WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPER NUMBER 267 Surveillance of Agricultural Prices and Trade A Handbook for the Dominican Republic Alberto Valdes and Barry Schaeffer in collaboration with Jesus de los Santos RECENT WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPERS No. 192 McMillan, Painter, and Scudder, Settlement and Development in the River Blindness Control Zone No. 193 Braatz, Conserving Biological Diversity: A Strategy for Protected Areas in the Asia-Pacific Region No. 194 Saint, Universities in Africa: Strategies for Stabilization and Revitalization No. 195 Ochs and Bishay, Drainage Guidelines No. 196 Mabogunje, Perspective on Urban Land and Land Management Policies in Sub-Saharan Africa No. 197 Zymelman, editor, Assessing Engineering Education in Sub-Saharan Africa No. 198 Teerink and Nakashima, Water Allocation, Rights, and Pricing: Examples from Japan and the United States No. 199 Hussi, Murphy, Lindberg, and Brenneman, The Development of Cooperatives and Other Rural Organizations: The Role of the World Bank No. 200 McMillan, Nana, and Savadogo, Settlement and Development in the River Blindness Control Zone: Case Study of Burkina Faso No. 201 Van Tuijl, Improving Water Use in Agriculture: Experiences in the Middle East and North Africa No. 202 Vergara, The Materials Revolution: What Does It Mean for Developing Asia? No. 203 Cleaver, A Strategy to Develop Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa and a Focus for the World Bank No. 204 Barghouti, Cromwell, and Pritchard, editors, Agricultural Technologies for Market-Led Development Opportunities in the 1990s No. 205 Xie, Kijffner, and Le Moigne, Using Water Efficiently: Technological Options No. 206 The World Bank/FAO/ UNIDO/Industry Fertilizer Working Group, World and Regional Supply and Demand Balances for Nitrogen, Phosphate, and Potash, 1991/92-1997/98 No. 207 Narayan, Participatory Evaluation: Tools for Managing Change in Water and Sanitation No. 208 Bindlish and Evenson, Evaluation of the Performance of T&V Extension in Kenya No. 209 Keith, Property Tax: A Practical Manual for Anglophone Africa No. 210 Bradley and McNamara, editors, Living with Trees: Policies for Forestry Management in Zimbabwe No. 211 Wiebers, Integrated Pest Management and Pesticide Regulation in Developing Asia No. 212 Frederiksen, Berkoff, and Barber, Water Resources Management in Asia, Volume I: Main Report No. 213 Srivastava and Jaffee, Best Practices for Moving Seed Technology: New Approaches to Doing Business No. 214 Bonfiglioli, Agro-pastoralism in Chad as a Strategy for Survival: An Essay on the Relationship between Anthropology and Statistics No. 215 Umali, Irrigation-Induced Salinity: A Growing Problem for Development and the Environment No. 216 Carr, Improving Cash Crops in Africa: Factors Influencing the Productivity of Cotton, Coffee, and Tea Grown by Smallholders No. 217 Antholt, Getting Ready for 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: Singapore at the Competitive Edge No. 223 Piotrow, Treiman, Rimon, Yun, and Lozare, Strategres for Family Planning Promotion No. 224 Midgley, Urban Transport in Asia: An Operational Agenda for 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 Papers from 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 (List continues on the inside back cover) WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPER NUMBER 267 Surveillance of Agricultural Prices and Trade A Handbook for the Dominican Republic Alberto Valdes and Barry Schaeffer in collaboration with Jesus de los Santos The World Bank Washington, D.C. Copyright @ 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 August 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 Vald6s is an agricultural adviser and Barry Schaeffer is an agricultural economist. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Vald6s, Alberto. Surveillance of agricultural prices and trade: a handbook for the Dominican Republic / Alberto Vald6s, Barry Schaeffer. p. cm. - (World Bank technical paper, ISSN 0253-7494; no. 267) ISBN 0-8213-3116-7 1. Agricultural prices-Dominican Republic-Statistics. 2. Produce trade-Dominican Republic-Statistics. 3. Farm produce- Dominican Republic-Statistics. I. Schaeffer, Barry, 1957- II. Title. III. Series. HD9014.D62V35 1995 338.1'87293-dc2O 95-814 CIP Contents FO RE W O R D .......................................................................................................................v A BS TR A C ...................................................................................................................... vii P R E F A C E .......................................................................................................................... ix ACKNOW EDGMENTS ................................................................................................ xi IN TR O D U C TIO N ...............................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 1: PROTECTION INDICATORS DEFINED ..............................................3 Definition of Indicators ....................................................................... 3 D ata A ssem bly.................................................................................. 3 Nominal Rate of Protection (NPR) ......................................................... 5 Effective Protection Rate (EPR)............................................................. 8 Producer Subsidy Equivalent (PSE) .......................................................12 Effective Rate of Assistance (ERA) .......................................................14 CHAPTER 2: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS........................17 O verview .......................................................................................17 Who Received the Hidden Income Transfer? ............................................ 18 Individual Commodities......................................................................25 APPENDIX A: COMMODITY CHARTS AND PROTECTION INDICATOR CALCULATION TABLES...............................................................................................39 APPENDIX B: ABOUT DOMINICAN REPUBLIC'S COMMODITY MARKETS ....59 Sugar ............................................................................................59 R ice ..............................................................................................60 R ed B eans ......................................................................................6 1 M aize ............................................................................................6 1 C assava .........................................................................................6 1 T obacco .........................................................................................62 C off ee ...........................................................................................62 T om atoes .......................................................................................62 iii 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 the Dominican Republic on cassava, coffee, sugar, tobacco, tomato, maize, beans and rice for 1984-1994. 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, the Dominican Republic 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. Most countries in Latin America including the Dominican Republic are beginning to embark on a unilateral process of tariffication with bound tariffs, eliminating quota restrictions and also removing export taxes. This should result in a more transparent trade regime in the future, and make domestic prices more sensitive to changes in border prices. 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 was applied to the data 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. ix The main results for the Dominican Republic are discussed in Chapter 2. Alberto Vald6s Agricultural Adviser Latin American and the Caribbean Advisory Group x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank our collaborator Jesus de los Santos for his substantial contribution to this document. Jesus de los Santos was 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 Vald6s and Barry 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); * to present the results along with supporting documentation for the calculation of protection indicators (Chapter 2 and Appendix A); and * to provide the reader with a broad description of the particular country's agricultural markets, Dominican Republic in the present case (Appendix B). Beginning in 1984 and continuing through 1994, 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 (PSE), 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 means that the NPR and the EPR are complementary to the PSE and ERA. 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 results reported should not be viewed in a vacuum. The four indicators help readers to see quantitative results in terms of a broader picture. However, depending on how the question is posed, different analysts can arrive at very different numbers (for the 1 same product in a given year.) Thus, it is necessary to provide detailed information for 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 is the structure of incentives across various activities? Does the trade regime result in significant anti-export bias? The main results are shown on page 17, in figures Ia and Ib, and tables 5, 6 and 8. Figures la and lb with table 8 illustrate income transfers. For importables (figure lb), income transfers from price and non-price interventions have demonstrated annual volatility. For exportables (figure la), large negative transfers have remained constant throughout the period of the study. 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 3 transport and related costs can be substantial, and provide for a 'natural' rate of protection to producers of importables 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, are also accountable costs. 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. In addition, 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. As a result, the estimate of protection may be measuring differences in the two products and not protection. An example would be white vs. paddy rice. In addition, 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 See Maurice Schiff and Alberto Valdds, "The Political Economy of Agricultural Pricing," Economics in Developing Countrie, vol. 4 (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992). 4 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. 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: P, -P, Eo dd NPRi = ,PwE where Pd is the domestic price, P" 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. See chapters 2, 3 and 4 in Isabelle Tsakok, Agricultural Price Poliev (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990) for a useful reference on the NPR, EPR and PSE. 5 A negative NPR signals that the producer is being discriminated against relative to the prevailing border prices. 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 help illustrate the above (see table 1). The commodity depicted is coffee, an exportable. Table I is a standardized format designed to approximate the marketing chain of a commodity. Section I in the table determines the correct exchange rate and border price. Using 1994 as an example, the appropriate border price is US$2,301.2 per MT FOB. This represents the cost of one MT of coffee purchased in the Dominican Republic. Since this study does not adjust for a possible exchange rate misalignment, the official exchange rate is used.3 For 1994, the exchange rate is 12.85 Dominican Republic pesos (DR$) per US dollar. The costs associated with exporting the commodity are then examined. These costs are reported in section 2. In the example, the reported annual figures represent a combination of export taxes and market structure. Examining 1994, one sees an adjustment of -DR$7,582.8 to account for these costs. The next step is to examine costs associated with the marketing chain. Sections 3, 4 and 5 of table 1 account for these costs. In section 4, processing costs are reported along with the conversion factor from cherry to green coffee. In 1994, for example, the processing cost was DR$1,340.5. The conversion factor, which was 2.1, is the ratio at which the total volume of raw product (cherry coffee) is converted into the processed product (green coffee). In this case, it takes 2.1 MTs of cherry coffee to yield 1 MT of green coffee. 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. For coffee, this adjustment was not necessary. However, other commodities, such as cassava, maize and rice (appendix tables) do require this adjustment. 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 appropriate domestic prices are selected. In 1994, the domestic price was DR$8,994. The NPR estimates appear in section 7. To calculate the NPR for 1994, the difference between the domestic and border equivalent price (DR$8,994 - DR$12,557.9 = - DR$3563.9) is divided by the border equivalent price. The estimate for 1994 is -28.4%. Chapter 2 discusses the results. For a comparison of the NPRs with and without the exchange rate misalignment correction for eighteen developing countries, see Schiff and Vald6s, "The Political Economy of Agricultural Pricing." 6 TABLE 1 Stмda�dizsd Fanиt Nominal Rпа ot Rotsction Cwmr DапвУсм Rp�k турв. бФегnhМ cмl.lwaur: cAn.. гом ы свп�о.lюм: вг.а. 1вВ9 ]8tб 1в�4 1992 1986 18QE 1998 1в81 1s92 1вs� 1934 1. ииаиsтЕ0 вОR0ЕИ г1tlСЕ Е,�.р.пм. 40nr.us4 1.5 z.o 1.s э.е е.1 в.з е.+ 12л 12.5 1zs /2.я Врд� Prke !U5 ЮВ Топ Gлм 2,748.3 2,В07.2 3,638.5 2,15Э.0 2,481.9 2,320.3 1.430.0 1,666.5 1.240.0 1,180.В 2,Э01.2 8pdr Ргkе п Lora1 Сигвпt7 4.084.5 5,688.3 6,764.В В,277.8 16.1I3.8 14.687.7 12.O12.0 t9,300.6 16,500.0 14,В86 0 29,571.0 2. BOROER ADJUSTMEM$ ТвпИв/5iдвiбва/Адlщtп�апв U) 11,785.11 12.609.21 12,ЭЭ0.81 12.188.Э1 (6.044.01 14,038.51 1304.01 692.5 В07.4 2,180.5 17.582.81 Port Сhr9вв 5torepвM1WWirq/Lou Boвdw Vrin Eцiralмt 1wi1h inlвvмбonl 2,299 4 2,977.1 4,424.0 6,108.5 9,069.8 10,&19.2 11.708.0 19,993.1 16,107.4 17,065.5 21,86В.2 Bordr Ргiсв EtfuivвNnt lwмhо�п п[wмПппl 4,064.6 6,58В.3 8,764.В 8,277.8 15,113.8 14,887.7 12,012 0 19.300.6 15.600.0 14.885.0 29,571.0 3. COSTS FROM BORDER ТО Рl10CE551NG 1NM1ЮLESALE 1ИАRКЕ7) TriNвSrLвiбati/Atljusbnartв Тгвмроглtlоп Otla � Bwder Pnw Eqiivalмt ahвr Ргосwир (wггА intervмtionl 2.299.4 2.977.1 4,424.0 6J09.5 9,069.В 10.649.2 11.708 0 19,993.1 16.107.4 17,065.5 21.9ВВ 2 Bonir Riee Едivаlмl вftвг Prосasinp 1wмlюvt intwвntionl 4,064.5 6,568.Э 8,754.8 8,277.8 16,113.8 14,687.7 12,012.0 19,300.6 15,500.0 14,886.0 29,571.0 4. PPOCE5SING СО57 11NNOlFSALE МАИКЕТI ТапНs/Subaidвa/AQjustnrпs Aotвavi9 Совп 1122.21 1185.11 1180.01 1210.0) 1303.31 1441.01 1703.31 11.076.61 11,108.01 11,196 81 11,340.51 Чвrtвбпр Магрпв OtAr ГАпrмыоп (ы z.1 2.1 z.1 z.1 ь1 z 1 2.1 2.1 2.1 z1 z 1 Вогдаг Rйл Еqиvаlвм Мра Ргосввыпр 1wrMr пtвгvмгiопl 967.9 1,248.♦ 1,917.6 2,886.6 3.998.9 4.564 1 4.799.5 8.320.2 6,462.6 В,82а,2 8,994 0 Вогдвг Prica Epuivalмt БЛога Ргосие"vq 1wiv�art iпtегrепtюпl 1.804.7 2,483 6 3,022.6 3.714.7 8,862.4 6,482.2 4.942.4 7,994.7 6.177.0 5,799.4 12.557 9 5. COSTS FROM COLLECTION PO1Nr 1FARM1 70 RiOCESSOR TriHв/Siдвidiu/Adjusunмts Тгаnвроглбоп OUw Вогдвг Ree EwivaMnt at СоУвсбоп Point (wмА iмегvмбтl 987.9 1,218.4 1,917.6 2,ВВ8.6 3,996.9 4,584.1 4.799.5 8,320.2 6,482.5 6.824.2 8,994.0 Вогдr 14iсв Ep�вvaNnt а[ Сдlкtiоп Pdnt 1и+thw[ kпwепlим) 1,804.7 2,483.5 3,022.8 Э,714.7 В,В82.4 6,482 2 4.942.4 7,994.7 6,177.0 5,799.4 12.657.9 8. DOME5TIC PR1CE ВпWг 2,299.4 2,977.1 4,624.0 8,109.5 9,089.8 10,649 2 11.708.0 19,99Э.1 16.107.4 17.065.5 21,988.2 VYhalpaM 987.9 1,246.4 1,917.6 2,888.6 3,998.9 1,564.1 4,799.5 8,320.2 8,482.5 6,824.2 8,994.0 Сдвсбоп Рмпl (Еагт1 987.9 1.218.4 1,917.6 2.886.6 Э,996.9 4.564.1 4,799.5 8.320.2 6,462.6 В,824.2 8,994.0 7. NPR Вогдег -4Э.4% -l8.7% -34.6% -28.2% �40.0% -27.5% -2.5% 3.6% 3.9% 14.8% -25.8% W1юWaM -16.4% �49.8% -38.8% -27.7% -41.8% -29.4% �29% 4.1% 4.6% 17.7% -2В.4% CaMaelbn Poinl 1Frm1 L Rpreaвnb М lxpOlt bк. Ь. Нвргsемb в convraioп гадо of гhвггу ta увм соМи о1 47.4% Souee: Sгrveihxtee PYBjscL LATAO, I996 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 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: EPA=.VAI -VAI?Y& VA 1w & where VA d and VAw are value-added at domestic and world prices, and E,, is the appropriate exchange rate. Interpretation of the EPR is similar to the NPR. For positive EPRs, the returns earned 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. 8 Although the EPR provides additional 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 (see table 2). The commodity depicted is, once again, coffee as an exportable. Section 1 contains both the domestic and border equivalent price of 1 ton of coffee. For 1994, the domestic price is DR$8,994 and the border equivalent price is DR$12,557.9. It is important to note how these two prices are derived. Referring back to table 1, the two prices can be found in section 5. Their ratio minus I 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 three direct tradable inputs into the calculations (see section 2 of table). The tradable direct inputs used include fertilizer, fungicides, and insecticides. The domestic and border equivalent prices are reported along with a technical coefficient for each input. The technical coefficient is the amount of input needed to produce one unit of output. For coffee, the unit is one ton. Using 1994 as an illustration, it required .11 MT of urea, 5.56 kg of fungicide and .36 It of insecticide to produce 1 ton of coffee. Each of these inputs is valued at both its domestic (DR$3,850 per MT for fertilizer) and border cost (DR$4,047.8 per MT for fertilizer). The sum of the direct tradable inputs valued per ton at their domestic price is DR$1,256.7 and at the border price is DR$1,088. No inputs were listed under section 3, indirect tradable inputs. Section 3 follows the same format as section 2. Combined, section 2 and 3 will add up to the cost of the reported inputs inproducing one ton of coffee. 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 three directly 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 1994, the value of 1 MT of coffee at domestic prices is DR$8,994 and DR$12,557.9 at border equivalent prices. The sum of the costs (tradable direct and indirect) valued at domestic prices is DR$1,256.7. The same costs valued at border prices are DR$1,088. Therefore, value-added at domestic prices is DR$7,737.3 and at border prices is DR$11,469.9. Section 5 shows the calculations for the EPRs. For 1994, the EPR is the difference between value-added at domestic and border prices (DR$7,737.3 - DR$11,469.9 = - DR$3,732.6), divided by value-added at border prices. The EPR resulting from this calculation is -32.5%. Chapter 2 discusses the results. 9 TABLE 2 Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Country: Dominican Republic Type: Exportable Commodity: Coffee Level: Farm 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1. OUTPUT Domestic Price SDR Per MT 967.9 1,246.4 1,924.4 2,681.6 3,996.9 4,564.1 4,799.5 8,320.2 6,462.5 6,824.2 8,994.0 Quantity MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Value at Domestic Prices 967.9 1,246.4 1,924.4 2,681.6 3,996.9 4,564.1 4,799.5 8,320.2 6,462.5 6,824.2 8,994.0 Border Price Equivalent $DR Per MT 1,804.7 2,483.5 3,022.6 3,714.7 6,862.4 6,462.2 4,942.4 7,994.7 6,177.0 5,799.4 12,557.9 Quantity MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Value at Border Price Equivalent 1,804.7 2,483.5 3,022.6 3,714.7 6,862.4 6,462.2 4,942.4 7,994.7 6,177.0 5,799.4 12,557.9 2. TRADABLE DIRECT INPUTS Fertilizer Quantity MT 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Domestic Price DR$ Per MT 458.40 576.50 913.80 1251.10 1588.40 1630.64 2772.00 4057.90 4070.00 3278.00 3850.00 Domestic Cost 50.4 63.4 100.5 137.6 174.7 179.4 304.9 446.4 447.7 360.6 423.5 Border Price Eq. DRS Per MT 171.3 631.8 551.0 745.0 1,363.1 1,740.8 2,553.3 3,855.0 3,875.0 3,900.0 4,047.8 Border Price Eq. Cost 18,8 69.5 60.6 81.9 149.9 191.5 280.9 424.1 426.3 429.0 445.3 Fungicide Quantity KG 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 Domestic Price DR$ Per KG 12.75 17.21 18.75 21.56 30.10 43.50 50.00 59.20 115.48 117.00 120.00 Domestic Cost 70.9 95.7 104.3 119.9 167.4 241.9 278.0 329.2 642.1 650.5 667.2 Border Price Eq. DR$ Per KG 11.48 15.49 18.75 21.56 30.10 43.50 50.00 42.33 82.57 93.85 95.34 Border Price Eq. Cost 63.8 86.1 104.3 119.9 167.4 241.9 278.0 235.4 459.1 521.8 530.1 Insecticide Quantity LT 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Domestic Price DR$ Per LT 89.00 115.70 125.35 143.75 201.25 280.00 417.00 471.85 550.00 556.15 461.00 Domestic Cost 32.0 41.7 45.1 51.8 72.5 100.8 150.1 169.9 198.0 200.2 166.0 Border Price Eq. DRS Per LT 80.0 104.1 125.4 143.8 201.3 280.0 417.0 337.4 393.3 342.3 313.0 Border Price Eq. Cost 28.8 37.5 45.1 51.8 72.5 100.8 150.1 121.5 141.6 123.2 112.7 Total Direct Inputs (Domestic Prices) 153.4 200.8 250.0 309.1 414.5 522.0 733.7 945.4 1,287.8 1,211.3 1,256.7 Total Direct Inputs (Border Price) 111.5 193.1 210.0 253.6 389.7 534.1 712.7 780.9 1,026.9 1,074.0 1,088.0 Source: Surveillance Project, LA TAD, 1995 TABLE 2 (cont.) Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Country: Dominican Republic Type: Exportable Commodity: Coffee Level: Farm 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 3. TRADABLE INDIRECT INPUTS Quantity Domestic Price Domestic Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Border Price Eq. Price Border Price Eq. Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Indirect Inputs (Domestic Prices) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Indirect Inputs (Border Price) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4. VALUE ADDED Direct Inputs Only At Domestic Prices 814.6 1,045.7 1,674.4 2,372.5 3,582.3 4,042.0 4,065.8 7,374.8 5,174.7 5,612.9 7,737.3 At International Prices 1,693.3 2,290.4 2,812.6 3,461.1 6,472.7 5,928.1 4,229.7 7,213.8 5,150.1 4,725.4 11,469.9 Direct & Indirect Inputs At Domestic Prices 814.6 1,045.7 1,674.4 2,372.5 3,582.3 4,042.0 4,065.8 7,374.8 5,174.7 5,612.9 7,737.3 At International Prices 1,693.3 2,290.4 2,812.6 3,461.1 6,472.7 5,928.1 4,229.7 7,213.8 5,150.1 4,725.4 11,469.9 5. EPR -51.9% -54.3% -40.5% -31.5% -44.7% -31.8% -3.9% 2.2% 0.5% 18.8% -32.5% Source: Surveillance Project, LA TAD, 1995 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) 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: ((PI-Pl'E.)Qi) + ((P-p,wEa)TC#Q;)+ DPi+ NPT, PSE, iY where pd and Pw are the domestic and world price of commodity j, pd and p' are the domestic and world prices of input j for commodity i, TC is the technical coefficient of input j 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 E0 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 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. The coverage of the non-price transfers can differ amongst 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 Agriculture and Governments in an Interdependent World: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of Agrultal Economists& edited by A. Maunders and A. Valdds (Brookfield, VT: Gower Publishing Co., 1990). 12 TABLE 3 STANDARIZED FORMAT PRODUCER SUBSIDY EQUIVALENT Country: Dominican Republic Type: Exportable Commodity: Coffee Level: Farm 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Market Value of Output Output (Thousands of Tons) 136.1 75.74 110.45 131.92 99.71 106.13 90.43 112.55 95.7 87.0 98.6 Price Per Ton (DR$) 965.38 967.9 1,246.4 1,924.4 2,681.6 3,996.9 4,564.1 4,799.5 8,320.2 6,462.5 6,824.2 Total Market Value of Output (1000 DRS) 131,388 73,310 137,666 253,863 267,382 424,186 412,730 540,186 796,574 562,496 673,137 Assistance (1000 DR$): Market Price Support (46,110) (63,382.8) (136,621.2) (145,773.9) (102,499.5) (304,214.2) (171,645.2) (16,080.3) 31,161.3 24,846.0 101,088.3 Marketing Subsidies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Input Policies (961) (3,172.2) (844.4) (5,281.1) (5,534.2) (2,630.7) 1,061.6 (2,359.7) (15,751.6) (22,705.2) (13,541.3) Credit Assistance 17,250 13,580 9,730 6,730 9,490 26,060 30,940 15,130 32,240 46,700 Research & Extension Total Assistance (29,821) (52,975) (127,736) (144,325) (98,544) (280,785) (139,644) (3,310) 15,410 34,381 134,247 Producer Subsidy Equivalent -22.7% -72.3% -92.8% -56.9% -36.9% -66.2% -33.8% -0.6% 1.9% 6.1% 19.9% Source: Surveillance Project, LA TAD, 1995 perceived by the agriculture sector and many government census departments, does not include government expenditure on research and extension, and irrigation. 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 the calculation of the PSE for coffee. In 1993, out of a total net transfer of DR$134,247 (PSE of 19.9%), output subsidy provided DR$101,088.3 of the gross income of coffee growers (out of a total harvested value at DR$673,137 at domestic prices.) Input policies cost DR$13,541.3. 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 -VAiEo)Q,)+ DPi+ NPT ERA VAIvEQ, 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 exportable coffee as an example. Section I estimates output assistance. Total assistance for the ERA is measured using a monetary absolute. In this case, total output is multiplied by the domestic price giving the total revenue with all intervention taken into account and by the border price equivalent giving the total revenue without taking any intervention into account. Using the year 1993 as an example, total output is 99,000 MT while the domestic and border equivalent prices are DR$6,824.2 and DR$5,799.4 respectively. Total revenue with intervention is DR$673,137 million whereas total revenue without intervention is DR$572,053 million. 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 the Dominican Republic, three inputs were used: fertilizer, fungicide, and insecticide. Six estimates of total individual input cost were calculated; three at domestic prices and three at border equivalent prices during 1993. Presented in the first line of this section is the technical coefficient of .11 MT of fertilizer needed to produce 1 ton of coffee. The second line represents the total amount of fertilizer needed to produce 99,000 MT of coffee (technical coefficient multiplied by the annual production for 1993). Thus, the total amount of fertilizer used in 1993 was 11,000 MT. The total value of fertilizer at domestic and border prices is then calculated. The domestic price is DR$3,278 per MT and the border price is DR$3,900 per MT. Multiplying these prices per ton by the amount of fertilizer used, gives the total value of fertilizer valued at the domestic price (DR$35,568 million) and at the border price (DR$42,317 million). Each of the above steps is carried out for each input. Section 4 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. For coffee, no non-price assistance was reported. The composite value-added calculation at both domestic and border equivalent prices is shown in section 4. In 1993, aggregate value-added at domestic prices was DR$553.7 million and at border prices DR$466.1 million. Section 5 is the calculation of the ERA. In the above example, dividing DR$553.7 million by DR$466.1 million, subtracting 1 gives an ERA for coffee of 18.8% in 1993. 15 TABLE 4 Standardized Format Effective Rate of Assistance Country: Dominican Republic Type: Exportable Commodity: Coffee Level: Farm 12A 1285 192E 128Z 1211 1.28 122 191 122 1223 1. OUTPUT ASSISTANCE Total Production 1000 MT Cherry 76 110 132 100 106 90 113 96 87 99 Domestic Price $DR Per MT 967.9 1,246.4 1,924.4 2,681.6 3,996.9 4,564.1 4,799.5 8,320.2 6,462.5 6,824.2 Total Output Value at Domestic Prices 73,312 137,664 253,872 267,384 424,202 412,709 540,201 796,613 562,496 673,137 International Price $DR Per MT 1,804.7 2,483.5 3,022.6 3,714.7 6,862.4 6,462.2 4,942.4 7,994.7 6,177.0 5,799.4 Total Output Value at International Price 136,694 274,297 398,760 370,391 728,340 584,346 556,282 765,450 537,650 572,053 2. INPUT ASSISTANCE TotalProduction 1000MTCherry 76 110 132 100 106 90 113 96 87 99 Fertilizer input's Use Per MT 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Inputs's Total Use 8 12 15 11 12 10 12 11 10 11 Domestic Price DRS Per MT 458.4 576.5 913.8 1,251.1 1,588.4 1,630.6 2,777.8 4,057.9 4,070.0 3,278.0 Input's Total Value @ Domestic Prices 3,819 7,004 13,261 13,722 18,544 16,220 34,392 42,737 38,968 35,568 International Price DR$ Per MT 171.3 631.8 551.0 745.0 1,363.1 1,743.5 2,553.3 3,855.0 3,875.0 3,900.0 Input's Total Value @ International Prices 1,427 7,676 7,996 8,171 15,914 17,342 31,612 40,601 37,101 42,317 Fungicide Input's Use Per KG 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 Inputs's Total Use 421 614 734 554 590 503 626 532 484 548 Domestic Price DR$ Per KG 12.8 17.2 18.8 21.6 30.1 43.5 50.0 59.2 115.5 117.0 Input's Total Value @ Domestic Prices 5,369 10,569 13,753 11,953 17,762 21,870 31,290 31,515 55,886 64,167 International Price DRS Per KG 11.5 15.5 18.8 21.6 30.1 43.5 50.0 42.3 82.6 93.9 Input's Total Value @ International Prices 4,834 9,512 13,753 11,953 17,762 21,870 31,290 22,534 39,959 51,471 Insecticide Input's Use Per LT 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Inputs's Total Use 27 40 47 36 38 33 41 34 31 36 Domestic Price DRS Per LT 89.0 115.7 125.4 143.8 201.3 280.0 417.0 471.9 550.0 556.2 Input's Total Value @ Domestic Prices 2,427 4,600 5,953 5,160 7,689 9,115 16,896 16,264 17,234 19,749 International Price DRS Per LT 80.0 104.1 125.4 143.8 201.3 280.0 417.0 337.4 393.3 342.3 Input's Total Value @ International Prices 2,181 4,140 5,953 5,160 7,689 9,115 16,896 11,628 12,322 12,155 3. NON-PRICE ASSISTANCE Direct Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Credit Subsidies 950 680 470 660 1,820 2,170 1,060 0 0 0 Tax Exemptions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Research & Extension 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. VALUE ADDED Assisted Value Added (Domestic Prices) 62,647.1 116,172.2 221,359.1 237,230.0 382,026.3 367,636.6 458,682.6 706,097.2 450,408.6 553,653.1 Unassisted Value Added (international Prices) 128,248.3 252,954.8 371,948.8 344,600.4 687,062.9 536,045.4 476,063.8 690,686.8 448,267.8 466,110.1 5. ERA -51.2% -54.1% -40.5% -31.2% -44.4% -31.4% -3.7% 2.2% 0.5% 18.8% Source: Surveillance Project, LA TAD, 1995 CHAPTER 2 PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Overview Tables 5 and 6 present a summary of the protection indicators for the Dominican Republic. For more details concerning the calculation of the NPR, EPR and PSE, see the standardized worksheets in Appendix A. Table 5 presents a composite, exportable and importable weighted annual average for 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 trend regarding protection is for exportables to be negative. importables positive, and the composite showing a trend from negative estimates in the mid-1980s to positive ones at the beginning of the 1990s. This trend can be seen for all the protection indicators. Thus, the agricultural exportable sector was and continues to be taxed heavily both directly and through the input market (EPRs lower than the NPRs) while the importables have enjoyed the benefits of protection. In addition, the levels of nominal and effective protection for importables rose during the 1985-1994 period. In particular. the sharp increase in the level of protection of imports starting in 1990 should be noted. Table 6 presents the protection estimates by commodity. Nominal protection for the traditional exports -- sugar and coffee -- has been significantly negative (<-20%) for most of the period of study. The years 1990-1993 are an exception. During this period nominal protection rates for coffee were either very low or positive. For the non-traditional export crops, i.e., cassava, tobacco and tomatoes, the results were volatile and mixed. Cassava displayed negative protection throughout most of the period examined while tobacco and tomatoes had little pattern. In some years the estimates were positive while in other years they were negative. The imports maize, red beans and rice had a high degree (>30%) of protection for most of the years. Table 6 also highlights the sharp rise in protection indicators for rice starting in 1992. In 1993 and early 1994, the Dominican Republic exported rice through other Caribbean nations to the EC at prices higher than the world price. For a graphical presentation of the results for rice see figures 9a through 9d on page 35. Overall, inspection of the results seems to indicate the presence of a very strong anti- export bias in the policies toward the agricultural sector. Most of the commodities showed little difference between the annual NPR and EPR. In most years the domestic price of inputs was higher than the border price. However, this was not reflected in the EPR because of the low cost share of intermediate inputs relative to the value of output. 17 Non-price transfers were not a significant factor even though credit assistance was reported. However, its diminutive impact meant that the ERA and the EPR were similar and the PSE mainly measured the impact of price transfers; in many cases the amounts are so small they do not show up on the graphs. Also located at the bottom of table I in the appendix, are average output price, output cost and returns to inputs expressed in monetary absolutes (current U.S. dollars). The effect of policies on the returns to land, labor and capital is illustrated by the EPR measures. Table 5 shows that there has been a large tax on the producers of exportable while a substantial subsidy has been given to producers of importables (mostly the food crops). Amongst the latter (on a subsidy per ton basis), rice producers captured the highest price related subsidies followed by producers of red beans and maize. Who Received the Hidden Income Transfer? The question remains as to which agricultural commodities benefited from the trade regimes in place during the period of the study. Previous measures of the EPR and PSE reported the implicit transfer per unit of output; here we present the absolute value of the transfer for each commodity. Figures la and lb combined with table 7 present total transfers to exportables and importables. Exportables, as shown in figure la, were taxed with emphasis on the traditional export products coffee and sugar. For example, sugar producers in 1993 were taxed US$113 million (see table 7). Over the entire period, sugar producers have annually been taxed between US$101 and US$196 million. Coffee producers' taxes have varied even more. During the same period, coffee producers were taxed as much as US$78 million (1986) and received a small subsidy of US$11 million (1993). The non-traditional export crops -- tobacco and tomatoes -- show only small negative transfers. With the exception of 1986 and 1992, negative transfers to cassava producers have also been small. Positive transfers were given to producers of importables with rice and red bean growers benefiting the most. For example, in 1993 rice producers received a positive transfer of approximately US$86 million while bean producers received a US$42 million transfer. The transfers have varied greatly, however, during the period of study. Rice in 1984 received a transfer of US$211 million. In 1988, rice producers were taxed US$21 million, and in 1989 rice producers were again receiving a positive transfer (US$80 million). Bean producers received positive transfers ranging from a high of US$47 million (1984) to a low of US$1.3 million (1985). 18 1992-93 Average Price and PSE Measures (Current US Dollars) Red White Cassava Coffee Sugarcane Tobacco Tomato Beans Maize Rice Domestic $170.58 $531.47 $11.20 $982.08 $296.36 $1,245.26 $217.35 $601.92 Price (MT) PSE Per -$98.5 $70.27 -$22.68 $332.39 -$47.86 $578.23 $141.05 $485.81 MT PSE (%) -76.9 13% -202.5% 34% -13.2% 41.5% 64.8% 81% Note: PSE (%) are calculated from appendix tables 2c-9c, and are based on total transfers and value ofproduction. The results cannot be duplicated using information provided in this table. Various monetary per MT measures by commodity are presented in the table above. The first line shows the domestic price per MT of the commodity. These figures are included for comparative purposes. The second line shows the actual transfer (in US dollars) per MT of the commodity produced. Compared to domestic price, one can see how important the transfer is to the producer. The third line is the PSE (expressed as a percentage of production valued at domestic prices). Once again, this line is included for comparative purposes. For example, using the exportable coffee, the average domestic price per MT for 1992-1993 is US$531.47. The transfer (income by producers) per ton of coffee was US$70.27. Rice producers in 1992-1993 received an average price of US$601.92 per MT. The total transfer per ton to growers as measured by the PSE calculation was US$485.81. Most of this was in the form of price-related transfers. See tables 2c-9c in the appendix for more details concerning the composition of the PSEs for the individual commodities in the local currency. 19 TABLE 5. Dominican Republic's Weighted Average Protection Indicators 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 COMPOSITE Wt. Ave. NPR 88.7 -18.4 -10.2 11.7 -28.9 -13.6 37.4 14.3 54.3 67.3 Wt. Ave. EPR 263.1 -20.7 -14.7 17.9 -29.7 -10.6 53.0 17.1 73.8 90.0 Wt. Ave. PSE -7.01 -32.4 -29.0 -16.0 -61.6 -37.3 -2.3 -39.7 -9.9 9.0 Wt. Ave. ERA 267.2 -19.6 -13.6 19.3 -28.9 -9.0 53.0 17.1 73.8 89.8 EXPORTABLE Wt. Ave. NPR -40.6 -40.9 -28.0 -33.7 -46.6 -48.9 -31.8 -22.9 -33.4 -19.7 Wt. Ave. EPR -47.9 -46.0 -35.8 .41.4 -52.1 -52.0 -35.2 -26.2 -38.7 -22.0 Wt. Ave. PSE -89.8 -82.8 -64.1 -69.4 -91.1 -108.3 -70.5 -105.4 -109.6 -66.9 Wt. Ave. ERA -47.7 -45.9 -35.7 -41.2 -51.9 -51.7 -35.2 -26.2 -38.7 -22.0 IMPORTABLE Wt. Ave. NPR 230.6 6.0 23.1 67.4 6.6 31.1 105.5 51.9 122.3 143.3 Wt. Ave. EPR 604.5 6.7 24.9 90.6 15.0 41.7 139.9 60.8 160.9 187.7 Wt. Ave. PSE 83.9 22.5 36.7 49.4 -2.9 52.8 64.9 26.6 67.4 75.3 Wt. Ave. ERA 612.7 8.9 27.8 93.4 17.1 45.1 139.9 60.8 160.9 187.3 Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995 20 TABLE 6. Dominican Republic: Summary of Protection Indicatorsa -------- ---- -- - - - -- - -- EXPORTABLES - - 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Cassava NPR -35.1 -71.5 -47.9 -57.4 -36.1 -22.6 15.9 -54.9 -19.0 21.5 EPR -38.3 -74.4 -51.1 -60.8 -39.5 -25.4 14.6 -60.9 -22.5 20.3 PSE -54.1 -246.5 -83.5 -124.2 -44.8 -26.3 11.9 -127.1 -26.7 N.A. ERA -38.2 -74.3 -50.8 -60.5 -38.9 -25.2 14.6 -60.9 -22.5 N.A. Coffee NPR -49.8 -36.3 -27.7 -41.8 -29.4 -2.9 4.1 4.6 17.7 -28.4 EPR -54.3 -40.5 -31.5 -44.7 -31.8 -3.9 2.2 0.5 18.8 -32.5 PSE -92.8 -56.9 -36.9 -66.2 -33.8 -0.6 1.9 6.1 19.9 N.A. ERA -54.1 -40.5 -31.2 -44.4 -31.4 -3.7 2.2 0.5 18.8 N.A. Sugar NPR -47.8 -32.8 -51.5 -54.8 -62.6 -56.4 -74.2 -68.1 -66.2 N.A. EPR -54.7 -46.9 -65.1 -63.9 -66.0 -62.0 -80.0 -75.2 -71.4 N.A. PSE -97.7 -64.3 -120.7 -125.3 -166.4 -131.0 -289.1 -215.0 -190.0 N.A. ERA -54.7 -46.7 -65.2 -63.9 -66.0 -62.0 -80.0 -75.2 -71.4 N.A. Tobacco NPR 61.1 92.9 27.4 -16.2 -48.0 13.5 7.0 46.2 30.4 31.8 EPR 66.9 106.1 28.5 -17.4 -51.7 14.8 5.2 47.5 30.4 34.3 PSE 59.0 63.5 44.8 5.4 -54.9 18.9 5.8 39.1 28.8 29.5 ERA 68.0 106.0 29.9 -16.0 -49.8 14.1 5.2 47.5 30.4 32.4 Tomato NPR 36.9 -12.8 -13.3 -26.9 11.6 36.5 -2.8 2.4 -21.1 -10.0 EPR 41.3 -15.7 -16.6 -29.5 13.8 39.9 -4.1 1.0 -22.3 -10.9 PSE 26.9 -16.8 -17.9 -37.6 10.8 26.5 -3.9 0.9 -27.2 -11.6 ERA 41.3 -15.7 -16.6 -29.5 13.8 39.9 -4.1 1.0 -22.3 -10.9 ----------- .-------- .-- .... ----- ..- .- ------ IM PO RTA BLES R-- - Corn NPR -52.4 -28.9 -21.7 71.5 34.8 45.5 143.0 226.2 194.6 85.3 ERP -55.2 -31.8 -24.7 84.5 42.8 56.4 162.6 282.9 229.9 91.0 PSE -102.2 -29.3 -21.4 47.4 31.6 32.7 56.9 67.1 62.5 N.A. ERA -54.9 -27.2 -24.2 85.4 43.4 56.6 162.6 282.9 223.2 N.A. Red Beans NPR B.5 19.7 167.8 72.2 21.6 63.6 105.8 29.9 209.7 171.7 EPR 8.8 25.3 248.3 101.6 27.9 83.8 133.0 29.6 270.4 214.3 PSE 6.6 14.8 61.8 42.1 18.5 39.0 47.5 18.4 64.5 N.A. ERA 9.9 26.1 250.0 103.2 26.8 82.0 133.0 29.6 270.4 N.A. Rice NPR 11.3 28.2 32.4 -54.2 33.8 118.9 34.1 134.8 94.3 181.7 EPR 12.5 29.9 34.2 -61.9 45.9 158.1 38.4 180.7 128.9 292.6 PSE 37.5 45.8 48.4 -45.7 64.5 73.0 20.1 78.3 83.7 61.1 ERA 15.0 33.0 37.6 -59.1 50.8 158.5 38.4 180.7 128.9 292.6 a. Evaluation at the point of price determination. In most cases, unless otherwise noted, it corresponds to the processing center (mill for grain, auction center for beef, etc.). Source: Surveillance Project, LA TAD, 1995 21 Figure Ia. Dominican Republic's Agricultural Exports. Income Transfers Due to Price and Non-Price Intervention, 1984-1993. Total Transfer (US$ Millions) 50 - 0- -50* 1 Tobacco IM Tomato - Coffee -100 - 0 SugarI 0 Cassava -150I- -2004- 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 Figure lb. Dominican Republic's Agricultural Imports. Income Transfers Due to Price and Non-Price Intervention, 1984-1993. Total Transfer (US$ Millions) 300- 250-- 200- M Maize U Beans 150- .. .4M Rice 100- 50 - 0 18 50LO1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 TABLE 7 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC'S AGRICULTURAL INCOME TRANSFERS (Expressed in current $US Millions) Total Assistance Across All Commodities (By Program) 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Market Price Support 27.23 (191.03) (174.26) (79.09) (206.45) (204.99) (39.62) (126.59) (57.73) (10.59) Market Subsidies 0.00 (11.63) (6.22) (0.01) (0.00) (0.13) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Input Policies (46.74) 1.54 (29.97) (21.12) (5.31) 2.86 (6.11) (11.70) (11.50) (3.70) Credit Assistance 82.61 41.25 34.01 40.20 45.96 61.01 38.03 0.00 37.62 42.50 Research & Extension 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Assistance 63.10 (159.87) (176.44) (60.02) (165.80) (141.24) (7.69) (138.29) (31.62) 28.21 Total Assistance Across All Commodities (By Commodity) Cassava 3.26 (9.30) (37.22) (11.10) (17.25) (7.51) (5.35) 4.10 (27.67) (7.40) Sugar (190.02) (134.83) (115.32) (113.10) (100.90) (196.21) (142.20) (190.37) (135.92) (113.08) Coffee (35.79) (64.19) (77.59) (25.66) (45.73) (22.06) (0.39) 1.24 2.75 10.74 Rice 211.34 43.21 46.78 54.88 (21.38) 80.30 117.22 27.28 110.80 86.46 Beans 47.10 1.30 2.25 27.84 14.30 7.00 16.33 13.32 5.81 42.31 Maize 30.70 (11.63) (2.67) (1.33) 5.34 2.19 2.21 5.64 7.43 6.70 Tomato 2.23 0.47 (0.62) (0.43) (0.94) 0.21 0.47 (0.06) 0.01 (0.92) Tobacco (5.72) 15.10 7.96 8.88 0.76 (5.17) 4.02 0.55 5.16 3.40 Total Assistance 63.10 (159.87) (176.44) (60.02) (165.80) (141.24) (7.69) (138.29) (31.62) 28.21 Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995 Individual Commodities Cassava Although volume has decreased from an average of 6,500 MT during the 1980s to 1,750 MT in 1991-1992, cassava has been consistently exported since the mid-1980s. Examination of the NPR in figure 2b reveals that the behavior of the indicator is typical of an export -- the NPR for most years is negative. For the most recent year, 1994, the NPR was 21.5%. The inputs fertilizer and insecticide make up a very small proportion of the total value of the product. Therefore, the EPR differs very little from the NPR although the EPR is slightly lower than the NPR on average. For example, in 1994 the NPR was 21.5% whereas the EPR was 20.3%. This reflects the import tariff on inputs charged in many of the years. Non-price transfers are reflected through the PSE and the ERA. For cassava, the only aid the growers received was credit assistance, and this was very small when compared to the taxation of the product itself (see figure 2c). For most years, the PSE is negative and largely reflects the pattern of price taxation from year to year. The ERA is similar to the EPR which considers only price transfers. Examining 1993 (see table 2c of the appendix), the tax on the commodity's production from market taxation totaled DR$81.4 million and through the input market totaled DR$1 1.1 million. Coffee Coffee is considered a traditional export crop and a large generator of export revenues for the Dominican Republic. Figure 3a shows that exports have been consistently between 30,000 to 35,000 metric tons. Figure 3b shows the NPR estimates which are negative for most years. However, there is a trend towards lower taxation and even protection of the commodity. Specifically, the estimate in 1985 was -49.8%, the most recent estimate, 1994, was -28.4%, while the estimates for the years 1991-1993 were positive. The negative value in the early years of the study, 1984-1986, reflects the indirect taxation program through exchange rates. After 1986, the multiple exchange rate system was eliminated. The EPR is lower than the NPR. The domestic prices for the three included inputs - - fertilizers, fungicides and insecticides -- are higher than their border equivalent counterparts. This price difference means that producers are additionally taxed through the input market. 25 The PSE and ERA, which combine both price and non-price transfers, show that the price transfers (until 1991, taxes), are an important factor (see figure 3c). For example, in 1990 direct taxation of DR$16.1 million and indirect taxation through the input market of DR$2.4 million transfered money from the producers (see table 3c of the appendix). In 1993, price policies transfered DR$101 million to producers, input policies taxed the producers by DR$13.5 million and credit assistance transfered DR$46.7 million to producers. The only non-price transfer, a credit subsidy, ended in 1990. The impact of this subsidy can be seen by the difference between the EPR and the ERA for the relevant years. For most years the subsidy caused very little difference between the two indicators. Sugar Sugar is also considered a traditional export crop. Since the country exports to the protected market in the United States at the US domestic price, its importance as an export depends on the size of the quota shipped to the U.S. in any given year. As figure 4a demonstrates, the sugar market's importance (and the quota) have been declining since 1985. From 1980-1985, exports average approximately 800,000 MT. However, during the 1990-1992 period, exports have fallen to 300,000 MT. The NPR has been negative throughout the period examined. Ranging from -32.8% (1986) to -74.2% (1991), these results indicate that producers have been subject to high taxation. The most recent estimate (1993) for the NPR was -66.2%. Producers are still paying a high level of tax similar to previous years. The EPR is higher (in absolute value) than the NPR. However, this is counter- intuitive since the domestic price of inputs is slightly higher than the border price. The higher EPR can be explained by the fact that the difference between the input cost valued at domestic and border prices is very small. Therefore, the absolute difference between the output prices (domestic and border equivalent) and value-added at both domestic and border prices is very small. The base is lower in the EPR calculation causing a higher EPR estimate relative to the NPR. The PSE is negative throughout the period of the study. All of the transfers are price-related. The most recent years studied, 1992-1993, had negative transfers of over DR$1.4 billion (see table 4c of the appendix). In addition, a smaller tax is generally imposed through the input market. For 1993, however, there was a positive transfer from the input market. Combined, this large tax burden yields a PSE of -215% in 1992 and -190% in 1993. Since no non-price transfers are present, the EPR and ERA agree. 26 Tobacco Figure 5a shows that tobacco exports have averaged around 15,000 MT annually. However, in contrast to the pattern that the traditional exports exhibited, 8 of the 11 years in the study show positive protection. In 1994, the NPR was 31.8%. Referring to figure 5d, this positive protection is mainly a reflection of the lack of agreement between domestic and border equivalent prices. The differences between the NPR and EPR are small, averaging around 3-4 percentage points. Considering the large difference that exists between the domestic and border equivalent prices for fertilizer, this small difference between the two indicators reflects the small proportion of the inputs in relation to the value of the output (6.7%). For example, in 1994 the NPR was 31.8% while the EPR was 32.4%. Only one non-price transfer exists for tobacco producers. This is the credit subsidy. Because of the small difference between the EPR and ERA, this subsidy is relatively insignificant when compared to the price transfers. Tomatoes Exports of salad tomatoes peaked in 1986 (see figure 6a) and have been declining ever since. The pattern that the NPR exhibits is related to the level of exports for that particular year. During high export periods, the NPR was in the range of -20%. However, in years where the export level was lower (1985 and 1989-1991) the NPRs were positive or close to zero. The EPR is generally about the same as the NPR. This reflects the low cost share of the inputs in relation to the value of the commodity (10%). Non-price transfers are very small or non-existent. Thus, the EPR and the ERA are very similar and the PSE reflects price transfers as opposed to non-price transfers. Maize The Dominican Republic has been a consistent importer of maize since 1980. In recent years (1987-1991), imports have averaged 400,000 MTs. Nominal protection and levels of imports seem to be correlated (figures 7a and 7b). During higher import periods (1984 and 1988-1991) protection is significantly positive (greater than 30%). During lower import periods protection is negative. Also following a similar pattern is the relationship of domestic and border prices. When imports are high, domestic price exceeds the border equivalent price. However, in years with lower imports, the border equivalent price is 27 higher than the domestic price. These relationships may reflect government intervention to support the price for maize. It was the policy of the government to work towards self- sufficiency. Thus, the government, working through its marketing arm INESPRE, attempted to maintain the domestic price above the international price. In general, the EPR and NPR show very little difference. Although some differences exist between the domestic and border price of the two inputs -- fertilizer and insecticide -- the cost share of the inputs in relation to the value of the output is small. Non-price transfers consist of credit assistance. However, the amount is very small compared to the price transfers. Table 8c of the appendix illustrates this. Using 1993 as an example, the positive transfer through the market price was DR$90.5 million while a tax of DR$4 million existed through the input market. The net result in terms of the PSE was an estimate of 62.5%. The ERA is similar to the EPR and the PSE reflects the price transfers. Red Beans Imports of red beans have been increasing since 1984. During 1992, a total of 20,000 MT was imported despite the government policy during this period to work towards self-sufficiency. Nominal protection has been significantly positive (>50%) for most of the period of study. In 1994, the estimate for the NPR was 171.7%. Most of the protection is reflected by the level of the domestic price which the government (and its marketing arm INESPRE) maintained above the international price. This is reflected in figure 8d. The EPR is higher than the NPR. The higher EPR can be explained by the fact that the difference between the input cost, valued at both domestic and border prices, is very small and tradable inputs represent only about 3% of cost. Therefore, the absolute difference between the output prices (domestic and border equivalent) and value-added at both domestic and border prices remains similar. However, the base is lower in the EPR calculation causing a higher EPR estimate relative to the NPR. Credit assistance is the only non-price transfer, and its impact is small compared with the price transfers. Since its influence is minimal, the ERA and the EPR are similar and the PSE mainly reflects the price transfers. Rice Imports of rice have been sporadic. In some years ( for example 1986 to 1987 and 1990) the level of imports has been high (>30,000 MTs). In other years imports have been small or non-existent. This erratic trade behavior indicates that in successful harvest years, the Dominican Republic is self-sufficient, and during poorer years the country must import 28 to compensate for the losses in domestic production. While we have treated rice as an importable for the whole period of the study, in 1993 and early 1994 rice was actually exported to Europe. Although the level has varied, nominal protection has been significantly positive (>30%) for most of the study period. In some years the level reaches as high as 100% or above while in other years it averages around 30% (one year it was negative). In general, the NPR is higher in years where little or none of the product is imported and when the product is exported. This behavior is unusual because it implies that during years of self- sufficiency the price is higher than in years during which the country imports. For 1990 and 1991, figure 9a shows very little imports. However, the NPR estimate was 118.9%. In the following year, 1991, imports were 250,000 MT and the NPR estimate was 34.1%. The domestic price for inputs used in rice production is usually higher than its comparable border price. However, the total cost share of the inputs relative to the value of output is small (approximately 0.3%). As a result, the difference between the NPR and the EPR is not very large for most years. Since the credit subsidy was eliminated in 1990, non-price transfers do not exist, and the PSE estimate is determined by price transfers. The most recent year, 1994, is an example. The price transfer through the market price accounted for DR$735 million while the input market taxed the producer DR$39.3 million. Combined, these two transfers resulted in a net transfer of DR$695.7 million and a PSE estimate of 61.1%. After the elimination of the credit subsidy in 1990, the ERA and EPR are the same implying no non-price transfers. 29 Figure 2a. Imports / Exports of Cassava Figure 2b. Protection Indicators for Dominican Republic 50 Cassava in the Dominican Republic 0- As ~EJI -Exp -50- -100-NP&ER -150- .2 2PSE - r* -*7- r'* s** 0 "-250L I 1 1 IM IM IM ion IO IM I oMW IN 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Source: FAO Tradebook, various years. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1.995. Ca) Figure 2c. Cassava Producer's Figure 2d. Dominican Republic's Border Income Transfers in Dominican Republic Equivalent and Domestic Cassava Price 5000- o50 0- Border EquivalenPrc -5000-' O L -10000-, 0 a3o- -15000- 'l 0 50 -20000- Credit Eqi2lntPrc -25000- t- Input Policies50 .3000-so Price Support -35000-' Iooin 1i5 IdW 1m7 1n 1" 1in 4e91 1992 1ima 1in Note: Both prices measured at the point of competition. Border Equivalent Price -4000 1` 91 (1 1 OCis what the domestic price would be without intervention. 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 Suc:Srelac rjc,LTD 95 Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Suc:Sreiac rjc,LTD 95 Figure 3a. Imports / Exports of Coffee Figure 3b. Protection Indicators for Dominican Republic 20 Coffee in the Dominican Republic 0- -20- 2 -40- EPR & ERA -60- E 01 -80- iwotan -e M on Io 1 I. low lo Ie sm -10011984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Source: FAO Tradebook, varbus YeM- Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Figure 3c. Coffee Producer's Figure 3d. Dominican Republic's Border Income Transfers in Dominican Republic Equivalent and Domestic Coffee Price 20000 Iaoo 10000 1600 0 -m Border Equivalent Price 11.. 1400- -10000 C 0 -20000' 120D- : -30000- --40000 GO% Crggeditso 2nput Policies Domsc Price -70000 Price Support 400 0M.0 1964 1965 1966 196 196 1969 1990 1991 1992 t93 1994 Note: Both prices measured at the point of competition. Border Equivalent Price -90000 Is what the domestic price would be without intervention. 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Figure 4a. Imports I Exports of Sugar Figure 4b. Protection Indicators for Dominican Republic o Sugar in the Dominican Republic -50 sol00e -150- -200- -250- 1 i m s s sm I q f* ,in -300 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Source: FAO Tradebook, varkm years. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Figure 4c. Sugar Producer's Figure 4d. Dominican Republic's Border Income Transfers in Dominican Republic Equivalent and Domestic Sugarcane Price 50000- 0 0 LL C O 350 Border Equivalent Price -0000.30 0 M; 15- S-150000-' Ceit input Policies 194 1965 1e6 1987 1968 1900 1990 1991 1992 1993 20000 4 1, E a ,Note: Both prices measured at the point of competition. Border Equivalent Price 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 Price support is what the domestic price would be without intervention. Source: Surveitlance Project, LATAO, 1995. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Figure Sa. Imports / Exports of Tobacco Figure 5b. Protection Indicators for Dominican Republic 120 Tobacco In the Dominican Republic 100EPR & ERA 'EEPI 80 E)V" ~ 60- WH 40 220- 0~ -20 S o-40. FE -60 1660 sees m r 1** s.. m S s Isoso sems m -80 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Source: FOTradebook, varbou year. Source: Surveillance Proiect, LATAD, 1995. Figure 5c. Tobacco Producer's Figure 5d. Dominican Republic's Border Income Transfers in Dominican Republic Equivalent and Domestic Tobacco Price 20000 1400 Credit 1300 o Dmeti Price 15000 1200 Input Policies 0 10000- Price Support o 01000 g 5000 9oD 0 8D D DBorder Equivalent Price -5000 -10000. 4c . r . 190 4 1985 1996 1987 196 1969 1980 1991 19 2 1993 1994 Note: Both prices measured at the point of competition. Border Equivalent Price 15000 is what the domestic price would be without intervention. 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Figure Ga. Imports / Exports of Tomato Figure 6b. Protection Indicators for Dominican Republic 450 Tomato in the Dominican Republic 400 350 knpo3rts 0 300- - E "FRJ~ a 0 250 22 200- 50 100 > ~50- I ton IM IonM 3on Im on os IO to I onM I O -50 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Source: FAO Trebook, vaSource: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Figure 6c. Tomato Producer's Figure 6d. Dominican Republic's Border Income Transfers in Dominican Republic Equivalent and Domestic Tomato Price 2500 500 450- 2000 Credit M Mo 400- input Policies O 1500 3WJ a - c Price Price Support 0 C~ 300- 1000- 00 500- (D 0.0 Border Equivalent Price -500 1984 1985 196 1987 198 198 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Note: Both prices measured at the point of competition. Border Equivalent Price L 1984 1986 1988 990 1992 1994 is what the domestic price would be without intervention. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Figure 7a. Imports / Exports of Maize Figure 7b. Protection Indicators for Dominican Republic 500 Maize in the Dominican Republic 400- EPR & ERA Inports 300- 8 Exports E 200- 4) IWO a) 100- 0-- -100- 19i ow le o 14* leew .m 1o io IeN oon Iem low -200-' Souce. FAO Tadoo k, arious ers .6 l-20 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Source: FAO Tradebook, various years.194 98 Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Figure 7c. Maize Producer's Figure 7d. Dominican Republic's Border Income Transfers in Dominican Republic Equivalent and Domestic Maize Price 35000 4W- 30000 Credit 350. 25000 Input Policies 0 300- Puc20000 Pre Support 0 250 15000 0- V Dometic Price o 10000- 200- 5000- 150 100- -5000 1Border Equivalent Price -10000 50 o'e4 1de6 1de 1de7 ideo 9 19 1 G 181 1s6 1W93 19G Note: Both prices measured at the point of competition. Border Equivalent Price -50001984 1986 1988 1990 1992 is what the domestic price would be without intervention. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD. 1995. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Figure 8a. Imports / Exports of Beans Figure 8b. Protection Indicators for Dominican Republic 350 Red Beans in the Dominican Republic 300 .k.Portsso5 NPR jS 250- F-Expo EPR & ERA imaomE 200 a- 150 E ~100- Ef 50 see10 IeM,arss ee essessa lose w's le M, lso wn 0 a 1 1 o ur M FAO Tra vaIo years. Ifty 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Source: FAO0 Tfadebook, Various Yeaws. 0___ Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Figure 8c. Bean Producer's Figure 8d. Dominican Republic's Border Income Transfers in Dominican Republic Equivalent and Domestic Red Bean Price 50000 1600 Credit 1400- 40000 M D ec7Pice Input Policies 0 1200- W 30000 Price Support 0 2 1000- Ue Yo 600- 10000 40o- Border Equivalent Prce 020 1964 1985 1966 1967 19668 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Note: Both prices measured at the point of competition. Border Equivalent Price 11 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 is what the domestic price would be without intervention. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Figure 9a. Imports / Exports of Rice Figure 9b. Protection Indicators for Dominican Republic 300 Rice in the Dominican Republic [M ] 250 EP*- RA i-] 200 150 S2 100 0- 50 o50 it I I Ieg ISe leot 19M IN lo I I o I I -100 . . . .., S c A r o vo y1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Source: FAO Tradebook, varou yes Source: Surveillance Proiect. LATAD. 1995. Figure 9c. Rice Producer's Figure 9d. Dominican Republic's Border Income Transfers in Dominican Republic Equivalent and Domestic Rice Price 250000 noa Credit 200000 700 Input Policies 0 om P 150000 Price Support C g 100000 00 2 Border Equivalent Price -50000- 10 5000 a. I I I I 1984 1985 1966 197 1988 1000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Note: Both prices measured at the point of competition. Border Equivalent Price 1984 , 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 swhat the domestic price would be without Intervention. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995. Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD. 1995. 勺 APPENDIX A COMMODITY CHARTS AND PROTECTION INDICATOR CALCULATION TABLES Appendix A 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 collaborator. 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. 39 TABLE A-1 1991-92 AVERAGE INPUT SHARES AND COST STRUCTURE FOR THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC EXPORTABLES IMPORTABLES Red White Cassava Coffee Sugarcane Tobacco Tomato Beans Maize Rice (Expressed in Percent of Output Value) Fertilizer 0.4% 6.5% 28.4% 1.7% 4.5% 3.7% 1.4% 11.2% Insecticide 12.4% 2.7% 4.0% 2.0% 13.1% 7.2% 1.9% Herbicide Fungicide 4.3% 1.8% 0.9% 1.2% 0.2% Total Cost 12.8% 13.5% 28.4% 7.5% 7.4% 18.0% 8.6% 13.3% Returns to Land Labor & Capital 87.2% 86.5% 71.6% 92.5% 92.6% 82.0% 91.4% 86.7% (Expressed in Nominal U.S. Dollars) Output Price Per Ton $181 $567 $11 $806 $241 $966 $227 $435 Cost Per Ton of Output $18 $75 $3 $58 $18 $175 $20 $94 Returns to Land, Labor & Capital Per Ton $163 $492 $8 $748 $223 $792 $208 $341 Note: Our classification of cost was originally constructed for use in calculating the EPRs, and thus only includes the tradable component. Source: Surveillance Project, LA TAD, 1995 41 TABLE A-2a Standardized Format Nominal Rate of Protection Country: Dominican Republic Type: Exportable Commodity: Cassava Point of Competition: Border 121m 122 12Z 121m 12m 122 1221 O2m2 122 1224 1. UNADJUSTED BORDER PRICE Exchange Rate $DR Per US$ 3.1 2.9 3.8 6.1 6.3 8.4 12.4 12.5 12.5 12.9 Border Price $US FOB Ton 273.3 534.4 323.6 306.4 283.1 268.8 265.4 280.0 340.3 284.3 Border Price in Local Currency 849.8 1,551.9 1,242.7 1,880.9 1,791.8 2,258.3 3,291.0 3,500.0 4,253.4 3,653.0 2. BORDER ADJUSTMENTS Tariffs/Subsidies (a) (254.3) (1,027.6) (478.0) (915.6) (508.4) (386.5) 438.7 (1,608.0) (691.1) 637.5 Port Charges Storage/Handling/Loss Border Price Equivalent (with intervention) 595.5 524.3 764.7 965.4 1,283.5 1,871.8 3,729.6 1,892.0 3,562.3 4,290.5 Border Price Equivalent (without intervention) 849.8 1,551.9 1,242.7 1,880.9 1,791.8 2,258.3 3,291.0 3,500.0 4,253.4 3,653.0 3. COSTS FROM BORDER TO PROCESSING (WHOLESALE MARKET) Taxes/Subsidies Transportation Other 4A Border Price Equivalent after Processing (with intervention) 595.5 524.3 764.7 965.4 1,283.5 1,871.8 3,729.6 1,892.0 3,562.3 4,290.5 Border Price Equivalent after Processing (without intervention) 849.8 1,551.9 1,242.7 1,880.9 1,791.8 2,258.3 3,291.0 3,500.0 4,253.4 3,653.0 4. PROCESSING (WHOLESALE MARKET) Taxes/Subsidies Processing Costs Marketing Margins (126.1) (114.8) (244.0) (286.7) (381.9) (550.2) (536.9) (572.0) (617.8) (691.9) 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) 469.5 409.4 520.7 678.7 901.6 1,321.5 3.192.8 1,320.0 2,944.5 3,598.6 Border Pnce Equivalent before Processing (without intervention) 723.8 1,437.1 998.7 1,594.3 1,409.9 1,708.0 2,754.1 2,928.0 3,635.6 2,961.1 5. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POINT (FARM) TO PROCESSOR Taxes/Subsidies Transportation Other Border Price Equivalent at Collection Point (with intervention) 469.5 409.4 520.7 678.7 901.6 1,321.5 3,192.8 1,320.0 2,944.5 3,598.6 Border Price Equivalent at Collection Point (without intervention) 723.8 1,437.1 998.7 1,594.3 1,409.9 1,708.0 2,754.1 2,928.0 3,635.6 2,961.1 6. DOMESTIC PRICE Border Wholesale 469.5 409.4 520.7 678.7 901.6 1,321.5 3,192.8 1,320.0 2,944.5 3,598.6 Collection Point (Farm) 469.5 409.4 520.7 678.7 901.6 1,321.5 3,192.8 1,320.0 2,944.5 3.598.6 7. NPR Border -29.9% -66.2% -38.5% -48.7% -28.4% -17.1% 13.3% -45.9% -16.2% 17.5% Wholesale -35.1% -71.5% -47.9% -57.4% -36.1% -22.6% 15.9% -54.9% -19.0% 21.5% Collection Point (Farm) a. Tariffs and subsidies not specified. Source: Surveillance Project. LA TAD, 1995 TABLE А-2Ь Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Country: Dominican RspuЫic Турв: ЕкропвЫа Commodrty; Casыva Lsva1: Fann ]�Н4 ]3б4 ]�@Б 12� >,4@@ �Е8 �34 �49.1 ]8,41 1З,4З 1 4 1. OUTPUT Dопивес Ргiи fDR Раг МТ 211.4 469.5 409.4 520.7 678.7 901.8 1,Э21.5 3,192.8 1,320.0 2,944.5 3,598.5 OuвMity МТ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Va1w аг Doпюstic Ргiск 211.4 ses.ь ао9.а s2o.7 в7е.7 901.8 1,з21.s з,192.е 1,3zo.o 2,9aa.s з,sse.s Вогди Рпсе ErauiveMnt 3DR Раг МТ 188.5 723.8 1.4Э7.1 998.7 1,594.3 1,409.9 1,708.0 2,754 1 2,928.0 3,6Э5.8 2,961.1 Оиапдtу МТ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Va1ua at Вогдег Рпсs Epuivalent 186.5 723.В 1,437.1 998.7 1,594.Э 1,409.9 1,708.0 2,754.1 2,928.0 Э,635.6 2,981 1 2. �MDABLE DIRECT 1NPUTS FeraN:er �uanti[у МТ Рвг МТ о( Output 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dопивtiс Рпсв DR3 Рег МТ 458.40 578.50 913.80 1261.10 1588.40 1834.05 2777.80 4057.90 4070.00 327В.00 3850.00 Dотыьс Соы 0 1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.Э 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 Вогдег Ргiсв Eq. Ricв DR3 Par МТ 608.5 6Э1.8 551.8 745.0 1,362.9 1,405.Э 1,884.8 3,866.0 3,875.0 3,900.0 4,047.В Вогдег Price Еа. Cost 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 lnsecбcida awntity L7 Рег МТ of Ои[ри[ 0.44 0.4д 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.41 0.41 0.44 � Domыtic Prics DR3 Рвг LT 89.00 116.70 125.70 143.75 201.25 260.00 417.00 471.85 550.00 556.15 481.00 w Damиtic Cost 39.2 50.9 55.3 63.3 88.6 12Э.2 183.5 207.6 242.0 244.7 202.8 9огдег Price Еа. Ргке DR3 Рег LT 80.10 104.13 126.Э5 143.75 201.25 280.00 417.00 Э37.Э7 393.25 342.30 312.98 Вогдег Priee Eq. Cost 36 2 45.8 55.2 83.3 88.6 123.2 18Э.5 14В 4 173.0 150.6 137.7 Tota1 fhrect 1при4 10omasoc Pritaвl Э9.2 51.0 55.5 83 5 88.8 12Э.5 184.0 208.3 242.7 245.3 203.5 Tota1 О'пхllприга (8огдвг Ргiсв) 35.4 45.9 55.3 63.4 88.8 123.4 18Э.8 149.1 173.7 151.Э 138.4 3. TRADABLE 1NDIRECT 1NPUTS Ownlilrt/ Dапювtiс Ргiсв Damыlic Cost 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Вогдег Price Eq. Prica Вогди Ргiсв Еа. Coet 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 Тогаllпд'месt lпригв 1Donиatie Pricul 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TatallndiractlnqnslBorder Рпсв1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4. VALUE ADDED D'rM lприи Оп1у At Dопювбс Ргiеы 172.2 418.5 354.0 457.Э 689.9 778.1 1,137.В 2,964.4 1,077.Э 2,899.2 3,395.0 At lмемеliопаl Рпсеs 151.1 877.9 1.381.В 935.3 1,505.5 1,286.5 1,624.2 2,605.0 2,754.3 3,464.3 2,822.7 D'ееа Ь lntlkscllnputs А1 Dопивliс Ргiси 172.2 418.5 354.0 467.3 589 9 778.1 1.137.6 2,984.4 1,077.3 2,899.2 3,396.0 Atlмenutional Рпсы 151.1 677.9 1.3В1.8 935.Э 1,505.5 1,286.6 1,524.2 2,805.0 2,754.3 3,484.3 2,822.7 6. EPR 13.9% -38.3% -74.6% -51.1 % -60.В% -39.5% -26.4% 14.6% -80.9% -22.6% 20.3% Source: Surveilsnce fYoject LATAD, 1996 TABLE A-3a Standardized Format Nominal Rate of Protection Country: n, I "an Republic Type: Exportablai Cowwrocky: Coffee Point of Competition; Border im im im im 1. LINADJUSTED BORDER PRICE Exchange Rate $0111 Pat US$ 2.0 1.9 3.1111 6.1 6.3 8.4 12.4 12.5 12.5 12.9 Border Price -60151WTo-n-Green 2,807.2 3,639.5 2,153.0 2,461.9 2,320.3 1,430.0 1.556.5 1,240.0 1,190.8 2,301.2 Doi do Price in Local Currency 5,586.3 6,754.8 8,277.8 15.113.8 14,887.7 12,012.0 19,300.6 15,500.0 14,885.0 29,571.0 2. DORM ADJUSTMENTS ToritfalSubsidisalAdjustments Is) f2.609. 1) (2,330.8) 12.168.3) (6,046.1) (4,038.5) (304.01 692.5 607.4 2,180.5 (7,582.a) Port Charges StonalleMandirelLoss R c I Price Equivalent (with interventhord 2,977.3 4,424.1 6,109.5 9,067.7 10.649.2 11,708.0 19,993.1 16,107.4 17.065.5 21,988.2 ftdso Price Equivalent 4without intemnlion) 5,566.3 6,754.8 8,277.8 15.113.8 14,887.7 12,012.0 19,300.6 15,500.0 14,885.0 29,571.0 3. COSTS FROM DORM TO PROCESSING IWIMLESALE MARKET) ToriftwSubsidiss/Adjustments Transportation Other Border Price Equivalent after Processing I with intervention) 2,977.3 4,424.1 6,109.5 9,067.7 10,649.2 11,708.0 19,993.1 16,107.4 17,065.5 21,988.2 Border Price Equivalent after Processing Iwithout intervention) 5,586.3 6,754.8 8,277.8 15,113.8 14,687.7 12,012.0 19,300.6 15,50D.0 14,885.0 29,571.0 4. PROCESSING COST CWHOLESALE MARKET) Twiffs/Subsidea/Adjustments Processing Costs 065.1) (180.0) 1210.0) (303.3) (441.0) (703.3) (1,076-6) (1,108.0) (1,196.6) (1,340.5) Marketing Margins Other Converseon 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 Border Price Equivalent before Processing (with intervention) 1,246.5 1.917.6 2,686.8 3,995.9 4,564.1 4,799.5 8,320.2 6,462.5 6,824.2 8,994.0 Border Price Equivalent before Processing (without intervention) 2,483.5 3,022.6 3,714.7 6,862.4 6,462.2 4,942.4 7,994.7 6,177.0 5,799.4 12,557.9 5. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POINT IFARM) TO PROCESSOR Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments Transportation Other Border Price Equivalent at Collection Point (with intervention) 1,246.5 1,917.6 2,686.6 3,995.9 4,564.1 4.799.5 8,320.2 6,462.6 6,824.2 8,9S4.0 Border Price Equivalent at Collection Point (without intervention) 2,483.5 3,022.6 3,714.7 6,862.4 6,462.2 4,942.4 7,994.7 6,177.0 5,799.4 12.557.9 5. DOMESTIC PRICE Border 2,977.3 4,424.1 6,109.5 9,067.7 10,649.2 11.708.0 19,993.1 16.107.4 17,065.5 21,988.2 Wholesale 1,246.5 1,917.6 2,686.6 3,995.9 4,564.1 4,799.5 8,320.2 6,462.5 8,824.2 8,994.0 Collection Point (Farm) 1,246.5 1,917.6 2,686.6 3,995.9 4,564.1 4,799.5 8,320.2 6,462.5 6.824.2 8,994.0 7. NPR Border -46.7% -34.5% -26.2% -40.0% -27.5% -2.5% 3.6% 3.9% 14.6% -25.6% Wholesale -49.8% -36.6% -27.7% -41.8% -29.4% -2.9% 4.1% 4.6% 17.7% -28.4% Collection Point (Form) a. Represents an export tax. b. Represents a conversion ratio of cherry to green coffee of 47.4% Source: Surveillance Project, LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-3b Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Country: Dominican Republic Type: Exportable Commodity: Coffee Level: Farm 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1. OUTPUT Domestic Price $DR Per MT 967.9 1,246.4 1,924.4 2,681.6 3,996.9 4,564.1 4,799.5 8,320.2 6,462.5 6,824.2 8,994.0 Quantity MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Value at Domestic Prices 967.9 1,246.4 1,924.4 2,681.6 3,996.9 4,564.1 4,799.5 8,320.2 6,462.5 6,824.2 8,994.0 Border Price Equivalent $DR Per MT 1,804.7 2,483.5 3,022.6 3,714.7 6,862.4 6,462.2 4,942.4 7,994.7 6,177.0 5,799.4 12,557.9 Quantity MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Value at Border Price Equivalent 1,804.7 2,483.5 3,022.6 3,714.7 6,862.4 6,462.2 4,942.4 7,994.7 6,177.0 5,799.4 12,557.9 2. TRADABLE DIRECT INPUTS Fertilizer Quantity MT Per MT of Output 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Domestic Price DR Per MT 458.40 576.50 913.80 1249.54 1588.40 1630.64 2777.80 4057.90 4070.00 3278.00 3850.00 Domestic Cost 50.4 63.4 100.5 137.4 174.7 179.4 305.6 446.4 447.7 360.6 423.5 Border Price Eq. Price DRS Per MT 171.3 631.8 551.0 745.0 1,363.1 1,740.8 2,587.2 3,855.0 3,875.0 3,900.0 4,047.8 Border Price Eq. Cost 18.8 69.5 60.6 81.9 149.9 191.5 284.6 424.1 426.3 429.0 445.3 Fungicide Quantity Lb Per MT of Output 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 Domestic Price DRS Per Lb 12.75 17.21 18.75 21.56 30.10 43.50 50.00 59.20 115.48 117.00 120.00 DomesticCost 70.9 95.7 104.3 119.9 167.4 241.9 278.0 329.2 642.1 650.5 667.2 Border Price Eq. Price DRS Per Lb 11.48 15.49 18.75 21.56 30.10 43.50 50.00 42.33 82.57 93.85 95.34 Border Price Eq. Cost 63.8 86.1 104.3 119.9 167.4 241.9 278.0 235.4 459.1 521.8 530.1 Insecticide Quantity LT Per MT of Output 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Domestic Price DR$ Per LT 89.00 115.70 125.70 143.75 201.25 280.00 417.00 471.85 550.00 556.15 461.00 Domestic Cost 32.0 41.7 45.3 51.8 72.5 100.8 150.1 169.9 198.0 200.2 166.0 Border Price Eq. Price DRS Per LT 80.0 104.1 125.4 143.8 201.3 280.0 417.0 337.4 393.3 342.3 313.0 Border Price Eq. Cost 28.8 37.5 45.1 51.8 72.5 100.8 150.1 121.5 141.6 123.2 112.7 Total Direct Inputs (Domestic Prices) 153.4 200.8 250.0 309.1 414.5 522.0 733.7 945.4 1,287.8 1,211.3 1,256.7 Total DIrect Inputs (Border Price) 111.5 193.1 210.0 253.6 389.7 534.1 712.7 780.9 1,026.9 1,074.0 1,088.0 3. TRADABLE INDIRECT INPUTS Quantity Domestic Price Domestic Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Border Price Eq. Price Border Price Eq. Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Indirect Inputs (Domestic Prices) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total indirect Inputs (Border Pricel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4. VALUE ADDED Direct Inputs Only At Domestlic Prices 814.6 1,045.7 1,674.4 2,372.5 3.582.3 4,042.0 4,065.8 7,374.8 5,174.7 5,612.9 7,737.3 At International Prices 1,693.3 2,290.4 2,812.6 3,461.1 6,472.7 5,928.0 4,229.7 7,213.8 5,150.1 4,725.4 11,469.9 Direct & Indirect inputs At Domestic Prices 814.6 1,045.7 1,674.4 2,372.5 3,582.3 4,042.0 4,065.8 7,374.8 5,174.7 5,612.9 7,737.3 At Intemational Prices 1,693.3 2,290.4 2,812.6 3,461.1 6,472.7 5,928.0 4,229.7 7,213.8 5,150.1 4,726.4 11,469.9 5. EPR -61.9% -54.3% -40.5% -31.5% -44.7% -31.8% -3.9% 2.2% 0.5% 18.8% -32.5% Suace- Swv*WaWRce At LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-4a Standardized Format Nominal Rate of Protection Country: Dominican Republic Type: Exportable Commodity: Sugar Point of Competition: Border 1214 121m 121m 11 121 1212 122N 122 1222 1221 1. UNADJUSTED BORDER PRICE Exchange Rate $DR Per US$ 1.5 2.0 1.9 3.8 6.1 6.3 8.4 12.4 12.5 12.5 Border Price $US FOB Ton 328.2 264.6 298.0 233.7 239.7 471.0 379.2 448.4 347.6 330.1 Border Price in Local Currency 485.7 526.5 553.0 898.4 1,471.6 2,981.3 3,185.4 5,560.0 4,344.8 4,126.1 2. BORDER ADJUSTMENTS Tariffs/Subsidies Ia (226.6) (240.11 (172.4) (446.1) (781.1) (1,820.6) (1,732.0) (4,001.6) (2,842.9) (2,606.8) Port Charges Storage/Handling/Loss Border Price Equivalent (with intervention) 259.2 286.4 380.6 452.2 690.6 1,160.7 1,453.4 1,558.4 1,501.9 1,519.3 Border Price Equivalent (without intervention) 485.7 526.5 553.0 898.4 1,471.6 2,981.3 3,185.4 5,560.0 4,344.8 4,126.1 3. COSTS FROM BORDER TO PROCESSING (WHOLESALE MARKET) Taxes/Subsidies Transportation Other Border Price Equivalent after Processing (with intervention) 259.2 286.4 380.6 452.2 690.6 1,160.7 1,453.4 1,558.4 1,501.9 1,519.3 Border Price Equivalent after Processing (without intervention) 485.7 526.5 553.0 898.4 1,471.6 2,981.3 3,185.4 5,560.0 4,344.8 4,126.1 4. PROCESSING (WHOLESALE MARKET) Taxes/Subsidies Processing Costs (2.0) (2.6) (2.9) (3.4) (4.8) (7.7) (12.0) (17.4) (17.71 (19.5) Marketing Margins Other Conversion (b) 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 Border Price Equivalent before Processing (with intervention) 25.2 27.5 37.1 44.1 67.7 114.2 140.6 146.2 140.0 140.0 Border Price Equivalent before Processing (without intervention) 49.0 52.7 55.2 91.0 149.7 305.3 322.5 566.4 438.5 413.7 5. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POINT (FARM) TO PROCESSOR Taxes/Subsidies Transportation Other Border Price Equivalent at Collection Point (with intervention) 25.2 27.5 37.1 44.1 67.7 114.2 140.6 146.2 140.0 140.0 Border Price Equivalent at Collection Point (without intervention) 49.0 52.7 55.2 91.0 149.7 305.3 322.5 566.4 438.5 413.7 6. DOMESTIC PRICE Border 259.2 286.4 380.6 452.2 690.6 1,160.7 1,453.4 1,558.4 1,501.9 1,519.3 Wholesale 25.2 27.5 37.1 44.1 67.7 114.2 140.6 146.2 140.0 140.0 Collection Point (Farm) 7. NPR Border -46.6% -45.6% -31.2% -49.7% -53.1% -61.1% -54.4% -72.0% -65.4% -63.2% Wholesale -48.5% -47.8% -32.8% -51.5% -54.8% -62.6% -56.4% -74.2% -68.1% -66.2% Collection Point (Farm) a. Results derived. b. Conversion of cane to sugar. Source: SurveiAlnce Project, LATAD, 1995 TABLE A-4b Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Country: Dominican Republic Type: Exportable Commodity: Sugar Level: Farm 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1. OUTPUT Domestic Price $DR Per MT 25.2 27.5 37.1 44.1 67.7 114.2 140.6 146.2 140.0 140.0 Quantity MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Value at Domestic Prices 25.2 27.5 37.1 44.1 67.7 114.2 140.6 146.2 140.0 140.0 Border Price Equivalent $DR Per MT 49.0 52.7 55.2 91.0 149.7 305.3 322.5 566.4 438.5 413.7 Quantity MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Value at Border Price Equivalent 49.0 52.7 55.2 91.0 149.7 305.3 322.5 566.4 438.5 413.7 2. TRADABLE DIRECT INPUTS Fertilizer Quantity MT Per MT of Output 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Domestic Price DR$ Per MT 458.4 576.5 913.8 1,249.5 1,588.4 1,634.0 2,777.8 4,057.9 4,070.0 3,278.0 Domestic Cost 5.7 7.2 11.4 15.6 19.9 16.3 27.8 40.6 40.7 32.8 Border Price Eq. Price DR$ Per MT 171.3 631.8 551.0 745.0 1,363.1 1,740.8 2,587.2 3,855.0 3,875.0 3,900.0 Border Price Eq. Cost 2.1 7.9 6.9 9.3 17.0 17.4 25.9 38.6 38.8 39.0 4 Total Direct Inputs (Domestic Prices) 5.7 7.2 11.4 15.6 19.9 16.3 27.8 40.6 40.7 32.8 Total Direct Inputs (Border Price) 2.1 7.9 6.9 9.3 17.0 17.4 25.9 38.6 38.8 39.0 3. TRADABLE INDIRECT INPUTS Quantity Domestic Price Domestic 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 Border Price Eq. Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Indirect Inputs (Domestic Prices) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Indirect Inputs (Border 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 Inputs Only At Domestic Prices 19.5 20.3 25.8 28.4 47.9 97.8 112.9 105.6 99.3 107.2 At International Prices 46.9 44.8 48.3 81.7 132.7 287.9 296.6 527.8 399.8 374.7 Direct & Indirect Inputs At Domestic Prices 19.5 20.3 25.8 28.4 47.9 97.8 112.9 105.6 99.3 107.2 At International Prices 46.9 44.8 48.3 81.7 132.7 287.9 296.6 527.8 399.8 374.7 5. EPR -58.4% -54.7% -46.9% -65.1% -63.9% -66.0% -62.0% -80.0% -75.2% -71.4% Source: Surveillance Project, LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-5a Standardized Format Nominal Rate of Protection Country: Dominican Republic Type: Exportable Commodity: Tobacco Point of Competition: Border imH 11H 123Z 11 11AS 120 1121 1222 121 12 1. UNADJUSTED BORDER PRICE Exchange Rate 1DR Per USS 2.0 1.9 3.8 6.1 6.3 8.4 12.4 12.5 12.5 12.9 Border Price SIUS FOB Ton 1,269.4 1,198.5 1,293.7 1,208.8 1,342.4 1,110.0 1,040.0 1,100.0 1,264.5 1,264.5 Border Price in Local Currency 2,526.1 2,224.3 4,974.1 7,420.6 8,497.2 9,324.0 12,896.0 13,750.0 15,805.9 16,248.4 2. BORDER ADJUSTMENTS Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments (a) 1,250.0 1,577.8 1,195.0 (1,057.0) (3,460.01 980.0 680.0 4,866.9 3,745.3 3,934.6 Port Charges Storage/Handling/Loss Border Price Equivalent (with intervention) 3,776.1 3,802.1 6,169.1 6,363.6 5,037.2 10,304.0 13,576.0 18,616.9 19,551.1 20,183.0 Border Price Equivalent (without intervention) 2,526.1 2,224.3 4,974.1 7,420.6 8,497.2 9,324.0 12,896.0 13,750.0 15,805.9 16,248.4 3. COSTS FROM BORDER TO PROCESSING (WHOLESALE MARKET) Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments Transportation Other Border Price Equivalent after Processing (with intervention) 3,776.1 3,802.1 6,169.1 6,363.6 5,037.2 10,304.0 13,576.0 18,616.9 19,551.1 20,183.0 Border Price Equivalent after Processing (without intervention) 2,526.1 2,224.3 4,974.1 7,420.6 8,497.2 9,324.0 12,896.0 13,750.0 15,805.9 16,248.4 00 4. PROCESSING COST (WHOLESALE MARKET) Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments Processing Costs Marketing Margins (74.5) (410.8) (476.4) (688.0) (999.9) (1,591.6) (2,441.7) (2,509.2) (2,709.9) (3.035.1) Other Conversion 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 Border Price Equivalent before Processing (with intervention) 2,570.9 2,554.8 4,335.5 4,275.6 2,929.1 6,445.5 8,147.5 12,012.0 12,540.0 12,707.7 Border Price Equivalent before Processing (without intervention) 1.595.9 1,324.2 3,403.4 5,100.1 5,627.9 5,681.1 7,617.1 8,215.9 9,618.7 9,638.7 5. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POINT (FARM) TO PROCESSOR Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments Transportation Other Border Price Equivalent at Collection Point (with intervention) 2,570.9 2,554.8 4,335.5 4,275.6 2,929.1 6,445.5 8,147.5 12,012.0 12,540.0 12,707.7 Border Price Equivalent at Collection Point (without intervention) 1,595.9 1,324.2 3,403.4 5,100.1 5,627.9 5,681.1 7,617.1 8,215.9 9.618.7 9,638.7 6. DOMESTIC PRICE Border 3,776.1 3,802.1 6,169.1 6,363.6 5,037.2 10,304.0 13,576.0 18,616.9 19,551.1 20,183.0 Wholesale 2,570.9 2,554.8 4,335.5 4,275.6 2,929.1 6,445.5 8,147.5 12,012.0 12.540.0 12,707.7 Collection Point (Farm) 2,570.9 2,554.8 4.335.5 4,275.6 2,929.1 6,445.5 8,147.5 12,012.0 12,540.0 12,707.7 7. NPR Border 49.5% 70.9% 24.0% -14.2% -40.7% 10.5% 5.3% 35.4% 23.7% 24.2% Wholesale 61.1% 92.9% 27.4% -16.2% -48.0% 13.5% 7.0% 46.2% 30.4% 31.8% Collection Point (Farm) a. Results derived. Source: SurveMance Project, LA TAD, 1995 . TABLE А-5Ь Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Country: DomiMcвn RвpuЫic Туре: ЕхропвЫо Commodity: Tobacco Lвva1: Fвгт 1эв4 19еь 19ве 19е7 lsee lявs 1я9о 1э91 1e9z 19�з 1se4 1. оитwт оеп,втсvпсе i0нrегмт е9z.з z,а7оя 2,ее4.а 4.эзs.s 4,z7ь.е 2.ez9.1 в,ме.s a.147.s 1z.olz.o 12.s40.o 12,7о7.7 о�,масr мт 1.о 1.о 1.о 1.о 1.о 1.о 1.о 1.о 1.о 1.о 1.о Va1w вt Оопивас Рпсw е9z.з х,s7оя 2.еи.е 4,ззss 4.z7s.в 2.9z9.1 в.44ss a,147.s и,о12.о 12.s4o.o 1z.7o7.7 еогдвгvпсв[quivalмг �Онr.гмт 1.ае7.4 1,еяs.я 1.з24.2 з.4оз.4 s,1oo.1 e,ez7.9 s.ве1.1 7,е17.1 e,zls.я 9.в1е.7 9sоз.7 а,маа мт 1.о 1.о 1.о 1.о 1.о 1.о 1.о 1.о 1.о 1.о 1.о Vв1ив ве вогди Rieв Елиivвlмt 1.4в7.4 1,s9s.9 1,зи.2 з.4оз.4 в.1оо.1 s,ev.e s.ве1.1 7,вn.1 e,21s.a я.е1е.7 аsоз.7 2. ТМОАlLE qRECT WM/TS Fвralizвr Ouanaty МТ РМ мТ of ОиФис 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 оопи.ас а�ее Оп� r.г мт 4ss.4o s7s.so s1з.79 1249.s4 1sse.42 1ез4.оз z777.eo 4os7.eo 4о7о.оо з27е.оо зеео.ао оопивассовt 2о.в 2s.7 4о.е sss е9.в ess 111.1 1в2.з 1е2.е 1з1.1 1ц.о � еоМвг Ргfев Eq. �4iu оав г« ит 171.з ез1.е ее1.о 74s.0 1.зsз.1 1.74о.е z,вe7.z з.вss.о з,е7s.о з,90о.о 4,о47.е Согда Рпсв Ед. Совt 7.7 2в.2 24.в зз.3 в0.8 в9.б 10Э.5 /54.2 1SS.0 15в.0 1в1.9 wnoicfa. оимагу �в y« мт ог Оигwг з.1 х э.12 з.12 з. и з. и з.1 z з.1 z з.1 z з.1 z з.1 х з.12 Оопввае Раев DR1 Рег LB 12.76 17.21 1е.76 21.в8 30.10 4З.S0 50.00 68.20 115.4е 117.00 120.00 оопи,ассеп зs.е sз.7 ее.е в7.з яз.9 1зs.7 1se.o 1е4.7 эео.з зве.о э74.4 еогди Rieв Eb. Рьiсв OR1 Рвг L! 11.4е 15.49 1в.76 21.Sв 30.10 43.60 50.00 42.Зз е2.67 9з.ве 95.3L brder hieв Еа. Gвг зs.е м.з se.s е7.з азs 1зв.7 1ss.o 1зz.1 2е7.в 2е2.в ze7.s А � микадде о,еапар Lt P+r МТ of Oaroue о.77 o.n о.77 о.77 о.77 о.77 о.77 о.» о.77 о.77 о.77 Ооеи.асn+м Омr.г�т tя.ао 11е.та us.7o из.7s 201.2s 2во.оо м7.оо и1.ев sso.oo вее.ls 4е1.оо ооп..аосеп ees е9.1 9вл 11о.7 1ее.о 21s.e з21.1 звэ.з 4:зs 4хе.2 звs.о вмд.г wk. Ед. гь�. о1,� м �т м.1 1о4.1 us.4 из.е 2о1.з 2во.о м7.о зз7.4 з9з.з зв2.з Э1з.о ваа.� гч;с. Еа. соп е1.7 ео.2 9в.е по.7 1ss.o t1в.е з21.1 :вs.е эо2.е :вэ.в ц1.о тегr or�.ee моиа a7enr.ae гме.и ив.в 1и.е 19е.1 2sa.e зи.е ие.7 sя.2 71о.з еи.е п4.4 вазл Тед1 OYeet Mpub МаМ� Rin1 10е.1 15е.7 179.е 211.2 709.в 421.0 eW.{ в4е.0 71в.4 712.4 700.4 з. ТМОАвtЕ в10�СТ MVTs OwnatY Оетввllе lYia Овпивае Сиt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 еммr ме. h. wк. eb�N вьiа Еа. Совt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 teW Ndkeet Чiputs вэоnивtlе гпеW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Теа1 ЬМkкt Npub lвадвг Мее1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4. VAU1E ADOEO О�Увп М»ии OkMy At Ооnивtlе hiевв 7ез.6 2.402.0 2.Зее.7 4.101.7 7.9в7.1 2.612.4 6.ее7.7 7.4з7.2 11.Ое5.4 11.б1о.е 11.е24.з АtИовмвоопМRkи 1.Зе2.2 1.49l.2 t.1Ч.1 з.1я2.2 �.790.з 5.207.0 в.100.5 7.071.1 7.500.4 в.90е.з е,е0з.4 w.ог ь маr.сс иw�а Аг оопМ.lк мс.е 7вз.е 2.м2.о z.эее.7 4.1о1.7 з,9е7.1 2.е12.4 s,es7.з 7.4s7.t 11,ове.4 11.в1е.в 11.е24.Э At lпргпваопвl Рг1еа 1.эь2.2 1.ие.2 1.144.а з.1е2s 4.7ю.э s.2o7.o в.lоо.е 7.о71.1 7.е00.а в.е0е.з е.еоэ.4 е. Егп -вз.е% ве.9� /ое.1х, 2е.ек -17.4х -s1.7x 14.е� s.2x 47sx эо.4х з4.зх sог...+..• sтии.в.м �4 и r�v, гээs TABLE A-6a Standardized Format Nominal Rate of Protection CoLintry: Dominican Republic Typo: Exportabie Commodity: Tomato Point of Competraw: Border Im im im im 1. UNADJUSTED BORDER PRICE ExdmwVo Rate $DR Par US$ 3.1 2.9 3.8 6.1 6.3 8.4 12.4 12.5 12.5 12.9 , Price $US FOB Ton 195.2 321.4 280.4 274.8 234.2 291.5 375.5 380.0 614.0 628.0 Border Price in Local CLwrw" 607.2 932.1 1,076.6 1,687.0 1,4112.2 2,"8.6 4,656.2 4,750.0 7,675.0 81069.8 2. BORDER ADJUSTMENTS Twiffe/Subsidios (a) 140.0 183.5) (100.51 (330.2) 101.8 620.4 (89.6) 68.9 0,193.5) 1582.8) Port Cherges StonesifHandIMILoss, Am I Price Equivalent Ivrith intervention) 747.1 $48.6 976.1 1,356.8 1,583.9 3,069.0 4,566.6 4,918.9 61481.5 7,487.1 Border Price Eqwval@M (wrft#A intervention) 607.2 932.1 1,076.6 1,687.0 1.4a2.2 2,"8.6 4,656.2 4,7SO.0 7,675.0 e.oeg.a 3. COSTS FROM BORDER TO PROCESSING (WHOLESALE MARKET) Taxes/Subudims Transportation otpw Border Price EqLdvswm after Processing (witli intervention) 747.1 848.6 976.1 1,356.8 1,583.9 3,069.0 4,566.6 4,818.9 6,481.5 7,467.1 Border Price Eqtwdwd after Processing (without intervention) 607.2 932.1 1.076.6 1,687.0 1,482.2 2,"8.6 4,656.2 4,750.0 7,675.0 8,069.8 4. PROCESSING (WHOLESALE MARKET) Tawas/Subaidies Procosmv Costs Merketirv Morons (228.1) (279.2) (319.4) (459.2) (603.6) 1748.0) (1,486.6) (1,870.0) (2,020.51 (2,263.1) other Convivalon 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 (wrth intervention) 519.0 569.3 6S6.7 897.6 980.3 2,321.0 3,080.0 2,948.9 4,461.0 5.224.0 Border Price Eqwvalarit before ProcasawrV 1wittiom irifervandon) 379.0 852.8 737.2 1,227.8 &7a.s 1,700.6 3,169.6 2,880.0 5,654.5 5,8011.8 5. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POINT JFARM) TO PROCESSOR Temeafflubsidin Transportation Other ii , Price EqLdvdoM at Collection Point (with intervention) 519.0 569.3 656.7 $97.6 980.3 2,321.0 3,080.0 2,948.9 4,461.0 5,224.0 Border Price Equivalent at Collection Point jwid intervention) 379.0 652.8 757.2 1,227.8 $78.5 1,700.6 3,169.6 2,880.0 S.654.5 5,806.8 6. DOMESTIC PRICE a, - 747.1 $48.6 976.1 1,356.a 1,543.9 3,069.0 4.566.6 2,944.9 4.461.0 5,224.0 Wholesale 519.0 569.3 650.7 $97.6 980.3 2.321.0 3,080.0 2,048.9 4,461.0 5,224.0 Callection Point (Farmil 7. NPR 0, - 23.1% -9.0% -9.3% -19.6% 6.9% 25.3% -1.9% 1.5% -15.6% -7.2% Wholesale 36.9% -12.8% -13.3% -26.9% 11.6% 36.5% -2.8% 2.4% -21.1% -10.0% CA Point (Farm) a. Results dwkvd. Savirm- 5tarvaillave Avloc LA rAD, 1995 TABLE A-6b Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Country: Dominican Republic Type: Exportable Commodity: Tomato Level: Farm 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1. OUTPUT Domestic Price $DR Per MT 336.6 519.0 569.3 656.7 897.6 980.3 2,321.0 3,080.0 2,948.0 4,461.0 5,224.0 Quantity MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Value at Domestic Prices 336.6 519.0 569.3 656.7 897.6 980.3 2,321.0 3,080.0 2,948.0 4,461.0 5,224.0 Border Price Equivalent $DR Per MT 81.1 379.0 652.8 757.2 1,227.8 878.5 1,700.6 3,169.6 2,880.0 5,654.5 5,806.8 Quantity MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Value at Border Price Equivalent 81.1 379.0 652.8 757.2 1,227.8 878.5 1,700.6 3,169.6 2,880.0 5,654.5 5,806.8 2. TRADABLE DIRECT INPUTS Fertilizer Quantity MT Per MT of Output 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 Domestic Price DR$ Per MT 458.40 576.50 913.79 1249.54 1588.40 1634.03 2777.80 4057.90 4070.00 3278.00 3850.00 Domestic Cost 15.1 19.0 30.2 41.2 52.4 53.9 91.7 134.0 134.4 108.2 127.1 Border Price Eq. Price DRS Per MT 171.3 631.8 551.0 745.0 1,363.1 1,740.8 2,587.2 3,855.0 3,875.0 3,900.0 4,047.8 Border Price Eq. Cost 5.7 20.9 18.2 24.6 45.0 57.5 85.4 127.3 127.9 128.7 133.6 Fungicide Quantity Lb Per MT of Output 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 Domestic Price DR$ Per LB 12.75 17.21 18.75 21.56 30.10 43.50 50.00 59.20 115.48 117.00 120.00 Domestic Cost 6.6 8.9 9.8 11.2 15.7 22.6 26.0 30.8 60.0 60.8 62.4 Border Price Eq. Price DR$ Per LB 11.48 15.49 18.75 21.56 30.10 43.50 50.00 42.33 82.57 93.85 95.34 Border Price Eq. Cost 6.0 8.1 9.8 11.2 15.7 22.6 26.0 22.0 42.9 48.8 49.6 Insecticide Quantity LT Per MT of Output 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 Domestic Price DRS Per LT 89.00 115.70 125.35 143.75 201.25 280.00 417.00 471.85 550.00 556.15 461.00 Domestic Cost 10.7 13.9 15.0 17.3 24.2 33.6 50.0 56.6 66.0 66.7 55.3 Border Price Eq. Price DR$ Per LT 80.1 104.1 125.4 143.8 201.3 280.0 417.0 337.4 393.3 342.3 313.0 Border Price Eq. Cost 9.6 12.5 15.0 17.3 24.2 33.6 50.0 40.5 47.2 41.1 37.6 Total Direct Inputs (Domestic Prices) 32.4 41.9 55.0 69.7 92.2 110.2 167.7 221.4 260.4 235.8 244.8 Total Direct Inputs (Border Price) 21.2 41.4 43.0 53.1 84.8 113.7 161.4 189.8 218.0 218.6 220.8 3. TRADABLE INDIRECT INPUTS Quantity Domestic Price Domestic Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Border Price Eq. Price Border Price Eq. Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Indirect Inputs (Domestic Prices) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Indirect Inputs (Border Price) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4. VALUE ADDED Direct Inputs Only At Domestic Prices 304.2 477.1 514.4 587.0 805.4 870.2 2,153.3 2,858.6 2,687.6 4,225.2 4,979.2 At International Prices 59.9 337.6 609.8 704.1 1,143.0 764.9 1,539.2 2,979.9 2,662.0 5,435.9 5,586.0 Direct & Indirect Inputs At Domestic Prices 304.2 477.1 514.4 587.0 805.4 870.2 2,153.3 2,858.6 2,687.6 4,225.2 4,979.2 At International Prices 59.9 337.6 609.8 704.1 1,143.0 764.9 1,539.2 2,979.9 2,662.0 5,435.9 5,586.0 5. EPR 407.9% 41.3% -15.7% -16.6% -29.5% 13.8% 39.9% -4.1% 1.0% -22.3% -10.9% Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1995 TABLE A-7a Standardized Format Nominal Rate of Protection Country: Dominican Republic Type: Importable Commodity: Beans Point of Competition: Processor imn ii2H 1987 im 1989 1990 im,22 1992 im22 1994 1. UNADJUSTED BORDER PRICE Exchange Rate DRS Per USS 3.1 2.9 3.8 6.1 6.3 8.4 12.4 12.5 12.9 12.9 Border Price $US CIF Ton 543.6 570.0 493.7 502.8 889 7 900.0 552.3 835 1 585.5 628.0 Border Price in Local Currency 1,690.5 1,655.4 1,895.8 3,087.4 5,631.7 7,560.2 6,848.8 10,4384 7,565.2 8,113.4 2. BORDER ADJUSTMENTS Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments Port Charges Storage/Handling/Loss Border Price Equivalent (with intervention) 1,690.5 1,655.4 1,895.8 3,087.4 5,631.7 7,560.2 6,848.8 10,438.4 7,565.2 8,113.4 Border Price Equivalent (without intervention) 1,690.5 1,655.4 1,895.8 3,087.4 5,631.7 7,560.2 6,848.8 10,438.4 7,565.2 8,113.4 3. COSTS FROM BORDER TO PROCESSING (WHOLESALE MARKET) Tariffs/Subsidies/Adlustments Transportation Other Border Price Equivalent after Processing (with intervention) 1,690.5 1,655.4 1,895.8 3,087.4 5,631.7 7,560.2 6,848.8 10,438.4 7,565.2 8,113.4 Border Price Equivalent after Processing (without intervention) 1,690.5 1,655.4 1,895.8 3,087.4 5,631.7 7,560.2 6,848.8 10,438.4 7,565.2 8,113.4 4. PROCESSING COST (WHOLESALE MARKET) Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments (a) 130.5 288.7 2,808.7 1,999.4 1,118.8 4,332.9 6,152.4 2,808.1 13,258.3 11,726.1 Processing Costs Marketing Margins (157 7) (193.1) (221.8) (316.9) (442.6) (752.4) (1,0332) (1,058.4) (1,243.1) (1,282.3) 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) 1,663.2 1,751.0 4,482.8 4,770.0 6,307.8 11,140.7 11,968.0 12,188.0 19,580.4 18,557.2 Border Price Equivalent before Processing (without intervention) 1,532.7 1,462.3 1,674.0 2,770.6 5,189.0 6,807.8 5,815.6 9,379.9 6,322.1 6,831.1 5. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POINT (FARM) TO PROCESSOR Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments Transportation Other Border Price Equivalent at Collection Point (with intervention) 1,663.2 1,751.0 4,482.8 4,770.0 6,307.8 11,140.7 11,968.0 12,188.0 19,580.4 18,557.2 Border Price Equivalent at Collection Point (without intervention) 1,532.7 1,462.3 1,674.0 2,770.6 5,189.0 6,807.8 5,815.6 9,379.9 6,322.1 6,831.1 6. DOMESTIC PRICE Border Wholesale 1,663.2 1,751.0 4,482.8 4,770.0 6,307.8 11,140.7 11,968.0 12,188.0 19,580.4 18,557.2 Collection Point (Farm) 1,663.2 1,751.0 4,482.8 4,770.0 6,307.8 11,140.7 11,968.0 12,188.0 19,580.4 18,557.2 7. NPR Border Wholesale 8.5% 19.7% 167.8% 72.2% 21.6% 63.6% 105.8% 29.9% 209.7% 171.7% Collection Point (Farm) 8.5% 19.7% 167.8% 72.2% 21.6% 63.6% 105.8% 29.9% 209.7% 171.7% a. Represents a subsidy through price supports. Source: SurveiHfance Project, LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-7b Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Country: Dominican Republic Type: Importable Commodity: Beans Level: Farm 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1. OUTPUT Domestic Price $DR Per MT 1,409.1 1,663.2 1,751.0 4,482.8 4,770.0 6,307.8 11,140.7 11,968.0 12,188.0 19,580.4 18,557.2 Quantity MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Value at Domestic Prices 1,409.1 1,663.2 1,751.0 4,482.8 4,770.0 6,307.8 11,140.7 11,968.0 12,188.0 19,580.4 18,557.2 Border Price Equivalent $DR Per MT 339.1 1,532.7 1,462.3 1,674.0 2,770.6 5,189.0 6,807.8 5,815.6 9,379.9 6,322.1 6,831.1 Quantity MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Value at Border Price Equivalent 339.1 1,532.7 1,462.3 1,674.0 2,770.6 5,189.0 6,807.8 5,815.6 9,379.9 6,322.1 6,831.1 2. TRADABLE DIRECT INPUTS Fertilizer Quantity MT Per MT of Output 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Domestic Price DRS Per MT 458.40 576.50 913.80 1251.10 1588.40 1634.03 2777.80 4057.90 4070.00 3278.00 3850.00 Domestic Cost 51.1 64.3 101.9 139.6 177.2 179.7 305.6 446.4 447.7 360.6 423.5 Border Price Eq. Price DRS Per MT 171.3 631.8 551.8 745.0 1,362.9 1,740.8 2,587.2 3,855.0 3,875.0 3,900.0 4,047.8 Border Price Eq. Cost 19.1 70.5 61.5 83.1 152.0 191.5 284.6 424.1 426.3 429.0 445.3 Fungicide Quantity Lb Per MT of Output 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 Domestic Price DRS Per Lb 12.75 17.21 18.75 21.56 30.10 43.50 50.00 59.20 115.48 117.00 120.00 Domestic Cost 22.7 30.6 33.4 38.4 53.6 77.4 89.0 105.4 205.6 208.3 213.6 Border Price Eq. Price DRM Per Lb 11.48 15.49 18.75 21.56 30.10 43.50 50.00 42.33 82.57 93.85 95.34 Border Price Eq. Cost 20.4 27.6 33.4 38.4 53.6 77.4 89.0 75.3 147.0 167.1 169.7 Insecticide Quantity LT Per MT of Output 3.09 3.09 3.09 3.09 3.09 3.09 3.09 3.09 3.09 3.09 3.09 Domestic Price DRS Per LT 89.00 115.70 125.35 143.75 201.25 280.00 417.00 471.85 550.00 556.15 461.00 Domestic Cost 275.0 357.5 387.3 444.2 621.9 865.2 1,288.5 1,458.0 1,699.5 1,718.5 1,424.5 Border Price Eq. Price DRS Per LT 80.1 104.1 125.4 143.8 201.3 280.0 417.0 337.4 393.3 342.3 313.0 Border Price Eq. Cost 247.5 321 8 387.3 444.2 621.9 865.2 1,288.5 1,042.5 1,215.1 1,057.7 967.1 Total Direct Inputs (Domestic Prices) 348.8 452.5 522.6 622.1 852.6 1,122.4 1,683.1 2,009.8 2,352.8 2,287.3 2,061.6 Total Direct inputs (Border Price) 287.1 419.8 482.3 565.7 827.5 1,134.1 1,662.1 1,541.9 1,788.4 1,653.8 1,582.1 3. TRADABLE INDIRECT INPUTS Quantity Domestic Price Domestic Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Border Price Eq. Price Border Price Eq. Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Indirect Inputs (Domestic Prices) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Indirect Inputs (Border Price) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4. VALUE ADDED Direct Inputs Only At Domestic Prices 1,060.3 1,210.7 1,228.3 3,860.7 3,917.4 5,185.5 9,457.6 9,958.2 9,835.2 17,293.1 16,495.6 At International Prices 52.1 1,112.9 980.0 1,108.4 1,943.1 4,054.9 5,145.6 4,273.7 7,591.6 4,668.3 5,249.0 Direct & Indirect Inputs At Domestic Prices 1,060.3 1,210.7 1,228.3 3,860.7 3,917.4 5,185.5 9,457.6 9,958.2 9,835.2 17,293.1 16,495.6 At International Prices 52.1 1,112.9 980.0 1,108.4 1,943.1 4,054.9 5,145.6 4,273.7 7,591.6 4,668.3 5,249.0 5. EPR 1936.7% 8.8% 25.3% 248.3% 101.6% 27.9% 83.8% 133.0% 29.6% 270.4% 214.3% Source: Surveillance Project, LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-8a Standardized Format Nominal Rate of Protection Country: Dominican Republic Type: Importable Commodity: White Maize Point of Competition: Processor 1. im 1957 Iml i82 i92f 1991 19m2 122m 1224 1. UNADJUSTED BORDER PRICE Exchange Rate DRS Per US$ 3.1 2.8 3.8 5.2 6.3 8.4 12.4 12.5 12.9 12.9 Border Price $US CIF Ton 383.2 300.6 213.5 146.9 147.6 163.0 137.8 116.0 120.5 182.8 Border Price in Local Currency 1,191.7 841.6 819.7 756.5 934.5 1,369.3 1,708.8 1,450.0 1,556.3 2,361.8 2. BORDER ADJUSTMENTS Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments Port Charges Storage/Handling/Loss Border Price Equivalent (with intervention) 1,191.7 841.6 819.7 756.5 934.5 1,369.3 1,708.8 1,450.0 1,556.3 2,361.8 Border Price Equivalent (without intervention) 1.191.7 841.6 819.7 756.5 934.5 1,369.3 1,708.8 1,450.0 1,556.3 2,361.8 3. COSTS FROM BORDER TO PROCESSING (WHOLESALE MARKET) Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments Transportation Other 1-01 Border Price Equivalent after Processing (with intervention) 1,191.7 B41.6 819.7 756.5 934.5 1,369.3 1,708.8 1,450.0 1,556.3 2,361.8 Border Price Equivalent after Processing (without intervention) 1,191.7 841.6 819.7 756.5 934.5 1,369.3 1.708.8 1,450.0 1,556.3 2,361.8 4. PROCESSING COST (WHOLESALE MARKET) Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments (a) (583.6) (215.4) (153.5) 427.5 245.5 446.6 1,672.2 1,968.0 1,805.4 1,415.9 Processing Costs Mark9ting Margins (79.0) (96.7) (111.1) (159.0) (228.1) (388.11 (539.9) (580.0) (628.4) (701.6) 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) 529.1 529.5 555.1 1,025.0 951.9 1,427.8 2,841.1 2,838.0 2,733.3 3,076.1 Border Price Equivalent before Processing (without intervention) 1,112.7 744.9 708.6 597.5 706.4 981.2 1,169.0 870.0 927.9 1,660.2 5. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POINT (FARM) TO PROCESSOR Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments Transportation Other Border Price Equivalent at Collection Point (with intervention) 529.1 529.5 555.1 1,025.0 951.9 1,427.8 2,841.1 2,838.0 2,733.3 3,076.1 Border Price Equivalent at Collection Point (without intervention) 1,112.7 744.9 708.6 597.5 706.4 981.2 1,169.0 870.0 927.9 1,660.2 6. DOMESTIC PRICE Border Wholesale 529.1 529.5 555.1 1,025.0 951.9 1,427.8 2,841.1 2,838.0 2,733.3 3,076.1 Collection Point (Farm) 529.1 529.5 555.1 1,025.0 951.9 1,427.8 2,841.1 2.838.0 2,733.3 3,076.1 7. NPR Border Wholesale -52.4% -28.9% -21.7% 71.5% 34.8% 45.5% 143.0% 226.2% 194.6% 85.3% Collection Point (Farm) -52.4% -28.9% -21.7% 71.5% 34.8% 45.5% 143.0% 226.2% 194.6% 85.3% a. The main instrument of intervention is the price support. Source: Survellance Project, LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-8b Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Country: Dominican Republic Type: Importable Commodity: White Maize Level: Farm 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1. OUTPUT Domestic Price SDR Per MT 396.0 529.1 529.5 555.1 1,025.0 951.9 1,427.8 2,841.1 2,838.0 2,733.3 3,076.1 Quantity MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Value at Domestic Prices 396.0 529.1 529.5 555.1 1,025.0 951.9 1,427.8 2,841.1 2,838.0 2,733.3 3,076.1 Border Price Equivalent $DR Per MT 94.3 1,112.7 744.9 708.6 597.5 706.4 981.2 1,169.0 870.0 927.9 1,660.2 Quantity MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Value at Border Price Equivalent 94.3 1,112.7 744.9 708.6 597.5 706.4 981.2 1,169.0 870.0 927.9 1,660.2 2. TRADABLE DIRECT INPUTS Fertilizer Quantity MT Per MT of Output 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Domestic Price DR$ Per MT 458.40 576.50 913.79 1249.54 1588.40 1634.03 2777.80 4057.90 4070.00 3278.00 3850.00 Domestic Cost 4.7 5.9 9.4 12.9 16.4 16.8 28.6 41.8 41.9 33.8 39.7 Border Price Eq. Price DR$ Per MT 171.3 631.8 551.0 745.0 1,363.1 1,740.8 2,587.2 3,855.0 3,875.0 3,900.0 4,047.8 Border Price Eq. Cost 1.8 6.5 5.7 7.7 14.0 17.9 26.6 39.7 39.9 40.2 41.7 Insecticide Quantity Lt Per MT of Output 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Domestic Price DR$ Per LT 89.00 115.70 125.70 143.75 201.25 280.00 417.00 471.85 550.00 556.15 461.00 DomesticCost 35.6 46.3 50.3 57.5 80.5 112.0 166.8 188.7 220.0 222.5 184.4 Border Price Eq. Price DRS Per LT 80.10 104.13 125.35 143.75 201.25 280.00 417.00 337.37 393.25 342.30 312.98 Border Price Eq. Cost 32.0 41.7 50.1 57.5 80.5 112.0 166.8 134.9 157.3 136.9 125.2 Total Direct Inputs (Domestic Pricesl 40.3 52.2 59.7 70.4 96.9 128.8 195.4 230.5 261.9 256.2 224.1 Total Direct Inputs (Border Price) 33.8 48.2 55.8 65.2 94.5 129.9 193.4 174.7 197.2 177.1 166.9 3. TRADABLE INDIRECT INPUTS Quantity Domestic Price Domestic Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Border Price Eq. Price Border Price Eq. Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Indirect Inputs (Domestic Prices) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Indirect Inputs (Border Price) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4. VALUE ADDED Direct Inputs Only At Domestic Prices 355.7 476.9 469.8 484.7 928.1 823.1 1,232.4 2,610.6 2,576.1 2,477.1 2,852.0 At International Prices 60.4 1,064.6 689.1 643.4 503.0 576.4 787.8 994.3 672.8 750.9 1,493.3 Direct & Indirect Inputs At Domestic Prices 355.7 476.9 469.8 484.7 928.1 823.1 1,232.4 2,610.6 2,576.1 2,477.1 2,852.0 At International Prices 60.4 1,064.6 689.1 643.4 503.0 576.4 787.8 994.3 672.8 750.9 1,493.3 5. EPR 488.4% -55.2% -31.8% -24.7% 84.5% 42.8% 56.4% 162.6% 282.9% 229.9% 91.0% Source: Surveillance Project, LA TAD, 1995 TABLE A-9a Standardized Format Nominal Rate of Protection Country: Dominican Republic Type: Importable Commodity: Rice Point of Competition: Processor 1. UNADJUSTED BORDER PRICE Exchange Rate $DR Per US$ 3.1 2.9 3.8 6.1 6.3 8.3 12.4 12.5 12.5 12.9 Border Price $US CIF Ton 382.5 342.8 323.8 429.4 409.3 388.9 420.0 366.0 375.0 300.0 Border Price in Local Currency 1,189.6 994.2 1,243.5 2,636.3 2,595.1 3,224.2 5,208.0 4,575.0 4,687.5 3,855.0 2. BORDER ADJUSTMENTS Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments Port Charges Storage/Handling/Loss Border Price Equivalent (with intervention) 1,189.6 994.2 1,243.5 2,636.3 2,596.1 3,224.2 5,208.0 4,575.0 4,687.5 3,855.0 Border Price Equivalent (without intervention) 1,189.6 994.2 1,243.5 2,636.3 2,595.1 3,224.2 5,208.0 4,575.0 4,687.5 3,855.0 3. COSTS FROM BORDER TO PROCESSING (WHOLESALE MARKET) Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments Transportation Other Border Price Equivalent after Processing (with intervention) 1,189.6 994.2 1,243.5 2,636.3 2,595.1 3,224.2 5,208.0 4,575.0 4,687.5 3,855.0 Border Price Equivalent after Processing (without intervention) 1,189.6 994.2 1,243.5 2,636.3 2,595.1 3,224.2 5,208.0 4,576.0 4,687.5 3,855.0 4. PROCESSING COST (WHOLESALE MARKET) Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments (a) 114.2 219.4 322.4 (1,234.3) 644.8 2,608.1 1,406.9 4,711.0 3,320.9 4,631.4 Processing Costs Marketing Margins (177.5) (217.3) (249.6) (357.4) (686.8) (1,030.0) (1,078.0) (1,080.0) (1,166.4) (1,306.4) 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) 1,126.3 996.3 1,316.3 1,044.6 2,553.0 4,802.3 5,536.9 8,206.0 6,842.0 7,180.0 Border Price Equivalent before Processing (without intervention) 1,012.1 776.9 993.9 2,278.9 1,908.3 2,194.2 4,130.0 3,495.0 3,521.1 2,548.6 5. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POINT (FARM) TO PROCESSOR Tariffs/Subsidies/Adjustments Transportation Other Border Price Equivalent at Collection Point (with intervention) 1,126.3 996.3 1,316.3 1,044.6 2,553.0 4,802.3 5,536.9 8,206.0 6,842.0 7,180.0 Border Price Equivalent at Collection Point (without intervention) 1,012.1 776.9 993.9 2,278.9 1,908.3 2,194.2 4,130.0 3,495.0 3,521.1 2,548.6 6. DOMESTIC PRICE Border Wholesale 1,126.3 996.3 1,316.3 1,044.6 2,553.0 4,802.3 5,536.9 8,206.0 6,842.0 7,180.0 Collection Point (Ferm) 1,126.3 996.3 1.316.3 1,044.6 2,553.0 4,802.3 5,536.9 8,206.0 6,842.0 7,180.0 7. NPR Border Wholesale 11.3% 28.2% 32.4% -54.2% 33.8% 118.9% 34.1% 134.8% 94.3% 181.7% Collection Point (Farm) 11.3% 28.2% 32.4% -54.2% 33.8% 118.9% 34.1% 134.8% 94.3% 181.7% a. Results derived. Source: Survetance Project, LA TAD, 1996 TABLE А-9Ь Standardized Format Effective Rate of Protection Соип[гу: Dominican RepuЫic Тура: lтропвЫе Commodity: Rice Leva1: Farm 1983 1984 1965 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1. аитиит Oamesec Price !OR Рег МТ 461.4 740.5 1,126.3 996.4 1.316.2 1,044.6 2,553.0 4,802.3 5.536.9 6,206.0 6,842.0 7,180.0 Qwntiry МТ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 VaNe etDOmesoc Pnces 481.4 740.5 1,126.3 996.4 1,Э76.2 1,044.6 2,55Э.0 4,802.Э 5.536.9 8,206.0 6,842.0 7,1В0.0 Вогдег Рпсе Егнлvаlепг 7DR Рег МТ 241.8 251.9 1,012.1 776.9 993.9 2,278.9 1.908 3 2,194.2 4,1Э0.0 3.495.0 3,521.1 2,548.6 Ouanety Мт 1 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 VаlиеагВогдегРпсаЕлслvаlем 241.8 251 9 1,012.1 776.9 993.9 2,278.9 1,908.3 2,194.2 4,130.0 3,495.0 3,521.1 2,548.6 2 TRADABLE DIRECT 1NPUTS Fernlпar _ Ouantity мТ Рег МТ of Оиtри 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Damestic Price 08! Рег МТ _ 240.00 458.40 576.50 913.80 1249.54 1588.40 1634.0Э 2777.В0 4057.90 4070.00 3278.00 Э850.00 Domaauc Cost 19.2 36.9 46.Э 73.5 100.5 127.7 245.1 416.7 608.7 610.5 491.7 577.5 ВогЕаг Рпсе Ео Рпсе ОЧ! Рег мт 234.9 171.3 631.8 551.0 745.0 1,363 1 1,740.8 2,587.2 Э,855.0 3,875.0 3,900.0 4,047.В Вогдег Рпсе Е7. СоSг 18.В 13.8 50.8 44.3 59.9 109.6 261.1 368 1 578.Э 581.3 585.0 607.2 FunpiNde Оиапыу Lb Рег мт ог оигриг 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.1 В 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Dогпаапс Price DF! Рег Lo В.90 12.75 17.21 18.75 21.56 Э0.10 43.50 50.00 59.20 115.48 117.00 120.00 Оапевмс Стt 1 6 2.Э 3.1 Э.4 3.9 5.4 7.8 9.0 10 7 20.В 21.1 21.6 eordsr Рпее Eq. Рпсе DR! Рег Lo 8.01 _ 11.4В 15.49 18.75 21.56 Э0.10 43.50 50.00 42.Э3 82.57 93.85 95.34_ tbrder Рпса Ео. Соаг 1.4 2.1 2.8 3.4 3.9 5.4 7.8 9.0 7.6 14.9 16.9 17.2 и _lnsacnc�de Оиапгiеу и Рег МТ о1 Оигриг 0.20 0 20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 � Domesnc Рпсе DR! Рег LT 43.00 В9.00 115.70 125.70 143.75 201.25 280.00 417.00 471.85 550.D0 556.15 461.00 lkиnestic Cost 8.6 17.8 23.1 25.1 2В.8 40 3 56.0 83.4 94.4 110.0 111.2 92.2 богдег Ргсе Ео Рпсе OR! Рег LT 38.7 80.1 104.1 125.4 143.8 201.3 280.0 417.0 337.4 393.3 342.3 31 Э.О 6oroer Price Ер. Cost 7.7 16.0 20.В 25.1 28.8 40.3 56.0 ВЗ.4 67.5 78 7 66.5 62.6 негыида Оиапегу гг Рег мт ог оигриг 1.6В 1.6В 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 Dг.xnesnc Рпсе DN> Рег LT ___7 З.ВВ 29.В0 37 25 40.44 46.46 60.45 85 20 94 75__ 257.87 275.00 297.00 292.00 Domesnc Coat 23.3 50.1 62.6 67 9 78.1 101.6 14Э.1 159 2 43Э.2 462.0 499.0 490.6 Богаег Price Eq. Рпсе DR! Рег LT 12.49 26.82 33.53 40.44 46.46 60.45 85.20 66.80 181.80 193.88 209.39 198.81 Вогдег Рпса Ер. Coat 21.0 45.1 56.3 67.9 78.1 101.6 143.1 112 2 305.4 Э25 7 351.8 Э34.0 Totai Dlгесг lпри[s (DOmesnc Pr�cesl 52.7 107.0 135.2 169.9 211.1 274.9 452.1 668 Э 1,146.9 1,20Э.3 1.123.0 1,181.9 То[aI D�rec[ lпригг 16огдег Pricel 49.0 76.9 1 Э0.7 140.7 170.6 256.8 46В.1 592.7 958 8 1,000.5 1.022.1 1.020 9 7. TRADABLE 1NDIRECT 1NPUT5 Ouantity ____ Dопыаис Price ______ _ ____ Domestic Cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Вогдег Pnce Eq Price _ __ _ Вогоег Price Ео. Согг 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Tota1 идvесг ириtа 10отеаос Pncesl 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 О.О 0.0 0 0 0.0 Тога1 гМиеп ириv 16пгдег Рпсе1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 �. VALUE ADDED Duact lпоигs ОпW Аг Ownesbc Рпсея 428.7 633.5 991.1 826 5 1.105.1 769.7 2.100 9 4,134.1 4,390 0 7,002.7 5,719.1 5,998.1 Аг мгегпвnопаl Рпсее 192.9 175.0 В81.3 636.2 823 3 2,022 1 1,440.2 1.601 5 3,171 2 2,494 5 2,499.0 1,527.7 Dпect Ь 1ntl�rect lпригs Аг Оогпеsос Рпсее 428.7 633.5 991.1 826.5 1.105.1 769.7 2,100.9 4.134.1 4,390.0 7,002.7 5,719.1 5,99В.1 Аг мгемаnопаi Рпсеs 192.9 175.0 881.3 636.2 В23 3 2,022.1 1,440.2 1.601.5 Э,171.2 2.494 5 2.499.0 1.527.7 5 ЕРА 122.Э% 261.9% 12.5% 29.9% Э4.2% -61 9% 45.9% 158.1 % ЗВ.4% 180.7% 128 9% 292 6% Source: Surveillance Project, LATAO, 1995 APPENDIX B ABOUT DOMINICAN REPUBLIC'S COMMODITY MARKETS This appendix provides a short description of the commodity markets in the Dominican Republic. Discussions outline the markets, direct government interventions, the selection of domestic and border prices for NPR estimates, and adjustments for quality differences and transportation costs. Information is included for each commodity on how data were obtained. Sugar Sugar has been the Dominican Republic's major export product. Different markets exist for sugar. Domestically, sugar was marketed by the Institute for Price Stabilization (INESPRE) and from 1970 until 1986 through the wholesalers and retailers. Since, 1986, wholesalers and retailers can buy directly from the sugar mills. Externally, sugar is sold in the US quota market and the world market. Production is carried out by 16 sugar mills with the government operating 12 of these mills. The State Sugar Council (CEA) is the major producer of sugar and the major provider of credit to sugarcane growers (colonos). Producer price is set by law 491 based on the average selling price of raw sugar export. (Green and Roe). Sugar has declined as the major earner of foreign exchange due to depressed world prices and the reduction of the export quota granted by the United States. 'Me United States established import quotas for sugar in 1934 to protect domestic producers. Since 1962, the Dominican Republic has been the major exporter among Latin American countries under the quota system. Sugar exports to the U.S. accounts for 81 percent of the total sugar export. However, sugar exports through the quota system have been declining since the late 1970s. During 1978-1981, the basic quota assigned to the Dominican Republic was 780,000 tons annually. During 1982-1983, it was reduced to 535,000 tons, and by 1988 it was only 123,000 tons. It was increased later that year to 176,700 tons due to the drought in the United States (ERS, 1988; EIU, 1989). For the year 1992/1993 (October 1992-September 1993) the export quota allotted to the Dominican Republic is 205,232 metric tons compared with 307,016 metric tons in 1990/1991. Real income from sugar exports has consequently decreased from US $558.98 million in 1981 to US $114.80 million in 1992. (Boletin Estadistico, Instituto Azucarero Dominicano, 1993). Sugar production has also declined. In 1992, production totaled 592,775 metric tons which is 50 percent of the production achieved in 1984 (1,130,346 tons). As a 59 consequence, during this year there were imports of refined sugar to meet domestic demand (part of the production was used to export quota to the U.S.). Rice Rice, the main staple food, provides 39 percent of the calories and 27 percent of the protein consumed by the population (SEA). Since 1966, agricultural officials have pursued the policy of self-sufficiency in rice. Production of rice has been increasing continuously since 1966. In 1990, 100,052 hectares were devoted to rice production with a production of 278.3 thousands of metric tons of rough rice. The country achieved self-sufficiency during the early 1980s due to the incorporation of new irrigated land and the introduction of new seed varieties. In addition, the government subsidized production on the acreage distributed under land reform programs through its input policies (subsidized loans, machinery, water, and fertilizers) and free technical assistance. The National Institute for Price Stabilization (INESPRE) was the only agency allowed to market rice. Owners of rice mills had to render their polished rice to INESPRE which in turn delivered the product to wholesale organizations and directly to consumers through its social program of "popular sales". In most of the years when INESPRE handled the marketing of rice, the price paid to millers was higher than the price INESPRE charged to wholesalers. The purpose of this policy was to subsidize consumption of rice to the population while giving attractive prices to producers. In 1986, INESPRE was responsible for the marketing of 85 percent of the domestic rice production. Imports of rice were also handled by INESPRE. In 1985, the country had to import rice to meet domestic demand. INESPRE began to face liquidity problems and became unable to pay mill owners (World Bank, 1985). In 1986, the new government reduced the monopoly power enjoyed by INESPRE turning the marketing of rice over to the Agricultural Bank (BAGRICOLA) and created a National Rice Committee to deal with the rice policy. In August of 1987, through decree 381, government intervention in the domestic market was eliminated and the government's role was limited to price support to avoid speculation by keeping a rice quantity as inventory. In 1990, imports of rice totaled 30,391 metric tons. By 1990, domestic purchases of rice by INESPRE were only 4.16% and imports were handled by the Agricultural Bank. Production of rice has been increasing continuously since 1966. In the last two months of 1992 and during 1993 there has been an excess of supply. When producers, encouraged by the government, wanted to export to Haiti and other Caribbean countries, the domestic price of the Dominican rice was higher than the international prices that those countries were facing and the country could not export. To make export profitable, the government decided to subsidize rice exports. Up to September of 1993, rice exports amounted to 17,850 tons out of 30,000 tons programmed to be exported in 1993. 60 The unitary subsidy is DR$80/quintal exported. Exports are being carried out by the private sector. The subsidy is being used to honor part of the debt of the producers with the Agricultural Bank. The Agricultural Bank is the government agency which has the mandate to import rice. In August of 1987, through decree 381, the government intervention in the domestic market was eliminated and the government's role was limited to price support or to avoid speculation by keeping a rice quantity as inventory. Red Beans Red beans is one of the staple foods along with rice in the Dominican Republic. A big portion of the soil devoted to red beans is highly erosive with high slope in areas ecologically fragile and unsuitable for short-cycle crops. The average farm devoted to red beans production has a size of one hectare. Red bean yields have been very low in the last decade. Ninety-five percent of the domestic production is used for human consumption. The remaining 5 percent is kept for seed purposes. In the last six years, domestic production of red beans has supplied only 70 percent of the total domestic consumption. As a consequence, annual imports for the same period have been 1,500,000 quintals (68,182 metric tons). The Institute for Price Stabilization (INESPRE) intervenes in the marketing of the product providing some price support to the producer and importing the commodity whenever it is considered that domestic production would be insufficient to satisfy domestic demand. Through the decree 1194 (1975), INESPRE is allowed to participate in the marketing of red beans. In addition to INESPRE, middlemen, truckers, agribusiness, wholesalers and retailers intervene in the domestic marketing of red beans. Maize Corn is mainly used for animal feed (especially poultry) and human consumption by rural households. Most of the corn produced comes from small plots which are usually cropped with red beans. Most of the corn consumed has to be imported. Domestic production accounts for only 20 percent of the total consumption. Annual imports averaged 6.6 million metric tons during the last five years. INESPRE intervenes in the domestic production of corn by the provision of price support to corn growers. Up to September, corn imports in 1993 totaled 356,574 tons. Imports are carried out through the private sector. Cassava Cassava production has been stagnant during the last decade. Domestic consumption has declined but exports have increased during the last ten years. In 1990, cassava exports totaled 7,141 metric tons which represented an increase of 55 percent of the 61 cassava exports in 1981. Domestic consumption has declined but exports have increased during the last ten years. In 1992, cassava exports totaled 2,244 metric tons. Tobacco Black tobacco is used for exports. Most of the exports go to Spain for the production of cigar. The Tobacco Institute (INTABACO), a public agency, provides incentives to producers through free technical assistance and free distribution of seeds and chemical inputs. In addition, INTABACO buys part of the production that is later exported. In most cases, producers sell their production to middlemen who in turn sell to exporters. Exports of tobacco have been declining due to a decline in world demand and low world prices. With the establishment of the industrial free zones in the country, some tobacco production has been diverted to cigar companies established in those free zones. Coffee Coffee is the second most important agricultural export commodity. Produced mainly by small and medium farms, 94 percent of the plots have an average size of less than 6.28 hectares. Production of coffee has been affected by the inability to introduce new and improved varieties, low use of fertilizer and the existence of old coffee plantations (UEPA). As a consequence, the average yield is one of the lowest in Latin America (0.36 metric tons per hectare). Coffee exports represent one of the most important sources of fiscal revenue. Law 199 specifies a levied tax on export based on the level of the export price. In 1990, taxes from coffee exports totaled DR$262 million. Coffee exports fluctuated during the 1984- 1990 period. In 1990, coffee exports totaled US $46.6 million, the lowest during the period of study. Domestic marketing of coffee is very complex. Coffee growers sell their production to a diverse group of middlemen, and in some cases, sell their production before harvest. Production of coffee has been affected by the inability to introduce new and improved varieties, low use of fertilizer and the existence of old coffee plantations and, in the last two years, a reduction in acreage. Due to low world market prices, coffee growers are diversifying and producing fruits on their plots. In October 1992, the government allotted DR$55 million to subsidize coffee exports. The unitary subsidy was DR$100 per quintal (a hundred weight) exported. Coffee exports for the period 1992 to 1993 (October 1992 to August 1993) totaled 548,546 quintals (24,940 tons) which exhausted the subsidy provided by the government. There is no tax or tariff on exports. Tomatoes 62 Tomatoes are grown extensively in the southwest and northwest regions. Fresh tomatoes are exported during the winter season to the U.S. Tomato production has been hampered by the White fly. 63 Distributors of World Bank Publications ARGENTINA The Middle East Observer KOREA, REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA, BOTSWANA Carlos Hirsch, SRL 41, Sherif Street Pan Korea Book Corporation For single tilies: Galeria Guemes Cairo P.O. Box 101, Kwangwhamun Oxford University Press Florida 165,4th Floor-Of. 453/465 Seoul Southern Africa 1333 Buenos Aires FINLAND P.O. Box 1141 Akateeminen Kirjakauppa Korean Stock Book Centre Cape Town 8000 Oficina del Libro Internacional P.O. Box 128 P.O. Box 34 Alberti 40 SF-00101 Helsinki 10 Yeoeido For subscrption orders 1082 Buenos Aires Seoul International Subscription Service FRANCE PO0 Box 41095 AUSTRALIA, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, World Bank Publications MALAYSIA Craighall FIJI, SOLOMON ISLANDS, 66, avenue d'Idna University of Malaya Cooperative Johannesburg 2024 VANUATU, AND WESTERN SAMOA 75116 Paris Bookshop, Limited D.A. Information Services P.O. Box 1127, Jalan Pantai Baru SPAIN 648 Whitehorse Road GERMANY 59700 Kuala Lumpur Mundi-Prensa Libros, S.A. Mitcham 3132 UNO-Verlag Castello 37 Victoria Poppelsdorfer Allee 55 MEXICO 28001 Madrid 53115 Bonn INFOTEC AUSTRIA Apartado Postal 22-860 Libreria Internacional AEDOS Gerold and Co. GHANA 14060 Tlalpan, Mexico D.F. Consell de Cent, 391 Graben 31 Greenwich Mag. and Books 08009 Barcelona A-1011 Wien Rivera Beach Hotle NETHERLANDS PO Box 01198 De Lindeboom/InOr-Pubikaties SRI LANKA AND THE MALDIVES BANGLADESH Osu-Accra P.O. Box 202 Lake House Bookshop Micro Industries Development 7480 AE Haaksbergen P.O. Box 244 Assistance Society (MIDAS) GREECE 100, Sir Cluttampalam A. House 5, Road 16 Papasotibiou S.A- NEW ZEALAND Gardiner Mawatha Dhanmondi R/Area 35, Stournara Str. EBSCO NZ Ltd. Colombo 2 Dhaka 1209 106 82 Athens Private Mail Bag 99914 New Market SWEDEN BELGIUM HONG KONG, MACAO Auckland Fritzes Fackboksforetaget Jean De Lannoy Asia 2000 Ltd. Regeringsgatan 12, Box 16356 Av. du Roi 202 46-48 Wyndham Street NIGERIA S-106 47 Stockholm 1060 Brussels Winning Centre University Press Limited 7th Floor Three Crowns Building Jericho Wennergren-Williams AB BRAZIL Central Hong Kong Private Mail Bag 5095 P. 0. Box 1305 Publicacoes Tecnicas Internacionais Ltda. Ibadan 5-171 25 Solna Rua Peixoto Gomide, 209 HUNGARY 01409 Sao Paulo, SP Foundation for Market Economy NORWAY SWITZERLAND Dombovari Ut 17-19 Narvesen Information Center Librairie Pavot CANADA H-1117 Budapest Book Department Case postale 3212 La Diffuseur P.O. Box 6125 Etterstad CH 1002 Lausanne 151A Boul. de Mortagne INDIA N-0602 Oslo 6 BoucherviLle, Qukbec Allied Publishers Private Ltd. Van Dierman Editions Techniques - ADECO J4B 5E6 751 Mount Road PAKISTAN P.O Box 465 Madras - 600 002 Mirza Book Agency CH 1211 Geneva 16 Renouf Publishing Co. 65, Shahrah-e-Quaid-e-Azam 1294 Algoma Road INDONESIA P.O. Box No. 729 TANZANIA Ottawa, Ontario Pt. Indira Limited Lahore 54000 Oxford University Press KlB 3W8 Jalan Borobudur 20 Maktaba Street P.O. Box 181 PERU P.O. Box 5299 CHINA Jakarta 10320 Editorial Desarrollo SA Dar es Salaam China Financial & Economic Apartado3824 Publishing House IRAN Lima I THAILAND 8, Da Fo Si Dong Jie Kowkab Publishers Central Department Store Beijing P.O. Box 19575-511 PHILIPPINES 306 Silom Road Tehran International Book Center Bangkok COLOMBIA Suite 1703, Cityland 10 Infoeniace Ltda. IRELAND Condominium Tower I TRINIDAD & TOBAGO Apartado Aereo 34270 Government Supplies Agency Ayala Avenue, H.V. dela Systematics Studies Unit Bogota D.E. 4-5 Harcourt Road Costa Extension #9 Watts Street Dublin 2 Makati, Metro Manila Curepe COTE D'IVOIRE Trinidad, West Indies Centre d'Edition et de Diffusion ISRAEL POLAND Africaines (CEDA) Yozmot Literature Ltd. International Publishing Service UGANDA 04 B.P. 541 P.O. Box 56055 UI. Piekna 31/37 Gustmo Ltd. Abidjan 04 Plateau Tel Aviv 61560 00-677 Warszawa 1st Floor, Room 4, Geogiadis Chambers P.O. Box 9997 CYPRUS R.O Y. International PORTUGAL Plot (69) Kampala Center of Applied Research P.O.B. 13056 Livraria Portugal Cyprus College Tel Aviv 61130 Rua Do Carmo 70-74 UNITED KINGDOM -6, Diogenes Street, Engomi 1200 Lisbon Microinfo Ltd. P.O. Box 2006 ITALY P.O. Box 3 Nicosia Licosa Commissionaria Sansoni SPA SAUDI ARABIA, QATAR Alton, Hampshire GU34 2PG Via Duca Di Calabria, 1/1 Janr Book Store England CZECH REPUBLIC Casella Postale 552 P 0. Box 3196 National Information Center 50125 Firenze Riyadh 11471 ZAMBIA P.O. Box 668 University of Zambia Bookshop CS-1 1357 Prague I JAMAICA SLOVAK REPUBLIC Great East Road Campus Ian Randle Publishers Ltd. Slovart G.T.G Ltd. P 0. Box 32379 DENMARK 206 Old Hope Road Krupinska 4 Lusaka SamfundsLitteratur Kingston 6 P.O. Box 152 Rosenoerns AUl6 11 85299 Bratisiava 5 ZIMBABWE DK-1970 Frederiksberg C JAPAN Longman Zimbabwe (Pvt.) Ltd. Eastern Book Service SINGAPORE, TAIWAN, Tourle Road, Ardbennie DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Hongo 3-Chome, Bunkyo-ku 113 MYANMAR,BRUNEI P.O. Box ST 125 Editora Taller, C. por A. Tokyo Gower Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. Southerton Restauraci6n e Isabel la Cat6lica 309 Golden Wheel Building Harare Apartado de Correos 2190 Z-1 KENYA 41, Kallang Pudding, #04-03 Santo Domingo Africa Book Service (E.A.) Ltd. Singapore 1334 Quaran House, Mfangano Street EGYPT, ARAB REPUBLIC OF P.O. Box 45245 Al Ahram Nairobi Al Galas Street Cairo RECENT WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPERS (continued) No. 230 Webster and Swanson, The Emergence of Private Sector Manufacturing in the Former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic: A Survey of Firms No. 231 Eisa, Barghouti, Gillham, and Al-Saffy, Cotton Production Prospects for 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 Practices for 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 C6te d'Ivoire: Survey and Prospects for Project Intervention No. 239 Kirmani and Rangeley, International Inland Waters: Concepts for 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: Lessons from 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 Proceedings from the World Bank's Annual Irrigation and Drainage Seminar, Annapolis, Maryland, December 8-10, 1992 No. 250 Rangeley, Thiam, Andersen, and Lyle, International River Basin Organizations in Sub-Saharan Africa No. 251 Sharma, Rietbergen, Heimo, and Patel, A Strategy for the Forest Sector in Sub-Saharan Africa No. 252 The World Bank/FAO/UNIDO/Industry Fertilizer Working Group, World and Regional Supply and Demand Balances for Nitrogen, Phosphate, and Potash, 1992/93-1998/99 No. 253 Jensen and Malter, Protected Agriculture: A Global Review 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, Provision for Children with Special Educational Needs in the Asia Region No. 262 Lee and Bobadilla, Health Statistics for the Americas No. 263 Le Moigne, Giltner, Subramanian, and Xie, 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 Viswaneth, Building Partnerships for 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 THE WORLD BANK ~ 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'IMna 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: MCi64145 WORLDBANK Telex: 640651 Facsimile: (3) 3214-3657 MCI 248423 WORLDBANK Telex: 26838 Cable Address: INTBAFRAD WASHINGTONDC .-I . .1. 131 16 I 9 780821 331163 ISBN 0-8213-3116-7