,750 42.638 56.229 67,051 69.790 Duanity D of Tons 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V ae at Domestic Prices 18.400 25,250 33,750 33.000 35,250 43,750 42,638 56,229 67.051 69,790 Bordo Price Equivalnt Par Ton 15,333 22.305 21.903 27.644 39.243 46.837 43.218 39,254 50,391 61.471 Duentty D of Tons 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Valu at Borde PrF EquSnlvnt 15,333 22.305 21,903 27,644 39,243 46,837 43,218 39.254 50,391 81,471 2. TRADABLE DIFZECT INPUTS Urea Qrtitiy Ka Per Ton 45.35 45.35 45.35 45.35 45.35 45.35 45.35 45.35 45.35 45,35 Domestic Price F Per Kg 43.43 46.17 34.75 44.90 89.70 56.12 83.81 94.25 99.24 98.04 Domstic Cot 5 Pwr Ton 1,969.7 2,093.8 1,575.9 2,031.7 3,160.9 2,545.1 3,800.9 4.274.4 4,500.5 4,446.1 Border Prce Eq. Pric 6 Pr Kg 39.62 38.81 31.14 38.43 65.67 50.55 78.24 87.90 93.77 91.49 Bordr Pri Eq. Cot S Per Ton 1,796.6 1,760.3 1,412.3 1,742.9 2,978.2 2,292.7 3,548.3 3,986.2 4,252.4 4.149.3 Phophafte QuOntty Kg Pe Ton 18.14 18.14 18.14 18.14 18.14 18.14 18.14 18.14 18.14 18.14 Domesti Pric S Per Kga58 83 21 56.10 63.40 63.36 78.98 82.90 87.2 67.27 Domestic Coat 9 Pe TorM 647.0 49 1,017.6 1,150.1 1,149.4 1,432.8 1,502.0 1,581.8 1,5823.1 Border Price Eq. Price $ Per Kg 32.06 33.18 37.87 50.14 58.20 56.86 72.59 76.45 81.76 81.41 Border Price Eq. Cost S Pr Tor 581.3 601.6 681.6 909.8 1,055.7 1,031.4 1,316.8 1,386.8 1,483.1 1,47i8 Border Pric Eq. Coa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Dket InpuUt IDomestic Pricesl 2.18.7 2,789.2 2,340.8 3.049.3 4,311.0 3,694.5 5,233.7 5,776.5 6,082.3 6,029.2 0 Total Dioct Inputa (Bordr Pel 2,377.9 2,3618. 2,093.9 2,652.5 4,033.9 3,324.0 4,865.1 5,373.0 58735.5 8,626.0 3. TRADABLE INDIMtECT INPUTS Plow OQnty Kg Pr Tea 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.66 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 Domestic Price 6 Per Kg 1,666 1,833 1.950 2,075 2,222 2,559 2,775 2,775 3,212 3,620 Domesft Coat S Pr Ton 1,124.4 1,237.2 1.316.3 1,400.6 1,800.0 1,727.3 1,872.8 1,872.8 2.168.3 2,443.7 Border Pric Eq. Price S Per Kg 1,454 1,581 1.763 1,876 2,073 2,395 2,578 2,591 3,059 3,459 Border Prc Eq. Coat S Per Ton 981.7 1,067.1 1,190.0 1.286.3 1,399.8 1,616.9 1,740.4 1,748.9 2.065.0 2.334.9 Harrow Quanty Kg Per Ton 0.55 0.55 0.85 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Domestic Pric Per Kg 1,668 1,833 2,400 2.700 3,040 3,320 3,771 3,771 4,366 4,821 Domestc Cost S Per Ton 917.8 1,009.9 1,322.4 1,487.7 1.674.9 1,829.3 2.077.9 2,077.9 2.405.7 2,711.3 Border Price Eq. Price 4 Pr Kg 1,435 1,548 2,184 2.487 2,861 3,122 3,535 3.547 4,178 4,721 Borde Price Eq. Coot 6 Per Ton 790.9 853.1 1,203.2 1,359.1 1,576.4 1,720.4 1,947.6 1,954.6 2,302.0 2,601.5 l4arnestkng QOuerntv Kg Per Ton 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 DomnesftPrice $ PrKg 3,876 5,142 5,743 6,111 7,86 8,590 9.700 9,817 11,366 12,809 Domestic Cost $ Per Tea 861.4 1,142.6 1,276.3 1,358.0 1,748.1 1,908.8 2,155.6 2,181.6 2,525.7 2,848.5 Border Pric Eq. Price S Per Kg 3,272 4,101 4,805 8,018 6,913 7,500 8,411 8,534 10,240 11,592 Borde Price Eq. Coat $ Pr Tea 727.1 911.4 1,097.9 1,114.7 1,536.1 1,666.7 1,869.1 1,8986.5 2,275.6 2,576.0 Total hkict n (Domestic Prkice 2,903.6 3,389.8 3,915.0 4,248.3 4.922.9 5.465.6 6.106.4 6,132.3 7.099.7 8,001.4 Total IbSct puts (Border Price) 2.499.7 2,831.6 3,461.1 3,740.1 4,512.2 5,004.0 5,557.1 5,600.1 6,842.6 7,512.3 4. VALUE ADDED Dmet qwuts Onty At Domostc Prices 15,783.3 22,480.8 31,409.2 28,950.7 30,939.0 40,055.5 37,404.2 60,452.3 60,968.5 63,760.8 At Intrnetionl Prices 12,954.7 19,942.7 19,809.1 24,991.1 35,209.3 43,513.1 38,353.1 33,880.6 44,655.7 65.845.1 Direct & Ineirct Inpus At Domestic Prics 12,879.7 19,070.9 27,494.2 25,704.3 28,018.1 34,590.0 31,297.8 44,320.0 53,868.8 55,759.4 At Intaneonl Prices 10,455.1 17,111.1 16,348.0 21,251.0 30,697.1 38,509.1 32.796.0 28.260.5 36,013.1 48,332.7 8. EPR 23.2% 11.5% 88.2% 21.0% -15.2% *10.2% 4.6% 86.7% 41.7% 15.4% Source: SurwAvace lroject, LA TAD, 1996 TABLE A-7d STANDARIZED FORMAT PRODUCER SUBSIDY EQUIVALENT County: Chile Type: \nmportbbe Commodlty Wheat Lenl: Farm 1900 11tt1 102 10O3 10"4 06e 1096 1987 109" 1900 1990 199t1 102 Mwket Valk of Output Output (Thou"nds of Tons) 1,185 1,626 1,874 1.734 1.766 1,718 1,509 1557 Priam Per Ton (CH1 25250 33.750 33,000 35250 43.750 42.6e3 s822 67,051 TotaliarketVatudoOutput(MlItllnsCHS) 0 0 0 0 0 29.416 54,878 61842 81.124 77263 73251 o9.328 104,396 Assbkne (MiNion, CH$): Market Prie Support 3,431 19261 10,039 (6.925) (5,450) (997) 26,908 25,932 Tarft (Subsides) o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Input PotkIs (1234) (1,271) (1.686) (1,379) (1,669) (1609e) (1.678) (1,417) Credit Assiaatne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reserch & Extension Ga1 716 737 1,096 1.321 1,21 1,412 3,436 Tatid lAtdsae 0 0 0 0 0 2,656 10,706 8.690 (7.206) (s.616) (1.545) 26.702 27,951 Produce Subsidy EquIalent 9.7% 34.1% 14.4% -11.6% -7.5% -2.1% 29.9% 26.6% I Distributors of World Bank Publications ARGENTINA DENMARK JAPAN SINGAPORE, TAIWAN Carlos Hirsch, SRL SamfuodsLitteratur Eastern Book Service Gower Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. Galeria Guemes Rosenoerns AID 11 Hongo 3-Chome, Bunkyo-ku 113 Golden Wheel Building Florida 165, 4th Floor-Ofc. 453/465 DK-1970 Frederiksberg C Tokyo 41, Kallang Pudding, #04-03 1333 Buenos Aires Singapore 1334 EGYPT, ARAB REPUBLIC OF KENYA Oficina del Libro Internacional Al Ahram Africa Book Service (E.A.) Ltd. SLOVAK REPUBLIC Alberti 40 Al Galaa Street Quaran House, Mlfangano St. Slovart G,T.G. Ltd. 1082 Buenos Aires Cairo P.O. Box 45245 Krupinska 4 Nairobi P.O. Box 152 AUSTRALIA, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, The Middle East Observer 852 99 Bratislava 5 FIJI, SOLOMON ISLANDS, 41, Sherif Street KOREA, REPUBLIC OF VANUATU, AND Cairo Daejon Trading Co. Ltd. SOUTH AFRICA, BOTSWANA WESTERN SAMOA P.O. Box 34 Oxford University Press D.A. Information Services FINLAND Yeoeida Southern Africa 648 Whitehorse Road Akateeminen Kirjakauppa Seoul P.O. Box 1141 Mitcham 3132 P.O. Box 23 Cape Town 8000 Victoria FIN-00371 Helsinki MALAYSLA University of Malaya Cooperative SPAIN AUSTRIA FRANCE Bookshop, Limited Mundi-Prensa Libros, S.A. Gerold and Co. World Bank Publications P.O. Box 1127, Jalan Pantai Barn Castello 37 Graben 31 66, avenue d'1ena 59700 Kuala Lumpur 28001 Madrid A-1011 Wien 75116 Paris MEXICO Libreria Intemacional AEDOS BANGLADESH GERMANY INFOTEC Consell de Cent, 391 Micro Industries Development UNO-Verlag Apartado Postal 22-860 08009 Barcelona Assistance Society (MIDAS) Poppelsdorfer Allee 55 14060 Tlalpan, Mexico D. F. House 5, Road 16 53115 Bonn SRI LANKA & THE MALDIVES Dhanmondi R/ Area NETHERLANDS Lake House Bookshop Dhaka 1209 GREECE De Lindeboom/lnOr-Publikaties P.O. Box 244 Papasotiriou S.A. P.O. Box 202 100, Sir Chittampalam A. BELGIUM 35, Stournara Str. 7480 AE Haaksbergen Gardiner Mawatha Jean De Lannoy 106 82 Athens Colombo 2 Av. du Roi 202 NEW ZEALAND 1060 Brussels HONG KONG, MACAO EBSCO NZ Ltd. SWEDEN Asia 2000 Ltd. Private Mail Bag 99914 Fritzes Customer Service BRAZIL 46-48 Wyndham Street New Market Regeringsgatan 12 Publicacoes Tecnicas Internacionais Winning Centre Auckland S-106 47 Stockholm Ltda. 7th Floor Rua Peixoto Gomide, 209 Central, Hong Kong NIGERIA Wennergren-Williams AB 01409 Sao Paulo, SP Universitv Press Limited P.O. Box 1305 HUNGARY Three Crowns Building Jericho S-171 25 Solna CANADA Foundation for Market Economy Private Mail Bag 5095 Le Diffuseur Dombovari Ut 17-19 Ibadan SWITZERLAND 151A Boul. de Mortagne H-1117 Budapest Librairie Payot Boucherville, Qu6bec NORWAY Case postale 3212 J4B 5E6 INDIA Narvesen Information Center CH 1002 Lausanne Allied Publishers Private Ltd. Book Department Renotuf Publishing Co. 751 Mount Road P.O. Box 6125 Etterstad Van Diermen Editions Techniques 1294 Algoma Road Madras - 600 002 N-0602 Oslo 6 P.O. Box 465 Ottawa, Ontario KIB 3W8 CH 1211 Geneva 19 INDONESIA PAKISTAN CHINA Pt. Indira Limited Mirza Book Agency TANZANIA China Financal & Economic jalan Borobudur 20 65, Shahrah-e-Quaid-e-Azam Oxford University Press Publishing House P.O. Box 181 P.O. Box No. 729 Maktaba Street 8, Da Fo Si Dong Jie Jakarta 10320 Lahore 54000 P.O. Box 5299 Beijing Dar es-Salaam IRAN Oxford University Press COLOMBIA Kowkab Publishers 5 Bangalore Town THAILAND Infoenlace Ltda. P.O. Box 19575-511 Sharae Faisal Central Books Distribution Co. Ltd. Apartado Aereo 34270 Tehran P.O. Box 13033 306 Silom Road Bogota D.E. Karachi-75350 Bangkok IRELAND COSTA RICA, BELIZE, GUATE Government Supphes Agency PERU TRINIDAD & TOBAGO, JAMAICA -MALA, HONDURAS, 4-5 Harcourt Road Editorial Desarrollo SA Systematics Studies Unit NICARAGUA, PANAMA Dublin 2 Apartado 3824 #9 Watts Street Chispas Bookstore Lima 1 Curepe 75 Meters al Norte del Hotel Balmoral ISRAEL Trinidad, West Indies en calle 7 Yozmot Uterature Ltd. PHILIPPINES San Jose P.O. Box 56055 Intemational Book Center UGANDA Tel Aviv 61560 Suite 720, Cityland 10 Gustro Ltd. COTE D'IVOIRE Condominium Tower 2 1st Floor, Room 4, Geogiadis Chambers Centre d'Edition et de Diffusion R.O.Y. Intemational Ayala Avenue, H.V. dela P.O. Box 9997 Africaines (CEDA) P.O. Box 13056 Costa Extension Plot (69) Kampala Road 04 B.P. 541 Tel Aviv 61130 Makati, Metro Manila Kampala Abidjan 04 Plateau Palestinian AutltorityjMiddle fast POLAND UNITED KINGDOM CYPRUS Index Information Services International Publishing Service Microinfo Ltd. Center of Applied Research P.O.B. 19502 Jerusalem Ul. Piekna 31/37 P.O. Box 3 Cyprus Colege 00-577 Warszawa Alton, Hampshire GU34 2PG 6, Diogenes Street, Engomi ITALY England P.O. Box 2006 Licosa Commissionaria Sansoni SPA PORTUGAL Nicosia Via Duca Di Calabria, 1/1 Uvraria Portugal ZAMBIA Casella Postale 552 Rua Do Carmo 70-74 University Bookshop CZECH REPUBLIC 50125 Firenze 1200 Lisbon Great East Road Campus Nationa Information Center P.O. Box 32379 P.O. Box 668 JAMAICA SAUDI ARABIA, QATAR Lusaka CS-113 57 Prague 1 Ian Randle Publishers Ltd. Jarir Book Store 206 Old Hope Road P.O. Box 3196 ZIMBABWE Kingston 6 Riyadh 11471 Longman Zimbabwe (Pte.) Ltd. Tourle Road, Ardbennie P.O. Box ST 125 RECENT WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPERS (continued) No. 254 Frischtak, Governance Capacity and Economic Reform in Developing Countries No. 255 Mohan, editor, Bibliography of Publications: Technical Department, Africa Region, July 1987 to April 1994 No. 256 Campbell, Design and Operation of Smallholder Irrigation in South Asia No. 257 Malhotra, Sinsukprasert, and Eglington, The Performance of Asia's Energy Sector No. 258 De Geyndt, Managing the Quality of Health Care in Developing Countries No. 259 Chaudry, Reid, and Malik, editors, Civil Service Reform in Latin America and the Caribbean: Proceedings of a Conference No. 260 Humphrey, Payment Systems: Principles, Practice, and Improvements No. 261 Lynch, Provisionfor Children with Special Educational Needs in the Asia Region No. 262 Lee and Bobadilla, Health Statistics for the Americas No. 263 Le Moigne, Subramanian, Xie, and Giltner, editors, A Guide to the Formulation of Water Resources Strategy No. 264 Miller and Jones, Organic and Compost-Based Growing Media for Tree Seedling Nurseries No. 265 Viswanath, Building Partnershipsfor Poverty Reduction: The Participatory Project Planning Approach of the Women's Enterprise Management Training Outreach Program (WEMTOP) No. 266 Hill and Bender, Developing the Regulatory Environmentfor Competitive Agricultural Markets No. 267 Valdes and Schaeffer, Surveillance of Agricultural Prices and Trade: A Handbookfor the Dominican Republic No. 268 Valdes and Schaeffer, Surveillance of Agricultural Prices and Trade: A Handbookfor Colombia No. 269 Scheierling, Overcoming Agricultural Pollution of Water: The Challenge of Integrating Agricultural and Environmental Policies in the European Union No. 270 Banerjee, Rehabilitation of Degraded Forests in Asia No. 271 Ahmed, Technological Development and Pollution Abatement: A Study of How Enterprises Are Finding Alternatives to Chlorofluorocarbons No. 272 Greaney and Kellaghan, Equity Issues in Public Examinations in Developing Countries No. 273 Grimshaw and Helfer, editors, Vetiver Grassfor Soil and Water Conservation, Land Rehabilitationi, and Embankmenlt Stabilization: A Collection of Papers and Newsletters Compiled by the Vetiver Network No. 274 Govindaraj, Murray, and Chellaraj, Health Expenditures in Latin America No. 275 Heggie, Management and Financing of Roads: An Agendafor Reform No. 276 Johnson, Quality Review Schemes for Auditors: Their Potentialfor Sub-Saharan Africa No. 277 Convery, Applying Environmental Economics in Africa No. 278 Wijetilleke and Karunaratne, Air Quality Management: Considerations for Developing Countries No. 279 Anderson and Ahmed, The Casefor Solar Energy Investments No. 280 Rowat, Malik, and Dakolias, Judicial Reform in Latin America and the Caribbean: Proceedings of a World Bank Conference No. 281 Shen and Contreras-Hermosilla, Environmental and Economic Issues in Forestry: Selected Case Studies in India No. 282 Kim and Benton, Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Onchocerciasis Control Program (OCP) No. 283 Jacobsen, Scobie and Duncan, Statutory Intervention in Agricultural Marketing: A New Zealand Perspective No. 284 Valdes and Schaeffer in collaboration with Roldos and Chiara, Surveillance of Agricultural Price and Trade Policies: A Handbookfor Uruguay No. 285 Brehm and Castro, The Market for Water Rights in Chile: Major Issues No. 286 Tavoulareas and Charpentier Clean Coal Technologiesfor Developing Countries No. 287 Gillham, Bell, Arin, Matthews, Rumeur, and Heam, Cotton Production Prospectsfor the Next Decade No. 289 Dinar, Seidl, Olem, Jorden, Duda, and Johnson, Restoring and Protecting the World's Lakes and Reservoirs No. 290 Weijenberg, Dagg, Kampen Kalunda, Mailu, Ketema, Navarro, and Abdi Noor, Strengthening National Agricultual Research Systems in Eastern and Central Africa: A Frameworkfor Action THE WORLD BANK t A partner in strengthening economies and expanding markets to improve the quality of life for people everywhere, especially the poorest Headquarters European Office Tokyo Office 1818 H Street, N.W. 66, avenue d'Ilna Kokusai Building Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. 75116 Paris, France 1-1, Marunouchi 3-chome Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100, Japan Telephone: (202) 477-1234 Telephone: (1) 40.69.30.00 Facsimile: (202) 477-6391 Facsimile: (1) 40.69.30.66 Telephone: (3) 3214-5001 Telex: Mci 64145 WORLDBANK Telex: 640651 Facsimile: (3) 3214-3657 MCI 248423 WORLDBANK Telex: 26838 Cable Address: INTHAFRAD WASFLNGTONDC World Wide Web: http://www.worldbank.org E-mail: books@worldbank.org 9 78082 323 ISBN 0-8213-3323-2