Multilateral Trade and Agricultural Policy Reforms in Sugar Markets
Amani Elobeid and John Beghin
Working Paper 04-WP 356
September 2005 (Revised)
Center for Agricultural and Rural Development
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa 50011-1070
www.card.iastate.edu
Amani Elobeid and John Beghin are, respectively, associate scientist and professor at the Center for
Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD), and the Department of Economics at Iowa State University.
Without implicating them, the authors thank two referees and Tim Lloyd for comments and suggestions,
and Pierre Bascou, John Dyck, Jay Fabiosa, Chad Hart, Holger Matthey, Don Mitchell, Jack Roney,
Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, and Pat Westhoff for discussion, information, and comments.
This paper is available online on the CARD Web site: www.card.iastate.edu. Permission is granted to
reproduce this information with appropriate attribution to the authors.
Questions or comments about the contents of this paper should be directed to Amani Elobeid, 567 Heady
Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1070, USA; Ph: (515) 294-6175; Fax: (515) 294-6336;
E-mail: amani@iastate.edu.
Iowa State University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, age, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender
identity, sex, marital status, disability, or status as a U.S. veteran. Inquiries can be directed to the Director of Equal Opportunity and
Diversity, 3680 Beardshear Hall, (515) 294-7612.
Abstract
We analyze the impact of trade liberalization, removal of production subsidies, and elimination
of consumption distortions in world sugar markets using a partial-equilibrium international sugar
model calibrated on 2002 market data and current policies. The removal of trade distortions
alone induces a 27% price increase while the removal of all trade and production distortions
induces a 48% increase by 2011/12 relative to the baseline. Aggregate trade expands moderately,
but location of production and trade patterns change substantially. Protectionist OECD countries
(the EU, Japan, the US) experience an import expansion or export reduction and significant
contraction in production in unfettered markets. Competitive producers in both OECD countries
(Australia) and non-OECD countries (Brazil, Cuba), and even some protected producers
(Indonesia, Turkey), expand production when all distortions are removed. Consumption
distortions have marginal impacts on world markets and location of production. We discuss the
significance of these results in the context of mounting pressures to increase market access in
highly protected OECD countries and the impact on non-OECD countries.
Keywords: agricultural policy, Doha, domestic subsidies, sugar, trade liberalization, WTO.
JEL code: Q18, F10
1. Introduction
The current world sugar market situation has complex North-South, South-South, and NorthNorth components. A myriad of policy interventions make sugar one of the most distorted
commodity markets in the world. The European Union (EU), Japan, and the United States (US)
are among the worst offenders in these markets. Producers in the EU and the US receive between
two and three times the world market price because of production quotas, import controls, and
government guaranteed prices. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and
De
ve
l
opme
nt
)c
ount
r
i
e
s
’s
uppor
tt
ot
he
i
rs
ug
a
rpr
oduc
e
r
sa
mount
e
dt
oa
bout$5.
3bi
l
l
i
oni
n200
2
(
OECD,20
0
3)
,r
oug
hl
yt
heva
l
ueofd
e
ve
l
opi
ngc
ount
r
i
e
s
’s
ug
a
re
xpor
t
s
.I
n2002,t
heEU,t
he
US, and Japan provided annual support of US$2.45 billion, US$1.18 billion, and JPY40 billion,
respectively (OECD, 2003). Such high protection has converted the EU, a natural importer of
sugar, to a net exporter and has reduced sugar imports to the US and Japan to a fraction of freetrade levels. Further, most countries, including the lowest-cost producers, offer some form of
protection or subsidies to their producers, and/or distort signals seen by consumers, and often
impede or directly distort trade in some fashion with restrictive import policies (Mitchell, 2004;
OECD, 2003). Import restrictions and regulated domestic markets are also prevalent in nonOECD (developing) countries like China and India, which protect their producers and maintain
domestic sugar prices at a higher level than the current world price.
An obvious question to ask is what unfettered markets would look like. What
consumption and production levels would prevail and what world price could be sustained in the
absence of distortions? The latter question has been a bone of contention with producers in
pr
ot
e
c
t
e
dma
r
ke
t
s
.Thec
ur
r
e
ntwor
l
dpr
i
c
ei
sof
t
e
nr
e
f
e
r
r
e
dt
oa
st
he“
wor
l
ddumppr
i
c
e
”by
sugar interests in protected OECD countries because a substantial share of world sugar trade
1
occurs under preferential agreements (American Sugar Alliance, 2003). Beyond the politics of
sugar protectionism, the determination of an undistorted world price is a legitimate concern.
There is no consensus on what this undistorted world price would look like. Partial-equilibrium
estimates tend to be higher than those coming from computable general equilibrium (CGE)
studies (Borrell and Duncan, 1992; Frandsen et al., 2003; van der Mensbrugghe, Beghin, and
Mitchell, 2003). Given that policies and market conditions change over time, a useful
contribution to this debate is to provide a new estimate of the undistorted world price of sugar.
CGE analyses provide a consistent framework to assess economy-wide effects of sugar reform,
which are typically very small. These models assume constant returns to scale in production;
marginal cost is horizontal as long as factor and input prices do not change. Supply eventually
exhibits some positive slope when land is constrained, and supply expansion implies higher land
rental rates and input prices as resources are bidden away. These general-equilibrium supply
responses remain much higher than in partial equilibrium models. Further, the biology of the
slow growth and perennial nature of sugarcane is not considered by CGE models, which assume
instantaneous supply adjustment. These two reasons explain why commodity price effects are
much smaller in CGE models.
Recent and interesting policy developments warrant a new analysis of the sugar market.
Protectionist interests in the United States won a battle with the virtual exclusion of sugar in the
US-Australia Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Despite this setback, the US will soon be forced to
reform its sugar program because of internal market changes and international commitments
already made under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and minimum-market
access commitments made under the Uruguay Round of the World Trade Organization (WTO)
and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Further commitments are being
2
negotiated under the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), and the latter will only
exacerbate these pressures for reform. This is another case of border opening forcing domestic
policy discipline, such as in the recent reform of the US peanut program. With the recent WTO
ruling that the EU has been illegally exporting too much subsidized sugar further complicated by
the Everything But Arms (EBA) agreement, the European Commission adopted its proposals to
r
a
di
c
a
l
l
yr
e
f
or
mt
heEU’
spr
ot
e
c
t
i
oni
s
ts
ug
a
rr
e
g
i
mei
n2006(
WTO,2004a
;Commi
s
sion of the
European Communities, 2005). Needed reforms coincide with scheduled reviews of the common
agricultural policy (CAP) in 2006 and the expiring of the US Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act in 2007 and provide a target period to get reforms in place. Would these reforms
be more palatable under free trade with a higher world price? What is the effect of domestic farm
policies relative to border barriers on world prices and markets?
Multilateral trade liberalization erodes benefits and market access from preferential
bilateral trade agreements and casts low-cost producers from Brazil and Thailand against lessefficient producers in the South. For example, 9 of the 42 countries that hold US quotas do not
even produce the sugar they deliver under the quotas. Hence, sugar market liberalization has an
important South-South dimension. How these reforms occur will have important consequences
f
orde
ve
l
opi
ngc
ount
r
i
e
s
.I
fwor
l
dpr
i
c
ee
f
f
e
c
t
sa
r
el
a
r
g
e
,wha
ti
st
hene
te
f
f
e
c
tofr
e
movi
ngone
’
s
protection when it is combined with a substantial world price increase? Finally, the North-North
dimension of the sugar trade liberalization has to do with Australia standing to gain as a net
exporter of sugar and being at odds with many OECD partners protecting their sugar producers.
Most partial-equilibrium analyses of the sugar market examine trade liberalization
holding prices and policies constant in other markets. We depart from this approach and
incorporate the impact of agricultural trade liberalization on prices for crops competing with
3
sugar in land use. These free-trade prices come from a similar policy analysis carried out with
companion models and using the same baseline of the Food and Agricultural Policy Research
Institute (FAPRI) (FAPRI, 2004).1 In addition to trade liberalization, we also introduce the
removal of production and consumption distortions into the analysis. Furthermore, since scenario
results are contingent on market conditions and policy developments, this study incorporates
more recent policy settings than were available in previous liberalization analyses.
In the following paragraphs we summarize major policy interventions in world sugar
markets. Then we briefly describe the international sugar model used for the simulations. After
introducing the policy reform scenarios, we present the key results of our simulations and
sensitivity analysis. Further detailed information on the country-by-country results for trade,
production, and consumption are available in the Appendix tables. We close with further
reflection on what our results mean for global sugar policy reforms.
2. Distortions in Sugar Markets
Table 1 summarizes key distortions as of 2002 by countries covered in our analysis. The table
classifies countries by their development level (OECD, non-OECD/developing) and distortion
levels (highly protected, minimally or moderately distorted). We use the nominal protection
coefficient (npc) estimate from the sugar Producer Support Estimate data of OECD countries to
categorize them into the two protection categories (OECD, 2003) with a cut-off value of
npc=1.25. For non-OECD countries, we use cut-off criteria of greater than 25% ad valorem tariff
or the combination of a 25% tariff or lower and the presence of domestic production support for
1
The FAPRI baseline is a set of projections for the US agricultural and international commodity markets. The 10year projections are published as FAPRI Outlooks, which are also used for policy analysis. FAPRI baseline
projections are grounded in a series of assumptions about the general economy, agricultural policies, the weather,
and technological change. The projections assume that during the projection period, current agricultural policies
remain in place, and average weather conditions and historical rates of technological change prevail.
4
heavily distorted countries. Detailed coverage of sugar policies by country is available in
Appendix Table A.
Distortions categories in Table 1 are based on their distortion impact. As is the case for
many agricultural markets, trade distortions are predominant in sugar markets and affect both
producers and consumers via
border tariffs, tariff-rate quota (TRQ) schemes, and, less
importantly, export tax/subsidies (Aksoy and Beghin, 2004; Hoekman, Ng, and Olarreaga, 2004).
Border restrictions reduce import demand flows and reduce world prices while increasing
domestic prices received by producers and paid by sugar users. Export subsidies are less
important except in the EU, where these subsidies are instrumental for dumping non-competitive
sugar on world markets and sustain the domestic production of high-price sugar. EU sugar
exports and associated subsidies will have to be dramatically reduced as mentioned in the
introduction. Border tariffs, TRQs, and export subsidy policies are part of the current Doha
negotiations (WTO, 2004b).
Next in importance are production distortions, which sometimes take the form of
producer-price support, coupled with production controls such as quota limiting production
under price support (e.g., EU, and Turkey). It is well known that OECD countries provide
domestic support in addition to border protection. It is less well known that many developing
countries engage in similar practices although these are now formally reported in WTO
notifications since the generous de minimis applies to their distorting domestic policies (WTO,
1994).2 Domestic production support is often redundant, as the border protection binds first
2
Distorting support is divided into product-specific and non-product-specific groups. The non-product-specific
support (not specifically tied to a certain product) and the Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS) is assigned to all
agricult
u
r
a
lpr
odu
c
t
i
on
.Forde
v
e
l
opi
ngc
oun
t
r
i
e
s
,AMSv
a
l
u
e
sbe
l
ow10% oft
h
epr
odu
c
t
’
sv
a
l
u
eofpr
odu
c
t
i
onf
or
product-s
pe
c
i
f
i
cs
u
ppor
ta
n
dAMSv
a
l
u
e
sbe
l
ow 10% oft
h
ec
ou
n
t
r
y
’
sov
e
r
a
l
lv
a
l
u
eofa
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
lpr
odu
ction for
non-product-specific support are exempted from the domestic support limits of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
and are not notified to the WTO (WTO, 1994).
5
(e.g., Japan). This would change when border protection is reduced by commitments in trade
agreements. Reductions in domestic price support are also under negotiation in the Doha round
(WTO, 2004b).
Finally, a few countries also intervene with targeted consumer policies to subsidize
consumption to offset some of the impact of the other distortions or just by social objective (such
as in Cuba and Egypt).
As suggested by Table 1, many countries intervene in sugar markets; hence, the degree
and nature of interventions are what differentiate countries. OECD markets are by far the most
distorted (OECD, 2003). Virtually all countries provide some sort of support to their sugar
producers, including developing nations as well as countries considered low-cost producers, such
as Brazil (Mitchell, 2004). To summarize the extent of distortions, 60% of trade in sugar and
80% of production takes place at prices above the world price (Mitchell, 2004). The table also
shows the heterogeneity of support across countries. The policy debate on sugar protection has
been oversimplified by pitching low-cost Brazil against industrialized countries (EU and US).
Table 1 shows clearly that protection extends beyond the usual suspects among OECD countries
to its poorer members (Mexico and Turkey) and also to many countries in the developing world.
Several highly distorted developing countries (India, Egypt, and Colombia) provide
domestic farm subsidies to their producers, either directly or through sugar processors who
rebate them to farmers. In several countries (e.g., Japan), domestic production policies are in fact
supported by trade barriers. Closed borders reduce government outlays on farm programs, and
sugar users and consumers effectively bear the cost of the production subsidies. As a final
remark, we note that protection is not always equivalent to lack of competitiveness, as producers
in several developing countries would be competitive in unfettered markets provided world
prices increase significantly (e.g., Colombia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan).
3. Structure of the CARD International Sugar Model
The CARD3 international sugar model is a non-spatial, partial-equilibrium econometric world
sugar model consisting of 29 countries/regions, including a Rest-of-the-World aggregate to close
the model. The model is used to establish the sugar component of the FAPRI baseline (FAPRI,
2003) and for policy analysis (Beghin, et al., 2003). Major sugar producing, exporting, and
importing countries are included in the CARD international sugar model. The model specifies
only raw sugar production, use, and trade between countries/regions and does not disaggregate
refined trade from raw trade. Consequently, there is no category for importers as refiners or toll
refiners because those countries that specialize in that role are well known and stable over time.
Country coverage consists of the following countries/regions: Algeria, Argentina, Australia,
Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Cuba, Eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Czech and Slovak
Republics4), Egypt, European Union-15, Former Soviet Union (FSU) (mainly Russia and the
Ukraine5), India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Peru,
Philippines, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand, Turkey, the United States, Venezuela, and a
Rest-of-World aggregate.
The general structure of the country sub-model includes behavioral equations for area
harvested, yield, production for sugarcane and sugar beet on the supply side, and per capita
consumption and ending stocks on the demand side. Equilibrium prices, quantities, and net trade
3
CARD stands for Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University.
Eastern Europe also includes Albania, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Romania, and Slovenia.
5
The Former Soviet Union includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania),
Belarus, Georgia, Republic of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Ukraine, and Republic of Uzbekistan.
4
7
are determined by equating excess supply and excess demand across countries and regions.
Using price transmission equations, the domestic price of each country or region is linked with a
representative world price (Caribbean FOB price) through exchange rates and other price policy
wedges such as tariffs and transfer-service margins. Because of the overall scope of the model, it
is not feasible to include the complete empirical model in the text. The general framework for
each country sub-model consists of the following:
Harvested area at time t: AHt = f (AHt-1, RSPPt-1, RGPt-1, Trend),
(1)
Yield at time t: Yieldt= f (Yieldt-1, Trend),
(2)
Cane and beet crop production at time t: Productiont= AHt * Yieldt,
(3)
with AH denoting acreage, RSPP being the cane or beet price, and RGP denoting the price of
alternative crops; subscripts indicate the time period.
Total sugar production is obtained by converting raw cane production and beet
production into raw sugar equivalent. Sugar consumption per capita is determined by the real
price of sugar and income per capita:
Per capita sugar consumption at time t: = f (RSPt, PCRGDPt),
(4)
with RSP being the real consumer price of raw sugar, and PCRGDP representing real income per
capita; total demand is just the product (population * per capita consumption). Inventory demand
at time t is
ESt = f (ESt-1, SCt, RSPt),
(5)
with ES representing ending stock and SC denoting sugar consumption.
In many countries, the beet or cane prices are set by policy and can be treated as being
predetermined. Where countries lack information on agricultural price, the raw cane sugar price,
RSP, is used instead of the agricultural prices in the specification of the acreage response. In
8
some countries, yield improvements are captured by a time trend. The excess demand (supply) of
each country goes to the world market for raw sugar, and the sum of all excess demands and
supplies is equal to zero by market clearing to determine the world market price.
The CARD international sugar model uses price transmission elasticities to link the world
and domestic markets for each country. The price transmission equation assumes that agents in
each country are price-takers in the world market. Countries are either a natural importer or
exporter if their autarkic price falls above or below the world price. Net importers enjoy natural
protection plus whatever barrier is set at the border. Abstracting from any spatial consideration
a
nda
s
s
umi
nga
n“
a
dva
l
or
e
mt
a
r
i
f
fon
l
y
”r
e
g
i
me
,t
hedome
s
t
i
cpr
i
c
ec
a
nbee
xpr
e
s
s
e
da
s
Pd=α+β*Pw * r * (1+d),
(6)
where Pd is the domestic sugar price, Pw is the world price of sugar including international
transportation cost if the country is an importer (FOB price for exporters), r is the exchange rate,
and d summarizes policy interventions between the world and domestic markets and is expressed
i
na
dva
l
or
e
mf
or
m.Pa
r
a
me
t
e
rαc
a
pt
ur
e
st
hedi
ve
r
g
e
nc
eoft
hedome
s
t
i
ca
ndbor
de
rpr
i
c
et
ha
t
does not depend on the price level but rather reflects transaction costs arising between the
farmgate and the market place and/or marketing mark-ups
.Pa
r
a
me
t
e
rβ a
l
l
owsi
mpe
r
f
e
c
t
transmission between world and domestic prices. Depending on data availability, domestic prices
in the sugar model can be farm, wholesale, or retail prices. Because of the homogeneous nature
of sugar, quality adjustments are not incorporated in the price transmission equations. In general,
only one domestic price is used in the model.6 Consumer and producer prices are differentially
6
Sugar is a true homogeneous commodity implying that the sugar market is a global market with a single world
price and that in trade its origin is undistinguishable, as opposed to cereals or oilseeds, which are highly
differentiated products and for which trade is more specialized and spatial.
9
specified only in countries that have a deficiency type of producer support or an explicit tax on
consumption.
This general structure is slightly modified to accommodate policy interventions other
than price distortions, such as quantitative restrictions on area, supply, or trade flows. For
example, imports constrained by binding TRQs are treated as exogenous, and domestic prices are
solved endogenously. Policy interventions providing a price floor are treated as such and are
effective whenever the domestic producer price falls to the price floor level (e.g., the US loan
rate). This mechanism is important when we remove trade barriers in the first scenario but
maintain domestic farm policies.
The interaction with other model components used to establish the FAPRI baseline is
limited to cross-price effects in supply (for wheat, rice, and soybeans). There are no links in
consumption.
Data for area, yield, sugarcane, and sugar beet production were gathered from the Food
and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, and data for sugar production,
consumption, and ending stocks were obtained from Production, Supply and Distribution
(PS&D) View of the US Department of Agriculture. Cane and beet production is tied to sugar
production through the extraction rate. Macroeconomic data such as real gross domestic product
(GDP), consumer price index, population, and exchange rate were gathered from various
sources, including the International Monetary Fund and Global Insight (formerly WEFA-DRI).
Demand and supply price responses and income response of demand are econometric
estimates or, when not available, consensus estimates. Their elasticity values are available from
the FAPRI Web site (http://www.fapri.iastate.edu/tools/elasticity.aspx). The period for the
econometric estimation is 1980 to 2001. Simple linear specifications and ordinary least squares
10
are used in the estimation of these equations to save degrees of freedom, given the short time
series used. This estimation approach treats sugar prices as exogenous for estimation purposes.
Elasticities in the CARD international sugar model are comparable to most existing ones
(e.g., Devadoss and Kropf, 1996; Hafi, Connell, and Sturgiss, 1993; and Wohlgenant, 1999) and
do not depart from the conventional wisdom on price-inelastic sugar markets. The own-price
elasticities of sugarcane supply are highly inelastic in the short run. This feature is consistent
with the fact that several annual crops can be harvested from one planting of sugarcane.
Therefore, there is limited acreage adjustment to price fluctuations in the short run. The ownprice supply elasticities for sugar beet production are generally not as inelastic as they are for
sugarcane since beet is an annual crop. On the demand side, the own-price and income
elasticities reflect the fact that in many developing countries sugar is considered a staple in the
diet. Consumers look to sugar to fulfill basic caloric requirements.
The Caribbean raw sugar price is generally considered to be the representative world
market price. The nominal world price of sugar has been increasing over time, although in a
volatile fashion, while the real price has decreased.
Our analysis has some caveats, which are inherent to the radical nature of the policy
reforms considered. The policy changes considered in the first two scenarios are drastic and
imply large price changes and displacement of market equilibrium far from prevailing volume
and prices. For example, our assumptions on supply curves underlying EU production quotas are
based on consensus views on the relative competitiveness of the producers constrained by the
quota. The exact shape of those supply curves is unknown.
11
4. Reform Scenarios and Results
We ran a sequence of three scenarios in deviation from the FAPRI baseline. We use the 2002
baseline because it was used to carry the trade liberalization analysis in all other agricultural
markets (FAPRI, 2004). The sequence of scenarios starts with the removal of the largest
distortions affecting sugar markets, i.e., trade and border distortions (tariffs, export
taxes/subsidies, TRQs, and state trading). Then a second scenario considers the further removal
of domestic production policies in addition to the trade liberalization of the first scenario. The
third and last scenario considers the additional removal of consumption distortions along with
the previous reforms of trade and production policies. Consumption distortions are the least
prevailing distortions in these markets.
In each scenario, the policy reforms are fully implemented in 2002/03 and their impact is
measured in deviations for the years 2002/03 to 2011/12. We report the average of these annual
changes as a summary indicator of the impacts as well as the impact in the final year (2011/12),
which represents a long-term impact as the model dynamics take time to settle. Table 2 presents
summary impacts for the world market; Tables 3-6 show the detailed impacts for select countries
following the country taxonomy adopted earlier in the discussion of distortions (OECD, highlydistorted; OECD, minimally or moderately distorted; Non-OECD/ developing, highly distorted;
Non-OECD/developing, minimally or moderately distorted). Figure 1 shows the impact of
liberalization under the three scenarios on average production shares (2002/03 to 2011/12) for
major countries classified according to their development and distortion levels. Figure 2 shows
12
the impact on average trade shares under scenarios 1, 2, and 3 for the major countries grouped by
development and distortion levels.7
Trade Liberalization Impacts
To implement scenario 1, we assume that governments have the fiscal resources to sustain
existing sugar production subsidies. Producers receive the prevailing domestic market price
under open borders but also get a production subsidy, which leaves the domestic policy support
to production unchanged. This is, of course, an artificial device, which allows us to separate the
specific effects of trade and domestic production policies. In reality, the mounting fiscal
pressures of domestic subsidies would render them unsustainable in the medium run and policy
reforms would follow.
The removal of all trade distortions increases the world sugar price by 32% on average
during the simulation period (Table 2). This average figure is inflated by a very strong initial
price shock, which eventually tapers to 27% in 2011/12. Aggregate trade increases by a moderate
4% by 2011/12. The depth of the world market price formation mechanism increases
dramatically, however, since preferential trade and export subsidies are eliminated. This mostly
concerns EU imports and exports, and US and Japanese imports. Aggregate effects on world
production and consumption are small.
As shown in Tables 3-6, change in consumption and, to a lesser extent, relocation of
production are substantial because of the magnitude of the price effects. In highly distorted
OECD countries, sugar producers are also protected by domestic policies, and their production
changes little or not at all. However, their consumption increases as sugar users face the world
price of sugar. As a consequence, Figures 1 and 2 show countries like the EU experiencing a
7
Not all countries mentioned in the text appear in the tables and figures. Individual country results are available in
Appendix Tables B, C, and D for the three scenarios and in Appendix Table E for the sensitivity analysis.
13
small decline in average production and trade shares, respectively, under trade liberalization.
Conversely, in Australia, a country with limited distortion and the only major competitive sugar
producer among OECD countries, production increases by more than 5% annually by 2011/12,
and consumption falls as consumers face higher world prices after reform. So Australia increases
its average production and trade shares, albeit slightly, under scenario 1.
Among the most heavily distorted developing countries, production decreases
substantially whenever domestic subsidies are not present, such as in the FSU and the
Philippines. In developing countries in which domestic production support is present (e.g., India,
Thailand) production changes little, as producers are shielded from world competition;
consumption increases, however, as consumers face a higher domestic price. In terms of global
shares, with the removal of trade barriers, importing countries like the FSU, Japan, and the US
experience a small reduction in average production shares (Figure 1) and an increase in trade
shares compared to the baseline (Figure 2). In a few countries, such as China, the net impact of
the tariff removal and the increase in world prices turns out to increase production and decrease
consumption. Moderately distorted developing countries increase their production significantly;
Brazil, for example, increases production 8% annually on average. As a response to the higher
wor
l
d pr
i
c
e
,Br
a
z
i
l
’
sa
ve
r
a
g
epr
oduc
t
i
on a
nd t
r
a
des
ha
r
e
si
nc
r
e
a
s
efrom 35.8% and 15%,
respectively, in the baseline to 41.8% and 16%, respectively, under the trade liberalization
scenario (Figures 1 and 2). Consumption falls in all countries of the latter group as sugar users
face higher world and consumer prices after reform.
Trade Liberalization and Domestic Production Policy Reform
The same Tables 2-6 show the results for the combined removal of trade distortions and
domestic policies affecting production. Major changes occur in scenario 2 with the additional
14
removal of domestic production subsidies. The removal of all trade and production distortions
induces a 48% price increase by 2011/12 as shown in Table 2. Aggregate world sugar production
and use decrease by about 3% on average. Aggregate trade expands moderately but the location
of production and trade patterns are even more substantially affected than in the previous
scenario. The most protected OECD and non-OECD countries (e.g., the EU, India, Japan, and, to
a lesser extent, Mexico, Thailand, and the US) experience an import expansion or export
reduction because of substantial contraction in production and increased consumption. In Figure
1, the average production share for the EU declines to 5% in scenario 2 from about 13% in the
baseline and Figure 2 shows that the region experiences a trade reversal from a net exporter of
sugar to a net importer when domestic support is removed. Japan reduces its average production
share and increases its trade share compared to the baseline (Figure 1 and 2). The US production
share remains where it was in the trade reform as the world price increase in scenario 2 offsets
the loss of domestic subsidies. US imports increase relative to the baseline but not as much as in
the previous scenario because the price faced by sugar users does not fall as much as it does in
scenario 1. World beet production decreases by 21% by the end of the decade, whereas world
cane production increases by 8%. Hence, in aggregate terms, the conventional wisdom holds that
cane sugar production tends to be more competitive than beet sugar production.
In contrast to the first scenario, the drop in production among the most protected
countries is so drastic that the resulting world price increase induces higher production in many
countries. Higher production is obviously seen among non-OECD competitive producers such as
Brazil and Cuba but also in some countries with significant distortions such as Indonesia,
Malaysia, and China. For these countries, the world price increase is large enough to provide
improved incentives to produce, and lesser incentives to use sugar. Figure 1 shows the average
15
production share of Brazil increasing from 15% in the baseline to 18% with the removal of
domestic support while, in Figure 2, its trade share increases from 35.8% to 63%. Indonesia,
although highly distorted, also increases its average production and decreases its imports by
almost 50% relative to the baseline. Among highly distorted OECD countries, Turkey also
expands production because higher world prices and the removal of producer policies lead to
improved incentives to produce. Negative changes in consumption observed in the first scenario
are accentuated in this second scenario since consumers face even higher prices in the latter
scenario. This occurs in OECD and non-OECD countries with moderate border protection
(Australia, Brazil, Canada) but also in a few non-OECD countries with significant protection but
for which the net effect of the removal of distortions and higher world price worsens consumer
prices. For example, in China, consumption decreases by 7% in 2011/12 relative to the baseline
level.
Full Market Liberalization (Trade, Consumption, and Production Reforms)
In this scenario, consumption distortions are removed in Cuba, Egypt, and Morocco, in addition
to the policy reforms of the previous scenario.8 As Table 2 shows, the removal of pure
consumption distortions has small effects on world markets price relative to scenario 2.9 By
2011/12, the world price increase is 47% or 1% lower than in scenario 2, as consumption
subsidies are removed. Hence, the bulk of the effects of this reform occur in the countries
removing their own consumer price distortions with limited feedback on world market. Tables 36 show that the removal of the consumer subsidies in these select developing countries has little
8
Although previously sugar was sold at subsidized prices to consumers in Turkey, consumer sugar subsidies have
been gradually reduced over the last several years and prices have increased according to production costs, resulting
in consumption increases closer to the population growth rate. For this reason, consumer subsidies in Turkey were
not considered.
9
A border tariff constitutes a tax on consumption and a subsidy on production. Hence, sugar consumption has been
extremely distorted by high tariffs rather than by pure consumer taxes/subsidies occurring only in a few countries.
16
impact on the rest of the countries when compared with scenario 2. Among non-OECD
countries, Cuba has the largest subsidy removal, and consumption decreases significantly, by an
average of 42.5% between 2002/03 and 2011/12. This translates in an expansion of Cuban
exports on world markets, which are responsible for the 1% decrease in the world price relative
to the world price prevailing after removing trade and production distortions (47% versus 48%
increase in 2011-12). In Egypt, consumption decreases by 21%, whereas it would decrease by
15% under scenario 2. Finally, in Morocco, the removal of the consumption subsidy results in
the reduction of sugar consumption by 11% relative to the baseline. Under scenario 2, Moroccan
sugar consumption would decrease by nearly 4%.
Sensitivity Analysis
In conducting the sensitivity analysis, baseline price response elasticities in the supply, demand,
and inventory equations for all countries were first doubled and then halved. The analysis
involved the recalibration of the intercepts in these equations in order to maintain the original
baseline. Then the scenarios were run with the alternative elasticities. Detailed results are
presented in Appendix Table E.
The doubling of elasticities makes the model more price responsive. Policy reforms
induce larger marginal changes in supply, demand, and trade and, as a result, more moderate
world price increases. Brazil and Australia expand their production beyond levels indicated in
the original scenarios 2 and 3, whereas Japan and FSU decrease their production and increase
their consumption to a larger extent. The loss of protection is exacerbated in highly distorted
markets such as the EU and Japan and the response to the larger loss is also greater as the
elasticity of supply is doubled. With the halving of elasticities these tendencies are reversed:
world price increases are larger because marginal responses of supply, demand, and trade flows
17
are diminished. Note that the qualitative results of the original analysis are maintained
throughout as the direction of changes is unaffected by changes in elasticities, with the unique
e
xc
e
pt
i
onoft
heUSi
ns
c
e
na
r
i
o2whe
ne
l
a
s
t
i
c
i
t
i
e
sa
r
eha
l
ve
d.I
nt
hel
a
t
t
e
rc
a
s
e
,“
not
hi
ng
”
happens compared to the baseline as the US sub-model becomes so inelastic and the US policy
removal is offset fully by the world price increase. In average terms, when elasticities are halved
in scenarios 2 and 3, the world price increase is about 11% higher than the world price increase
when elasticities are unchanged.
The sensitivity analysis led to a few extreme results. In the case of scenarios 2 and 3,
when elasticities are doubled, the model goes to a corner solution in terms of inventories for
Brazil as they become more responsive to higher world prices. This occurs as well for production
in Japan with the removal of protection. Sugar beet area harvested in Japan falls to zero faster
than sugarcane area harvested, resulting in positive, albeit drastically diminished, sugar
production during the projection period. In scenario 3, where consumer subsidies are removed,
Cuba
’
ss
uga
rc
ons
umpt
i
onf
a
l
l
st
oz
e
r
oi
nt
hef
i
r
s
ty
e
a
rbe
c
a
us
eoft
hedr
a
ma
t
i
ci
nc
r
e
a
s
ei
nwor
l
d
price, the removal of the subsidies, and the higher demand response to price. Cuban sugar
consumption remains positive although very low after the first year.
Sensitivity analysis was also conducted that doubled and halved the elasticities in the
price transmission equations. Where elasticities were originally high, an upper bound of one was
implemented (full transmission). The latter analysis tended to exacerbate tendencies observed in
the two previous cases, accentuating price responses in the halving and decreasing them in the
doubling. Results of this analysis are available from the authors.
5. Conclusions
We analyzed a sequence of incremental policy reforms in international sugar markets: the
18
removal of trade distortions, followed by the removal of trade distortions and domestic
production support, and finally the removal of pure consumption distortions in addition to the
previous removals. The sequence of reforms is structured by order of decreasing importance of
these types of distortions. Trade distortions are the largest contributor to distortions in sugar
markets and are responsible for large price and consumptions effects. But domestic production
policies in highly protected OECD countries are also important to maintain production in these
countries. With the removal of both trade and production distortions, it is clear that a massive
sugar production relocation would take place away from highly protected OECD markets (the
EU; Japan, and, to a lesser extent, Mexico and the US). Production would move toward
competitive producers in moderately protected developing economies, chiefly Brazil and Cuba,
and to moderately protected OECD countries, mostly Australia, and less obviously to producers
in protected countries such as Turkey and Indonesia because of the large world price effects. The
EU and Japan have virtually everything to lose in unfettered markets. The large increase in price
is little solace for their sugar producers, who would probably be wiped out. EU producers might
want to focus on compensation and negotiate a buy-out program within the ongoing CAP
reforms and specifically its sugar common market organization, while the Doha round evolves
slowly and the EBA agreement is not yet fully implemented. Japanese sugar producers may well
be the last bastion of protectionism in global sugar markets.
The analysis also makes clear that trade liberalization without domestic reforms would
induce import surges in the US. These surges would make domestic programs fiscally
unpalatable and unsustainable because of the current policy commitments. A similar pattern
emerges in the EU, which is constrained in its ability to export expensive domestic sugar
displaced by cheaper imports or to provide large, unsustainable production subsidies to make
19
domestic producers competitive. Of course one should never underestimate the strength of the
sugar lobby in OECD countries, and many sugar specialists have wrongly predicted the
imminent unraveling of sugar protectionism as shown in the recent outcome of the AustralianUS FTA and CAFTA.
We obtained large world price effects reflecting the price-inelastic nature of sugar
markets. We found that by the end of the outlook period, world prices would increase by about
27% with the imposition of free trade and by a staggering 48% when all trade and production
distortions are removed. These figures are slightly inflated by strong initial price shocks, which
take time to taper because of the slow dynamic adjustment of sugar production. Supply
adjustment in sugar production takes time, and the price changes in the later years provide a
sense of how markets would adjust in the long run to such radical policy shocks. These estimates
of the price effects are large but within the ballpark of previous estimates obtained with partialequilibrium models (Borrell and Pearce, 1999; Sheales, Hafi, and Toyne, 1999; Wohlgenant,
1999). Sugar markets are price-inelastic both on the supply and demand sides. This fundamental
characteristic explains why reforms have large price effects but more moderate effects on
production, consumption, and trade. In contrast, CGE models predict smaller price effects and
larger production and consumption effects because they assume larger market responses to
prices, especially in supply.
Sug
a
rpr
oduc
e
r
s
’g
r
oupsi
npr
ot
e
c
t
e
dma
r
ke
t
si
ns
i
s
tonus
i
ngt
hemul
t
i
l
a
t
e
r
a
lne
g
ot
iation
route to liberalize sugar markets, often as a convenient veil of legitimacy for their protectionist
interests. Our numbers provide some credence to their strategy, as it appears that the competitive
segment of the sugar industries would survive in unfettered markets in the US, Turkey, and other
protected markets. A major qualifier to our analysis is that our model may understate exit/entry
20
and investment decisions. The drastic world price increases predicted by our analysis may induce
massive investment in sugar production and reduce these price changes considerably.
21
References
Aksoy, M.A., and J.C. Beghin, eds. (2004). Global Agricultural Trade and Developing
Countries. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.
Ame
r
i
c
a
nSug
a
rAl
l
i
a
nc
e
.(
2003)
.“
Submi
s
s
i
onof the American Sugar Alliance on the USCe
nt
r
a
lAme
r
i
c
aFr
e
eTr
a
deAgr
e
e
me
nt
,
”Of
f
i
c
eoft
heU.
S.Tr
a
deRe
pr
e
s
e
nt
a
t
i
ve
,U.
S.
Department of Labor, April 25.
Be
g
hi
n,J
.
,B.ElOs
t
a
,J
.Che
r
l
ow,a
ndS.Moha
nt
y
.(
2003)
.“
TheCos
toft
heU.
S.Suga
rPr
og
r
a
m
Revi
s
i
t
e
d,
”Contemporary Economic Policy 21 (1): 106-116.
Bor
r
e
l
l
,B.
,a
ndR.
C.Dunc
a
n.(
1992)
.“
Ec
onomi
cEf
f
e
c
t
sofPol
i
c
yI
nt
e
r
ve
nt
i
onofWor
l
dSug
a
r
Pol
i
c
i
e
s
,
”The World Bank Research Observer 7(2): 173-194.
Bor
r
e
l
l
,B.
,a
ndD.Pe
a
r
c
e
.(
1999)
.“
Suga
r
:TheTa
s
t
eTe
s
tofTr
a
deLi
be
r
a
l
i
s
a
t
i
on.
”CI
ERe
por
t
,
Centre for International Economics, Canberra and Sydney, Australia, September.
De
va
dos
s
,
S.
,a
ndJ
.Kr
opf
.(
1996)
.“
I
mpa
c
tofTr
a
deLi
be
r
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
onunde
rt
heUr
ug
ua
yRoundon
t
heWor
l
dSug
a
rMa
r
ke
t
,
”Agricultural Economics: 83-96.
Commi
s
s
i
onoft
heEur
ope
a
nCommuni
t
i
e
s
.(
2005)
.“
Pr
opos
a
lf
oraCounc
i
lRe
g
ul
a
t
i
onont
he
CommonOr
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
onoft
heMa
r
ke
t
si
nt
heSug
a
rSe
c
t
or
.
”COM (
2005)263f
i
na
l
,
Brussels, June.
Food and Agricultural Policy Research Inst
i
t
ut
e(
FAPRI
)
.(
2004)
.“
TheDohaRoundoft
he
Wor
l
dTr
a
deOr
ga
ni
z
a
t
i
on:Appr
a
i
s
i
ngFur
t
he
rLi
be
r
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
onofAg
r
i
c
ul
t
ur
a
lMa
r
ke
t
s
.
”
CARD Working Paper 02-WP 317, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa
State University, Ames, revised July.
———. FAPRI 2003 U.S. and World Agricultural Outlook. (2003). CARD Staff Report 1-03,
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, January.
Frandsen, S.E., H.G. Jensen, W. Yu, and A. Walter-Jørgensen. (2003). “Reform of EU Sugar
Policy: Price Cuts Versus Quota Reductions
,
” European Review of Agriculture
Economics 30(1): 1-26.
Ha
f
i
,A.
,P.Conne
l
l
,a
ndR.St
ur
g
i
s
s
.(
1993)
.“
Ma
r
ke
tPot
e
nt
i
a
lf
orRe
f
i
ne
dSug
a
rExpor
t
sf
r
om
Aus
t
r
a
l
i
a
.
”ABARERe
s
e
a
r
c
hRe
por
t93.
17,Ca
nbe
r
r
a
,Aus
t
r
a
l
i
a
.
Hoekman, B., F. Ng, and M. Olarreaga. (
2004)
.“
Ag
r
i
c
ul
t
ur
a
lTa
r
i
f
f
sve
r
s
usSubs
i
di
e
s
:Wha
t
’
s
Mor
eI
mp
or
t
a
ntf
orDe
ve
l
opi
ngCount
r
i
e
s
?
’World Bank Economic Review 18(2): 175-204.
Mi
t
c
he
l
l
,D.(
2004)
.“
Sug
a
rPol
i
c
i
e
s
:AnOppor
t
uni
t
yf
orCha
ng
e
.
”I
nGlobal Agricultural Trade
and Developing Countries, M.A. Aksoy and J.C. Beghin, eds. pp. 141–60.Washington,
D.C.: The World Bank.
22
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2003). Agricultural
Policies in OECD Countries. Monitoring and Evaluation 2002. Paris: OECD
Publications.
She
a
l
e
s
,T.
,S.Gor
don.A.Ha
f
i
,a
ndC.Toy
ne
.(
1999)
.“
Sug
a
rI
nt
e
r
na
t
i
ona
lPol
i
c
i
e
sAf
f
e
c
t
i
ng
Ma
r
k
e
tExpa
ns
i
on.
”ABARERe
s
e
a
r
c
hRe
por
t99.
14.Ca
nbe
r
r
a
,Aus
t
r
a
l
i
a
.
van der Mensbrugghe, D., J. Beghin, and D. Mitchell. (2003). “Modeling Tariff Rate Quotas in a
Gl
oba
lCont
e
xt
:TheCa
s
eofSug
a
rMa
r
ke
t
si
nOECDCount
r
i
e
s
,
”CARDWor
ki
ngPa
pe
r
03-WP-343, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University,
Ames, September.
Wohlgenant, M.K. (1999). Effects of Trade Liberalization on the World Sugar Market, prepared
for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Wor
l
dTr
a
d
eOr
g
a
ni
z
a
t
i
on(
WTO)
.(
2004a
)
.“
Eur
ope
a
nCommuni
t
i
e
s–Export Subsidies on
Sug
a
r
:Compl
a
i
ntbyAus
t
r
a
l
i
a
”
,Re
por
toft
hePa
ne
lWT/
DS265/
R(
04-4209), October
14.
———.(
2004b)
.“
DohaWor
kPr
og
r
a
mme
,De
c
i
s
i
onAdopt
e
dbyt
heGe
ne
r
a
lCounc
i
lon1
Aug
us
t2004.
”Re
por
tofGe
ne
r
a
lCounc
i
l
.Aug
us
t2.Doc
ume
ntc
odeWT/
L/
579.
———.(
1994)
.“
Agr
e
e
me
ntonAg
r
i
c
ul
t
ur
e
.
”Fi
na
lAc
toft
he1986-1994 Uruguay Round, WTO
Agreements, Rome.
23
Table 1. Summary of Sugar Policies by Country (2001/02)
Trade Policies
Country
Import tariff(1) and TRQ schemes
Classification
OECD Countries: Highly Distorted
Eastern Europe(2)
40% in-quota rate with minimum of EUR0.17/kg; 96% out-of-quota rate with minimum of EUR0.43/kg
European Union
EUR98/ton in-quota rate; EUR339/ton out-of-quota rate; ACP TRQ 1.3 million tons white sugar equivalent
Japan
JPY21.5/kg refined sugar + additional surcharge of JPY53.88/kg
Mexico
$0.3166/kg on U.S. imports and $0.3958/kg on third-country imports
3% raw sugar and temporary 50% refined sugar
South Korea
110.45% on EU imports; 138% on third-country imports
0. 625/lb MFN import duty; 15.36¢/lb out-of-quota rate raw sugar; 16.21¢/lb refined sugar; TRQ of 1.29
United States
million tons in 2002;Preferential treatment for Mexico under NAFTA
OECD Countries: Limited to Moderate Distortion
Australia
No import tariffs
Canada
CAD$30.86/ton refined sugar; CAD$22.07 - $24.69/ton raw sugar (MFN)
Non-OECD Countries: Highly Distorted
Argentina
20% (+ $60/ton on Brazilian imports)
20% in-quota rate; 76% out-of-quota rate; TRQ 1.64 million tons increasing to 1.95 million tons by 2004
China
Export
subsidy
Export
tax
X
Turkey
4.05%
Domestic Policies
Production
Consumption
Price
Production
Consumer
support
quota
subsidy
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5%
X
Colombia
20% + variable surcharge (effective duty in 2002 $114/ton raw imports; $85/ton refined)
2.5%
X
Egypt
Former Soviet
Union (Russia)(3)
5% raw sugar; 10% refined sugar
X
India
5% in-quota rate but no less than EUR0.015/kg; 40% out-of-quota rate but no less than EUR0.12/kg for raw
sugar and EUR0.14/kg for white sugar; TRQ 3.65 million tons in 2002
60% plus INR850/ton countervailing duty
X
Indonesia
20% raw cane sugar; 25% beet sugar
X
Malaysia
5% + specific tax of RM426.7/ton
X
Morocco
35% + 0.25% parafiscal tax and 123% of the difference between a threshold price and CIF price
X
30%
X
Pakistan
Philippines
65%
South Africa
ZAR1312/ton in 2002 (based on difference between world price and set reference price)
Thailand
65% in-quota rate; 99% out-of-quota rate 99%
X
X
Non-OECD Countries: Limited to Moderate Distortion
Algeria
15% cane sugar; 5% beet sugar
Brazil
17.5%
Cuba
10%
Iran(4)
19%
Peru
25% + additional duty based on price band system used in Colombia
Venezuela
15% + additional duty based on price band system used in Colombia
1. Import tariffs are for raw sugar unless indicated otherwise.
2. Poland is used to represent Eastern Europe as its production constitutes 60% of total sugar production in Eastern Europe.
3. Rus
s
i
ai
sus
e
dt
or
e
pr
e
s
e
ntt
heFo
r
me
rSov
i
e
tUni
o
na
si
ti
st
her
e
g
i
on’
sl
a
r
g
est importer. The Ukraine sets minimum purchase prices for sugar beets and refined sugar at the
wholesale level. However, sugar prices are often below the mandated minimum.
4. Regional average
X
X
X
Table 2. Impact of Reforms on World Sugar
World Sugar Production, Consumption, Total Exports[1] and World Prices
Scenario 1
Baseline
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 2
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 3
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Production
11/12
Average
155.81
144.82
156.94
146.02
1.13
1.20
0.72%
0.83%
(Million Metric Tons)
Consumption
11/12
Average
156.13
145.25
156.97
146.08
0.85
0.82
0.54%
0.56%
Total Exports
11/12
Average
35.51
32.02
37.01
32.83
1.50
0.81
4.22%
2.40%
(U.S. Dollars per Metric Ton)
FOB Caribbean Price
11/12
Average
238.83
214.61
302.47
282.31
63.64
67.69
26.65%
31.95%
153.06
-2.75
-1.76%
140.76
-4.06
-2.86%
153.12
-3.01
-1.93%
141.21
-4.04
-2.82%
38.42
2.91
8.19%
35.76
3.75
11.73%
353.32
114.49
47.94%
353.93
139.32
66.18%
152.79
-3.02
-1.94%
140.52
-4.30
-3.03%
152.85
-3.27
-2.10%
140.94
-4.31
-3.01%
38.39
2.88
8.12%
35.70
3.68
11.53%
350.83
112.00
46.89%
351.36
136.74
64.96%
[1]
Total exports are computed by summing up all positive exports and negative imports and not by summing trade flows of net exporters.
Note: Average is the average for 2002/03 to 2011/12.
Scenario 1 = Trade Liberalization; Scenario 2 = Trade Liberalization and Domestic Production Subsidy Reforms; Scenario 3 = Full Market Liberalization.
25
Table 3. Impact of Reforms on Heavily Distorted OECD Countries
European Union Sugar Production, Consumption and Net Exports
Scenario 1
Baseline
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 2
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 3
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Production
11/12
19,752.11
19,752.11
0.00
0.00%
Average
18,702.35
18,702.35
0.00
0.00%
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Consumption
11/12
Average
15,087.83
14,932.70
15,659.04
15,597.65
571.21
664.94
3.79%
4.46%
[1]
Average
3,734.87
3,032.31
-702.57
-19.56%
7,987.60
-11,764.50
-59.56%
7,230.69
-11,471.66
-61.28%
15,520.31
432.47
2.87%
15,382.79
450.09
3.01%
-7,555.19
-12,189.24
-263.04%
-8,214.96
-11,949.83
-323.47%
7,955.73
-11,796.38
-59.72%
7,202.49
-11,499.86
-61.43%
15,527.12
439.29
2.91%
15,390.47
457.76
3.06%
-7,593.85
-12,227.91
-263.87%
-8,251.26
-11,986.13
-324.45%
Eastern European Sugar Production, Consumption and Net Imports
Scenario 1
Baseline
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 2
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 3
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Net Exports
11/12
4,634.06
4,078.36
-555.70
-11.99%
[1]
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Consumption
11/12
Average
4,356.21
4,346.01
4,427.71
4,421.47
71.50
75.46
1.64%
1.74%
Production
11/12
3,190.73
2,891.28
-299.45
-9.39%
Average
3,265.61
3,003.62
-261.98
-8.06%
2,936.56
-254.17
-7.97%
3,058.26
-207.34
-6.38%
4,427.18
70.96
1.63%
2,934.62
-256.11
-8.03%
3,056.39
-209.22
-6.44%
4,427.83
71.62
1.64%
Net Imports
11/12
1,187.31
1,553.21
365.89
30.82%
Average
1,091.26
1,454.06
362.80
33.14%
4,412.02
66.01
1.52%
1,510.27
322.95
27.20%
1,385.99
294.73
26.75%
4,412.67
66.65
1.53%
1,512.85
325.53
27.42%
1,388.67
297.41
27.00%
Eastern Europe represents the 11 East European countries prior to the EU Enlargement in 2004. The EU Enlargement is not incorporated into the model.
Japanese Sugar Production, Consumption and Net Imports
Scenario 1
Baseline
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 2
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 3
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Consumption
11/12
Average
2,432.89
2,383.36
2,478.30
2,453.02
45.41
69.66
1.87%
2.93%
Production
11/12
897.94
688.78
-209.16
-23.29%
Average
854.26
736.93
-117.33
-13.46%
146.32
-751.62
-83.71%
385.92
-468.34
-53.85%
2,466.63
33.74
1.39%
321.03
-576.91
-64.25%
514.23
-340.03
-39.06%
2,467.20
34.31
1.41%
Net Imports
11/12
1,535.03
1,788.59
253.57
16.52%
Average
1,531.41
1,719.17
187.77
12.27%
2,433.09
49.72
2.09%
2,319.58
784.55
51.11%
2,050.05
518.65
33.92%
2,433.79
50.43
2.12%
2,145.44
610.41
39.77%
1,922.46
391.05
25.57%
Note: Average is the average for 2002/03 to 2011/12.
Scenario 1 = Trade Liberalization; Scenario 2 = Trade Liberalization and Domestic Production Subsidy Reforms; Scenario 3 = Full Market Liberalization.
26
South Korean Sugar Production, Consumption and Net Imports
Scenario 1
Baseline
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 2
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 3
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
[2]
Production
11/12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00%
Average
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00%
[2]
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Consumption
11/12
Average
1,675.18
1,497.67
1,776.27
1,581.43
101.09
83.76
6.03%
5.56%
Net Imports
11/12
1,670.74
1,772.14
101.40
6.07%
Average
1,499.67
1,587.57
87.91
5.85%
0.00
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00%
1,763.90
88.72
5.30%
1,558.92
61.25
4.00%
1,760.50
89.76
5.37%
1,564.06
64.39
4.22%
0.00
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00%
1,765.39
90.21
5.38%
1,560.21
62.54
4.09%
1,761.98
91.23
5.46%
1,565.39
65.72
4.31%
South Korea does not produce sugar.
Turkish Sugar Production, Consumption and Net Imports
Scenario 1
Baseline
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 2
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 3
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Consumption
11/12
Average
2,395.14
2,215.55
2,445.07
2,258.36
49.93
42.81
2.08%
1.92%
Production
11/12
2,211.87
2,211.87
0.00
0.00%
Average
2,067.43
2,067.43
0.00
0.00%
Net Imports
11/12
184.90
237.71
52.82
28.57%
3,733.30
1,521.43
68.78%
2,780.43
713.00
33.17%
2,438.05
42.91
1.79%
2,245.98
30.43
1.36%
-1,289.85
-1,474.75
-797.60%
-532.89
-676.25
-259.02%
3,719.12
1,507.25
68.14%
2,768.22
700.79
32.59%
2,438.78
43.64
1.82%
2,246.65
31.10
1.39%
-1,274.93
-1,459.83
-789.53%
-519.94
-663.30
-250.17%
Average
143.36
194.29
50.93
42.91%
US Sugar Production, Consumption and Net Imports
Scenario 1
Baseline
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 2
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 3
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Average
7,965.40
7,688.57
-276.83
-3.46%
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Consumption
11/12
Average
10,975.62
10,258.58
11,049.92
10,394.51
74.30
135.93
0.68%
1.35%
Net Imports
11/12
3,132.43
3,339.86
207.43
6.62%
Average
2,423.20
3,043.80
620.61
29.62%
7,614.48
-368.86
-4.62%
7,482.78
-482.62
-6.06%
10,992.55
16.93
0.15%
10,306.18
47.60
0.47%
3,430.32
297.89
9.51%
2,941.35
518.16
22.58%
7,584.90
-398.44
-4.99%
7,454.10
-511.29
-6.42%
10,995.36
19.74
0.18%
10,309.33
50.75
0.50%
3,463.38
330.95
10.57%
2,974.49
551.29
24.00%
Production
11/12
7,983.34
7,921.85
-61.49
-0.77%
Note: Average is the average for 2002/03 to 2011/12.
Scenario 1 = Trade Liberalization; Scenario 2 = Trade Liberalization and Domestic Production Subsidy Reforms; Scenario 3 = Full Market Liberalization.
27
Table 4. Impact of Reforms on Moderately Distorted OECD Countries
Australian Sugar Production, Consumption and Net Exports
Scenario 1
Baseline
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 2
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 3
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Consumption
11/12
Average
1,116.69
1,074.69
1,095.17
1,052.37
-21.51
-22.32
-1.93%
-2.08%
Production
11/12
6,684.35
7,026.17
341.82
5.11%
Average
6,063.38
6,364.24
300.86
4.86%
7,340.35
656.00
9.81%
6,700.27
636.89
10.33%
1,063.43
-53.25
-4.77%
7,327.37
643.02
9.62%
6,688.85
625.47
10.14%
1,064.80
-51.88
-4.65%
Net Exports
11/12
5,568.31
5,930.74
362.43
6.51%
Average
4,989.95
5,318.02
328.07
6.46%
1,019.19
-55.50
-5.17%
6,273.27
704.96
12.66%
5,691.56
701.60
13.88%
1,020.50
-54.19
-5.05%
6,258.93
690.62
12.40%
5,678.64
688.69
13.62%
Net Imports
11/12
1,274.60
1,257.13
-17.46
-1.37%
Average
1,196.84
1,175.65
-21.19
-1.79%
Canadian Sugar Production, Consumption and Net Imports
Scenario 1
Baseline
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 2
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 3
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Production
11/12
116.95
117.82
0.87
0.74%
Average
116.21
117.11
0.90
0.77%
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Consumption
11/12
Average
1,385.97
1,309.39
1,369.16
1,289.63
-16.81
-19.76
-1.21%
-1.52%
119.46
2.51
2.15%
119.22
3.00
2.59%
1,333.65
-52.32
-3.78%
1,249.47
-59.92
-4.60%
1,220.58
-54.02
-4.24%
1,132.81
-64.03
-5.39%
119.39
2.44
2.09%
119.15
2.94
2.53%
1,335.37
-50.60
-3.65%
1,251.14
-58.25
-4.47%
1,222.37
-52.23
-4.10%
1,134.57
-62.27
-5.24%
Note: Average is the average for 2002/03 to 2011/12.
Scenario 1 = Trade Liberalization; Scenario 2 = Trade Liberalization and Domestic Production Subsidy Reforms; Scenario 3 = Full Market Liberalization.
28
Table 5. Impact of Reforms on Heavily Distorted Non-OECD Countries
Chinese Sugar Production, Consumption and Net Imports
Scenario 1
Baseline
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 2
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 3
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Production
11/12
8,980.43
9,244.23
263.79
2.94%
Average
8,375.08
8,733.96
358.88
4.31%
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Consumption
11/12
Average
11,149.15
9,834.95
10,964.54
9,493.71
-184.61
-341.24
-1.66%
-3.59%
9,769.23
788.79
8.78%
9,469.22
1,094.14
13.10%
10,389.91
-759.24
-6.81%
8,529.91
-1,305.04
-13.66%
624.47
-1,530.16
-71.02%
-965.58
-2,416.26
-182.19%
9,737.33
756.89
8.43%
9,437.40
1,062.32
12.72%
10,418.12
-731.03
-6.56%
8,563.96
-1,270.98
-13.31%
684.49
-1,470.15
-68.23%
-899.12
-2,349.79
-177.34%
Net Imports
11/12
2,154.64
1,711.10
-443.53
-20.58%
Average
1,450.67
746.37
-704.30
-53.24%
Former Soviet Union Sugar Production, Consumption and Net Imports
Scenario 1
Baseline
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 2
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 3
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Average
4,523.13
3,904.78
-618.35
-13.45%
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Consumption
11/12
Average
12,653.62
12,206.35
12,772.54
12,325.21
118.92
118.86
0.94%
0.97%
Net Imports
11/12
7,840.12
8,893.43
1,053.31
13.43%
Average
7,613.89
8,371.37
757.47
9.91%
4,821.15
101.73
2.16%
4,854.56
331.43
7.37%
12,668.91
15.29
0.12%
12,162.57
-43.78
-0.37%
7,766.81
-73.30
-0.93%
7,239.65
-374.24
-4.95%
4,780.52
61.09
1.29%
4,822.71
299.58
6.67%
12,674.00
20.37
0.16%
12,168.36
-37.99
-0.32%
7,812.47
-27.65
-0.35%
7,278.16
-335.73
-4.45%
Production
11/12
4,719.42
3,782.04
-937.38
-19.86%
Indian Sugar Production, Consumption and Net Exports
Scenario 1
Baseline
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 2
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 3
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Average
20,724.70
20,724.70
0.00
0.00%
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Consumption
11/12
Average
22,291.02
20,313.63
23,298.40
21,134.24
1,007.38
820.60
4.52%
4.01%
Net Exports
11/12
506.65
-526.08
-1,032.73
-203.84%
Average
697.32
-235.19
-932.51
-143.90%
22,094.60
-575.86
-2.54%
19,827.87
-896.82
-4.39%
22,487.96
196.95
0.88%
20,156.38
-157.25
-0.86%
-351.71
-858.35
-169.42%
-80.75
-778.07
-125.47%
22,069.97
-600.49
-2.65%
19,805.72
-918.98
-4.49%
22,538.27
247.25
1.11%
20,201.73
-111.91
-0.64%
-426.09
-932.74
-184.10%
-151.07
-848.39
-136.21%
Production
11/12
22,670.46
22,670.46
0.00
0.00%
Note: Average is the average for 2002/03 to 2011/12.
Scenario 1 = Trade Liberalization; Scenario 2 = Trade Liberalization and Domestic Production Subsidy Reforms; Scenario 3 = Full Market Liberalization.
29
Table 5. (continued)
Thai Sugar Production, Consumption and Net Exports
Scenario 1
Baseline
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 2
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 3
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Consumption
11/12
Average
2,401.24
2,090.00
2,525.48
2,188.66
124.24
98.66
5.17%
4.67%
Production
11/12
7,012.04
6,825.65
-186.40
-2.66%
Average
6,283.39
6,157.79
-125.60
-1.94%
6,961.40
-50.64
-0.72%
6,304.78
21.39
0.39%
2,428.27
27.03
1.13%
6,955.85
-56.19
-0.80%
6,299.81
16.42
0.31%
2,434.63
33.39
1.39%
Net Exports
11/12
4,606.68
4,297.23
-309.45
-6.72%
Average
4,179.72
3,952.38
-227.35
-5.33%
2,065.81
-24.19
-1.34%
4,526.95
-79.74
-1.73%
4,223.20
43.48
1.19%
2,071.65
-18.35
-1.06%
4,515.15
-91.53
-1.99%
4,212.42
32.70
0.93%
Note: Average is the average for 2002/03 to 2011/12.
Scenario 1 = Trade Liberalization; Scenario 2 = Trade Liberalization and Domestic Production Subsidy Reforms; Scenario 3 = Full Market Liberalization.
30
Table 6. Impact of Reforms on Moderately Distorted Non-OECD Countries
Algerian Sugar Production, Consumption and Net Imports
Scenario 1
Baseline
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 2
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 3
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Production
11/12
10.55
10.79
0.24
2.28%
Average
10.35
10.60
0.25
2.39%
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Consumption
11/12
Average
1,065.61
1,017.42
1,050.21
997.65
-15.40
-19.78
-1.45%
-1.96%
Net Imports
11/12
1,054.68
1,039.08
-15.60
-1.48%
Average
1,006.76
986.67
-20.09
-2.01%
11.26
0.71
6.70%
11.10
0.76
7.29%
1,022.05
-43.56
-4.09%
957.74
-59.69
-5.91%
1,010.56
-44.12
-4.18%
946.14
-60.62
-6.07%
11.24
0.69
6.51%
11.09
0.74
7.12%
1,023.44
-42.17
-3.96%
959.17
-58.25
-5.77%
1,011.96
-42.72
-4.05%
947.60
-59.16
-5.92%
Brazilian Sugar Production, Consumption and Net Exports
Scenario 1
Baseline
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 2
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 3
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Average
21,871.81
23,617.86
1,746.05
7.92%
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Consumption
11/12
Average
11,211.34
10,565.25
10,831.02
10,201.03
-380.32
-364.23
-3.39%
-3.46%
Net Exports
11/12
11,521.02
13,982.53
2,461.51
21.37%
Average
11,311.48
13,434.52
2,123.04
18.70%
26,796.25
4,067.30
17.89%
25,651.73
3,779.92
17.16%
10,238.31
-973.03
-8.68%
9,633.87
-931.38
-8.83%
16,551.51
5,030.49
43.66%
16,045.25
4,733.77
41.72%
26,713.48
3,984.52
17.53%
25,582.09
3,710.28
16.85%
10,265.28
-946.06
-8.44%
9,657.02
-908.23
-8.61%
16,441.72
4,920.70
42.71%
15,952.01
4,640.53
40.90%
Production
11/12
22,728.95
24,811.63
2,082.67
9.16%
Cuban Sugar Production, Consumption and Net Exports
Scenario 1
Baseline
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 2
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
Scenario 3
Reform
Change
% chg from baseline
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Consumption
11/12
Average
839.07
777.13
810.55
744.48
-28.52
-32.64
-3.40%
-4.24%
Production
11/12
4,797.62
5,258.59
460.97
9.61%
Average
4,024.91
4,269.67
244.76
5.73%
6,014.83
1,217.22
25.37%
4,722.58
697.67
16.43%
774.08
-64.99
-7.75%
5,986.63
1,189.02
24.78%
4,706.75
681.85
16.06%
525.84
-313.23
-37.33%
Net Exports
11/12
3,952.72
4,442.04
489.32
12.38%
Average
3,245.84
3,523.86
278.02
8.14%
693.96
-83.17
-10.84%
5,234.16
1,281.44
32.42%
4,028.13
782.29
23.01%
448.99
-328.14
-42.46%
5,452.49
1,499.77
37.94%
4,240.52
994.68
29.63%
Note: Average is the average for 2002/03 to 2011/12.
Scenario 1 = Trade Liberalization; Scenario 2 = Trade Liberalization and Domestic Production Subsidy Reforms; Scenario 3 = Full Market Liberalization.
31
Figure 1. Average Production Shares for Select Countries Under the
Three Reform Scenarios
Non-OECD
Moderately
Distorted
Percent
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
OECD Highly Distorted
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
ub
a
l
zi
C
B
ra
nd
ila
di
a
Th
a
In
U
FS
tr
al
A
us
Ea
Baseline
C
hi
na
ia
S
U
Ja
st
er
n
Eu
pa
e
n
OECD
Moderately
Distorted
ro
p
EU
Non-OECD Highly Distorted
Scenario 3
Note: Scenario 1 = Trade Liberalization; Scenario 2 = Trade Liberalization and Domestic Production Subsidy Reforms; Scenario 3 = Full Market
Liberalization
Figure 2. Average Trade Shares for Select Countries Under the Three
Reform Scenarios
Non-OECD
Moderately
Distorted
Percent
50
OECD
Moderately
Distorted
40
OECD Highly Distorted
30
Non-OECD Highly Distorted
20
10
0
-10
-20
Ea
Baseline
C
ub
a
zi
l
B
ra
Th
ai
la
nd
di
a
In
FS
U
C
hi
na
ia
A
us
tr
al
U
S
n
pa
Ja
pe
Eu
ro
st
er
n
EU
-30
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Note 1: Positive trade shares represent net export shares while negative trade shares represent net import shares.
Note 2: Scenario 1 = Trade Liberalization; Scenario 2 = Trade Liberalization and Domestic Production Subsidy Reforms; Scenario 3 = Full
Market Liberalization.
32
Appendix Tables
A:
Sugar Policies by Country
B1:
Impacts of Trade Liberalization Reform on Sugar Price and Trade
B2:
Impacts of Trade Liberalization Reform on Sugar Production and Consumption
C1:
Impacts of Trade Liberalization and Domestic Production Subsidy Reforms on Sugar
Price and Trade
C2:
Impacts of Trade Liberalization and Domestic Production Subsidy Reforms on Sugar
Production and Consumption
D1:
Impacts of Full Market Liberalization Reform on Sugar Price and Trade
D2:
Impacts of Full Market Liberalization Reform on Sugar Production and Consumption
E1:
Sensitivity Results for Scenario 1 with Elasticities Doubled
E2:
Sensitivity Results for Scenario 2 with Elasticities Doubled
E3:
Sensitivity Results for Scenario 3 with Elasticities Doubled
E4:
Sensitivity Results for Scenario 1 with Elasticities Halved
E5:
Sensitivity Results for Scenario 2 with Elasticities Halved
E6:
Sensitivity Results for Scenario 3 with Elasticities Halved
Table A. Sugar Policies by Country (1)
Country
Trade and Domestic Policies
Algeria
imposes a tariff rate of 15% on cane sugar and 5% on beet sugar.
Argentina
imposes a 20% tariff on sugar imports in addition to a variable duty of $60/ton on imports from Brazil. A 5% export tax is in place as well as a 4.05% export
rebate.
Australia
ended administered price arrangements in 1989 and removed import tariffs in 1997.
Brazil
imposes a 17.5% tariff on imports from non-MERCOSUL countries (Brazil has zero imports). Although high-cost growers in the Northeast region are to receive a
small subsidy (BRR 5.07/mt), this support has not been received for the past few years.
Canada
imposes a tariff on refined imports from MFNs equal to CAD $30.86/ton and on raw imports equal to CAD $22.07 to CAD $24.69/tonne (depending on the
polarization of sugar). Developing countries pay zero duty on raw sugar, and Australia and Cuba, from where the bulk of the raw sugar is imported, are exempt
from duty.
China
provides a 'guidance price' to sugar refiners to guide prices paid for sugarcane and sugar beet, but market forces largely determine prices. China has a TRQ of 1.64
million tons at a 20% in-quota rate and a 76% above-quota rate. The TRQ increases to 1.945 million tons by 2004 with an above-quota rate of 65%.
Colombia
Sugar imports from the Andean community are allowed duty free. The basic duty on raw and refined sugar imports from the non-Andean Community is 20%. In
addition, a variable surcharge is calculated based upon adjusted floor, ceiling, and reference prices. In 2002, the total effective duty (basic plus surcharge) on raw
sugar imports was $114/ton and on refined imports was $85/ton. Export subsidies of 2.5% of the f.o.b. value for centrifugal and panela sugar is received by
Colombian exporters. This is not provided for exports to the United States. Colombia sets guaranteed sugar prices close to the world price.
Cuba
imposes a tariff rate of 10% on raw and refined sugar. The sugar industry is under the control of the Cuban government(2). The domestic price of sugar is
subsidized by the Cuban government under a rationing system. A monthly allowance of 6 pounds of sugar is provided at 0.13¢/lb.
Eastern Europe
(Poland)(3)
imposes an in-quota tariff on sugar imports of 40% with a minimum of EUR 0.17/kg and an out-of-quota tariff rate of 96% with a minimum of EUR 0.43/kg.
Although minimum sugar prices are set by the government, Poland has not been able to enforce them.
Egypt
imposes a 5% import tariff on raw sugar and a 10% tariff on refined sugar. The government also establishes sugarcane and sugar beet prices (set in 2002 at LE
95/ton and LE 77/ton respectively). Sugar consumption is subsidized. 500,000 tons of white sugar is sold at 60 piasters/kg to ration card-holders while another
500,000 tons is sold at 130 piasters/kg. Non-rationed sugar is sold at LE 1.30/kg through government outlets while the retail price in private shops is between LE
1.6/kg and LE 2/kg (1 LE = 100 piasters).
European
Union
sets intervention prices for farmers and national aid for Italy, Portugal, and Spain. Export refunds are paid to exporters to cover the gap between the EU price and
the world price when sugar is sold from intervention stocks. Production quotas are used to limit the sugar eligible for support. The surplus of A and B production
above domestic consumption is exported with subsidy. C quota sugar must be exported at world prices. Sugar imported from ACP is re-exported with subsidy.
Production levies are applied to quota sugar production to cover export refunds (2% on A and B quotas and between 30% and 37.5% on B quota plus additional
levies to cover shortfalls in export refunds in the previous year). The import levy is a fixed duty plus a safeguard clause allowing variable additional duty. 1.3
million tons of white sugar equivalent preferential imports from ACP countries are at guaranteed prices and an additional 0.2-0.3 million tons at 85% of the
guaranteed price. The with-in quota rate is EUR 98/ton and out-of-quota rate is EUR339/ton. Everything-But-Arms is limited by quotas until 2009 when duty-free
access is allowed.
34
Table A: (continued)
Former Soviet
Union
(Russia)(4)
India
had a total TRQ of 3.65 million tons in 2002 (3.35 million tons for the first six months and 0.3 million tons for the remaining months). Seasonal tariffs are added
during periods of peak domestic production to protect producers and support prices. The in-quota tariff rate was 5% but no less than EUR 0.015/kg and the overquota rate was set at 40% for raw and white sugar but no less than EUR 0.12/kg for raw sugar and EUR 0.14/kg for white sugar. The over-quota seasonal rate was
50% but not less than EUR 0.15 /kg for raw sugar and EUR 0.18/kg for white sugar.
imposes an import duty of 60% plus INR 850/ton countervailing duty on raw sugar. National minimum support price for sugarcane (INR 620/ton in 2001/02) are
augmented by state governments by another 20% to 50%. Sugar millers and importers are required to sell portion of supplies to Public Distribution System at
below market prices for resale to low-income consumers (15% of production and imports). There is a transport subsidy to encourage exports (INR 140/ton in
2001/02).
Indonesia
imposes a tariff rate of 20% on raw cane sugar and 25% on be
e
ts
u
g
a
r
.Tos
uppor
tf
a
r
me
r
s
’i
nc
ome
s
,t
heg
ov
e
r
nme
nta
l
s
os
e
t
sas
ug
a
rf
l
oorpr
i
c
e(
IDR 2,600/kg in
2001/02).
Iran
imposes a tariff rate of 19% on sugar imports (5).
Japan
imposes a prohibitive duty on refined sugar of JPY 21.5/kg with an additional surcharge of JPY 53.88/kg. In 2001, the minimum producer price for sugar beet was
JPY 17,040/ton and JPY 20,370/ton for sugarcane. A target price is set for sugar refiners to allow them to pay the guaranteed price to farmers and a subsidy is
provided to the refiners to cover the difference between the domestic market price and the target price. The difference is made up by a subsidy provided by a
surcharge on imported sugar, other surcharges, and funds from Japan's national budget. The current subsidy for refiners is JPY 90 billion, 85% from surcharge on
raw sugar imports. In 2001, average import price was JPY 32,580/ton and the resale price was JPY 59,960/ton, implying a surcharge of JPY 27,380/ton. A
secondary surcharge is imposed on import companies that exceed their raw sugar import volume target (JPY 23,309/ton). The volume of target imports was 1.47
million metric tons. Japan does not impose import tariffs on raw sugar.
Malaysia
controls sugar imports through quota restrictions by licenses. The country imposes a 5% ad valorem rate on sugar imports as well as a specific tax of MYR
426.7/ton.Wholesale and retail sugar prices are controlled (MYR 1,345/ton for the wholesale price and MYR 1.4/kg for the retail price).
Mexico
imposes a duty of $0.3166/kg on U.S. sugar imports and $0.3958/kg on third-country imports. Every year the government announces the reference price for
standard sugar, which is used to calculate the price paid to sugarcane growers. Growers are given 57% of the wholesale reference price of a ton of standard sugar
(MX pesos 4,561.08/ton in 2001/02).
Morocco
imposes a 35% tariff rate on sugar imports plus a 0.25% parafiscal tax and 123% of the difference between a threshold price (MAD 3,500/ton) and the CIF price
(if the latter is less than the former). The country sets support prices for beet and cane with additional bonus for various regions (MAD 325/ton for sugar beet and
MAD 220/ton for sugarcane with additional bonus ranging between MAD 25/ton and MAD 55/ton). The government subsidies sugar consumption at the retail
level. In 2001, the government paid refineries a subsidy of MAD 2,000/ton.
Pakistan
imposes a 30% import tariff on raw and refined sugar. The country also sets a producer support price, although market prices are usually above support prices
(currently 50% above).
Philippines
has sugar imports duties set at 65%.
Peru
imposes a tariff rate of 25% and an additional duty based on the price band system used in Colombia. The domestic price is set by the market based on supply and
demand.
South Africa
imposes duties based on the difference between the world price and a set reference price. The duty was ZAR 784/ton in 2001 and ZAR 1312/ton in July 2002.
South Africa provides import access of sugar to Swaziland, Mozambique, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
35
Table A: (continued)
South Korea
imposes a 3% tariff on raw sugar and a temporary 50% tariff on refined sugar. The wholesale sugar price is controlled by the government.
Thailand
maintains high internal sugar prices using quotas and import tariffs. The country has a 65% in-quota tariff rate and a 99% out-of-quota tariff rate. The government
sets initial and final producer prices for sugarcane (THB 530/ton in 2002). If the final price is greater than the initial price, a supplement is paid to the growers; if
the final price is less than the initial price, the government compensates the mills for the difference.
imposes a 138% tariff rate on sugar imports but 110.45% of c.i.f. value for imports from the European Union. Turkey sets production quotas for refined beet sugar
and corn sweeteners and administered floor prices for sugar beet. Quota A is set for domestic consumption; B (2% of A quota) is set to meet emergency needs; C
sugar (produced in excess of A and B) is sold in the world market at prevailing prices below domestic prices as it cannot be sold domestically. Turkey sets a
support price for sugar beet (TRL 50,000/kg in marketing year 2002). Retail prices are determined by market forces.
Turkey
United States
Venezuela
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
has an MFN import duty of 0.625/lb (raw value) but most quota suppliers are exempt. The above-TRQ rate is 15.36¢/lb for raw sugar and 16.21¢/lb for refined
sugar (TRQ was 1.361 million tons in 2001 and 1.289 million tons in 2002). Under NAFTA, Mexico has duty-free access to the U.S. of up to 25,000 MTRV until
2008 when all imports from Mexico are duty free. Raw sugar over-quota tariff for Mexico is 9.07¢/lb, which drops about 1.5¢/lb each year to zero by 2008.
Sugarcane processors see a loan rate of $0.18/lb for raw cane sugar and $0.229/lb for refined beet sugar. Processors can forfeit sugar to the CCC if the minimum
selling price is less than the loan rate plus the interest rate. The minimum raw sugar market price to discourage forfeitures is 19.86¢/lb for raw cane sugar and
24.78¢/lb for refined beet sugar.
imposes a 15% tariff-rate (0% for the Andean Community) and an additional duty based on the price band system used in Colombia and Peru. Venezuela does not
provide producer support prices.
All policies are as of 2001/02.
The Cuban sugar industry is currently undergoing significant restructuring.
Poland is used to represent Eastern Europe as its production constitutes 60% of total sugar production in Eastern Europe.
Rus
s
i
ai
sus
e
dt
or
e
pr
e
s
e
ntt
heFo
r
me
rSov
i
e
tUni
o
na
si
ti
st
her
e
g
i
on’
sl
a
r
g
e
s
ti
mpor
t
e
r
.TheUk
r
a
i
nes
e
t
smi
ni
mumpur
c
ha
s
epr
i
c
e
sf
ors
ug
a
rbe
e
t
sa
ndr
e
f
i
ne
ds
ug
a
ra
tt
he
wholesale level. However, sugar prices are often below the mandated minimum.
Regional average.
36
Table B1: Impacts of Trade Liberalization Reform on Sugar Price and Trade
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
Net Exporters
Argentina
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
90
90
0.0
0.00%
114
110
-3.3
-2.91%
135
101
-34.2
-25.29%
136
67
-69.1
-50.75%
Australia
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
3,646
3,646
0.0
0.00%
4,007
4,065
58.0
1.45%
4,398
4,677
278.7
6.34%
4,811
5,152
340.4
7.08%
4,920
5,282
362.7
7.37%
5,025
5,402
376.9
7.50%
Brazil
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
9,500
9,500
0.0
0.00%
10,919
11,449
530.3
4.86%
11,147
12,878
1,731.4
15.53%
11,295
13,413
2,118.2
18.75%
11,243
13,519
2,275.7
20.24%
Colombia
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
920
920
0.0
0.00%
913
894
-18.5
-2.02%
913
835
-78.0
-8.54%
924
783
-141.1
-15.27%
Cuba
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
2,700
2,700
0.0
0.00%
2,625
2,683
58.7
2.23%
2,741
2,849
108.1
3.94%
European Union
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
1,850
1,850
0.0
0.00%
3,065
2,198
-867.1
-28.29%
3,170
2,288
-881.6
-27.81%
India
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
1,000
1,000
0.0
0.00%
1,067
558
-509.3
-47.74%
915
-85
-999.8
-109.25%
Mexico
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
530
530
0.0
0.00%
702
622
-80.4
-11.44%
819
735
-84.0
-10.25%
909
828
-81.0
-8.92%
Pakistan
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
-200
-200
0.0
0.00%
-288
-209
79.1
-27.50%
-416
-314
102.5
-24.62%
South Africa
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
1,230
1,230
0.0
0.00%
1,221
1,230
8.6
0.70%
Thailand
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
3,550
3,550
0.0
0.00%
Total Exports[2]
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Net Importers
Algeria
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Average
[1]
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
(Thousand Metric Tons)
143
134
123
56
38
22
-86.3
-96.0
-100.9
-60.47%
-71.62%
-82.11%
115
10
-104.7
-90.90%
105
-3
-108.6
-102.98%
95
-18
-113.0
-118.45%
88
-30
-117.4
-134.07%
118.83
35.48
-83.35
-73.96%
5,130
5,512
382.5
7.46%
5,238
5,616
378.5
7.23%
5,346
5,719
373.1
6.98%
5,456
5,824
367.5
6.73%
5,568
5,931
362.4
6.51%
4,989.95
5,318.02
328.07
6.46%
11,351
13,712
2,360.9
20.80%
11,401
13,812
2,411.4
21.15%
11,377
13,812
2,435.1
21.40%
11,406
13,854
2,448.1
21.46%
11,456
13,914
2,457.9
21.46%
11,521
13,983
2,461.5
21.37%
11,311.48
13,434.52
2,123.04
18.70%
936
752
-183.9
-19.64%
956
739
-216.7
-22.67%
972
732
-240.3
-24.72%
987
729
-257.6
-26.10%
1,006
733
-272.8
-27.12%
1,027
740
-286.7
-27.91%
1,050
750
-299.7
-28.55%
968.40
768.88
-199.52
-20.25%
2,863
3,018
154.9
5.41%
3,002
3,198
195.4
6.51%
3,145
3,398
253.2
8.05%
3,293
3,600
307.5
9.34%
3,449
3,807
358.4
10.39%
3,611
4,016
405.6
11.23%
3,778
4,227
449.2
11.89%
3,953
4,442
489.3
12.38%
3,245.84
3,523.86
278.02
8.14%
3,248
2,432
-816.0
-25.12%
3,385
2,660
-724.9
-21.42%
3,555
2,867
-688.4
-19.36%
3,753
3,086
-666.4
-17.76%
3,960
3,327
-632.9
-15.98%
4,177
3,570
-607.1
-14.53%
4,403
3,817
-585.8
-13.31%
4,634
4,078
-555.7
-11.99%
3,734.87
3,032.31
-702.57
-19.56%
784
728
-172
-264
-956.8
-991.3
-121.99% -136.24%
673
-290
-962.6
-143.03%
622
-317
-938.9
-150.98%
589
-369
-958.4
-162.69%
559
-415
-974.2
-174.33%
530
-471
-1,001.1
-188.94%
507
-526
-1,032.7
-203.84%
697.32
-235.19
-932.51
-143.90%
991
914
-76.9
-7.76%
1,076
1,001
-75.6
-7.02%
1,234
1,159
-75.8
-6.14%
1,386
1,311
-75.5
-5.45%
1,546
1,470
-75.6
-4.89%
1,707
1,631
-76.2
-4.46%
1,812
1,736
-75.9
-4.19%
1,218.33
1,140.65
-77.68
-7.05%
-459
-374
84.3
-18.37%
-457
-397
60.7
-13.28%
-445
-404
40.8
-9.16%
-431
-404
26.8
-6.24%
-415
-401
14.1
-3.40%
-405
-403
1.7
-0.42%
-401
-412
-10.8
2.69%
-404
-428
-23.8
5.88%
-412.19
-374.63
37.56
-9.44%
1,369
1,381
11.5
0.84%
1,440
1,445
4.6
0.32%
1,503
1,504
1.5
0.10%
1,551
1,554
3.0
0.19%
1,594
1,601
7.4
0.47%
1,634
1,646
12.8
0.78%
1,677
1,695
17.9
1.06%
1,718
1,741
22.1
1.29%
1,763
1,789
25.7
1.46%
1,547.00
1,558.50
11.50
0.72%
3,662
3,619
-42.5
-1.16%
3,816
3,690
-126.1
-3.31%
3,925
3,744
-180.8
-4.61%
4,042
3,819
-222.4
-5.50%
4,144
3,893
-250.9
-6.06%
4,241
3,973
-268.5
-6.33%
4,347
4,066
-281.2
-6.47%
4,452
4,161
-291.2
-6.54%
4,562
4,262
-300.4
-6.58%
4,607
4,297
-309.5
-6.72%
4,179.72
3,952.38
-227.35
-5.33%
25,316
25,316
0
0.00%
28,293
27,428
-865
-3.06%
29,423
29,434
11
0.04%
30,337
30,883
546
1.80%
30,892
31,705
813
2.63%
31,611
32,604
993
3.14%
32,366
33,497
1,131
3.50%
33,088
34,325
1,237
3.74%
33,893
35,218
1,325
3.91%
34,741
36,155
1,414
4.07%
35,508
37,005
1,497
4.22%
32,015.18
32,825.41
810.24
2.40%
940
940
0.0
0.00%
966
928
-37.4
-3.88%
974
952
-21.9
-2.25%
981
961
-20.3
-2.06%
990
971
-18.6
-1.88%
999
981
-18.3
-1.83%
1,009
991
-18.1
-1.79%
1,020
1,003
-17.5
-1.71%
1,031
1,014
-16.9
-1.64%
1,043
1,026
-16.2
-1.56%
1,055
1,039
-15.6
-1.48%
1,006.76
986.67
-20.09
-2.01%
37
Table B1: (continued)
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
Canada
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
1,094
1,094
0.0
0.00%
1,128
1,090
-37.6
-3.34%
1,144
1,121
-22.6
-1.97%
1,161
1,140
-21.0
-1.81%
China
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
1,177
1,177
0.0
0.00%
1,159
212
-946.6
-81.71%
1,201
169
-1,031.9
-85.93%
1,169
268
-901.4
-77.10%
1,203
423
-780.7
-64.87%
1,219
523
-696.5
-57.13%
Eastern Europe
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
1,029
1,029
0.0
0.00%
897
1,096
198.8
22.17%
966
1,307
340.5
35.23%
1,030
1,422
392.0
38.07%
1,067
1,469
401.9
37.67%
Egypt
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
745
745
0.0
0.00%
747
524
-222.9
-29.84%
752
600
-151.1
-20.11%
778
633
-144.3
-18.55%
Former Soviet Union
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
6,286
6,286
0.0
0.00%
7,565
7,656
91.3
1.21%
7,469
7,796
327.0
4.38%
Indonesia
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
1,600
1,600
0.0
0.00%
1,406
1,307
-98.6
-7.01%
Iran
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
1,200
1,200
0.0
0.00%
Japan
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Average
[1]
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
(Thousand Metric Tons)
1,169
1,185
1,201
1,150
1,166
1,181
-19.4
-19.2
-19.3
-1.66%
-1.62%
-1.61%
1,217
1,198
-18.8
-1.54%
1,235
1,216
-18.5
-1.49%
1,255
1,237
-17.9
-1.43%
1,275
1,257
-17.5
-1.37%
1,196.84
1,175.65
-21.19
-1.79%
1,310
672
-637.6
-48.68%
1,478
896
-581.7
-39.36%
1,690
1,155
-534.6
-31.64%
1,923
1,435
-488.5
-25.40%
2,155
1,711
-443.5
-20.58%
1,450.67
746.37
-704.30
-53.24%
1,106
1,506
399.3
36.10%
1,139
1,532
393.3
34.54%
1,160
1,545
385.7
33.26%
1,176
1,554
378.5
32.20%
1,185
1,558
372.2
31.39%
1,187
1,553
365.9
30.82%
1,091.26
1,454.06
362.80
33.14%
792
651
-140.9
-17.78%
819
678
-141.4
-17.26%
850
708
-142.4
-16.74%
876
734
-141.9
-16.20%
904
762
-141.9
-15.70%
933
793
-140.6
-15.07%
961
821
-140.4
-14.60%
841.22
690.44
-150.77
-18.19%
7,520
8,075
555.4
7.39%
7,471
8,197
726.2
9.72%
7,516
8,363
847.1
11.27%
7,600
8,530
929.5
12.23%
7,651
8,635
984.4
12.87%
7,716
8,735
1,019.1
13.21%
7,791
8,832
1,041.4
13.37%
7,840
8,893
1,053.3
13.43%
7,613.89
8,371.37
757.47
9.91%
1,789
1,685
-103.8
-5.80%
2,003
1,895
-108.6
-5.42%
2,133
2,000
-132.8
-6.23%
2,230
2,087
-143.9
-6.45%
2,320
2,165
-155.2
-6.69%
2,401
2,228
-172.8
-7.19%
2,486
2,297
-189.0
-7.60%
2,579
2,374
-204.8
-7.94%
2,680
2,456
-224.6
-8.38%
2,202.74
2,049.34
-153.40
-6.87%
1,304
1,256
-47.7
-3.66%
1,357
1,323
-34.3
-2.53%
1,419
1,387
-32.1
-2.26%
1,478
1,449
-28.2
-1.91%
1,540
1,514
-26.8
-1.74%
1,606
1,580
-26.1
-1.63%
1,672
1,648
-24.6
-1.47%
1,740
1,717
-23.4
-1.34%
1,810
1,788
-21.9
-1.21%
1,885
1,865
-20.3
-1.08%
1,581.21
1,552.66
-28.55
-1.88%
1,548
1,548
0.0
0.00%
1,553
1,642
88.8
5.72%
1,536
1,647
110.8
7.21%
1,529
1,672
143.4
9.38%
1,524
1,692
167.6
10.99%
1,524
1,716
191.9
12.60%
1,525
1,737
211.7
13.88%
1,527
1,752
225.8
14.79%
1,529
1,767
237.4
15.52%
1,532
1,779
246.7
16.10%
1,535
1,789
253.6
16.52%
1,531.41
1,719.17
187.77
12.27%
Malaysia
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
1,125
1,125
0.0
0.00%
1,051
1,016
-34.9
-3.32%
1,079
1,048
-31.6
-2.93%
1,113
1,078
-34.3
-3.08%
1,144
1,106
-38.6
-3.37%
1,185
1,144
-40.5
-3.42%
1,229
1,187
-41.9
-3.41%
1,272
1,228
-44.6
-3.51%
1,318
1,271
-47.1
-3.57%
1,365
1,316
-49.4
-3.62%
1,412
1,360
-52.6
-3.73%
1,216.80
1,175.24
-41.56
-3.40%
Morocco
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
455
455
0.0
0.00%
490
500
10.0
2.04%
504
519
14.2
2.81%
521
540
18.2
3.50%
534
543
8.7
1.63%
549
556
6.5
1.18%
565
570
5.9
1.04%
578
585
6.9
1.20%
592
600
7.7
1.31%
606
615
8.7
1.44%
619
629
9.7
1.56%
555.86
565.51
9.65
1.77%
Peru
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
70
70
0.0
0.00%
57
66
9.1
16.13%
34
66
31.4
91.60%
20
71
50.2
245.26%
8
0
71
72
62.4
71.3
736.45% 15833.03%
-4
74
77.5
-2004.37%
-7
75
82.2
-1206.55%
-8
-8
78
82
86.4
90.6
-1041.19% -1112.87%
-7
88
94.6
-1345.51%
8.61
74.18
65.56
1021.20%
Philippines
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
133
133
0.0
0.00%
181
210
28.4
15.70%
204
321
117.5
57.67%
214
436
222.0
103.88%
211
517
306.5
145.48%
214
596
381.6
178.07%
220
660
440.6
200.42%
224
711
487.2
217.68%
229
758
528.6
230.79%
233
799
565.4
242.26%
236
835
599.0
254.00%
216.54
584.23
367.68
164.59%
South Korea
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
1,225
1,225
0.0
0.00%
1,311
1,375
63.7
4.86%
1,352
1,434
81.8
6.05%
1,402
1,484
82.6
5.90%
1,439
1,526
86.6
6.02%
1,483
1,571
88.0
5.93%
1,528
1,617
89.4
5.85%
1,567
1,659
92.3
5.89%
1,604
1,699
95.1
5.93%
1,640
1,738
98.2
5.99%
1,671
1,772
101.4
6.07%
1,499.67
1,587.57
87.91
5.85%
38
Table B1: (continued)
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
Turkey
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
-300
-300
0.0
0.00%
43
97
53.9
124.66%
104
161
57.5
55.56%
United States
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
1,344
1,344
0.0
0.00%
1,616
2,723
1,106.7
68.46%
Venezuela
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
92
92
0.0
0.00%
Rest of World
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Total Imports[2]
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
05/06
06/07
Average
[1]
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
137
187
50.0
36.45%
(Thousand Metric Tons)
149
156
162
199
204
209
50.3
48.3
47.2
33.86%
30.96%
29.09%
165
213
48.7
29.56%
166
216
49.7
29.93%
167
218
51.0
30.47%
185
238
52.8
28.57%
143.36
194.29
50.93
42.91%
1,799
2,759
960.0
53.38%
1,966
2,910
944.3
48.03%
2,164
2,917
753.5
34.82%
2,397
3,021
623.7
26.02%
2,555
3,093
537.3
21.03%
2,707
3,146
439.0
16.22%
2,866
3,229
362.0
12.63%
3,028
3,300
272.1
8.99%
3,132
3,340
207.4
6.62%
2,423.20
3,043.80
620.61
29.62%
85
91
6.5
7.61%
106
128
21.8
20.60%
120
153
33.7
28.20%
124
168
43.9
35.37%
127
181
53.2
41.77%
129
190
61.5
47.71%
128
197
68.8
53.80%
126
202
75.5
59.86%
124
206
81.9
66.03%
121
208
87.5
72.32%
119.00
172.43
53.43
43.33%
4,152
4,152
0.0
0.00%
4,747
3,729
-1,017.7
-21.44%
4,937
4,301
-636.6
-12.89%
5,096
4,323
-772.3
-15.16%
5,133
4,295
-838.0
-16.32%
5,214
4,334
-879.5
-16.87%
5,288
4,379
-908.4
-17.18%
5,331
4,400
-930.6
-17.46%
5,380
4,428
-951.9
-17.69%
5,425
4,459
-966.1
-17.81%
5,455
4,469
-986.3
-18.08%
5,200.54
4,311.79
-888.75
-17.09%
25,316
25,316
0
0.00%
28,293
27,428
-865
-3.06%
29,423
29,434
11
0.04%
30,337
30,883
546
1.80%
30,892
31,705
813
2.63%
31,611
32,604
993
3.14%
32,366
33,497
1,131
3.50%
33,088
34,325
1,237
3.74%
33,893
35,218
1,325
3.91%
34,741
36,155
1,414
4.07%
35,508
37,005
1,497
4.22%
32,015.18
32,825.41
810.24
2.40%
Sugar Prices
FOB Caribbean Price
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
(U.S. Dollars per Metric Ton)
190
190
0.0
0.00%
186
280
94.0
50.56%
199
267
68.3
34.38%
199
264
65.4
32.92%
211
276
64.5
30.55%
215
279
64.5
30.04%
216
281
64.4
29.80%
222
287
64.3
28.90%
227
292
64.2
28.23%
232
296
63.6
27.43%
239
302
63.6
26.65%
214.61
282.31
67.69
31.95%
New York Spot
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
465
465
0.0
0.00%
458
302
-156.4
-34.13%
439
289
-149.7
-34.10%
427
286
-140.5
-32.92%
418
298
-120.5
-28.80%
409
301
-107.5
-26.31%
408
303
-105.3
-25.81%
407
309
-97.9
-24.09%
402
314
-88.6
-22.03%
396
318
-78.0
-19.71%
394
325
-69.9
-17.72%
415.78
304.35
-111.43
-26.56%
[1]
Average is the average for the period 2002/03 to 2011/12.
Total exports (imports) are computed by summing up all positive (negative) exports and negative (positive) imports and not by summing trade flows of net exporters (importers).
Scenario 1 = Trade Liberalization Reform
[2]
39
Table B2: Impacts of Trade Liberalization Reform on Sugar Production and Consumption
World
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Algeria
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Argentina
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Australia
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Brazil
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Canada
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
127
127
0.0
0.00%
134
134
0.0
-0.02%
136
138
1.7
1.27%
139
141
1.6
1.13%
141
143
1.4
1.01%
132
132
0.0
0.00%
135
134
-0.7
-0.54%
137
138
0.9
0.62%
139
140
1.0
0.71%
142
143
1.1
0.74%
10
10
0.0
0.00%
10
10
0.0
0.00%
10
10
0.3
2.70%
10
11
0.3
2.96%
950
950
0.0
0.00%
976
940
-36.7
-3.76%
985
963
-21.6
-2.19%
992
972
-19.9
-2.01%
1,000
982
-18.4
-1.84%
1,010
992
-18.0
-1.79%
1,540
1,540
0.0
0.00%
1,587
1,587
0.0
0.00%
1,622
1,620
-1.7
-0.11%
1,648
1,610
-37.6
-2.28%
1,667
1,613
-53.6
-3.21%
1,470
1,470
0.0
0.00%
1,472
1,475
2.6
0.18%
1,487
1,513
25.2
1.70%
1,509
1,537
28.2
1.87%
4,662
4,662
0.0
0.00%
5,035
5,035
0.0
0.00%
5,437
5,682
245.6
4.52%
1,020
1,020
0.0
0.00%
1,031
1,004
-26.6
-2.58%
18,500
18,500
0.0
0.00%
Average
[1]
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
(Million Metric Tons)
144
146
145
147
1.3
1.3
0.92%
0.88%
148
150
1.2
0.83%
151
152
1.2
0.78%
153
155
1.2
0.75%
156
157
1.1
0.72%
144.82
146.02
1.20
0.83%
146
147
1.0
0.71%
149
150
1.0
0.70%
151
152
1.0
0.69%
154
155
1.1
0.68%
156
157
0.8
0.54%
145.25
146.08
0.82
0.56%
(Thousand Metric Tons)
10
10
10
11
11
11
0.3
0.3
0.3
2.95%
2.82%
2.70%
10
11
0.3
2.61%
10
11
0.3
2.51%
11
11
0.3
2.40%
11
11
0.2
2.28%
10.35
10.60
0.25
2.39%
1,020
1,002
-17.9
-1.75%
1,031
1,014
-17.2
-1.67%
1,042
1,025
-16.7
-1.61%
1,053
1,037
-16.0
-1.52%
1,066
1,050
-15.4
-1.45%
1,017.42
997.65
-19.78
-1.96%
1,680
1,617
-63.4
-3.77%
1,691
1,623
-68.0
-4.02%
1,700
1,630
-70.3
-4.14%
1,710
1,637
-73.4
-4.29%
1,720
1,643
-76.2
-4.43%
1,729
1,649
-79.6
-4.60%
1,675.39
1,623.02
-52.37
-3.09%
1,526
1,556
29.9
1.96%
1,547
1,577
30.6
1.98%
1,569
1,600
31.1
1.99%
1,589
1,621
32.0
2.01%
1,610
1,643
32.7
2.03%
1,631
1,665
33.9
2.08%
1,652
1,686
34.6
2.09%
1,559.19
1,587.28
28.08
1.79%
5,862
6,175
313.1
5.34%
5,978
6,315
337.7
5.65%
6,093
6,447
353.5
5.80%
6,210
6,570
360.6
5.81%
6,327
6,684
357.3
5.65%
6,445
6,797
352.2
5.47%
6,564
6,911
346.8
5.28%
6,684
7,026
341.8
5.11%
6,063.38
6,364.24
300.86
4.86%
1,041
1,018
-22.5
-2.16%
1,053
1,030
-22.3
-2.12%
1,059
1,038
-21.7
-2.04%
1,069
1,047
-21.7
-2.03%
1,081
1,059
-21.9
-2.02%
1,090
1,068
-21.7
-2.00%
1,099
1,078
-21.7
-1.98%
1,108
1,087
-21.6
-1.95%
1,117
1,095
-21.5
-1.93%
1,074.69
1,052.37
-22.32
-2.08%
20,624
20,597
-26.6
-0.13%
21,077
22,453
1,375.8
6.53%
21,442
23,215
1,773.0
8.27%
21,591
23,531
1,939.1
8.98%
21,893
23,910
2,016.4
9.21%
22,118
24,175
2,056.9
9.30%
22,251
24,327
2,075.7
9.33%
22,415
24,496
2,081.6
9.29%
22,577
24,663
2,085.8
9.24%
22,729
24,812
2,082.7
9.16%
21,871.81
23,617.86
1,746.05
7.92%
9,450
9,450
0.0
0.00%
9,706
9,277
-428.8
-4.42%
9,936
9,592
-343.9
-3.46%
10,154
9,808
-345.7
-3.40%
10,355
10,016
-338.5
-3.27%
10,549
10,203
-346.0
-3.28%
10,723
10,367
-356.0
-3.32%
10,879
10,518
-360.9
-3.32%
11,014
10,646
-367.9
-3.34%
11,125
10,751
-374.1
-3.36%
11,211
10,831
-380.3
-3.39%
10,565.25
10,201.03
-364.23
-3.46%
115
115
0.0
0.00%
116
116
0.0
0.00%
116
117
1.5
1.28%
116
117
1.1
0.97%
116
117
1.0
0.84%
116
117
0.9
0.77%
116
117
0.9
0.78%
116
117
0.9
0.76%
116
117
0.9
0.78%
116
117
0.9
0.76%
117
118
0.9
0.74%
116.21
117.11
0.90
0.77%
1,240
1,240
0.0
0.00%
1,252
1,222
-29.8
-2.38%
1,259
1,238
-21.1
-1.67%
1,273
1,252
-20.4
-1.60%
1,280
1,262
-18.9
-1.48%
1,295
1,277
-18.7
-1.44%
1,311
1,293
-18.7
-1.42%
1,327
1,309
-18.1
-1.37%
1,345
1,327
-17.8
-1.32%
1,365
1,348
-17.3
-1.27%
1,386
1,369
-16.8
-1.21%
1,309.39
1,289.63
-19.76
-1.52%
144
145
1.0
0.72%
40
Table B2: (continued)
China
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Colombia
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Cuba
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Eastern Europe
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Egypt
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
European Union
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
7,623
7,623
0.0
0.00%
7,735
7,735
0.0
0.00%
7,824
8,432
607.7
7.77%
8,026
8,557
530.5
6.61%
8,800
8,800
0.0
0.00%
8,903
8,071
-832.6
-9.35%
9,046
8,612
-434.6
-4.80%
9,203
8,820
-382.6
-4.16%
9,396
9,072
-323.9
-3.45%
9,582
9,284
-297.7
-3.11%
2,265
2,265
0.0
0.00%
2,290
2,290
0.0
0.00%
2,309
2,272
-37.4
-1.62%
2,350
2,252
-98.5
-4.19%
2,382
2,242
-140.5
-5.90%
1,350
1,350
0.0
0.00%
1,378
1,395
16.9
1.23%
1,398
1,436
38.1
2.72%
1,425
1,467
41.3
2.90%
3,200
3,200
0.0
0.00%
3,329
3,329
0.0
0.00%
3,463
3,536
73.4
2.12%
700
700
0.0
0.00%
718
665
-52.5
-7.32%
3,188
3,188
0.0
0.00%
Average
[1]
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
(Thousand Metric Tons)
8,180
8,359
8,494
8,650
8,767
8,863
469.6
407.6
369.1
5.74%
4.88%
4.35%
8,593
8,934
340.8
3.97%
8,713
9,025
311.5
3.57%
8,846
9,135
288.4
3.26%
8,980
9,244
263.8
2.94%
8,375.08
8,733.96
358.88
4.31%
9,802
9,526
-275.2
-2.81%
10,075
9,827
-247.4
-2.46%
10,412
10,184
-228.4
-2.19%
10,782
10,576
-205.3
-1.90%
11,149
10,965
-184.6
-1.66%
9,834.95
9,493.71
-341.24
-3.59%
2,429
2,256
-173.0
-7.12%
2,472
2,276
-195.9
-7.92%
2,511
2,299
-212.5
-8.46%
2,555
2,328
-226.9
-8.88%
2,600
2,361
-239.7
-9.22%
2,646
2,394
-252.1
-9.53%
2,454.63
2,296.99
-157.64
-6.28%
1,447
1,489
42.5
2.94%
1,472
1,516
43.2
2.94%
1,499
1,543
44.1
2.94%
1,524
1,569
44.9
2.94%
1,549
1,595
45.6
2.94%
1,573
1,620
46.7
2.97%
1,597
1,644
47.3
2.96%
1,486.29
1,527.34
41.05
2.75%
3,608
3,731
122.8
3.40%
3,758
3,923
165.0
4.39%
3,918
4,141
222.9
5.69%
4,083
4,361
277.3
6.79%
4,253
4,581
328.7
7.73%
4,428
4,805
376.2
8.49%
4,610
5,031
420.5
9.12%
4,798
5,259
461.0
9.61%
4,024.91
4,269.67
244.76
5.73%
728
694
-33.9
-4.65%
744
712
-32.0
-4.30%
754
724
-30.5
-4.05%
769
738
-30.4
-3.95%
784
754
-30.3
-3.87%
798
768
-29.9
-3.74%
812
782
-29.5
-3.64%
826
797
-28.9
-3.50%
839
811
-28.5
-3.40%
777.13
744.48
-32.64
-4.24%
3,363
3,363
0.0
0.00%
3,326
3,148
-177.6
-5.34%
3,303
3,031
-272.3
-8.25%
3,285
2,977
-307.5
-9.36%
3,269
2,951
-317.7
-9.72%
3,253
2,935
-317.8
-9.77%
3,238
2,924
-314.1
-9.70%
3,222
2,913
-309.3
-9.60%
3,207
2,902
-304.1
-9.48%
3,191
2,891
-299.5
-9.39%
3,265.61
3,003.62
-261.98
-8.06%
4,217
4,217
0.0
0.00%
4,263
4,329
66.2
1.55%
4,295
4,375
80.0
1.86%
4,326
4,408
81.4
1.88%
4,347
4,425
78.3
1.80%
4,364
4,442
77.4
1.77%
4,377
4,454
77.0
1.76%
4,381
4,457
75.4
1.72%
4,379
4,454
74.2
1.69%
4,371
4,445
73.2
1.67%
4,356
4,428
71.5
1.64%
4,346.01
4,421.47
75.46
1.74%
1,375
1,375
0.0
0.00%
1,410
1,410
0.0
0.00%
1,437
1,437
0.0
0.00%
1,462
1,462
0.0
0.00%
1,487
1,487
0.0
0.00%
1,512
1,512
0.0
0.00%
1,537
1,537
0.0
0.00%
1,563
1,563
0.0
0.00%
1,589
1,589
0.0
0.00%
1,615
1,615
0.0
0.00%
1,642
1,642
0.0
0.00%
1,525.31
1,525.31
0.00
0.00%
2,080
2,080
0.0
0.00%
2,137
1,912
-225.9
-10.57%
2,177
2,025
-152.4
-7.00%
2,233
2,087
-145.2
-6.50%
2,277
2,135
-141.6
-6.22%
2,331
2,189
-142.1
-6.10%
2,389
2,246
-143.0
-5.99%
2,441
2,299
-142.5
-5.84%
2,496
2,354
-142.5
-5.71%
2,552
2,411
-141.1
-5.53%
2,608
2,467
-140.8
-5.40%
2,364.13
2,212.42
-151.71
-6.48%
16,178
16,178
0.0
0.00%
17,835
17,835
0.0
0.00%
18,013
18,013
0.0
0.00%
18,141
18,141
0.0
0.00%
18,318
18,318
0.0
0.00%
18,522
18,522
0.0
0.00%
18,746
18,746
0.0
0.00%
18,982
18,982
0.0
0.00%
19,229
19,229
0.0
0.00%
19,486
19,486
0.0
0.00%
19,752
19,752
0.0
0.00%
18,702.35
18,702.35
0.00
0.00%
14,700
14,700
0.0
0.00%
14,768
15,425
657.8
4.45%
14,815
15,563
748.1
5.05%
14,851
15,601
749.1
5.04%
14,888
15,593
705.5
4.74%
14,921
15,607
685.4
4.59%
14,950
15,620
670.0
4.48%
14,982
15,625
643.4
4.29%
15,015
15,635
619.9
4.13%
15,050
15,649
599.0
3.98%
15,088
15,659
571.2
3.79%
14,932.70
15,597.65
664.94
4.46%
41
Table B2: (continued)
Former Soviet Union
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
India
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Indonesia
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Iran
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Japan
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Malaysia
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
4,111
4,111
0.0
0.00%
4,250
4,250
0.0
0.00%
4,327
4,212
-115.9
-2.68%
4,412
4,037
-374.6
-8.49%
11,649
11,649
0.0
0.00%
11,819
11,870
51.6
0.44%
11,846
11,976
129.4
1.09%
11,985
12,118
133.3
1.11%
12,013
12,146
132.2
1.10%
12,124
12,254
129.3
1.07%
18,350
18,350
0.0
0.00%
18,801
18,801
0.0
0.00%
19,206
19,206
0.0
0.00%
19,641
19,641
0.0
0.00%
20,070
20,070
0.0
0.00%
18,000
18,000
0.0
0.00%
18,426
18,768
341.4
1.85%
18,795
19,514
718.7
3.82%
19,234
20,002
768.2
3.99%
1,700
1,700
0.0
0.00%
1,619
1,619
0.0
0.00%
1,593
1,620
26.6
1.67%
3,400
3,400
0.0
0.00%
3,481
3,406
-74.4
-2.14%
775
775
0.0
0.00%
Average
[1]
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
(Thousand Metric Tons)
4,462
4,529
4,580
3,893
3,823
3,781
-569.0
-706.5
-799.1
-12.75%
-15.60%
-17.45%
4,614
3,754
-859.8
-18.64%
4,650
3,751
-898.9
-19.33%
4,686
3,764
-922.3
-19.68%
4,719
3,782
-937.4
-19.86%
4,523.13
3,904.78
-618.35
-13.45%
12,256
12,383
126.5
1.03%
12,348
12,473
124.3
1.01%
12,453
12,575
122.1
0.98%
12,565
12,686
121.0
0.96%
12,654
12,773
118.9
0.94%
12,206.35
12,325.21
118.86
0.97%
20,507
20,507
0.0
0.00%
20,940
20,940
0.0
0.00%
21,371
21,371
0.0
0.00%
21,804
21,804
0.0
0.00%
22,237
22,237
0.0
0.00%
22,670
22,670
0.0
0.00%
20,724.70
20,724.70
0.00
0.00%
19,633
20,462
829.4
4.22%
20,065
20,918
853.1
4.25%
20,511
21,383
872.3
4.25%
20,947
21,854
906.4
4.33%
21,392
22,329
936.5
4.38%
21,842
22,815
972.6
4.45%
22,291
23,298
1,007.4
4.52%
20,313.63
21,134.24
820.60
4.01%
1,593
1,620
26.7
1.67%
1,617
1,642
25.8
1.59%
1,652
1,676
23.7
1.43%
1,694
1,717
22.5
1.33%
1,739
1,761
22.1
1.27%
1,788
1,809
21.4
1.20%
1,838
1,858
20.6
1.12%
1,889
1,908
19.6
1.04%
1,702.10
1,723.01
20.90
1.23%
3,569
3,498
-71.1
-1.99%
3,676
3,597
-79.3
-2.16%
3,788
3,687
-101.4
-2.68%
3,905
3,789
-116.4
-2.98%
4,031
3,900
-130.3
-3.23%
4,155
4,007
-148.0
-3.56%
4,288
4,122
-165.5
-3.86%
4,431
4,249
-182.7
-4.12%
4,585
4,382
-203.3
-4.43%
3,990.96
3,863.72
-127.24
-3.12%
742
742
0.0
0.00%
749
762
12.9
1.72%
759
772
13.3
1.75%
768
781
12.7
1.66%
779
791
11.7
1.50%
789
800
11.0
1.39%
799
809
10.5
1.31%
809
819
9.9
1.22%
819
828
9.3
1.14%
825
833
8.7
1.05%
783.70
793.70
9.99
1.27%
2,000
2,000
0.0
0.00%
2,057
2,022
-35.7
-1.74%
2,118
2,098
-19.8
-0.93%
2,187
2,168
-18.6
-0.85%
2,256
2,240
-16.1
-0.71%
2,329
2,313
-15.7
-0.68%
2,404
2,388
-15.7
-0.66%
2,480
2,465
-14.8
-0.60%
2,558
2,544
-14.2
-0.55%
2,638
2,625
-13.3
-0.50%
2,720
2,707
-12.4
-0.46%
2,374.63
2,356.98
-17.65
-0.77%
795
795
0.0
0.00%
803
803
0.0
0.00%
814
792
-22.2
-2.73%
827
770
-57.9
-6.99%
840
751
-88.4
-10.53%
852
735
-117.3
-13.77%
863
721
-141.7
-16.42%
873
711
-161.8
-18.53%
882
703
-179.6
-20.36%
891
695
-195.2
-21.92%
898
689
-209.2
-23.29%
854.26
736.93
-117.33
-13.46%
2,350
2,350
0.0
0.00%
2,341
2,423
81.4
3.48%
2,344
2,430
85.2
3.63%
2,354
2,439
84.3
3.58%
2,364
2,443
79.1
3.35%
2,376
2,451
75.0
3.16%
2,388
2,458
70.6
2.96%
2,400
2,464
64.8
2.70%
2,411
2,470
58.6
2.43%
2,423
2,475
52.3
2.16%
2,433
2,478
45.4
1.87%
2,383.36
2,453.02
69.66
2.93%
112
112
0.0
0.00%
116
116
0.0
0.00%
121
121
0.0
0.00%
125
125
0.0
0.00%
129
129
0.0
0.00%
132
132
0.0
0.00%
136
136
0.0
0.00%
140
140
0.0
0.00%
144
144
0.0
0.00%
149
149
0.0
0.00%
153
153
0.0
0.00%
134.52
134.52
0.00
0.00%
1,100
1,100
0.0
0.00%
1,145
1,111
-33.9
-2.96%
1,185
1,154
-31.3
-2.64%
1,227
1,193
-34.0
-2.77%
1,267
1,228
-38.2
-3.01%
1,313
1,273
-40.2
-3.06%
1,363
1,322
-41.7
-3.06%
1,412
1,368
-44.4
-3.14%
1,463
1,416
-46.9
-3.21%
1,515
1,466
-49.2
-3.25%
1,567
1,515
-52.5
-3.35%
1,345.74
1,304.52
-41.23
-3.05%
42
Table B2: (continued)
Mexico
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Morocco
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Pakistan
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Peru
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Philippines
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
South Africa
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
5,092
5,092
0.0
0.00%
5,277
5,277
0.0
0.00%
5,423
5,423
0.0
0.00%
4,543
4,543
0.0
0.00%
4,574
4,634
60.1
1.31%
545
545
0.0
0.00%
05/06
06/07
Average
[1]
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
5,560
5,560
0.0
0.00%
(Thousand Metric Tons)
5,690
5,817
6,037
5,690
5,817
6,037
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6,248
6,248
0.0
0.00%
6,467
6,467
0.0
0.00%
6,688
6,688
0.0
0.00%
6,850
6,850
0.0
0.00%
6,005.68
6,005.68
0.00
0.00%
4,607
4,678
71.3
1.55%
4,655
4,729
74.6
1.60%
4,705
4,779
73.7
1.57%
4,747
4,821
74.4
1.57%
4,810
4,886
75.8
1.58%
4,870
4,946
76.1
1.56%
4,931
5,007
76.5
1.55%
4,990
5,067
77.2
1.55%
5,047
5,124
76.9
1.52%
4,793.55
4,867.21
73.66
1.54%
537
537
0.0
0.00%
545
545
0.0
0.00%
553
553
0.0
0.00%
563
563
0.0
0.00%
572
572
0.0
0.00%
582
582
0.0
0.00%
592
592
0.0
0.00%
603
603
0.0
0.00%
613
613
0.0
0.00%
623
623
0.0
0.00%
578.34
578.34
0.00
0.00%
1,000
1,000
0.0
0.00%
1,028
1,039
10.2
0.99%
1,049
1,064
14.5
1.38%
1,074
1,093
18.6
1.73%
1,095
1,104
8.7
0.79%
1,120
1,126
6.4
0.57%
1,145
1,151
5.8
0.51%
1,168
1,175
6.9
0.59%
1,192
1,200
7.7
0.65%
1,217
1,225
8.8
0.72%
1,241
1,250
9.7
0.78%
1,132.94
1,142.67
9.72
0.87%
3,006
3,006
0.0
0.00%
2,994
2,994
0.0
0.00%
3,012
3,090
78.5
2.61%
3,051
3,117
65.5
2.15%
3,107
3,159
51.6
1.66%
3,174
3,207
33.7
1.06%
3,247
3,268
20.6
0.64%
3,326
3,338
11.7
0.35%
3,408
3,410
2.2
0.07%
3,492
3,486
-6.7
-0.19%
3,579
3,563
-15.9
-0.44%
3,238.97
3,263.10
24.13
0.79%
3,450
3,450
0.0
0.00%
3,478
3,397
-80.4
-2.31%
3,502
3,479
-23.7
-0.68%
3,539
3,520
-18.7
-0.53%
3,577
3,568
-8.9
-0.25%
3,625
3,618
-7.0
-0.19%
3,682
3,676
-6.2
-0.17%
3,745
3,743
-2.3
-0.06%
3,817
3,818
0.6
0.02%
3,898
3,902
4.2
0.11%
3,988
3,996
8.0
0.20%
3,685.28
3,671.85
-13.43
-0.39%
810
810
0.0
0.00%
840
840
0.0
0.00%
875
867
-8.4
-0.96%
907
882
-25.6
-2.82%
935
898
-37.2
-3.98%
964
918
-45.9
-4.76%
991
940
-51.9
-5.23%
1,018
961
-56.2
-5.52%
1,045
984
-60.2
-5.76%
1,072
1,008
-63.8
-5.95%
1,100
1,032
-67.6
-6.14%
974.77
933.10
-41.67
-4.11%
880
880
0.0
0.00%
897
906
8.8
0.98%
910
933
22.4
2.46%
929
953
24.3
2.62%
945
970
24.9
2.64%
966
991
25.2
2.61%
989
1,014
25.6
2.59%
1,012
1,038
25.9
2.56%
1,038
1,064
26.2
2.52%
1,065
1,092
26.7
2.51%
1,095
1,121
26.9
2.46%
984.67
1,008.36
23.69
2.39%
1,800
1,800
0.0
0.00%
1,789
1,789
0.0
0.00%
1,794
1,746
-48.0
-2.68%
1,818
1,674
-144.3
-7.94%
1,845
1,627
-218.7
-11.85%
1,874
1,585
-288.6
-15.40%
1,902
1,559
-343.0
-18.04%
1,929
1,545
-383.3
-19.87%
1,955
1,537
-418.7
-21.41%
1,982
1,533
-449.0
-22.65%
2,008
1,532
-475.9
-23.70%
1,889.67
1,612.72
-276.95
-14.35%
1,950
1,950
0.0
0.00%
1,984
2,014
30.3
1.53%
2,010
2,084
73.3
3.64%
2,042
2,123
80.2
3.92%
2,067
2,156
89.6
4.33%
2,096
2,191
94.4
4.50%
2,129
2,227
98.7
4.64%
2,159
2,264
105.1
4.87%
2,191
2,302
111.0
5.07%
2,222
2,340
117.6
5.29%
2,250
2,375
124.2
5.52%
2,115.09
2,207.52
92.43
4.33%
2,690
2,690
0.0
0.00%
2,940
2,940
0.0
0.00%
3,076
3,095
18.3
0.60%
3,167
3,174
6.5
0.21%
3,235
3,235
0.7
0.02%
3,291
3,292
0.7
0.02%
3,342
3,347
5.2
0.15%
3,389
3,400
10.8
0.32%
3,435
3,451
16.2
0.47%
3,480
3,501
20.8
0.60%
3,524
3,549
24.2
0.69%
3,288.02
3,298.37
10.36
0.31%
1,665
1,665
0.0
0.00%
1,685
1,683
-1.4
-0.08%
1,700
1,700
0.3
0.02%
1,718
1,718
0.2
0.01%
1,732
1,732
0.0
0.00%
1,732
1,732
-0.3
-0.02%
1,738
1,737
-0.5
-0.03%
1,745
1,744
-0.6
-0.04%
1,745
1,744
-0.7
-0.04%
1,746
1,745
-0.7
-0.04%
1,748
1,747
-0.8
-0.05%
1,728.80
1,728.34
-0.45
-0.03%
43
Table B2: (continued)
South Korea
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Thailand
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Turkey
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
United States
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Venezuela
Production
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 1
Change
% chg
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
0
0
0.0
0.00%
0
0
0.0
0.00%
0
0
0.0
0.00%
1,230
1,230
0.0
0.00%
1,293
1,346
52.4
4.06%
5,225
5,225
0.0
0.00%
05/06
06/07
Average
[1]
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
0
0
0.0
0.00%
(Thousand Metric Tons)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0
0
0.0
0.00%
0
0
0.0
0.00%
0
0
0.0
0.00%
0
0
0.0
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00%
1,342
1,414
71.9
5.36%
1,396
1,472
76.1
5.46%
1,437
1,518
81.4
5.66%
1,483
1,568
84.5
5.70%
1,530
1,617
87.3
5.71%
1,570
1,661
90.9
5.79%
1,608
1,702
94.2
5.86%
1,644
1,741
97.7
5.94%
1,675
1,776
101.1
6.03%
1,497.67
1,581.43
83.76
5.56%
5,505
5,505
0.0
0.00%
5,697
5,668
-29.6
-0.52%
5,866
5,783
-83.5
-1.42%
6,032
5,914
-117.2
-1.94%
6,199
6,053
-145.4
-2.35%
6,369
6,206
-162.9
-2.56%
6,541
6,370
-171.3
-2.62%
6,717
6,539
-177.6
-2.64%
6,895
6,713
-182.0
-2.64%
7,012
6,826
-186.4
-2.66%
6,283.39
6,157.79
-125.60
-1.94%
1,750
1,750
0.0
0.00%
1,807
1,841
34.8
1.92%
1,862
1,946
84.1
4.51%
1,922
2,013
90.4
4.70%
1,982
2,082
99.5
5.02%
2,047
2,149
102.7
5.02%
2,114
2,220
105.6
5.00%
2,183
2,294
110.7
5.07%
2,254
2,369
115.0
5.10%
2,327
2,446
119.6
5.14%
2,401
2,525
124.2
5.17%
2,090.00
2,188.66
98.66
4.67%
1,900
1,900
0.0
0.00%
1,964
1,964
0.0
0.00%
1,956
1,956
0.0
0.00%
1,975
1,975
0.0
0.00%
2,002
2,002
0.0
0.00%
2,038
2,038
0.0
0.00%
2,075
2,075
0.0
0.00%
2,112
2,112
0.0
0.00%
2,150
2,150
0.0
0.00%
2,190
2,190
0.0
0.00%
2,212
2,212
0.0
0.00%
2,067.43
2,067.43
0.00
0.00%
2,000
2,000
0.0
0.00%
2,041
2,069
28.4
1.39%
2,077
2,116
38.3
1.84%
2,117
2,157
40.0
1.89%
2,154
2,197
42.3
1.96%
2,194
2,237
43.4
1.98%
2,234
2,279
44.4
1.99%
2,274
2,320
45.8
2.01%
2,314
2,361
47.1
2.03%
2,355
2,403
48.5
2.06%
2,395
2,445
49.9
2.08%
2,215.55
2,258.36
42.81
1.92%
7,189
7,189
0.0
0.00%
7,924
7,924
0.0
0.00%
8,065
7,478
-587.7
-7.29%
8,034
7,441
-592.9
-7.38%
7,983
7,498
-485.0
-6.07%
7,942
7,580
-362.0
-4.56%
7,906
7,670
-236.1
-2.99%
7,917
7,729
-188.1
-2.38%
7,940
7,787
-153.2
-1.93%
7,958
7,856
-101.8
-1.28%
7,983
7,922
-61.5
-0.77%
7,965.40
7,688.57
-276.83
-3.46%
9,335
9,335
0.0
0.00%
9,469
9,673
204.2
2.16%
9,669
9,862
192.5
1.99%
9,853
10,031
177.9
1.81%
10,026
10,176
150.0
1.50%
10,203
10,335
131.7
1.29%
10,362
10,488
126.3
1.22%
10,517
10,632
114.6
1.09%
10,676
10,777
101.1
0.95%
10,834
10,921
86.6
0.80%
10,976
11,050
74.3
0.68%
10,258.58
10,394.51
135.93
1.35%
710
710
0.0
0.00%
711
711
0.0
0.00%
721
717
-3.7
-0.52%
731
718
-13.3
-1.82%
740
718
-22.4
-3.03%
748
717
-31.0
-4.15%
756
717
-38.7
-5.12%
763
718
-45.5
-5.97%
770
718
-51.8
-6.72%
776
719
-57.4
-7.40%
782
720
-62.7
-8.01%
749.92
717.25
-32.67
-4.27%
850
850
0.0
0.00%
856
863
7.0
0.82%
861
880
19.5
2.27%
868
890
21.4
2.47%
873
895
22.1
2.54%
879
901
22.6
2.57%
885
908
23.1
2.61%
889
912
23.5
2.65%
892
916
23.9
2.68%
896
920
24.6
2.74%
898
923
24.9
2.77%
879.56
900.83
21.28
2.41%
[1]
Average is the average for the period 2002/03 to 2011/12.
Scenario 1 = Trade Liberalization Reform
44
Table C1: Impacts of Trade Liberalization and Domestic Production Subsidy Reforms
on Sugar Price and Trade
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
Average[1]
(Thousand Metric Tons)
143
134
123
299
268
242
156.2
134.5
119.3
109.53%
100.38%
97.05%
115
223
107.8
93.60%
105
200
94.8
89.89%
95
177
81.5
85.40%
88
157
69.1
78.83%
118.83
245.60
126.77
104.55%
5,130
5,952
822.4
16.03%
5,238
6,033
795.0
15.18%
5,346
6,112
765.7
14.32%
5,456
6,190
733.3
13.44%
5,568
6,273
705.0
12.66%
4,989.95
5,691.56
701.60
13.88%
11,351
16,786
5,435.3
47.88%
11,401
16,811
5,409.9
47.45%
11,377
16,728
5,350.8
47.03%
11,406
16,674
5,267.9
46.19%
11,456
16,609
5,153.4
44.99%
11,521
16,552
5,030.5
43.66%
11,311.48
16,045.25
4,733.77
41.72%
936
1,046
110.1
11.76%
956
1,041
85.2
8.91%
972
1,033
60.9
6.27%
987
1,027
40.1
4.06%
1,006
1,024
18.4
1.83%
1,027
1,022
-4.7
-0.45%
1,050
1,022
-27.4
-2.61%
968.40
1,031.15
62.75
6.74%
2,863
3,338
474.9
16.59%
3,002
3,625
623.0
20.75%
3,145
3,912
767.5
24.40%
3,293
4,188
895.6
27.20%
3,449
4,461
1,012.0
29.34%
3,611
4,725
1,114.8
30.88%
3,778
4,982
1,203.7
31.86%
3,953
5,234
1,281.4
32.42%
3,245.84
4,028.13
782.29
23.01%
3,170
-7,758
-10,927.5
-344.76%
3,248
-8,894
-12,142.1
-373.78%
3,385
-9,165
-12,549.1
-370.77%
3,555
-9,124
-12,679.5
-356.63%
3,753
-8,934
-12,686.7
-338.09%
3,960
-8,649
-12,608.2
-318.42%
4,177
-8,306
-12,483.3
-298.87%
4,403
-7,944
-12,346.9
-280.45%
4,634
-7,555
-12,189.2
-263.04%
3,734.87
-8,214.96
-11,949.83
-323.47%
1,067
1,495
427.9
40.11%
915
78
-836.7
-91.43%
784
-19
-803.0
-102.38%
728
-279
-1,006.8
-138.37%
673
-352
-1,024.7
-152.27%
622
-338
-959.4
-154.29%
589
-342
-930.6
-157.97%
559
-351
-910.0
-162.82%
530
-349
-879.0
-165.90%
507
-352
-858.4
-169.42%
697.32
-80.75
-778.07
-125.47%
530
530
0.0
0.00%
702
669
-33.5
-4.76%
819
815
-4.6
-0.56%
909
298
-610.8
-67.21%
991
326
-665.5
-67.15%
1,076
414
-662.7
-61.56%
1,234
561
-673.1
-54.53%
1,386
721
-665.0
-47.97%
1,546
929
-616.9
-39.91%
1,707
1,127
-580.1
-33.98%
1,812
1,272
-539.4
-29.78%
1,218.33
713.16
-505.17
-40.74%
Pakistan
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
-200
-200
0.0
0.00%
-288
61
349.2
-121.35%
-416
170
586.5
-140.88%
-459
177
636.2
-138.67%
-457
198
654.9
-143.19%
-445
196
641.2
-144.00%
-431
190
621.0
-144.24%
-415
181
596.0
-143.45%
-405
161
566.0
-139.70%
-401
132
533.1
-132.89%
-404
95
499.4
-123.60%
-412.19
156.16
568.35
-137.20%
South Africa
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
1,230
1,230
0.0
0.00%
1,221
1,295
73.9
6.05%
1,369
1,520
150.6
11.00%
1,440
1,620
179.8
12.48%
1,503
1,707
203.9
13.57%
1,551
1,765
214.5
13.83%
1,594
1,814
220.2
13.82%
1,634
1,858
223.8
13.70%
1,677
1,900
223.4
13.32%
1,718
1,938
219.4
12.77%
1,763
1,977
213.8
12.13%
1,547.00
1,739.34
192.34
12.27%
Thailand
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
3,550
3,550
0.0
0.00%
3,662
3,825
163.8
4.47%
3,816
3,951
135.4
3.55%
3,925
4,052
126.6
3.23%
4,042
4,132
90.2
2.23%
4,144
4,198
53.7
1.30%
4,241
4,268
26.6
0.63%
4,347
4,347
0.1
0.00%
4,452
4,425
-27.8
-0.62%
4,562
4,508
-54.0
-1.18%
4,607
4,527
-79.7
-1.73%
4,179.72
4,223.20
43.48
1.19%
Total Exports[2]
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
25,316
25,316
0.0
0.00%
28,293
29,564
1,270.7
4.49%
29,423
33,369
3,945.4
13.41%
30,337
34,549
4,212.3
13.88%
30,892
35,726
4,834.4
15.65%
31,611
36,454
4,843.7
15.32%
32,366
36,913
4,547.2
14.05%
33,088
37,201
4,113.1
12.43%
33,893
37,492
3,599.1
10.62%
34,741
37,941
3,199.8
9.21%
35,508
38,416
2,907.8
8.19%
32,015.18
35,762.52
3,747.35
11.73%
Net Importers
Algeria
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
940
940
0.0
0.00%
966
855
-111.3
-11.53%
974
914
-60.0
-6.16%
981
912
-69.4
-7.08%
990
929
-61.2
-6.19%
999
942
-56.7
-5.68%
1,009
954
-55.0
-5.45%
1,020
967
-52.6
-5.16%
1,031
982
-49.2
-4.77%
1,043
996
-46.5
-4.46%
1,055
1,011
-44.1
-4.18%
1,006.76
946.14
-60.62
-6.07%
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
Net Exporters
Argentina
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
90
90
0.0
0.00%
114
247
133.6
117.49%
135
337
201.8
149.26%
136
305
169.1
124.11%
Australia
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
3,646
3,646
0.0
0.00%
4,007
4,145
138.5
3.46%
4,398
5,056
657.6
14.95%
4,811
5,559
747.9
15.55%
4,920
5,736
816.6
16.60%
5,025
5,859
834.1
16.60%
Brazil
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
9,500
9,500
0.0
0.00%
10,919
12,232
1,313.1
12.03%
11,147
15,359
4,212.2
37.79%
11,295
16,136
4,841.1
42.86%
11,243
16,567
5,323.6
47.35%
Colombia
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
920
920
0.0
0.00%
913
990
77.1
8.45%
913
1,059
145.9
15.98%
924
1,046
121.7
13.16%
Cuba
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
2,700
2,700
0.0
0.00%
2,625
2,752
127.3
4.85%
2,741
3,064
322.8
11.77%
European Union
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
1,850
1,850
0.0
0.00%
3,065
-5,821
-8,885.9
-289.90%
India
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
1,000
1,000
0.0
0.00%
Mexico
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
45
Table C1: (continued)
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
Average[1]
(Thousand Metric Tons)
1,169
1,185
1,201
1,107
1,124
1,141
-62.6
-60.3
-60.1
-5.36%
-5.09%
-5.00%
1,217
1,158
-58.7
-4.82%
1,235
1,178
-56.8
-4.60%
1,255
1,199
-55.5
-4.42%
1,275
1,221
-54.0
-4.24%
1,196.84
1,132.81
-64.03
-5.39%
1,310
-984
-2,293.6
-175.13%
1,478
-598
-2,075.8
-140.45%
1,690
-182
-1,871.8
-110.77%
1,923
233
-1,690.8
-87.91%
2,155
624
-1,530.2
-71.02%
1,450.67
-965.58
-2,416.26
-182.19%
1,106
1,433
326.4
29.51%
1,139
1,466
327.2
28.74%
1,160
1,485
325.4
28.07%
1,176
1,500
324.9
27.63%
1,185
1,510
324.2
27.35%
1,187
1,510
323.0
27.20%
1,091.26
1,385.99
294.73
26.75%
792
483
-308.9
-38.99%
819
510
-309.7
-37.80%
850
525
-325.3
-38.26%
876
532
-343.6
-39.22%
904
539
-364.4
-40.31%
933
541
-392.3
-42.04%
961
535
-426.4
-44.36%
841.22
487.17
-354.04
-42.23%
7,520
6,952
-568.0
-7.55%
7,471
6,938
-533.2
-7.14%
7,516
7,058
-458.2
-6.10%
7,600
7,220
-380.3
-5.00%
7,651
7,345
-305.7
-4.00%
7,716
7,489
-226.6
-2.94%
7,791
7,644
-147.4
-1.89%
7,840
7,767
-73.3
-0.93%
7,613.89
7,239.65
-374.24
-4.95%
1,789
1,052
-736.8
-41.18%
2,003
1,124
-879.4
-43.90%
2,133
1,095
-1,037.5
-48.64%
2,230
1,069
-1,161.3
-52.06%
2,320
1,057
-1,263.1
-54.45%
2,401
1,035
-1,365.9
-56.88%
2,486
1,009
-1,477.1
-59.42%
2,579
992
-1,586.6
-61.53%
2,680
977
-1,703.6
-63.56%
2,202.74
1,057.30
-1,145.44
-49.89%
1,304
1,150
-153.7
-11.79%
1,357
1,230
-127.3
-9.38%
1,419
1,281
-137.9
-9.72%
1,478
1,349
-128.6
-8.70%
1,540
1,418
-122.6
-7.96%
1,606
1,487
-119.6
-7.45%
1,672
1,557
-115.4
-6.90%
1,740
1,630
-110.3
-6.34%
1,810
1,704
-106.0
-5.86%
1,885
1,784
-101.6
-5.39%
1,581.21
1,458.90
-122.31
-7.95%
1,548
1,548
0.0
0.00%
1,553
1,597
43.8
2.82%
1,536
1,745
208.8
13.59%
1,529
1,870
341.5
22.34%
1,524
1,979
454.2
29.79%
1,524
2,072
548.4
35.99%
1,525
2,150
625.1
40.99%
1,527
2,212
685.2
44.88%
1,529
2,260
731.0
47.81%
1,532
2,296
763.9
49.86%
1,535
2,320
784.6
51.11%
1,531.41
2,050.05
518.65
33.92%
Malaysia
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
1,125
1,125
0.0
0.00%
1,051
951
-99.8
-9.50%
1,079
958
-121.8
-11.28%
1,113
980
-132.7
-11.92%
1,144
1,003
-142.0
-12.41%
1,185
1,037
-147.3
-12.43%
1,229
1,079
-150.2
-12.22%
1,272
1,119
-152.8
-12.01%
1,318
1,163
-155.1
-11.77%
1,365
1,208
-157.1
-11.51%
1,412
1,252
-159.9
-11.32%
1,216.80
1,074.94
-141.86
-11.64%
Morocco
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
455
455
0.0
0.00%
490
454
-35.3
-7.21%
504
451
-53.0
-10.51%
521
468
-53.2
-10.21%
534
476
-58.1
-10.88%
549
491
-58.3
-10.62%
565
507
-58.0
-10.27%
578
523
-55.1
-9.53%
592
539
-52.6
-8.90%
606
555
-50.5
-8.34%
619
566
-52.8
-8.53%
555.86
503.14
-52.71
-9.50%
Peru
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
70
70
0.0
0.00%
57
5
-51.6
-91.07%
34
-31
-65.6
-191.66%
20
-41
-61.3
-299.12%
8
-47
-55.8
-658.92%
0
-47
-47.1
-10455.46%
-4
-43
-39.5
1020.20%
-7
-40
-32.7
480.69%
-8
-34
-25.4
305.91%
-8
-26
-17.7
216.90%
-7
-17
-10.1
143.35%
8.61
-32.05
-40.67
-952.92%
#DIV/0!
Philippines
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
133
133
0.0
0.00%
181
71
-109.7
-60.55%
204
-15
-218.5
-107.26%
214
17
-196.8
-92.09%
211
32
-178.6
-84.80%
214
80
-134.6
-62.82%
220
131
-88.9
-40.44%
224
179
-44.9
-20.05%
229
232
2.8
1.22%
233
286
52.7
22.56%
236
339
102.7
43.57%
216.54
135.16
-81.38
-40.07%
South Korea
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
1,225
1,225
0.0
0.00%
1,311
1,326
14.5
1.11%
1,352
1,411
58.8
4.35%
1,402
1,450
48.7
3.48%
1,439
1,499
60.5
4.21%
1,483
1,549
65.9
4.44%
1,528
1,597
68.5
4.48%
1,567
1,640
73.5
4.69%
1,604
1,683
79.3
4.94%
1,640
1,724
84.4
5.14%
1,671
1,761
89.8
5.37%
1,499.67
1,564.06
64.39
4.22%
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
Canada
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
1,094
1,094
0.0
0.00%
1,128
1,028
-100.0
-8.86%
1,144
1,080
-63.3
-5.54%
1,161
1,092
-68.9
-5.94%
China
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
1,177
1,177
0.0
0.00%
1,159
-1,853
-3,011.4
-259.92%
1,201
-1,914
-3,114.5
-259.35%
1,169
-1,950
-3,119.1
-266.78%
1,203
-1,689
-2,892.8
-240.37%
1,219
-1,343
-2,562.5
-210.19%
Eastern Europe
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
1,029
1,029
0.0
0.00%
897
1,014
117.2
13.06%
966
1,224
257.4
26.63%
1,030
1,332
302.5
29.38%
1,067
1,386
319.2
29.92%
Egypt
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
745
745
0.0
0.00%
747
301
-445.9
-59.71%
752
455
-296.1
-39.40%
778
450
-327.9
-42.16%
Former Soviet Union
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
6,286
6,286
0.0
0.00%
7,565
7,086
-479.2
-6.33%
7,469
6,898
-570.5
-7.64%
Indonesia
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
1,600
1,600
0.0
0.00%
1,406
1,163
-243.0
-17.28%
Iran
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
1,200
1,200
0.0
0.00%
Japan
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
46
Table C1: (continued)
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
Average[1]
(Thousand Metric Tons)
149
156
162
-354
-624
-826
-503.0
-780.0
-988.0
-338.63%
-500.48%
-609.30%
165
-986
-1,150.9
-699.08%
166
-1,126
-1,292.3
-777.65%
167
-1,230
-1,397.5
-834.61%
185
-1,290
-1,474.7
-797.60%
143.36
-532.89
-676.25
-259.02%
2,555
3,141
585.6
22.92%
2,707
3,226
519.1
19.17%
2,866
3,321
454.5
15.85%
3,028
3,390
361.9
11.95%
3,132
3,430
297.9
9.51%
2,423.20
2,941.35
518.16
22.58%
127
69
-58.6
-46.06%
129
71
-57.8
-44.83%
128
72
-55.7
-43.50%
126
74
-52.1
-41.28%
124
76
-47.8
-38.56%
121
78
-42.9
-35.49%
119.00
66.27
-52.73
-44.66%
5,133
3,328
-1,805.3
-35.17%
5,214
3,377
-1,836.5
-35.22%
5,288
3,417
-1,870.3
-35.37%
5,331
3,459
-1,871.8
-35.11%
5,380
3,534
-1,845.5
-34.31%
5,425
3,594
-1,831.4
-33.76%
5,455
3,636
-1,819.2
-33.35%
5,200.54
3,365.42
-1,835.13
-35.39%
30,892
35,726
4,834.4
15.65%
31,611
36,454
4,843.7
15.32%
32,366
36,913
4,547.2
14.05%
33,088
37,201
4,113.1
12.43%
33,893
37,492
3,599.1
10.62%
34,741
37,941
3,199.8
9.21%
35,508
38,416
2,907.8
8.19%
32,015.18
35,762.52
3,747.35
11.73%
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
Turkey
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
-300
-300
0.0
0.00%
43
883
840.1
1944.11%
104
251
147.6
142.53%
137
-27
-163.8
-119.45%
United States
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
1,344
1,344
0.0
0.00%
1,616
1,803
186.9
11.56%
1,799
2,462
663.1
36.87%
1,966
2,677
710.7
36.15%
2,164
2,913
749.8
34.66%
2,397
3,049
652.1
27.20%
Venezuela
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
92
92
0.0
0.00%
85
38
-46.5
-54.77%
106
57
-49.0
-46.16%
120
62
-57.8
-48.36%
124
65
-59.1
-47.60%
Rest of World
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
4,152
4,152
0.0
0.00%
4,747
2,317
-2,430.1
-51.19%
4,937
3,722
-1,215.2
-24.61%
5,096
3,270
-1,825.9
-35.83%
Total Imports[2]
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
25,316
25,316
0.0
0.00%
28,293
29,564
1,270.7
4.49%
29,423
33,369
3,945.4
13.41%
30,337
34,549
4,212.3
13.88%
Sugar Prices
FOB Caribbean Price
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
(U.S. Dollars per Metric Ton)
190
190
0.0
0.00%
186
410
224.4
120.72%
199
334
135.3
68.06%
199
351
151.9
76.40%
211
351
139.6
66.08%
215
347
132.3
61.66%
216
346
129.7
59.99%
222
349
126.5
56.90%
227
349
121.4
53.39%
232
350
117.6
50.67%
239
353
114.5
47.94%
214.61
353.93
139.32
66.18%
New York Spot
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
465
465
0.0
0.00%
458
432
-26.0
-5.67%
439
356
-82.7
-18.84%
427
373
-54.1
-12.67%
418
373
-45.4
-10.86%
409
369
-39.6
-9.69%
408
368
-40.0
-9.82%
407
371
-35.7
-8.78%
402
371
-31.4
-7.80%
396
372
-24.1
-6.09%
394
375
-19.0
-4.83%
415.78
375.97
-39.80
-9.50%
[1]
Average is the average for the period 2002/03 to 2011/12.
Total exports (imports) are computed by summing up all positive (negative) exports and negative (positive) imports and not by summing trade flows of net exporters (importers).
Scenario 2 = Trade Liberalization and Domestic Production Subsidy Reforms
[2]
47
Table C2: Impacts of Trade Liberalization and Domestic Production Subsidy Reforms
on Sugar Production and Consumption
World
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Algeria
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Argentina
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Australia
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Brazil
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Canada
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
Average[1]
144
140
-3.4
-2.37%
146
143
-3.3
-2.29%
148
145
-3.2
-2.18%
151
148
-3.0
-1.97%
153
151
-2.9
-1.86%
156
153
-2.7
-1.76%
144.82
140.76
-4.06
-2.86%
144
140
-3.7
-2.54%
146
143
-3.5
-2.41%
149
145
-3.4
-2.26%
151
148
-3.1
-2.07%
154
151
-3.0
-1.92%
156
153
-3.0
-1.93%
145.25
141.21
-4.04
-2.82%
(Thousand Metric Tons)
10
10
10
11
11
11
0.9
0.9
0.9
9.23%
9.01%
8.53%
10
11
0.8
8.10%
10
11
0.8
7.67%
11
11
0.8
7.17%
11
11
0.7
6.70%
10.35
11.10
0.76
7.29%
1,020
966
-54.3
-5.32%
1,031
979
-51.9
-5.03%
1,042
993
-48.5
-4.66%
1,053
1,008
-45.9
-4.36%
1,066
1,022
-43.6
-4.09%
1,017.42
957.74
-59.69
-5.91%
1,680
1,764
83.7
4.98%
1,691
1,759
68.2
4.03%
1,700
1,760
59.7
3.51%
1,710
1,762
51.5
3.01%
1,720
1,761
41.0
2.38%
1,729
1,760
31.4
1.82%
1,675.39
1,744.81
69.43
4.16%
1,526
1,469
-57.5
-3.77%
1,547
1,494
-53.0
-3.43%
1,569
1,517
-51.8
-3.30%
1,589
1,540
-49.1
-3.09%
1,610
1,564
-45.4
-2.82%
1,631
1,588
-42.6
-2.61%
1,652
1,612
-39.9
-2.42%
1,559.19
1,502.34
-56.86
-3.69%
5,862
6,539
677.0
11.55%
5,978
6,733
755.6
12.64%
6,093
6,872
778.8
12.78%
6,210
6,980
770.2
12.40%
6,327
7,071
744.2
11.76%
6,445
7,161
716.4
11.12%
6,564
7,248
684.3
10.42%
6,684
7,340
656.0
9.81%
6,063.38
6,700.27
636.89
10.33%
1,041
986
-54.7
-5.26%
1,053
995
-57.2
-5.44%
1,059
1,004
-55.1
-5.20%
1,069
1,014
-54.5
-5.10%
1,081
1,026
-54.7
-5.06%
1,090
1,036
-54.4
-4.99%
1,099
1,045
-53.9
-4.91%
1,108
1,055
-53.6
-4.84%
1,117
1,063
-53.3
-4.77%
1,074.69
1,019.19
-55.50
-5.17%
20,624
20,607
-16.6
-0.08%
21,077
24,451
3,374.1
16.01%
21,442
25,348
3,906.0
18.22%
21,591
26,035
4,443.2
20.58%
21,893
26,446
4,552.5
20.79%
22,118
26,619
4,501.1
20.35%
22,251
26,680
4,428.3
19.90%
22,415
26,752
4,337.0
19.35%
22,577
26,783
4,206.2
18.63%
22,729
26,796
4,067.3
17.89%
21,871.81
25,651.73
3,779.92
17.16%
9,450
9,450
0.0
0.00%
9,706
8,682
-1,023.9
-10.55%
9,936
9,085
-851.0
-8.56%
10,154
9,235
-919.0
-9.05%
10,355
9,462
-892.8
-8.62%
10,549
9,650
-899.1
-8.52%
10,723
9,803
-920.3
-8.58%
10,879
9,947
-932.8
-8.57%
11,014
10,071
-943.3
-8.56%
11,125
10,167
-958.5
-8.62%
11,211
10,238
-973.0
-8.68%
10,565.25
9,633.87
-931.38
-8.83%
115
115
0.0
0.00%
116
116
0.0
0.00%
116
121
4.8
4.12%
116
120
3.8
3.25%
116
120
3.8
3.26%
116
120
3.4
2.96%
116
119
3.2
2.74%
116
119
3.0
2.58%
116
119
2.9
2.48%
116
119
2.7
2.31%
117
119
2.5
2.15%
116.21
119.22
3.00
2.59%
1,240
1,240
0.0
0.00%
1,252
1,173
-79.3
-6.33%
1,259
1,198
-60.7
-4.82%
1,273
1,208
-65.0
-5.11%
1,280
1,220
-60.2
-4.70%
1,295
1,237
-58.5
-4.51%
1,311
1,253
-58.0
-4.42%
1,327
1,270
-56.6
-4.27%
1,345
1,290
-55.0
-4.09%
1,365
1,311
-53.7
-3.93%
1,386
1,334
-52.3
-3.78%
1,309.39
1,249.47
-59.92
-4.60%
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
127
127
0.0
0.00%
134
123
-10.8
-8.09%
136
134
-2.6
-1.88%
139
134
-4.9
-3.52%
141
137
-3.8
-2.68%
132
132
0.0
0.00%
135
127
-8.2
-6.10%
137
133
-3.8
-2.76%
139
135
-4.7
-3.40%
142
138
-4.0
-2.84%
10
10
0.0
0.00%
10
10
0.0
0.00%
10
11
0.8
8.04%
10
11
0.9
8.44%
950
950
0.0
0.00%
976
867
-109.1
-11.17%
985
926
-59.1
-6.00%
992
923
-68.3
-6.89%
1,000
940
-60.3
-6.03%
1,010
954
-55.9
-5.54%
1,540
1,540
0.0
0.00%
1,587
1,587
0.0
0.00%
1,622
1,780
158.5
9.78%
1,648
1,747
99.0
6.01%
1,667
1,768
101.2
6.07%
1,470
1,470
0.0
0.00%
1,472
1,367
-105.5
-7.17%
1,487
1,431
-56.0
-3.77%
1,509
1,441
-67.7
-4.49%
4,662
4,662
0.0
0.00%
5,035
5,035
0.0
0.00%
5,437
6,023
586.3
10.78%
1,020
1,020
0.0
0.00%
1,031
967
-63.5
-6.16%
18,500
18,500
0.0
0.00%
(Million Metric Tons)
48
Table C2: (continued)
China
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Colombia
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Cuba
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Eastern Europe
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Egypt
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
European Union
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
Average[1]
(Thousand Metric Tons)
8,180
8,359
8,494
9,709
9,740
9,712
1,529.0
1,381.3
1,218.2
18.69%
16.52%
14.34%
8,593
9,685
1,092.3
12.71%
8,713
9,698
984.8
11.30%
8,846
9,726
879.6
9.94%
8,980
9,769
788.8
8.78%
8,375.08
9,469.22
1,094.14
13.10%
9,802
8,696
-1,105.9
-11.28%
10,075
9,066
-1,009.1
-10.02%
10,412
9,502
-910.7
-8.75%
10,782
9,950
-831.5
-7.71%
11,149
10,390
-759.2
-6.81%
9,834.95
8,529.91
-1,305.04
-13.66%
2,429
2,495
66.4
2.74%
2,472
2,515
43.4
1.76%
2,511
2,537
25.2
1.00%
2,555
2,563
7.4
0.29%
2,600
2,588
-12.7
-0.49%
2,646
2,614
-32.7
-1.24%
2,454.63
2,494.41
39.78
1.69%
1,447
1,422
-24.4
-1.69%
1,472
1,453
-19.8
-1.34%
1,499
1,481
-18.2
-1.22%
1,524
1,509
-15.5
-1.02%
1,549
1,537
-11.7
-0.76%
1,573
1,565
-8.7
-0.55%
1,597
1,591
-6.0
-0.37%
1,486.29
1,463.12
-23.17
-1.61%
3,608
3,989
380.6
10.55%
3,758
4,298
539.9
14.37%
3,918
4,608
690.0
17.61%
4,083
4,903
819.8
20.08%
4,253
5,191
938.6
22.07%
4,428
5,474
1,045.3
23.60%
4,610
5,747
1,137.1
24.66%
4,798
6,015
1,217.2
25.37%
4,024.91
4,722.58
697.67
16.43%
728
647
-80.7
-11.09%
744
651
-92.6
-12.44%
754
671
-83.3
-11.05%
769
690
-78.3
-10.18%
784
708
-76.5
-9.76%
798
724
-74.1
-9.29%
812
741
-70.3
-8.66%
826
758
-67.5
-8.17%
839
774
-65.0
-7.75%
777.13
693.96
-83.17
-10.84%
3,363
3,363
0.0
0.00%
3,326
3,221
-104.7
-3.15%
3,303
3,096
-206.8
-6.26%
3,285
3,050
-235.1
-7.16%
3,269
3,019
-249.6
-7.63%
3,253
2,997
-255.9
-7.86%
3,238
2,981
-256.6
-7.93%
3,222
2,967
-255.6
-7.93%
3,207
2,952
-255.0
-7.95%
3,191
2,937
-254.2
-7.97%
3,265.61
3,058.26
-207.34
-6.38%
4,217
4,217
0.0
0.00%
4,263
4,302
39.0
0.91%
4,295
4,365
70.4
1.64%
4,326
4,390
64.1
1.48%
4,347
4,413
66.6
1.53%
4,364
4,433
68.6
1.57%
4,377
4,446
69.4
1.58%
4,381
4,451
69.5
1.59%
4,379
4,450
70.5
1.61%
4,371
4,443
71.1
1.63%
4,356
4,427
71.0
1.63%
4,346.01
4,412.02
66.01
1.52%
1,375
1,375
0.0
0.00%
1,410
1,276
-133.5
-9.47%
1,437
1,398
-39.3
-2.73%
1,462
1,407
-55.2
-3.77%
1,487
1,445
-41.9
-2.82%
1,512
1,488
-23.7
-1.57%
1,537
1,534
-3.3
-0.22%
1,563
1,585
22.3
1.43%
1,589
1,645
56.1
3.53%
1,615
1,709
93.6
5.80%
1,642
1,777
135.7
8.27%
1,525.31
1,526.41
1.10
-0.16%
2,080
2,080
0.0
0.00%
2,137
1,550
-587.3
-27.48%
2,177
1,840
-337.8
-15.52%
2,233
1,847
-385.9
-17.28%
2,277
1,924
-352.6
-15.49%
2,331
1,996
-334.7
-14.36%
2,389
2,059
-329.8
-13.81%
2,441
2,119
-322.2
-13.20%
2,496
2,187
-309.0
-12.38%
2,552
2,253
-299.3
-11.73%
2,608
2,317
-291.2
-11.16%
2,364.13
2,009.15
-354.97
-15.24%
16,178
16,178
0.0
0.00%
17,835
9,248
-8,586.1
-48.14%
18,013
7,762
-10,250.8
-56.91%
18,141
6,533
-11,607.4
-63.98%
18,318
6,271
-12,046.5
-65.76%
18,522
6,340
-12,182.6
-65.77%
18,746
6,544
-12,202.2
-65.09%
18,982
6,836
-12,146.0
-63.99%
19,229
7,201
-12,028.3
-62.55%
19,486
7,584
-11,902.3
-61.08%
19,752
7,988
-11,764.5
-59.56%
18,702.35
7,230.69
-11,471.66
-61.28%
14,700
14,700
0.0
0.00%
14,768
14,995
227.4
1.54%
14,815
15,356
541.0
3.65%
14,851
15,336
484.6
3.26%
14,888
15,367
479.4
3.22%
14,921
15,405
484.0
3.24%
14,950
15,429
479.6
3.21%
14,982
15,446
464.7
3.10%
15,015
15,474
458.4
3.05%
15,050
15,499
449.3
2.99%
15,088
15,520
432.5
2.87%
14,932.70
15,382.79
450.09
3.01%
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
7,623
7,623
0.0
0.00%
7,735
7,640
-94.9
-1.23%
7,824
9,532
1,707.5
21.82%
8,026
9,481
1,454.9
18.13%
8,800
8,800
0.0
0.00%
8,903
6,171
-2,732.1
-30.69%
9,046
7,607
-1,439.3
-15.91%
9,203
7,553
-1,650.3
-17.93%
9,396
8,002
-1,394.3
-14.84%
9,582
8,363
-1,218.1
-12.71%
2,265
2,265
0.0
0.00%
2,290
2,290
0.0
0.00%
2,309
2,435
126.0
5.45%
2,350
2,438
88.1
3.75%
2,382
2,469
86.7
3.64%
1,350
1,350
0.0
0.00%
1,378
1,307
-70.5
-5.12%
1,398
1,375
-23.0
-1.64%
1,425
1,391
-33.9
-2.38%
3,200
3,200
0.0
0.00%
3,329
3,296
-32.9
-0.99%
3,463
3,704
241.0
6.96%
700
700
0.0
0.00%
718
574
-143.4
-19.97%
3,188
3,188
0.0
0.00%
49
Table C2: (continued)
Former Soviet Union
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
India
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Indonesia
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Iran
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Japan
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Malaysia
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
Average[1]
4,412
4,918
506.2
11.47%
(Thousand Metric Tons)
4,462
4,529
4,580
4,983
4,993
4,964
520.6
463.4
383.8
11.67%
10.23%
8.38%
4,614
4,926
312.7
6.78%
4,650
4,896
245.5
5.28%
4,686
4,858
172.3
3.68%
4,719
4,821
101.7
2.16%
4,523.13
4,854.56
331.43
7.37%
11,846
11,814
-32.2
-0.27%
11,985
11,914
-70.4
-0.59%
12,013
11,973
-40.4
-0.34%
12,124
12,101
-23.3
-0.19%
12,256
12,239
-16.9
-0.14%
12,348
12,339
-9.7
-0.08%
12,453
12,454
1.3
0.01%
12,565
12,574
9.2
0.07%
12,654
12,669
15.3
0.12%
12,206.35
12,162.57
-43.78
-0.37%
18,801
17,735
-1,066.5
-5.67%
19,206
18,327
-879.0
-4.58%
19,641
18,485
-1,155.8
-5.88%
20,070
18,989
-1,081.0
-5.39%
20,507
19,497
-1,009.6
-4.92%
20,940
20,001
-939.5
-4.49%
21,371
20,521
-850.5
-3.98%
21,804
21,054
-749.4
-3.44%
22,237
21,576
-661.1
-2.97%
22,670
22,095
-575.9
-2.54%
20,724.70
19,827.87
-896.82
-4.39%
18,000
18,000
0.0
0.00%
18,426
17,425
-1,001.7
-5.44%
18,795
18,591
-204.2
-1.09%
19,234
18,856
-378.3
-1.97%
19,633
19,445
-187.3
-0.95%
20,065
19,961
-104.3
-0.52%
20,511
20,435
-75.3
-0.37%
20,947
20,934
-12.7
-0.06%
21,392
21,457
65.2
0.30%
21,842
21,971
129.1
0.59%
22,291
22,488
196.9
0.88%
20,313.63
20,156.38
-157.25
-0.86%
1,700
1,700
0.0
0.00%
1,619
1,564
-54.2
-3.35%
1,593
2,148
555.0
34.84%
1,593
2,253
659.9
41.43%
1,617
2,424
807.5
49.95%
1,652
2,574
921.7
55.79%
1,694
2,702
1,008.1
59.50%
1,739
2,831
1,092.2
62.80%
1,788
2,976
1,188.7
66.49%
1,838
3,119
1,281.2
69.71%
1,889
3,266
1,377.5
72.93%
1,702.10
2,585.88
883.78
51.01%
3,400
3,400
0.0
0.00%
3,481
3,256
-224.3
-6.44%
3,569
3,386
-183.1
-5.13%
3,676
3,463
-213.8
-5.82%
3,788
3,560
-228.2
-6.02%
3,905
3,664
-240.8
-6.17%
4,031
3,774
-256.7
-6.37%
4,155
3,880
-274.5
-6.61%
4,288
3,998
-290.1
-6.77%
4,431
4,124
-307.3
-6.93%
4,585
4,258
-327.4
-7.14%
3,990.96
3,736.33
-254.63
-6.34%
775
775
0.0
0.00%
742
742
0.0
0.00%
749
790
41.6
5.56%
759
802
42.6
5.62%
768
814
46.3
6.02%
779
824
44.7
5.74%
789
831
42.1
5.34%
799
839
40.0
5.00%
809
847
37.8
4.67%
819
854
35.3
4.31%
825
858
32.7
3.97%
783.70
820.02
36.32
4.62%
2,000
2,000
0.0
0.00%
2,057
1,942
-115.2
-5.60%
2,118
2,036
-81.6
-3.86%
2,187
2,097
-90.2
-4.13%
2,256
2,173
-82.5
-3.66%
2,329
2,249
-80.0
-3.43%
2,404
2,324
-79.8
-3.32%
2,480
2,402
-78.1
-3.15%
2,558
2,482
-75.6
-2.96%
2,638
2,564
-73.9
-2.80%
2,720
2,648
-71.8
-2.64%
2,374.63
2,291.74
-82.88
-3.55%
795
795
0.0
0.00%
803
803
0.0
0.00%
814
674
-140.4
-17.25%
827
546
-281.9
-34.07%
840
443
-396.3
-47.19%
852
360
-492.2
-57.77%
863
291
-572.1
-66.30%
873
236
-636.8
-72.95%
882
195
-687.0
-77.88%
891
166
-725.0
-81.41%
898
146
-751.6
-83.71%
854.26
385.92
-468.34
-53.85%
2,350
2,350
0.0
0.00%
2,341
2,381
40.1
1.71%
2,344
2,409
64.6
2.76%
2,354
2,413
58.6
2.49%
2,364
2,421
57.6
2.44%
2,376
2,432
56.2
2.37%
2,388
2,441
53.3
2.23%
2,400
2,448
48.9
2.04%
2,411
2,456
44.6
1.85%
2,423
2,462
39.6
1.63%
2,433
2,467
33.7
1.39%
2,383.36
2,433.09
49.72
2.09%
112
112
0.0
0.00%
116
133
16.3
13.95%
121
171
50.6
41.93%
125
178
53.0
42.49%
129
188
59.9
46.59%
132
196
63.6
47.98%
136
201
64.2
47.08%
140
204
63.6
45.29%
144
208
63.2
43.76%
149
211
62.3
41.97%
153
214
61.4
40.19%
134.52
190.32
55.80
41.12%
1,100
1,100
0.0
0.00%
1,145
1,065
-80.2
-7.00%
1,185
1,115
-70.3
-5.93%
1,227
1,148
-78.6
-6.41%
1,267
1,185
-81.3
-6.42%
1,313
1,230
-83.3
-6.35%
1,363
1,278
-85.8
-6.29%
1,412
1,323
-89.2
-6.31%
1,463
1,371
-91.9
-6.28%
1,515
1,420
-94.8
-6.26%
1,567
1,468
-98.6
-6.29%
1,345.74
1,260.34
-85.40
-6.35%
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
4,111
4,111
0.0
0.00%
4,250
4,250
0.0
0.00%
4,327
4,936
608.1
14.05%
11,649
11,649
0.0
0.00%
11,819
11,548
-270.7
-2.29%
18,350
18,350
0.0
0.00%
05/06
06/07
50
Table C2: (continued)
Mexico
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Morocco
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Pakistan
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Peru
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Philippines
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
South Africa
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
Average[1]
(Thousand Metric Tons)
5,690
5,817
6,037
5,081
5,214
5,424
-608.6
-603.7
-613.0
-10.70%
-10.38%
-10.16%
6,248
5,645
-603.7
-9.66%
6,467
5,914
-553.1
-8.55%
6,688
6,174
-514.4
-7.69%
6,850
6,377
-472.3
-6.90%
6,005.68
5,559.28
-446.40
-7.29%
4,810
4,869
59.4
1.23%
4,870
4,931
61.1
1.26%
4,931
4,994
63.8
1.29%
4,990
5,056
66.0
1.32%
5,047
5,114
67.4
1.34%
4,793.55
4,849.27
55.72
1.16%
572
584
12.2
2.13%
582
593
11.3
1.93%
592
603
10.6
1.79%
603
613
10.8
1.78%
613
624
10.6
1.74%
623
634
10.6
1.70%
578.34
587.60
9.26
1.58%
1,095
1,049
-46.3
-4.23%
1,120
1,073
-46.6
-4.16%
1,145
1,098
-47.1
-4.12%
1,168
1,124
-44.7
-3.82%
1,192
1,150
-42.0
-3.52%
1,217
1,177
-39.9
-3.28%
1,241
1,203
-37.6
-3.03%
1,132.94
1,089.49
-43.45
-3.86%
3,051
3,416
364.9
11.96%
3,107
3,516
408.8
13.16%
3,174
3,577
403.1
12.70%
3,247
3,630
382.6
11.78%
3,326
3,689
362.9
10.91%
3,408
3,748
340.1
9.98%
3,492
3,805
312.3
8.94%
3,579
3,863
284.6
7.95%
3,238.97
3,559.56
320.59
9.89%
3,502
3,260
-242.2
-6.92%
3,539
3,266
-272.7
-7.70%
3,577
3,331
-246.3
-6.89%
3,625
3,387
-238.3
-6.57%
3,682
3,444
-238.7
-6.48%
3,745
3,512
-233.3
-6.23%
3,817
3,591
-226.0
-5.92%
3,898
3,677
-220.9
-5.67%
3,988
3,773
-214.8
-5.39%
3,685.28
3,436.47
-248.81
-6.80%
840
840
0.0
0.00%
875
923
47.4
5.42%
907
942
35.0
3.86%
935
971
36.0
3.85%
964
994
30.2
3.14%
991
1,015
23.6
2.38%
1,018
1,036
18.6
1.83%
1,045
1,058
13.9
1.33%
1,072
1,080
8.1
0.76%
1,100
1,102
2.4
0.22%
974.77
996.30
21.53
2.28%
880
880
0.0
0.00%
897
847
-49.9
-5.56%
910
891
-19.2
-2.11%
929
903
-26.3
-2.84%
945
925
-20.1
-2.13%
966
949
-17.1
-1.77%
989
973
-16.0
-1.62%
1,012
998
-14.2
-1.41%
1,038
1,026
-11.7
-1.13%
1,065
1,056
-9.7
-0.91%
1,095
1,087
-7.9
-0.72%
984.67
965.47
-19.20
-2.02%
1,800
1,800
0.0
0.00%
1,789
1,789
0.0
0.00%
1,794
1,980
185.3
10.33%
1,818
1,964
146.1
8.04%
1,845
1,993
147.2
7.98%
1,874
1,986
111.9
5.97%
1,902
1,971
69.4
3.65%
1,929
1,961
32.1
1.67%
1,955
1,948
-7.4
-0.38%
1,982
1,932
-50.3
-2.54%
2,008
1,915
-92.9
-4.62%
1,889.67
1,943.82
54.15
3.01%
1,950
1,950
0.0
0.00%
1,984
1,867
-116.9
-5.89%
2,010
1,978
-32.7
-1.63%
2,042
1,991
-51.6
-2.53%
2,067
2,036
-30.7
-1.49%
2,096
2,074
-21.9
-1.05%
2,129
2,110
-18.9
-0.89%
2,159
2,147
-12.1
-0.56%
2,191
2,188
-3.7
-0.17%
2,222
2,225
3.3
0.15%
2,250
2,261
10.8
0.48%
2,115.09
2,087.65
-27.44
-1.36%
2,690
2,690
0.0
0.00%
2,940
2,940
0.0
0.00%
3,076
3,234
157.8
5.13%
3,167
3,333
165.9
5.24%
3,235
3,431
196.9
6.09%
3,291
3,500
208.2
6.32%
3,342
3,554
212.2
6.35%
3,389
3,606
216.6
6.39%
3,435
3,653
218.0
6.35%
3,480
3,694
214.3
6.16%
3,524
3,733
208.5
5.92%
3,288.02
3,467.87
179.85
5.39%
1,665
1,665
0.0
0.00%
1,685
1,673
-12.0
-0.71%
1,700
1,693
-7.2
-0.43%
1,718
1,709
-8.8
-0.51%
1,732
1,724
-8.1
-0.47%
1,732
1,724
-7.9
-0.46%
1,738
1,730
-7.9
-0.46%
1,745
1,737
-7.8
-0.45%
1,745
1,738
-7.5
-0.43%
1,746
1,738
-7.2
-0.41%
1,748
1,741
-7.0
-0.40%
1,728.80
1,720.64
-8.15
-0.47%
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
5,092
5,092
0.0
0.00%
5,277
5,277
0.0
0.00%
5,423
5,485
61.9
1.14%
5,560
5,003
-556.9
-10.02%
4,543
4,543
0.0
0.00%
4,574
4,599
25.0
0.55%
4,607
4,661
54.6
1.18%
4,655
4,704
49.1
1.05%
4,705
4,759
53.6
1.14%
4,747
4,804
57.2
1.20%
545
545
0.0
0.00%
537
522
-14.8
-2.76%
545
562
17.1
3.14%
553
565
11.7
2.12%
563
575
12.5
2.22%
1,000
1,000
0.0
0.00%
1,028
977
-51.3
-4.98%
1,049
1,012
-36.9
-3.51%
1,074
1,032
-42.2
-3.93%
3,006
3,006
0.0
0.00%
2,994
2,994
0.0
0.00%
3,012
3,358
346.5
11.51%
3,450
3,450
0.0
0.00%
3,478
3,123
-355.0
-10.21%
810
810
0.0
0.00%
51
Table C2: (continued)
South Korea
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Thailand
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Turkey
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
United States
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Venezuela
Production
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 2
Change
% chg
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
Average[1]
0
0
0.0
0.00%
(Thousand Metric Tons)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0
0
0.0
0.00%
0
0
0.0
0.00%
0
0
0.0
0.00%
0
0
0.0
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00%
1,342
1,392
50.6
3.77%
1,396
1,440
44.3
3.17%
1,437
1,493
56.0
3.90%
1,483
1,546
62.4
4.21%
1,530
1,596
66.1
4.32%
1,570
1,641
71.5
4.56%
1,608
1,686
77.7
4.83%
1,644
1,727
83.2
5.06%
1,675
1,764
88.7
5.30%
1,497.67
1,558.92
61.25
4.00%
5,505
5,505
0.0
0.00%
5,697
5,812
114.3
2.01%
5,866
5,941
74.2
1.27%
6,032
6,100
68.0
1.13%
6,199
6,241
42.5
0.69%
6,369
6,386
17.7
0.28%
6,541
6,541
-0.3
0.00%
6,717
6,700
-17.3
-0.26%
6,895
6,861
-34.6
-0.50%
7,012
6,961
-50.6
-0.72%
6,283.39
6,304.78
21.39
0.39%
1,750
1,750
0.0
0.00%
1,807
1,673
-134.2
-7.43%
1,862
1,827
-35.3
-1.89%
1,922
1,865
-57.0
-2.97%
1,982
1,952
-30.1
-1.52%
2,047
2,028
-18.2
-0.89%
2,114
2,101
-13.7
-0.65%
2,183
2,179
-4.3
-0.20%
2,254
2,261
7.1
0.31%
2,327
2,343
16.7
0.72%
2,401
2,428
27.0
1.13%
2,090.00
2,065.81
-24.19
-1.34%
1,900
1,900
0.0
0.00%
1,964
1,134
-829.4
-42.23%
1,956
1,853
-102.6
-5.25%
1,975
2,169
193.7
9.81%
2,002
2,542
539.5
26.95%
2,038
2,856
817.3
40.09%
2,075
3,100
1,024.6
49.38%
2,112
3,301
1,189.9
56.35%
2,150
3,484
1,334.1
62.04%
2,190
3,631
1,441.4
65.83%
2,212
3,733
1,521.4
68.78%
2,067.43
2,780.43
713.00
33.17%
2,000
2,000
0.0
0.00%
2,041
2,046
5.6
0.28%
2,077
2,104
26.4
1.27%
2,117
2,140
22.8
1.08%
2,154
2,183
28.5
1.32%
2,194
2,225
31.4
1.43%
2,234
2,267
32.9
1.47%
2,274
2,309
35.3
1.55%
2,314
2,352
38.0
1.64%
2,355
2,395
40.4
1.72%
2,395
2,438
42.9
1.79%
2,215.55
2,245.98
30.43
1.36%
7,189
7,189
0.0
0.00%
7,924
7,924
0.0
0.00%
8,065
7,824
-240.9
-2.99%
8,034
7,204
-829.7
-10.33%
7,983
7,230
-753.4
-9.44%
7,942
7,296
-646.8
-8.14%
7,906
7,348
-558.6
-7.07%
7,917
7,386
-531.3
-6.71%
7,940
7,463
-477.1
-6.01%
7,958
7,538
-419.7
-5.27%
7,983
7,614
-368.9
-4.62%
7,965.40
7,482.78
-482.62
-6.06%
9,335
9,335
0.0
0.00%
9,469
9,504
34.5
0.36%
9,669
9,776
106.3
1.10%
9,853
9,921
68.1
0.69%
10,026
10,082
56.0
0.56%
10,203
10,251
47.8
0.47%
10,362
10,409
47.0
0.45%
10,517
10,557
40.5
0.38%
10,676
10,711
34.2
0.32%
10,834
10,859
24.7
0.23%
10,976
10,993
16.9
0.15%
10,258.58
10,306.18
47.60
0.47%
710
710
0.0
0.00%
711
711
0.0
0.00%
721
748
26.8
3.72%
731
760
29.0
3.96%
740
775
34.7
4.68%
748
785
36.4
4.86%
756
792
36.1
4.77%
763
798
35.2
4.61%
770
803
33.4
4.34%
776
807
30.5
3.93%
782
809
26.9
3.44%
749.92
778.81
28.89
3.83%
850
850
0.0
0.00%
856
805
-50.7
-5.92%
861
837
-23.2
-2.70%
868
838
-30.1
-3.46%
873
848
-24.8
-2.84%
879
856
-22.3
-2.54%
885
863
-21.7
-2.45%
889
868
-20.4
-2.30%
892
874
-18.5
-2.08%
896
879
-17.1
-1.91%
898
882
-15.8
-1.76%
879.56
855.09
-24.47
-2.80%
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
0
0
0.0
0.00%
0
0
0.0
0.00%
0
0
0.0
0.00%
1,230
1,230
0.0
0.00%
1,293
1,305
11.9
0.92%
5,225
5,225
0.0
0.00%
05/06
06/07
[1]
Average is the average for the period 2002/03 to 2011/12.
Scenario 2 = Trade Liberalization and Domestic Production Subsidy Reforms
52
Table D1: Impacts of Full Market Liberalization Reform on Sugar Price and Trade
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
Net Exporters
Argentina
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
90
90
0.0
0.00%
114
242
128.6
113.09%
135
329
193.9
143.39%
136
298
161.7
118.69%
Australia
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
3,646
3,646
0.0
0.00%
4,007
4,142
135.5
3.38%
4,398
5,043
644.3
14.65%
4,811
5,548
736.5
15.31%
4,920
5,722
802.8
16.32%
5,025
5,845
819.8
16.31%
Brazil
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
9,500
9,500
0.0
0.00%
10,919
12,204
1,284.9
11.77%
11,147
15,272
4,125.1
37.01%
11,295
16,056
4,761.1
42.15%
11,243
16,471
5,227.5
46.50%
Colombia
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
920
920
0.0
0.00%
913
986
73.6
8.06%
913
1,051
138.2
15.13%
924
1,038
113.6
12.29%
Cuba
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
2,700
2,700
0.0
0.00%
2,625
2,935
310.7
11.84%
2,741
3,256
515.4
18.80%
European Union
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
1,850
1,850
0.0
0.00%
3,065
-5,841
-8,906.6
-290.57%
India
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
1,000
1,000
0.0
0.00%
Mexico
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
[1]
Average
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
(Thousand Metric Tons)
143
134
123
291
260
234
148.0
126.1
110.7
103.76%
94.12%
90.03%
115
214
99.0
85.96%
105
191
85.9
81.47%
95
168
72.6
76.09%
88
148
60.0
68.53%
118.83
237.49
118.65
97.51%
5,130
5,938
807.6
15.74%
5,238
6,018
780.1
14.89%
5,346
6,097
750.9
14.04%
5,456
6,175
718.8
13.17%
5,568
6,259
690.6
12.40%
4,989.95
5,678.64
688.69
13.62%
11,351
16,686
5,335.0
47.00%
11,401
16,706
5,305.1
46.53%
11,377
16,621
5,243.4
46.09%
11,406
16,564
5,158.6
45.23%
11,456
16,500
5,043.8
44.03%
11,521
16,442
4,920.7
42.71%
11,311.48
15,952.01
4,640.53
40.90%
936
1,037
100.6
10.74%
956
1,031
75.0
7.84%
972
1,022
50.1
5.15%
987
1,016
28.7
2.91%
1,006
1,013
6.7
0.67%
1,027
1,010
-16.6
-1.62%
1,050
1,010
-39.6
-3.77%
968.40
1,021.43
53.03
5.74%
2,863
3,551
687.7
24.02%
3,002
3,845
842.7
28.07%
3,145
4,133
988.0
31.42%
3,293
4,408
1,115.4
33.87%
3,449
4,681
1,231.9
35.72%
3,611
4,944
1,333.6
36.94%
3,778
5,200
1,421.7
37.63%
3,953
5,452
1,499.8
37.94%
3,245.84
4,240.52
994.68
29.63%
3,170
-7,795
-10,964.4
-345.93%
3,248
-8,927
-12,175.3
-374.80%
3,385
-9,202
-12,587.0
-371.89%
3,555
-9,162
-12,717.8
-357.70%
3,753
-8,973
-12,725.9
-339.13%
3,960
-8,688
-12,647.8
-319.42%
4,177
-8,346
-12,522.8
-299.82%
4,403
-7,983
-12,385.8
-281.33%
4,634
-7,594
-12,227.9
-263.87%
3,734.87
-8,251.26
-11,986.13
-324.45%
1,067
1,422
354.7
33.25%
915
26
-889.4
-97.19%
784
-90
-873.9
-111.41%
728
-348
-1,075.7
-147.84%
673
-423
-1,096.3
-162.89%
622
-410
-1,031.9
-165.95%
589
-415
-1,004.0
-170.43%
559
-424
-983.1
-175.91%
530
-422
-951.7
-179.62%
507
-426
-932.7
-184.10%
697.32
-151.07
-848.39
-136.21%
530
530
0.0
0.00%
702
667
-35.2
-5.01%
819
771
-47.8
-5.83%
909
272
-636.7
-70.06%
991
291
-700.5
-70.68%
1,076
380
-696.8
-64.73%
1,234
526
-708.1
-57.36%
1,386
686
-700.1
-50.49%
1,546
894
-652.1
-42.19%
1,707
1,093
-614.6
-36.00%
1,812
1,238
-573.1
-31.64%
1,218.33
681.85
-536.48
-43.40%
Pakistan
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
-200
-200
0.0
0.00%
-288
52
339.3
-117.93%
-416
153
569.6
-136.82%
-459
159
618.2
-134.76%
-457
177
634.8
-138.80%
-445
175
620.0
-139.24%
-431
168
598.9
-139.10%
-415
158
573.3
-137.98%
-405
138
542.9
-133.99%
-401
109
509.9
-127.09%
-404
72
475.9
-117.79%
-412.19
136.09
548.28
-132.35%
South Africa
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
1,230
1,230
0.0
0.00%
1,221
1,292
71.5
5.86%
1,369
1,515
146.2
10.68%
1,440
1,615
174.7
12.13%
1,503
1,701
197.8
13.16%
1,551
1,759
207.8
13.40%
1,594
1,807
213.0
13.37%
1,634
1,850
216.3
13.24%
1,677
1,893
215.6
12.86%
1,718
1,930
211.5
12.31%
1,763
1,969
205.9
11.68%
1,547.00
1,733.03
186.03
11.87%
Thailand
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
3,550
3,550
0.0
0.00%
3,662
3,818
156.3
4.27%
3,816
3,943
127.0
3.33%
3,925
4,042
116.3
2.96%
4,042
4,121
79.3
1.96%
4,144
4,186
42.2
1.02%
4,241
4,256
14.8
0.35%
4,347
4,335
-11.9
-0.27%
4,452
4,413
-39.7
-0.89%
4,562
4,496
-65.8
-1.44%
4,607
4,515
-91.5
-1.99%
4,179.72
4,212.42
32.70
0.93%
Total Exports[2]
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
25,316
25,316
0
0.00%
28,293
29,534
1,241
4.39%
29,423
33,246
3,823
12.99%
30,337
34,512
4,175
13.76%
30,892
35,657
4,766
15.43%
31,611
36,380
4,769
15.09%
32,366
36,831
4,465
13.80%
33,088
37,117
4,028
12.17%
33,893
37,405
3,512
10.36%
34,741
37,916
3,175
9.14%
35,508
38,392
2,884
8.12%
32,015.18
35,699.10
3,683.93
11.53%
Net Importers
Algeria
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
940
940
0.0
0.00%
966
857
-108.6
-11.25%
974
915
-59.5
-6.10%
981
913
-67.8
-6.91%
990
930
-59.9
-6.05%
999
944
-55.3
-5.54%
1,009
956
-53.6
-5.31%
1,020
969
-51.2
-5.02%
1,031
983
-47.8
-4.64%
1,043
997
-45.2
-4.33%
1,055
1,012
-42.7
-4.05%
1,006.76
947.60
-59.16
-5.92%
53
Table D1: (continued)
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
Canada
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
1,094
1,094
0.0
0.00%
1,128
1,030
-97.7
-8.66%
1,144
1,081
-62.1
-5.43%
1,161
1,094
-67.1
-5.78%
China
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
1,177
1,177
0.0
0.00%
1,159
-1,774
-2,932.6
-253.11%
1,201
-1,855
-3,056.3
-254.50%
1,169
-1,880
-3,049.3
-260.81%
1,203
-1,619
-2,822.0
-234.49%
1,219
-1,273
-2,492.5
-204.44%
Eastern Europe
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
1,029
1,029
0.0
0.00%
897
1,017
120.2
13.40%
966
1,226
259.6
26.86%
1,030
1,335
305.2
29.65%
1,067
1,389
321.9
30.17%
Egypt
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
745
745
0.0
0.00%
747
177
-569.8
-76.30%
752
324
-427.4
-56.87%
778
324
-454.1
-58.40%
Former Soviet Union
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
6,286
6,286
0.0
0.00%
7,565
7,107
-458.4
-6.06%
7,469
6,925
-543.8
-7.28%
Indonesia
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
1,600
1,600
0.0
0.00%
1,406
1,170
-235.8
-16.77%
Iran
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
1,200
1,200
0.0
0.00%
Japan
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
[1]
Average
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
(Thousand Metric Tons)
1,169
1,185
1,201
1,109
1,126
1,142
-61.0
-58.6
-58.3
-5.21%
-4.95%
-4.86%
1,217
1,160
-56.9
-4.68%
1,235
1,180
-55.1
-4.46%
1,255
1,201
-53.7
-4.28%
1,275
1,222
-52.2
-4.10%
1,196.84
1,134.57
-62.27
-5.24%
1,310
-916
-2,225.9
-169.96%
1,478
-532
-2,010.2
-136.01%
1,690
-119
-1,808.7
-107.04%
1,923
293
-1,630.3
-84.76%
2,155
684
-1,470.1
-68.23%
1,450.67
-899.12
-2,349.79
-177.34%
1,106
1,435
329.2
29.76%
1,139
1,469
330.0
28.98%
1,160
1,488
328.2
28.30%
1,176
1,503
327.5
27.86%
1,185
1,512
326.8
27.57%
1,187
1,513
325.5
27.42%
1,091.26
1,388.67
297.41
27.00%
792
359
-433.2
-54.68%
819
389
-430.4
-52.54%
850
408
-442.3
-52.01%
876
420
-456.5
-52.11%
904
430
-473.4
-52.38%
933
436
-497.4
-53.30%
961
434
-527.2
-54.85%
841.22
370.04
-471.18
-56.34%
7,520
6,985
-534.9
-7.11%
7,471
6,976
-495.2
-6.63%
7,516
7,099
-417.0
-5.55%
7,600
7,263
-336.8
-4.43%
7,651
7,390
-260.7
-3.41%
7,716
7,535
-181.0
-2.35%
7,791
7,689
-101.8
-1.31%
7,840
7,812
-27.7
-0.35%
7,613.89
7,278.16
-335.73
-4.45%
1,789
1,069
-720.0
-40.25%
2,003
1,139
-863.9
-43.12%
2,133
1,114
-1,018.5
-47.75%
2,230
1,089
-1,141.0
-51.15%
2,320
1,079
-1,241.3
-53.51%
2,401
1,058
-1,342.7
-55.92%
2,486
1,033
-1,452.8
-58.44%
2,579
1,017
-1,561.5
-60.56%
2,680
1,003
-1,677.5
-62.59%
2,202.74
1,077.23
-1,125.51
-49.01%
1,304
1,154
-149.8
-11.49%
1,357
1,232
-124.5
-9.17%
1,419
1,285
-134.2
-9.46%
1,478
1,353
-124.9
-8.46%
1,540
1,422
-118.8
-7.71%
1,606
1,491
-115.8
-7.21%
1,672
1,561
-111.5
-6.67%
1,740
1,634
-106.4
-6.11%
1,810
1,708
-102.1
-5.64%
1,885
1,788
-97.6
-5.18%
1,581.21
1,462.67
-118.55
-7.71%
1,548
1,548
0.0
0.00%
1,553
1,599
45.4
2.92%
1,536
1,695
159.7
10.40%
1,529
1,782
252.6
16.52%
1,524
1,856
331.7
21.76%
1,524
1,927
403.0
26.45%
1,525
1,988
462.6
30.34%
1,527
2,037
510.5
33.44%
1,529
2,080
550.8
36.02%
1,532
2,116
583.9
38.11%
1,535
2,145
610.4
39.77%
1,531.41
1,922.46
391.05
25.57%
Malaysia
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
1,125
1,125
0.0
0.00%
1,051
953
-98.0
-9.33%
1,079
960
-119.4
-11.06%
1,113
983
-130.1
-11.69%
1,144
1,005
-139.2
-12.16%
1,185
1,040
-144.3
-12.18%
1,229
1,082
-147.1
-11.97%
1,272
1,123
-149.6
-11.76%
1,318
1,166
-151.8
-11.52%
1,365
1,211
-153.8
-11.27%
1,412
1,256
-156.5
-11.08%
1,216.80
1,077.81
-138.99
-11.40%
Morocco
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
455
455
0.0
0.00%
490
387
-102.7
-20.98%
504
374
-130.8
-25.92%
521
390
-131.4
-25.20%
534
395
-139.0
-26.02%
549
407
-142.3
-25.91%
565
420
-144.5
-25.60%
578
435
-143.3
-24.78%
592
449
-142.9
-24.15%
606
463
-142.8
-23.57%
619
460
-159.6
-25.78%
555.86
417.92
-137.93
-24.79%
Peru
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
70
70
0.0
0.00%
57
7
-49.4
-87.16%
34
-28
-62.3
-182.03%
20
-37
-57.6
-281.33%
8
-43
-51.8
-611.11%
0
-42
-42.8
-9500.16%
-4
-39
-34.9
903.38%
-7
-35
-28.1
411.84%
-8
-29
-20.6
247.83%
-8
-21
-12.8
156.71%
-7
-12
-5.0
71.84%
8.61
-27.90
-36.52
-887.02%
Philippines
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
133
133
0.0
0.00%
181
76
-104.6
-57.77%
204
-3
-206.8
-101.50%
214
30
-183.6
-85.93%
211
48
-162.8
-77.29%
214
97
-117.2
-54.69%
220
150
-70.1
-31.89%
224
199
-25.1
-11.20%
229
252
23.3
10.19%
233
307
73.6
31.54%
236
360
124.1
52.62%
216.54
151.62
-64.92
-32.59%
South Korea
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
1,225
1,225
0.0
0.00%
1,311
1,327
16.3
1.24%
1,352
1,412
59.3
4.39%
1,402
1,452
50.2
3.58%
1,439
1,501
61.7
4.29%
1,483
1,551
67.2
4.53%
1,528
1,598
69.9
4.57%
1,567
1,642
74.9
4.78%
1,604
1,685
80.7
5.03%
1,640
1,725
85.7
5.23%
1,671
1,762
91.2
5.46%
1,499.67
1,565.39
65.72
4.31%
54
Table D1: (continued)
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
Turkey
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
-300
-300
0.0
0.00%
43
885
841.6
1947.76%
104
267
163.1
157.44%
137
-16
-153.1
-111.68%
United States
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
1,344
1,344
0.0
0.00%
1,616
1,837
220.4
13.64%
1,799
2,484
685.5
38.11%
1,966
2,714
747.6
38.02%
2,164
2,947
783.0
36.19%
2,397
3,085
687.4
28.67%
Venezuela
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
92
92
0.0
0.00%
85
40
-44.6
-52.49%
106
59
-46.6
-43.92%
120
65
-54.7
-45.71%
124
69
-55.5
-44.71%
Rest of World
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
4,152
4,152
0.0
0.00%
4,747
2,369
-2,378.5
-50.10%
4,937
3,728
-1,209.6
-24.50%
5,096
3,306
-1,789.6
-35.12%
Total Imports[2]
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
25,316
25,316
0.0
0.00%
28,293
29,534
1,241.1
4.39%
29,423
33,246
3,823.0
12.99%
30,337
34,512
4,175.0
13.76%
[1]
Average
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
(Thousand Metric Tons)
149
156
162
-341
-610
-811
-489.2
-766.2
-973.6
-329.33%
-491.60% -600.42%
165
-972
-1,136.2
-690.13%
166
-1,111
-1,277.2
-768.61%
167
-1,215
-1,382.4
-825.62%
185
-1,275
-1,459.8
-789.53%
143.36
-519.94
-663.30
-250.17%
2,555
3,176
620.6
24.29%
2,707
3,261
554.0
20.46%
2,866
3,355
488.5
17.04%
3,028
3,423
394.9
13.04%
3,132
3,463
330.9
10.57%
2,423.20
2,974.49
551.29
24.00%
127
73
-54.6
-42.89%
129
76
-53.3
-41.40%
128
77
-50.9
-39.78%
126
79
-47.0
-37.28%
124
81
-42.5
-34.30%
121
84
-37.4
-30.92%
119.00
70.28
-48.71
-41.34%
5,133
3,357
-1,776.1
-34.60%
5,214
3,411
-1,802.9
-34.58%
5,288
3,452
-1,835.8
-34.72%
5,331
3,495
-1,835.9
-34.44%
5,380
3,570
-1,809.4
-33.63%
5,425
3,630
-1,794.9
-33.08%
5,455
3,674
-1,780.7
-32.64%
5,200.54
3,399.20
-1,801.34
-34.74%
30,892
35,657
4,765.8
15.43%
31,611
36,380
4,769.4
15.09%
32,366
36,831
4,465.2
13.80%
33,088
37,117
4,028.3
12.17%
33,893
37,405
3,512.2
10.36%
34,741
37,916
3,175.5
9.14%
35,508
38,392
2,883.9
8.12%
32,015.18
35,699.10
3,683.93
11.53%
Sugar Prices
FOB Caribbean Price
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
190
190
0.0
0.00%
186
406
219.7
118.16%
199
333
134.3
67.55%
199
348
149.1
74.98%
211
348
137.2
64.97%
215
344
129.9
60.50%
216
343
127.2
58.84%
222
346
124.0
55.77%
227
346
118.9
52.32%
232
347
115.2
49.64%
239
351
112.0
46.89%
214.61
351.36
136.74
64.96%
New York Spot
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
465
465
0.0
0.00%
458
428
-30.8
-6.71%
439
355
-83.7
-19.08%
427
370
-56.9
-13.33%
418
370
-47.8
-11.42%
409
367
-42.1
-10.30%
408
365
-42.5
-10.42%
407
368
-38.2
-9.39%
402
368
-33.8
-8.41%
396
369
-26.5
-6.69%
394
373
-21.5
-5.46%
415.78
373.40
-42.38
-10.12%
(U.S. Dollars per Metric Ton)
[1]
Average is the average for the period 2002/03 to 2011/12.
Total exports (imports) are computed by summing up all positive (negative) exports and negative (positive) imports and not by summing trade flows of net exporters (importers).
Scenario 3 = Full Market Liberalization Reform
[2]
55
Table D2: Impacts of Full Market Liberalization Reform on Sugar Production and
Consumption
World
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Algeria
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Argentina
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Australia
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Brazil
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Canada
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
127
127
0.0
0.00%
134
123
-10.8
-8.09%
136
133
-2.9
-2.15%
132
132
0.0
0.00%
135
127
-8.5
-6.27%
10
10
0.0
0.00%
05/06
06/07
[1]
Average
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
139
134
-5.1
-3.67%
(Million Metric Tons)
141
144
146
137
140
142
-4.0
-3.7
-3.6
-2.87%
-2.55%
-2.47%
148
145
-3.5
-2.35%
151
148
-3.2
-2.15%
153
150
-3.1
-2.04%
156
153
-3.0
-1.94%
144.82
140.52
-4.30
-3.03%
137
133
-4.1
-3.01%
139
134
-5.0
-3.59%
142
137
-4.3
-3.04%
146
142
-3.8
-2.60%
149
145
-3.6
-2.44%
151
148
-3.4
-2.24%
154
150
-3.2
-2.10%
156
153
-3.3
-2.10%
145.25
140.94
-4.31
-3.01%
10
10
0.0
0.00%
10
11
0.8
7.84%
10
11
0.8
8.29%
(Thousand Metric Tons)
10
10
10
11
11
11
0.9
0.9
0.9
9.05%
8.82%
8.33%
10
11
0.8
7.91%
10
11
0.8
7.47%
11
11
0.7
6.98%
11
11
0.7
6.51%
10.35
11.09
0.74
7.12%
950
950
0.0
0.00%
976
870
-106.4
-10.90%
985
926
-58.5
-5.94%
992
925
-66.7
-6.73%
1,000
941
-59.0
-5.90%
1,010
955
-54.5
-5.40%
1,020
967
-52.9
-5.18%
1,031
980
-50.5
-4.90%
1,042
994
-47.2
-4.53%
1,053
1,009
-44.6
-4.23%
1,066
1,023
-42.2
-3.96%
1,017.42
959.17
-58.25
-5.77%
1,540
1,540
0.0
0.00%
1,587
1,587
0.0
0.00%
1,622
1,774
152.7
9.42%
1,648
1,744
95.8
5.82%
1,667
1,763
96.6
5.80%
1,680
1,759
79.1
4.71%
1,691
1,755
63.5
3.75%
1,700
1,755
54.9
3.23%
1,710
1,757
46.6
2.72%
1,720
1,756
36.1
2.10%
1,729
1,756
26.6
1.54%
1,675.39
1,740.59
65.20
3.91%
1,470
1,470
0.0
0.00%
1,472
1,371
-101.6
-6.90%
1,487
1,434
-53.4
-3.59%
1,509
1,445
-63.9
-4.23%
1,526
1,472
-53.9
-3.53%
1,547
1,498
-49.2
-3.18%
1,569
1,521
-47.9
-3.06%
1,589
1,544
-45.2
-2.85%
1,610
1,568
-41.5
-2.58%
1,631
1,592
-38.7
-2.37%
1,652
1,616
-35.9
-2.17%
1,559.19
1,506.06
-53.13
-3.45%
4,662
4,662
0.0
0.00%
5,035
5,035
0.0
0.00%
5,437
6,010
573.9
10.56%
5,862
6,530
667.3
11.38%
5,978
6,721
743.3
12.43%
6,093
6,859
765.9
12.57%
6,210
6,966
756.7
12.19%
6,327
7,057
730.6
11.55%
6,445
7,148
702.9
10.91%
6,564
7,235
671.0
10.22%
6,684
7,327
643.0
9.62%
6,063.38
6,688.85
625.47
10.14%
1,020
1,020
0.0
0.00%
1,031
969
-62.2
-6.03%
1,041
987
-53.6
-5.15%
1,053
997
-55.9
-5.31%
1,059
1,005
-53.8
-5.08%
1,069
1,016
-53.2
-4.98%
1,081
1,027
-53.4
-4.94%
1,090
1,037
-53.0
-4.87%
1,099
1,047
-52.6
-4.78%
1,108
1,056
-52.3
-4.72%
1,117
1,065
-51.9
-4.65%
1,074.69
1,020.50
-54.19
-5.05%
18,500
18,500
0.0
0.00%
20,624
20,607
-16.6
-0.08%
21,077
24,379
3,301.4
15.66%
21,442
25,292
3,849.4
17.95%
21,591
25,960
4,368.5
20.23%
21,893
26,369
4,475.1
20.44%
22,118
26,538
4,420.0
19.98%
22,251
26,597
4,345.3
19.53%
22,415
26,667
4,252.7
18.97%
22,577
26,699
4,122.3
18.26%
22,729
26,713
3,984.5
17.53%
21,871.81
25,582.09
3,710.28
16.85%
9,450
9,450
0.0
0.00%
9,706
8,704
-1,002.2
-10.33%
9,936
9,102
-833.7
-8.39%
10,154
9,257
-897.0
-8.83%
10,355
9,484
-871.2
-8.41%
10,549
9,673
-876.3
-8.31%
10,723
9,826
-896.7
-8.36%
10,879
9,971
-908.3
-8.35%
11,014
10,096
-918.2
-8.34%
11,125
10,193
-932.7
-8.38%
11,211
10,265
-946.1
-8.44%
10,565.25
9,657.02
-908.23
-8.61%
115
115
0.0
0.00%
116
116
0.0
0.00%
116
121
4.7
4.03%
116
120
3.7
3.21%
116
120
3.7
3.19%
116
120
3.4
2.89%
116
119
3.1
2.68%
116
119
2.9
2.52%
116
119
2.8
2.42%
116
119
2.6
2.25%
117
119
2.4
2.09%
116.21
119.15
2.94
2.53%
1,240
1,240
0.0
0.00%
1,252
1,175
-77.5
-6.19%
1,259
1,199
-59.4
-4.72%
1,273
1,210
-63.2
-4.97%
1,280
1,222
-58.6
-4.58%
1,295
1,239
-56.8
-4.38%
1,311
1,255
-56.3
-4.29%
1,327
1,272
-54.9
-4.14%
1,345
1,292
-53.3
-3.96%
1,365
1,313
-52.0
-3.81%
1,386
1,335
-50.6
-3.65%
1,309.39
1,251.14
-58.25
-4.47%
144
140
-3.9
-2.73%
56
Table D2: (continued)
China
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Colombia
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Cuba
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Eastern Europe
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Egypt
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
European Union
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
7,623
7,623
0.0
0.00%
7,735
7,640
-94.9
-1.23%
7,824
9,485
1,660.8
21.23%
8,026
9,455
1,428.5
17.80%
8,800
8,800
0.0
0.00%
8,903
6,241
-2,662.7
-29.91%
9,046
7,622
-1,424.0
-15.74%
9,203
7,594
-1,608.9
-17.48%
9,396
8,035
-1,361.0
-14.48%
9,582
8,397
-1,184.3
-12.36%
2,265
2,265
0.0
0.00%
2,290
2,290
0.0
0.00%
2,309
2,429
120.0
5.20%
2,350
2,433
83.1
3.54%
2,382
2,462
80.0
3.36%
1,350
1,350
0.0
0.00%
1,378
1,310
-67.3
-4.89%
1,398
1,377
-21.1
-1.51%
1,425
1,395
-30.9
-2.16%
3,200
3,200
0.0
0.00%
3,329
3,296
-32.9
-0.99%
3,463
3,697
233.8
6.75%
700
700
0.0
0.00%
718
297
-421.0
-58.65%
3,188
3,188
0.0
0.00%
[1]
Average
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
(Thousand Metric Tons)
8,180
8,359
8,494
9,672
9,704
9,675
1,491.2
1,344.9
1,181.7
18.23%
16.09%
13.91%
8,593
9,650
1,057.1
12.30%
8,713
9,664
950.5
10.91%
8,846
9,693
846.5
9.57%
8,980
9,737
756.9
8.43%
8,375.08
9,437.40
1,062.32
12.72%
9,802
8,727
-1,074.3
-10.96%
10,075
9,097
-978.4
-9.71%
10,412
9,531
-881.6
-8.47%
10,782
9,978
-803.7
-7.45%
11,149
10,418
-731.0
-6.56%
9,834.95
8,563.96
-1,270.98
-13.31%
2,429
2,488
59.2
2.44%
2,472
2,508
35.5
1.44%
2,511
2,528
16.9
0.67%
2,555
2,554
-1.2
-0.05%
2,600
2,579
-21.6
-0.83%
2,646
2,605
-41.7
-1.58%
2,454.63
2,487.66
33.03
1.42%
1,447
1,425
-21.6
-1.49%
1,472
1,456
-16.8
-1.14%
1,499
1,484
-15.2
-1.01%
1,524
1,512
-12.5
-0.82%
1,549
1,540
-8.6
-0.56%
1,573
1,568
-5.6
-0.36%
1,597
1,594
-2.7
-0.17%
1,486.29
1,466.06
-20.23
-1.41%
3,608
3,981
372.4
10.32%
3,758
4,286
527.9
14.05%
3,918
4,593
675.2
17.23%
4,083
4,885
802.0
19.64%
4,253
5,171
918.0
21.59%
4,428
5,450
1,021.9
23.08%
4,610
5,721
1,111.2
24.10%
4,798
5,987
1,189.0
24.78%
4,024.91
4,706.75
681.85
16.06%
728
417
-311.2
-42.76%
744
411
-333.0
-44.76%
754
429
-325.3
-43.13%
769
451
-318.1
-41.38%
784
468
-316.4
-40.35%
798
481
-316.8
-39.71%
812
498
-313.8
-38.66%
826
513
-312.4
-37.83%
839
526
-313.2
-37.33%
777.13
448.99
-328.14
-42.46%
3,363
3,363
0.0
0.00%
3,326
3,219
-107.3
-3.23%
3,303
3,095
-208.4
-6.31%
3,285
3,048
-237.3
-7.22%
3,269
3,017
-251.6
-7.70%
3,253
2,995
-258.0
-7.93%
3,238
2,979
-258.7
-7.99%
3,222
2,965
-257.7
-8.00%
3,207
2,950
-257.0
-8.02%
3,191
2,935
-256.1
-8.03%
3,265.61
3,056.39
-209.22
-6.44%
4,217
4,217
0.0
0.00%
4,263
4,303
40.0
0.94%
4,295
4,365
70.5
1.64%
4,326
4,391
64.9
1.50%
4,347
4,414
67.2
1.55%
4,364
4,434
69.3
1.59%
4,377
4,447
70.0
1.60%
4,381
4,451
70.1
1.60%
4,379
4,451
71.1
1.62%
4,371
4,443
71.7
1.64%
4,356
4,428
71.6
1.64%
4,346.01
4,412.67
66.65
1.53%
1,375
1,375
0.0
0.00%
1,410
1,276
-133.5
-9.47%
1,437
1,393
-43.5
-3.03%
1,462
1,403
-59.0
-4.04%
1,487
1,439
-47.5
-3.19%
1,512
1,482
-30.3
-2.00%
1,537
1,526
-11.0
-0.72%
1,563
1,577
13.6
0.87%
1,589
1,635
46.4
2.92%
1,615
1,698
83.1
5.14%
1,642
1,766
124.4
7.58%
1,525.31
1,519.58
-5.73
-0.59%
2,080
2,080
0.0
0.00%
2,137
1,412
-725.7
-33.95%
2,177
1,694
-482.9
-22.18%
2,233
1,711
-522.0
-23.38%
2,277
1,791
-486.2
-21.36%
2,331
1,867
-464.1
-19.91%
2,389
1,933
-455.5
-19.07%
2,441
1,997
-444.3
-18.20%
2,496
2,068
-427.6
-17.13%
2,552
2,138
-414.6
-16.24%
2,608
2,205
-402.7
-15.44%
2,364.13
1,881.57
-482.56
-20.69%
16,178
16,178
0.0
0.00%
17,835
9,248
-8,586.1
-48.14%
18,013
7,727
-10,286.0
-57.10%
18,141
6,510
-11,631.0
-64.11%
18,318
6,240
-12,077.3
-65.93%
18,522
6,309
-12,213.4
-65.94%
18,746
6,512
-12,234.2
-65.26%
18,982
6,804
-12,178.4
-64.16%
19,229
7,168
-12,061.1
-62.72%
19,486
7,552
-11,934.7
-61.25%
19,752
7,956
-11,796.4
-59.72%
18,702.35
7,202.49
-11,499.86
-61.43%
14,700
14,700
0.0
0.00%
14,768
15,011
243.1
1.65%
14,815
15,359
544.1
3.67%
14,851
15,345
493.3
3.32%
14,888
15,374
486.5
3.27%
14,921
15,413
491.4
3.29%
14,950
15,436
486.9
3.26%
14,982
15,454
471.9
3.15%
15,015
15,481
465.3
3.10%
15,050
15,506
455.9
3.03%
15,088
15,527
439.3
2.91%
14,932.70
15,390.47
457.76
3.06%
57
Table D2: (continued)
Former Soviet Union
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
India
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Indonesia
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Iran
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Japan
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Malaysia
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
4,111
4,111
0.0
0.00%
4,250
4,250
0.0
0.00%
4,327
4,909
581.7
13.44%
4,412
4,894
481.8
10.92%
(Thousand Metric Tons)
4,462
4,529
4,951
4,957
488.2
428.0
10.94%
9.45%
11,649
11,649
0.0
0.00%
11,819
11,560
-258.9
-2.19%
11,846
11,816
-29.7
-0.25%
11,985
11,921
-63.8
-0.53%
12,013
11,978
-35.0
-0.29%
18,350
18,350
0.0
0.00%
18,801
17,735
-1,066.5
-5.67%
19,206
18,299
-906.8
-4.72%
19,641
18,467
-1,174.0
-5.98%
18,000
18,000
0.0
0.00%
18,426
17,474
-952.6
-5.17%
18,795
18,620
-175.6
-0.93%
1,700
1,700
0.0
0.00%
1,619
1,564
-54.2
-3.35%
3,400
3,400
0.0
0.00%
[1]
Average
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
4,580
4,926
345.8
7.55%
4,614
4,887
273.0
5.92%
4,650
4,855
204.8
4.40%
4,686
4,817
131.3
2.80%
4,719
4,781
61.1
1.29%
4,523.13
4,822.71
299.58
6.67%
12,124
12,107
-17.7
-0.15%
12,256
12,245
-11.5
-0.09%
12,348
12,344
-4.3
-0.03%
12,453
12,460
6.4
0.05%
12,565
12,579
14.2
0.11%
12,654
12,674
20.4
0.16%
12,206.35
12,168.36
-37.99
-0.32%
20,070
18,964
-1,105.7
-5.51%
20,507
19,472
-1,034.1
-5.04%
20,940
19,975
-964.8
-4.61%
21,371
20,495
-876.0
-4.10%
21,804
21,029
-775.0
-3.55%
22,237
21,551
-686.3
-3.09%
22,670
22,070
-600.5
-2.65%
20,724.70
19,805.72
-918.98
-4.49%
19,234
18,902
-331.8
-1.73%
19,633
19,488
-144.5
-0.74%
20,065
20,006
-58.7
-0.29%
20,511
20,482
-28.7
-0.14%
20,947
20,982
35.0
0.17%
21,392
21,505
113.2
0.53%
21,842
22,020
177.5
0.81%
22,291
22,538
247.3
1.11%
20,313.63
20,201.73
-111.91
-0.64%
1,593
2,134
540.8
33.95%
1,593
2,243
649.9
40.80%
1,617
2,410
793.3
49.07%
1,652
2,559
906.7
54.88%
1,694
2,686
991.7
58.53%
1,739
2,814
1,074.7
61.79%
1,788
2,958
1,170.1
65.45%
1,838
3,100
1,261.9
68.66%
1,889
3,246
1,357.6
71.88%
1,702.10
2,571.33
869.22
50.17%
3,481
3,262
-218.8
-6.29%
3,569
3,390
-179.6
-5.03%
3,676
3,468
-208.7
-5.68%
3,788
3,565
-223.3
-5.90%
3,905
3,669
-235.6
-6.03%
4,031
3,779
-251.2
-6.23%
4,155
3,886
-268.9
-6.47%
4,288
4,003
-284.4
-6.63%
4,431
4,130
-301.4
-6.80%
4,585
4,264
-321.3
-7.01%
3,990.96
3,741.63
-249.33
-6.21%
775
775
0.0
0.00%
742
742
0.0
0.00%
749
789
40.6
5.42%
759
801
41.9
5.52%
768
813
45.3
5.89%
779
823
43.7
5.62%
789
830
41.1
5.21%
799
838
38.9
4.87%
809
846
36.7
4.54%
819
853
34.2
4.18%
825
856
31.7
3.85%
783.70
819.12
35.42
4.51%
2,000
2,000
0.0
0.00%
2,057
1,945
-112.3
-5.46%
2,118
2,038
-79.6
-3.76%
2,187
2,100
-87.4
-4.00%
2,256
2,176
-79.9
-3.54%
2,329
2,251
-77.2
-3.31%
2,404
2,327
-77.0
-3.20%
2,480
2,405
-75.2
-3.03%
2,558
2,485
-72.7
-2.84%
2,638
2,567
-70.9
-2.69%
2,720
2,651
-68.8
-2.53%
2,374.63
2,294.52
-80.11
-3.44%
795
795
0.0
0.00%
803
803
0.0
0.00%
814
723
-91.1
-11.18%
827
635
-192.1
-23.21%
840
567
-273.1
-32.53%
852
506
-346.1
-40.63%
863
454
-409.0
-47.39%
873
411
-461.4
-52.86%
882
376
-506.2
-57.38%
891
346
-544.4
-61.14%
898
321
-576.9
-64.25%
854.26
514.23
-340.03
-39.06%
2,350
2,350
0.0
0.00%
2,341
2,383
41.6
1.78%
2,344
2,409
64.9
2.77%
2,354
2,414
59.4
2.52%
2,364
2,422
58.3
2.47%
2,376
2,432
56.9
2.40%
2,388
2,442
53.9
2.26%
2,400
2,449
49.5
2.06%
2,411
2,457
45.2
1.87%
2,423
2,463
40.1
1.66%
2,433
2,467
34.3
1.41%
2,383.36
2,433.79
50.43
2.12%
112
112
0.0
0.00%
116
133
16.3
13.95%
121
170
49.5
41.06%
125
177
52.1
41.80%
129
187
58.8
45.72%
132
195
62.4
47.09%
136
199
63.0
46.18%
140
203
62.3
44.40%
144
206
61.9
42.89%
149
210
61.1
41.13%
153
213
60.1
39.39%
134.52
189.28
54.75
40.36%
1,100
1,100
0.0
0.00%
1,145
1,066
-78.5
-6.85%
1,185
1,116
-69.0
-5.82%
1,227
1,150
-76.9
-6.27%
1,267
1,187
-79.7
-6.29%
1,313
1,232
-81.5
-6.21%
1,363
1,279
-83.9
-6.16%
1,412
1,325
-87.2
-6.18%
1,463
1,373
-89.9
-6.14%
1,515
1,422
-92.8
-6.13%
1,567
1,471
-96.5
-6.16%
1,345.74
1,262.16
-83.59
-6.22%
58
Table D2: (continued)
Mexico
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Morocco
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Pakistan
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Peru
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Philippines
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
South Africa
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
5,092
5,092
0.0
0.00%
5,277
5,277
0.0
0.00%
5,423
5,442
18.9
0.35%
5,560
4,978
-581.7
-10.46%
4,543
4,543
0.0
0.00%
4,574
4,600
26.3
0.57%
4,607
4,662
54.9
1.19%
4,655
4,705
50.2
1.08%
4,705
4,760
54.5
1.16%
4,747
4,805
58.2
1.23%
545
545
0.0
0.00%
537
522
-14.8
-2.76%
545
561
16.3
2.99%
553
565
11.4
2.05%
563
574
11.9
2.12%
1,000
1,000
0.0
0.00%
1,028
906
-122.4
-11.90%
1,049
931
-118.3
-11.28%
1,074
951
-122.7
-11.42%
3,006
3,006
0.0
0.00%
2,994
2,994
0.0
0.00%
3,012
3,348
336.8
11.18%
3,450
3,450
0.0
0.00%
3,478
3,133
-345.0
-9.92%
810
810
0.0
0.00%
[1]
Average
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
(Thousand Metric Tons)
5,690
5,817
6,037
5,047
5,180
5,390
-642.7
-636.8
-646.9
-11.30%
-10.95%
-10.72%
6,248
5,611
-637.7
-10.21%
6,467
5,880
-587.2
-9.08%
6,688
6,141
-547.8
-8.19%
6,850
6,345
-504.9
-7.37%
6,005.68
5,528.99
-476.68
-7.79%
4,810
4,870
60.4
1.26%
4,870
4,933
62.2
1.28%
4,931
4,996
64.9
1.32%
4,990
5,057
67.0
1.34%
5,047
5,116
68.5
1.36%
4,793.55
4,850.27
56.71
1.18%
572
584
11.7
2.04%
582
593
10.7
1.84%
592
602
10.1
1.71%
603
613
10.2
1.70%
613
623
10.1
1.66%
623
634
10.1
1.62%
578.34
587.12
8.78
1.50%
1,095
966
-129.1
-11.78%
1,120
988
-132.1
-11.80%
1,145
1,010
-134.9
-11.78%
1,168
1,034
-133.9
-11.46%
1,192
1,059
-133.2
-11.17%
1,217
1,084
-133.0
-10.93%
1,241
1,109
-131.9
-10.63%
1,132.94
1,003.79
-129.15
-11.42%
3,051
3,408
356.8
11.69%
3,107
3,505
398.3
12.82%
3,174
3,566
392.0
12.35%
3,247
3,618
370.8
11.42%
3,326
3,677
350.7
10.54%
3,408
3,735
327.6
9.61%
3,492
3,792
299.9
8.59%
3,579
3,851
272.4
7.61%
3,238.97
3,549.49
310.52
9.58%
3,502
3,267
-235.0
-6.71%
3,539
3,276
-262.7
-7.42%
3,577
3,340
-236.8
-6.62%
3,625
3,397
-228.2
-6.29%
3,682
3,454
-228.3
-6.20%
3,745
3,523
-222.7
-5.95%
3,817
3,602
-215.3
-5.64%
3,898
3,688
-210.0
-5.39%
3,988
3,784
-203.6
-5.11%
3,685.28
3,446.52
-238.76
-6.52%
840
840
0.0
0.00%
875
921
45.4
5.19%
907
941
33.4
3.69%
935
969
33.8
3.61%
964
992
27.9
2.90%
991
1,013
21.1
2.13%
1,018
1,034
16.0
1.57%
1,045
1,056
11.1
1.06%
1,072
1,077
5.3
0.49%
1,100
1,099
-0.5
-0.05%
974.77
994.12
19.35
2.06%
880
880
0.0
0.00%
897
849
-47.7
-5.32%
910
893
-17.9
-1.96%
929
905
-24.3
-2.61%
945
927
-18.2
-1.93%
966
951
-15.1
-1.56%
989
975
-14.0
-1.41%
1,012
1,000
-12.2
-1.20%
1,038
1,028
-9.6
-0.93%
1,065
1,058
-7.7
-0.72%
1,095
1,089
-5.8
-0.53%
984.67
967.43
-17.24
-1.82%
1,800
1,800
0.0
0.00%
1,789
1,789
0.0
0.00%
1,794
1,971
176.8
9.85%
1,818
1,956
138.1
7.60%
1,845
1,982
136.3
7.39%
1,874
1,974
99.8
5.32%
1,902
1,958
56.2
2.96%
1,929
1,947
18.1
0.94%
1,955
1,934
-21.9
-1.12%
1,982
1,917
-65.1
-3.29%
2,008
1,901
-107.8
-5.37%
1,889.67
1,932.71
43.04
2.43%
1,950
1,950
0.0
0.00%
1,984
1,872
-111.5
-5.62%
2,010
1,981
-29.4
-1.46%
2,042
1,996
-46.3
-2.27%
2,067
2,041
-25.7
-1.24%
2,096
2,080
-16.5
-0.79%
2,129
2,115
-13.3
-0.62%
2,159
2,153
-6.2
-0.29%
2,191
2,194
2.3
0.11%
2,222
2,231
9.4
0.42%
2,250
2,268
17.3
0.77%
2,115.09
2,093.11
-21.98
-1.10%
2,690
2,690
0.0
0.00%
2,940
2,940
0.0
0.00%
3,076
3,229
152.7
4.96%
3,167
3,329
161.7
5.11%
3,235
3,426
191.1
5.91%
3,291
3,493
201.9
6.13%
3,342
3,547
205.4
6.15%
3,389
3,599
209.4
6.18%
3,435
3,646
210.5
6.13%
3,480
3,687
206.7
5.94%
3,524
3,725
200.9
5.70%
3,288.02
3,462.06
174.04
5.22%
1,665
1,665
0.0
0.00%
1,685
1,673
-11.6
-0.69%
1,700
1,693
-7.0
-0.41%
1,718
1,709
-8.4
-0.49%
1,732
1,725
-7.8
-0.45%
1,732
1,725
-7.6
-0.44%
1,738
1,730
-7.6
-0.44%
1,745
1,737
-7.4
-0.43%
1,745
1,738
-7.1
-0.41%
1,746
1,739
-6.9
-0.40%
1,748
1,741
-6.7
-0.38%
1,728.80
1,720.98
-7.82
-0.45%
59
Table D2: (continued)
South Korea
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Thailand
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Turkey
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
United States
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Venezuela
Production
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
Consumption
Baseline
Scenario 3
Change
% chg
01/02
02/03
03/04
04/05
0
0
0.0
0.00%
0
0
0.0
0.00%
0
0
0.0
0.00%
1,230
1,230
0.0
0.00%
1,293
1,307
13.4
1.04%
5,225
5,225
0.0
0.00%
05/06
06/07
[1]
Average
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
0
0
0.0
0.00%
(Thousand Metric Tons)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0
0
0.0
0.00%
0
0
0.0
0.00%
0
0
0.0
0.00%
0
0
0.0
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00%
1,342
1,393
51.1
3.81%
1,396
1,441
45.7
3.27%
1,437
1,494
57.2
3.98%
1,483
1,547
63.7
4.30%
1,530
1,597
67.5
4.41%
1,570
1,643
72.9
4.65%
1,608
1,687
79.1
4.92%
1,644
1,728
84.6
5.14%
1,675
1,765
90.2
5.38%
1,497.67
1,560.21
62.54
4.09%
5,505
5,505
0.0
0.00%
5,697
5,806
109.0
1.91%
5,866
5,936
70.0
1.19%
6,032
6,094
62.5
1.04%
6,199
6,236
36.8
0.59%
6,369
6,381
11.8
0.19%
6,541
6,535
-6.2
-0.09%
6,717
6,694
-23.3
-0.35%
6,895
6,855
-40.4
-0.59%
7,012
6,956
-56.2
-0.80%
6,283.39
6,299.81
16.42
0.31%
1,750
1,750
0.0
0.00%
1,807
1,679
-128.0
-7.08%
1,862
1,831
-31.5
-1.69%
1,922
1,871
-51.0
-2.65%
1,982
1,958
-24.5
-1.24%
2,047
2,034
-12.3
-0.60%
2,114
2,107
-7.7
-0.36%
2,183
2,185
1.8
0.08%
2,254
2,268
13.2
0.59%
2,327
2,350
22.9
0.98%
2,401
2,435
33.4
1.39%
2,090.00
2,071.65
-18.35
-1.06%
1,900
1,900
0.0
0.00%
1,964
1,134
-829.4
-42.23%
1,956
1,838
-118.0
-6.03%
1,975
2,159
183.9
9.31%
2,002
2,529
526.3
26.29%
2,038
2,843
804.1
39.45%
2,075
3,086
1,010.9
48.72%
2,112
3,287
1,175.9
55.69%
2,150
3,470
1,319.7
61.37%
2,190
3,617
1,427.1
65.17%
2,212
3,719
1,507.3
68.14%
2,067.43
2,768.22
700.79
32.59%
2,000
2,000
0.0
0.00%
2,041
2,047
6.4
0.32%
2,077
2,104
26.7
1.29%
2,117
2,141
23.5
1.11%
2,154
2,183
29.1
1.35%
2,194
2,226
32.1
1.46%
2,234
2,268
33.6
1.50%
2,274
2,310
36.0
1.58%
2,314
2,353
38.7
1.67%
2,355
2,396
41.1
1.75%
2,395
2,439
43.6
1.82%
2,215.55
2,246.65
31.10
1.39%
7,189
7,189
0.0
0.00%
7,924
7,924
0.0
0.00%
8,065
7,781
-284.7
-3.53%
8,034
7,181
-852.8
-10.61%
7,983
7,197
-786.4
-9.85%
7,942
7,264
-678.2
-8.54%
7,906
7,316
-590.6
-7.47%
7,917
7,354
-563.0
-7.11%
7,940
7,431
-508.6
-6.41%
7,958
7,508
-450.2
-5.66%
7,983
7,585
-398.4
-4.99%
7,965.40
7,454.10
-511.29
-6.42%
9,335
9,335
0.0
0.00%
9,469
9,510
40.7
0.43%
9,669
9,777
107.6
1.11%
9,853
9,925
71.7
0.73%
10,026
10,085
58.9
0.59%
10,203
10,254
50.9
0.50%
10,362
10,412
50.0
0.48%
10,517
10,560
43.4
0.41%
10,676
10,713
37.1
0.35%
10,834
10,862
27.5
0.25%
10,976
10,995
19.7
0.18%
10,258.58
10,309.33
50.75
0.50%
710
710
0.0
0.00%
711
711
0.0
0.00%
721
747
25.7
3.57%
731
759
27.7
3.80%
740
773
32.9
4.45%
748
783
34.3
4.59%
756
790
33.7
4.46%
763
796
32.5
4.26%
770
801
30.5
3.96%
776
804
27.4
3.53%
782
806
23.6
3.02%
749.92
776.77
26.85
3.56%
850
850
0.0
0.00%
856
807
-48.6
-5.68%
861
839
-21.8
-2.54%
868
840
-28.0
-3.22%
873
850
-22.8
-2.62%
879
858
-20.3
-2.31%
885
865
-19.6
-2.22%
889
871
-18.3
-2.06%
892
876
-16.4
-1.83%
896
881
-14.9
-1.67%
898
885
-13.6
-1.51%
879.56
857.12
-22.43
-2.57%
[1]
Average is the average for the period 2002/03 to 2011/12.
Scenario 3 = Full Market Liberalization Reform
60
Table E1: Sensitivity Results for Scenario 1 with Elasticities Doubled
Baseline
Major Exporters
Production
Brazil
Australia
EU
Thailand
Cuba
Consumption
Brazil
Australia
EU
Thailand
Cuba
Trade
Brazil
Australia
EU
Thailand
Cuba
Major Importers
Production
FSU
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
US
Consumption
FSU
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
US
Trade
FSU
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
US
World
Production
Consumption
Trade
World Price
Caribbean raw sugar
Original Scenario 1
Scenario 1 with doubled
(S1O)
elasticities (S1D)
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Difference between
S1O and S1D
(Percent)
21,871.81
6,063.38
18,702.35
6,283.39
4,024.91
23,617.86
6,364.24
18,702.35
6,157.79
4,269.67
25,345.03
6,661.67
18,702.35
6,030.63
4,508.22
7.19
4.55
0.00
-2.01
5.19
10,565.25
1,074.69
14,932.70
2,090.00
777.13
10,201.03
1,052.37
15,597.65
2,188.66
744.48
9,856.16
1,031.39
16,263.92
2,292.16
712.06
-3.39
-2.00
4.27
4.67
-4.40
11,311.48
4,989.95
3,734.87
4,179.72
3,245.84
13,434.52
5,318.02
3,032.31
3,952.38
3,523.86
15,519.60
5,641.39
2,328.57
3,718.99
3,795.47
15.30
5.95
-25.02
-5.82
7.23
4,523.13
1,702.10
854.26
0.00
7,965.40
3,904.78
1,723.01
736.93
0.00
7,688.57
3,274.99
1,743.53
591.30
0.00
7,527.15
-16.52
1.19
-20.41
0.00
-2.13
12,206.35
3,990.96
2,383.36
1,497.67
10,258.58
12,325.21
3,863.72
2,453.02
1,581.43
10,394.51
12,445.05
3,742.46
2,522.82
1,665.69
10,537.84
0.97
-3.07
2.85
5.29
1.40
7,613.89
2,202.74
1,531.41
1,499.67
2,423.20
8,371.37
2,049.34
1,719.17
1,587.57
3,043.80
9,140.94
1,902.12
1,935.37
1,675.96
3,533.40
9.04
-7.06
12.46
5.55
16.38
147,240.83
146,964.72
34,475.62
0.83
0.60
4.90
282.14
-0.06
144,819.93
145,232.56
32,015.18
214.61
146,019.94
146,075.05
32,825.41
(U.S. Dollars per Metric Ton)
282.31
Note 1: Numbers represent the average for 2002/03 to 2011/12.
Note 2: Trade represents net exports for exporters, net imports for importers and total world exports (sum of positive exports and negative imports).
Scenario 1 = Trade Liberalization
61
Table E2: Sensitivity Results for Scenario 2 with Elasticities Doubled
Baseline
Major Exporters
Production
Brazil
Australia
EU
Thailand
Cuba
Consumption
Brazil
Australia
EU
Thailand
Cuba
Trade
Brazil
Australia
EU
Thailand
Cuba
Major Importers
Production
FSU
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
US
Consumption
FSU
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
US
Trade
FSU
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
US
World
Production
Consumption
Trade
World Price
Caribbean raw sugar
Original Scenario 2
Scenario 2 with doubled
(S2O)
elasticities (S2D)
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Difference between
S2O and S2D
(Percent)
21,871.81
6,063.38
18,702.35
6,283.39
4,024.91
25,651.73
6,700.27
7,230.69
6,304.78
4,722.58
28,118.92
7,121.64
4,575.37
6,232.07
5,118.33
9.40
6.13
-36.86
-1.09
7.71
10,565.25
1,074.69
14,932.70
2,090.00
777.13
9,633.87
1,019.19
15,382.79
2,065.81
693.96
9,047.02
983.57
15,972.53
2,126.32
643.78
-6.11
-3.50
3.83
2.76
-7.45
11,311.48
4,989.95
3,734.87
4,179.72
3,245.84
16,045.25
5,691.56
-8,214.96
4,223.20
4,028.13
19,112.90
6,154.76
-11,494.77
4,087.51
4,474.93
18.77
7.98
40.86
-3.10
10.40
4,523.13
1,702.10
854.26
0.00
7,965.40
4,854.56
2,585.88
385.92
0.00
7,482.78
4,580.63
3,198.28
169.45
0.00
6,801.23
-5.59
21.91
-74.25
0.00
-9.21
12,206.35
3,990.96
2,383.36
1,497.67
10,258.58
12,162.57
3,736.33
2,433.09
1,558.92
10,306.18
12,224.45
3,568.65
2,495.73
1,643.17
10,411.24
0.50
-4.44
2.58
5.32
1.03
7,613.89
2,202.74
1,531.41
1,499.67
2,423.20
7,239.65
1,057.30
2,050.05
1,564.06
2,941.35
7,589.89
271.35
2,329.88
1,652.06
3,734.52
4.71
-76.04
13.68
5.57
26.92
140,065.47
140,415.47
40,848.44
-0.55
-0.60
14.13
330.56
-6.55
144,819.93
145,232.56
32,015.18
214.61
140,759.31
141,211.35
35,762.52
(U.S. Dollars per Metric Ton)
353.93
Note 1: Numbers represent the average for 2002/03 to 2011/12.
Note 2: Trade represents net exports for exporters, net imports for importers and total world exports (sum of positive exports and negative imports).
Scenario 2 = Trade Liberalization and Domestic Production Subsidy Reforms
62
Table E3: Sensitivity Results for Scenario 3 with Elasticities Doubled
Baseline
Major Exporters
Production
Brazil
Australia
EU
Thailand
Cuba
Consumption
Brazil
Australia
EU
Thailand
Cuba
Trade
Brazil
Australia
EU
Thailand
Cuba
Major Importers
Production
FSU
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
US
Consumption
FSU
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
US
Trade
FSU
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
US
World
Production
Consumption
Trade
World Price
Caribbean raw sugar
Original Scenario 3
Scenario 3 with doubled
(S3O)
elasticities (S3D)
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Difference between
S3O and S3D
(Percent)
21,871.81
6,063.38
18,702.35
6,283.39
4,024.91
25,582.09
6,688.85
7,202.49
6,299.81
4,706.75
27,995.27
7,101.30
4,562.16
6,223.17
5,089.50
9.22
6.01
-36.78
-1.16
7.48
10,565.25
1,074.69
14,932.70
2,090.00
777.13
9,657.02
1,020.50
15,390.47
2,071.65
448.99
9,090.39
986.04
15,985.81
2,136.91
187.62
-5.89
-3.38
3.87
2.99
-60.06
11,311.48
4,989.95
3,734.87
4,179.72
3,245.84
15,952.01
5,678.64
-8,251.26
4,212.42
4,240.52
18,945.87
6,131.67
-11,521.90
4,068.10
4,870.55
18.43
7.82
40.60
-3.32
14.29
4,523.13
1,702.10
854.26
0.00
7,965.40
4,822.71
2,571.33
514.23
0.00
7,454.10
4,523.03
3,173.06
248.90
0.00
6,762.04
-6.17
21.64
-60.86
0.00
-9.39
12,206.35
3,990.96
2,383.36
1,497.67
10,258.58
12,168.36
3,741.63
2,433.79
1,560.21
10,309.33
12,234.48
3,578.00
2,496.95
1,645.03
10,416.69
0.54
-4.33
2.60
5.36
1.06
7,613.89
2,202.74
1,531.41
1,499.67
2,423.20
7,278.16
1,077.23
1,922.46
1,565.39
2,974.49
7,658.83
306.03
2,251.67
1,653.99
3,780.07
5.11
-73.05
16.83
5.60
27.05
139,554.13
139,853.68
40,799.77
-0.73
-0.81
14.20
328.35
-6.50
144,819.93
145,232.56
32,015.18
214.61
140,515.80
140,938.67
35,699.10
(U.S. Dollars per Metric Ton)
351.36
Note 1: Numbers represent the average for 2002/03 to 2011/12.
Note 2: Trade represents net exports for exporters, net imports for importers and total world exports (sum of positive exports and negative imports).
Scenario 3 = Full Market Liberalization
63
Table E4: Sensitivity Results for Scenario 1 with Elasticities Halved
Baseline
Major Exporters
Production
Brazil
Australia
EU
Thailand
Cuba
Consumption
Brazil
Australia
EU
Thailand
Cuba
Trade
Brazil
Australia
EU
Thailand
Cuba
Major Importers
Production
FSU
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
US
Consumption
FSU
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
U.S
Trade
FSU
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
US
World
Production
Consumption
Trade
World Price
Caribbean raw sugar
Original Scenario 1
Scenario 1 with halved
(S1O)
elasticities (S1H)
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Difference between
S1O and S1H
(Percent)
21,871.81
6,063.38
18,702.35
6,283.39
4,024.91
23,617.86
6,364.24
18,702.35
6,157.79
4,269.67
22,744.31
6,213.73
18,702.35
6,220.56
4,147.22
-3.64
-2.31
0.00
0.99
-2.67
10,565.25
1,074.69
14,932.70
2,090.00
777.13
10,201.03
1,052.37
15,597.65
2,188.66
744.48
10,382.98
1,063.53
15,265.25
2,138.64
760.83
1.79
1.06
-2.13
-2.25
2.22
11,311.48
4,989.95
3,734.87
4,179.72
3,245.84
13,434.52
5,318.02
3,032.31
3,952.38
3,523.86
12,372.62
5,153.91
3,383.50
4,066.65
3,384.77
-7.80
-3.02
12.47
2.85
-3.72
4,523.13
1,702.10
854.26
0.00
7,965.40
3,904.78
1,723.01
736.93
0.00
7,688.57
4,213.80
1,712.53
798.97
0.00
7,828.14
8.12
-0.61
8.70
0.00
1.85
12,206.35
3,990.96
2,383.36
1,497.67
10,258.58
12,325.21
3,863.72
2,453.02
1,581.43
10,394.51
12,265.84
3,926.88
2,418.20
1,539.27
10,326.58
-0.48
1.60
-1.42
-2.65
-0.66
7,613.89
2,202.74
1,531.41
1,499.67
2,423.20
8,371.37
2,049.34
1,719.17
1,587.57
3,043.80
7,992.87
2,125.62
1,621.91
1,543.34
2,735.88
-4.44
3.67
-5.61
-2.78
-10.48
145,422.81
145,652.85
32,271.69
-0.41
-0.28
-1.58
282.24
-0.02
144,819.93
145,232.56
32,015.18
214.61
146,019.94
146,075.05
32,825.41
(U.S. Dollars per Metric Ton)
282.31
Note 1: Numbers represent the average for 2002/03 to 2011/12.
Note 2: Trade represents net exports for exporters, net imports for importers and total world exports (sum of positive exports and negative imports).
Scenario 1 = Trade Liberalization
64
Table E5: Sensitivity Results for Scenario 2 with Elasticities Halved
Baseline
Major Exporters
Production
Brazil
Australia
EU
Thailand
Cuba
Consumption
Brazil
Australia
EU
Thailand
Cuba
Trade
Brazil
Australia
EU
Thailand
Cuba
Major Importers
Production
FSU
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
US
Consumption
FSU
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
US
Trade
FSU
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
US
World
Production
Consumption
Trade
World Price
Caribbean raw sugar
Original Scenario 2
Scenario 2 with halved
(S2O)
elasticities (S2H)
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Difference between
S2O and S2H
21,871.81
6,063.38
18,702.35
6,283.39
4,024.91
25,651.73
6,700.27
7,230.69
6,304.78
4,722.58
24,301.73
6,470.57
8,798.17
6,332.82
4,498.25
-5.14
-3.34
22.09
0.42
-4.37
10,565.25
1,074.69
14,932.70
2,090.00
777.13
9,633.87
1,019.19
15,382.79
2,065.81
693.96
9,937.26
1,037.62
15,099.79
2,039.80
721.86
3.16
1.81
-1.84
-1.17
4.14
11,311.48
4,989.95
3,734.87
4,179.72
3,245.84
16,045.25
5,691.56
-8,214.96
4,223.20
4,028.13
14,383.61
5,440.09
-6,347.56
4,278.37
3,775.43
-10.17
-4.33
-22.98
1.25
-5.87
4,523.13
1,702.10
854.26
0.00
7,965.40
4,854.56
2,585.88
385.92
0.00
7,482.78
4,938.36
2,255.34
637.06
0.00
7,946.71
1.72
-11.85
110.56
0.00
6.27
12,206.35
3,990.96
2,383.36
1,497.67
10,258.58
12,162.57
3,736.33
2,433.09
1,558.92
10,306.18
12,140.62
3,825.10
2,402.87
1,518.98
10,258.55
-0.18
2.35
-1.24
-2.52
-0.47
7,613.89
2,202.74
1,531.41
1,499.67
2,423.20
7,239.65
1,057.30
2,050.05
1,564.06
2,941.35
7,127.65
1,479.64
1,768.34
1,522.29
2,420.75
-1.49
40.84
-13.17
-2.64
-18.21
141,303.67
141,801.78
33,781.71
0.42
0.44
-5.52
392.69
10.84
144,819.93
145,232.56
32,015.18
214.61
140,759.31
141,211.35
35,762.52
(U.S. Dollars per Metric Ton)
353.93
Note 1: Numbers represent the average for 2002/03 to 2011/12.
Note 2: Trade represents net exports for exporters, net imports for importers and total world exports (sum of positive exports and negative imports).
Scenario 2 = Trade Liberalization and Domestic Production Subsidy Reforms
65
Table E6: Sensitivity Results for Scenario 3 with Elasticities Halved
Baseline
Major Exporters
Production
Brazil
Australia
EU
Thailand
Cuba
Consumption
Brazil
Australia
EU
Thailand
Cuba
Trade
Brazil
Australia
EU
Thailand
Cuba
Major Importers
Production
FSU
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
US
Consumption
FSU
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
US
Trade
FSU
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
US
World
Production
Consumption
Trade
World Price
Caribbean raw sugar
Original Scenario 3
Scenario 3 with halved
(S3O)
elasticities (S3H)
(Thousand Metric Tons)
Difference between
S3O and S3H
21,871.81
6,063.38
18,702.35
6,283.39
4,024.91
25,582.09
6,688.85
7,202.49
6,299.81
4,706.75
24,266.42
6,464.77
8,783.87
6,330.30
4,490.20
-5.03
-3.26
22.38
0.46
-4.23
10,565.25
1,074.69
14,932.70
2,090.00
777.13
9,657.02
1,020.50
15,390.47
2,071.65
448.99
9,950.10
1,038.34
15,103.67
2,043.03
585.72
3.05
1.75
-1.86
-1.29
31.53
11,311.48
4,989.95
3,734.87
4,179.72
3,245.84
15,952.01
5,678.64
-8,251.26
4,212.42
4,240.52
14,335.24
5,433.48
-6,365.95
4,272.64
3,894.36
-9.96
-4.23
-23.10
1.38
-7.84
4,523.13
1,702.10
854.26
0.00
7,965.40
4,822.71
2,571.33
514.23
0.00
7,454.10
4,922.17
2,247.98
699.15
0.00
7,932.17
2.05
-11.65
45.18
0.00
6.49
12,206.35
3,990.96
2,383.36
1,497.67
10,258.58
12,168.36
3,741.63
2,433.79
1,560.21
10,309.33
12,143.55
3,828.09
2,403.22
1,519.75
10,260.14
-0.20
2.29
-1.26
-2.55
-0.48
7,613.89
2,202.74
1,531.41
1,499.67
2,423.20
7,278.16
1,077.23
1,922.46
1,565.39
2,974.49
7,147.20
1,490.02
1,706.61
1,523.08
2,437.53
-1.74
39.07
-10.85
-2.67
-18.56
141,177.21
141,660.09
33,732.24
0.50
0.53
-5.48
390.09
10.92
144,819.93
145,232.56
32,015.18
214.61
140,515.80
140,938.67
35,699.10
(U.S. Dollars per Metric Ton)
351.36
Note 1: Numbers represent the average for 2002/03 to 2011/12.
Note 2: Trade represents net exports for exporters, net imports for importers and total world exports (sum of positive exports and negative imports).
Scenario 3 = Full Market Liberalization
66