Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2026

7. Chile

Main findings

Support to agriculture

Chile’s Producer Support Estimate (PSE) amounted to 3.1% of gross farm receipts in 2023‑2025, down from 7.5% in 2000-02 and well below the OECD average. Tariff reforms in the 1990s led to the near elimination of Market Price Support (MPS) such that domestic producer prices are aligned with world prices, with an NPC equal to 1. Single Commodity Transfers (SCT) are small and limited to sugar, for which they amount to 3.4% of its gross commodity receipts.

In 2025, agricultural support in Chile is primarily provided through budgetary transfers, mainly via direct payments to farmers and general services. General services to the sector are dominated by investments in infrastructure, mainly for irrigation and related to land and water rights for indigenous communities. After infrastructure, inspection services, R&D and agricultural schools are also important.

Support for general services (General Service Support Estimate, GSSE) represented an average of 3.4% of the agricultural value of production in 2023-25, up from 2.1% during 2000-2002 and similar to the OECD average.

Total agricultural support represented 0.24% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2023-25, less than half the share of 2000-02.

Key policy changes in 2025-26

In 2025, Chile approved the National Food Safety and Quality Policy 2026-2036, establishing several new institutional and operational mechanisms to modernise food safety systems. As part of this, the Scientific Advisory Committee for Food Risk Assessment (CCERA) was created to formalise food risk evaluation. The policy also improves early‑warning capacity through the launch of the Food Information and Alert Network Portal (Red de Información y Alertas Alimentarias – RIAL), strengthening transparency and rapid response mechanisms.

In 2025, plans to modernise sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) systems, improve border controls and digitalise extension services, were implemented as part of the National Strategy for Sovereignty and Food Security (ENSSA), with new measures under the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) funded Chile Feeds the Future programme. This programme was formed under the newly established Department of Plant and Animal Health and Natural Resources Intelligence which aims to strengthen SPS protection, trade competitiveness and align with international standards.

In 2025, the Agricultural Development Institute’s (INDAP) policy approach centred on institutional modernisation and climate resilience. Key actions included were part of the rollout of the Sustainable Agricultural Development Plans (PDAs) to digitalise extension services. The Transition to Sustainable Agriculture (Transición a la Agricultura Sostenible – TAS) programme was expanded with stronger gender, youth and Indigenous producer participation, and new climate‑risk tools were implemented under INDAP’s Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation Policy.

In 2025, the Sectoral Climate Adaptation Plan and Mitigation Plan for agriculture, livestock and forestry was implemented under the Climate Change Framework Law. These plans prioritise improved soil and water management, reductions in livestock‑related emissions, greater nitrogen use efficiency and the promotion of regenerative agricultural practices.

In 2025, the Chile Conscious Origin Seal was expanded and updated, broadening its sectoral coverage beyond meat and dairy to include additional agri‑food sectors and value chains, and reinforcing the adoption of sustainability standards across the agri food sector. Actions included the revision of governance arrangements, updating of certification protocols and operational manuals, expansion of eligibility criteria to new sectors, and the rollout of updated visual identity and labelling guidelines for use on certified products.

Assessment and recommendations

• Strengthen evaluation and conditionality mechanisms for public support to farmers by embedding them in a structured policy cycle that links problem identification, clearly defined measurable objectives, and regular monitoring and evaluation. While support is generally well targeted and effectively reaches small-scale, Indigenous, and women farmers, its impact on competitiveness and sustainability is not systematically assessed. A more results-oriented framework would help ensure that public spending delivers tangible improvements in productivity, resilience, and environmental outcomes.

• Scale up strategic public investments that enhance sustainability, productivity, and resilience. Priority should be given to strengthening extension services, accelerating the adoption of digital agriculture tools, and promoting climate-smart and low-emission innovations. Irrigation investments and climate-smart infrastructure should be carefully aligned with long-term water availability and climate projections to avoid increasing pressure on scarce water resources.

• Develop agriculture-specific mitigation pathways aligned with its 2050 carbon neutrality target. While national commitments include the agricultural sector, the absence of well-defined sectoral targets, baselines, and indicators limits the ability to track progress. Establishing measurable emission reduction pathways – particularly for methane and nitrous oxide – would strengthen transparency, accountability, and policy effectiveness.

• Rebalance the climate adaptation framework for agriculture to increasingly prioritise transformational change. While current policies target resilience and risk management, greater focus is needed on enabling structural transitions toward climate-resilient production systems. This includes promoting shifts in production systems, land and water use practices, and value chains that are compatible with long-term climate and resource constraints.

• Improve policy coherence and efficiency through stronger institutional coordination. Responsibilities for agriculture, environment, water, and rural development are currently distributed across multiple ministries and agencies, often with overlapping mandates. Enhanced coordination across ministries and agencies responsible for agriculture, environment, water, and rural development, supported by shared objectives, joint programming, and improved accountability, would reduce fragmentation. Better alignment between national and regional levels of government will help avoid duplication and respond more effectively to farmers’ needs.

• Strengthen the operational use of environmental provisions in its RTAs by moving beyond general commitments toward measurable and enforceable outcomes. This could include the development of quantifiable sustainability benchmarks linked to agricultural trade, the expansion of traceability systems, and the systematic inclusion of Sustainable Food Systems (SFS) provisions in future agreements. Existing RTA committees could play a stronger role in monitoring progress on sustainability commitments.

Key indicators on agricultural support

Table 7.1. Chile: Estimates of support to agriculture

Million USD

	2000-02	2023-25	2023	2024	2025p
Total value of production (at farm gate)	4 806	12 149	12 980	11 705	11 761
of which: share of MPS commodities (%)	72.86	80.53	91.10	106.36	44.14
Total value of consumption (at farm gate)	4 118	8 689	11 482	9 700	4 885
Producer Support Estimate (PSE)	369	387	450	360	351
Support based on commodity output	227	3	3	3	3
Market price support¹	227	3	3	3	3
Positive market price support	228	3	3	3	3
Negative market price support	-1	-0	0	-0	-0
Payments based on output	0	0	0	0	0
Payments based on input use	140	320	345	306	310
Based on variable input use	21	76	85	73	70
with input constraints	0	0	0	0	0
Based on fixed capital formation	85	171	185	161	168
with input constraints	66	72	80	66	69
Based on on-farm services	35	73	75	72	72
with input constraints	7	30	31	30	29
Payments based on current A/An/R/I, production required	1	64	101	52	39
Based on Receipts / Income	0	0	0	0	0
Based on Area planted / Animal numbers	1	64	101	52	39
with input constraints	1	64	101	52	39
Payments based on non-current A/An/R/I, production required	0	0	0	0	0
Payments based on non-current A/An/R/I, production not required	0	0	0	0	0
With variable payment rates	0	0	0	0	0
with commodity exceptions	0	0	0	0	0
With fixed payment rates	0	0	0	0	0
with commodity exceptions	0	0	0	0	0
Payments based on non-commodity criteria	0	0	0	0	0
Based on long-term resource retirement	0	0	0	0	0
Based on a specific non-commodity output	0	0	0	0	0
Based on other non-commodity criteria	0	0	0	0	0
Miscellaneous payments	0	0	0	0	0
Percentage PSE (%)	7.31	3.08	3.35	2.99	2.90
Producer NPC (coeff.)	1.05	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Producer NAC (coeff.)	1.08	1.03	1.03	1.03	1.03
General Services Support Estimate (GSSE)	103	427	443	424	415
Agricultural knowledge and innovation system	22	69	74	68	64
Inspection and control	3	124	125	118	131
Development and maintenance of infrastructure	67	226	235	230	212
Marketing and promotion	10	9	9	8	8
Cost of public stockholding	0	0	0	0	0
Miscellaneous	1	0	0	0	0
Percentage GSSE (% of TSE)	22.00	52.61	49.66	54.03	54.20
Consumer Support Estimate (CSE)	-317	-16	-20	-15	-12
Transfers to producers from consumers	-226	-3	-3	-3	-3
Other transfers from consumers	-92	-13	-17	-12	-10
Transfers to consumers from taxpayers	0	0	0	0	0
Excess feed cost	1	-0	0	0	0
Percentage CSE (%)	-7.51	-0.18	-0.17	-0.15	-0.25
Consumer NPC (coeff.)	1.08	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Consumer NAC (coeff.)	1.08	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Total Support Estimate (TSE)	472	814	893	784	766
Transfers from consumers	318	16	20	15	12
Transfers from taxpayers	245	812	890	781	764
Budget revenues	-92	-13	-17	-12	-10
Percentage TSE (% of GDP)	0.63	0.24	0.27	0.24	0.22
Total Budgetary Support Estimate (TBSE)	244	812	890	781	764
Percentage TBSE (% of GDP)	0.33	0.24	0.27	0.24	0.21
GDP deflator (2000-02 = 100)	100	322	300	324	343
Exchange rate (national currency per USD)	621.15	911.66	840.07	943.57	951.33

Note: p: provisional. NPC: Nominal Protection Coefficient. NAC: Nominal Assistance Coefficient.

A/An/R/I: Area planted/Animal numbers/Receipts/Income.

1. Market Price Support (MPS) is net of producer levies and excess feed cost. MPS commodities for Chile are: wheat, maize, apples, grapes, sugar, tomatoes, milk, beef and veal, pig meat, poultry, eggs, blueberries, cherries and peaches.

Source: OECD (2026), “Producer and Consumer Support Estimates”, OECD Agricultural policy monitoring (database), https://data-explorer.oecd.org/.

Policy landscape

Under the current administration of President Kast, agricultural policy is being oriented towards reinforcing Chile’s agro-export competitiveness, with particular emphasis on improving market access conditions and consolidating the country’s reputation as a reliable supplier in global value chains. Key priorities include strengthening sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) systems to foster the compliance with international requirements, advancing water management and irrigation policies to address structural water constraints, and enhancing productivity and resilience across the sector. These priorities are complemented by continued efforts in innovation, technological adoption, and institutional co‑ordination, aiming to support a more efficient and export-oriented agricultural sector.

The Ministry of Agriculture (MINAGRI) oversees the overall policy design and co‑ordination of agricultural policies. The main agricultural policy objectives for the country are developing small-scale agriculture, improving sustainable productivity and competitiveness and conserving natural resources. Agricultural policies are based on budgetary transfers, about half of which are provided as direct payments and credit at preferential interest rates to small-scale farmers. These payments support purchasing inputs, capital formation improving degraded soils and on-farm irrigation investments. The rest of the budget is spent on general services to the agricultural sector, focusing on expanding and improving irrigation systems through the National Irrigation Commission (CNR), improving access to land (land acquisition and redistribution), agricultural research and development, sanitary and phytosanitary services and inspection services within the Agricultural and Livestock Service (Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero – SAG).

The main programmes administered by the Institute of Agricultural Development (INDAP), the agency in charge of designing and implementing agricultural policies for small-scale farmers, are:

• Support for the development of poor areas, including subsidies for variable inputs such as seeds and fertilisers; subsidies for fixed capital assets such as equipment and machinery; and subsidies for on-farm services such as technical assistance.

• Territorial development programme for indigenous communities, that provides subsidies for fixed capital formation in poor, marginalised areas.

• Incentives for the development of agricultural investment, including subsidies for variable inputs as well as for fixed capital formation on the farm.

• Support for the development of productive and entrepreneurial capacities, that provides on-farm services such as technical assistance.

• INDAP also provides credit to smallholders at preferential interest rates and has a crop insurance programme, which covers up to 50% of the premium.

A soil recovery programme is designed to promote soil conservation practices and recover degraded soils. Around 70% of the budget is administered by INDAP and directed to smallholders, with the remainder administered by SAG and given to medium and large-scale farmers.

Irrigation support is managed by the CNR with 40% of funding allocated to on-farm and 60% to off-farm components. On-farm support provides subsidies to farmers to improve or install irrigation systems. Off farm funds are used for community, regional or national investments.

Investments in infrastructure, mainly for irrigation and related to land and water rights for indigenous communities, dominate public expenditures for general services to the sector. Other important expenditures include inspection services, R&D and agricultural schools.

In its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), Chile has committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050, adopting a carbon budgeting approach that sets an overall emissions ceiling for CO₂. However, no specific emissions reduction target has been established for the agricultural sector. The Long-Term Climate Strategy (LTCS) further outlines 9 objectives and 63 goals related to agriculture and forestry, focusing on capacity building, agricultural research and development, extension services, greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation, carbon sequestration, and strengthened climate governance.

Recent policy developments

Domestic policy developments in 2025-26

In 2025, the government introduced three key policies to strengthen the wheat sector: the establishment of a National Wheat Variety Catalogue, the launch of a pilot production–marketing contract scheme, and the development of predictive digital platforms for yield and flour quality. These policies form part of the first operational phase of the National Strategy for Food Sovereignty and Security (ENSSA), a framework aimed at enhancing national food self-sufficiency, strengthening agricultural resilience, and improving the efficiency and sustainability of agri-food value chains. To implement these measures, the government also launched a wheat action plan, which promotes contract farming models between wheat producers and the milling industry, thereby improving coordination across the value chain.

In December 2025, the National Food Safety and Quality Policy 2026–2036 set out a long-term roadmap to modernise food safety systems. This policy formalised the Scientific Advisory Committee for Food Risk Assessment (CCERA), consolidating risk assessments on microbiological risks within the agriculture sector. These assessments were completed on greywater usage in agriculture, dietary exposure to pesticide residue as well as integrated antimicrobial resistance surveillance in the poultry chain. The Food Information and Alert Network (RIAL) was also launched, a national early‑warning and communication platform designed to improve transparency and strengthen rapid response mechanisms.

In 2025, Sustainable Agricultural Development Plans (PDAs) were rolled out by INDAP, aimed at improving data systems, modernising service delivery and streamlining extension processes. They also introduce a more structured and evidence‑based approach to extension, organising interventions around priority production systems (“rubros”) and integrating monitoring, evaluation and digital tools to improve coordination, decision‑making and accountability within INDAP’s support services.

The Transition to Sustainable Agriculture (TAS) programme was expanded as part of its second programme cycle, enrolling new famers and expanding into additional territories aiming to increase the number of producers adopting agroecological practices nationwide. The 2025-26 cycle has a stronger operational emphasis on increased participation of women, youth and Indigenous communities.

New climate‑risk assessment tools were also implemented under INDAP’s Disaster Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation Policy. These measures aim to strengthen long‑term resilience and support the agroecological transition of Peasant and Indigenous Family Farming. They are being rolled out through a multi‑pillar framework that integrates risk identification, preparedness, coordinated emergency response and post‑disaster recovery, supported by improved monitoring, early‑warning information and planning tools at farm and territorial levels.

In 2025, the Sectoral Climate Change Adaptation Plan for the Forestry and Agricultural Sector and the Mitigation Plan for the Agriculture Sector under the Climate Change Framework Law (Law No. 21 455) began implementation. These aim to improve soil and water management, reduce livestock-based emissions, increase fertiliser efficiency and improve manure management. Implementation focuses on operationalising more than 60 actions at national and territorial levels, including investments in water storage and irrigation efficiency, ecosystem restoration, climate‑resilient production systems, and improved agrometeorological information and risk‑management tools for producers.

Implementation also began for the Global Environment Facility (GEF) initiative to promote soil restoration, biodiversity and regenerative agriculture models. The programme is being rolled out through pilot landscape and demonstration projects, coupled with efforts to strengthen governance, expand access to finance and markets, and generate scalable models for regenerative practices across regions.

The Chile Conscious Origin Seal (ChOC) was expanded, continuing the establishment of sustainability standards in Chile’s agri-food sector. In 2025, the ChOC programme has certified more than 125 dairy facilities and 118 pork facilities, establishing itself as Chile’s principal public–private platform for promoting sustainability standards across livestock, horticulture and processed food value chains. In the same year, Chile updated its operational and graphic standards, broadened its sectoral coverage and increased its international visibility, publishing the seal on products. The programme also strengthened its monitoring and verification mechanisms, requiring participating firms to meet criteria related to environmental management, animal welfare, traceability and social responsibility, while providing technical assistance to support compliance.

Trade policy developments in 2025-26

In 2025, Chile advanced the digitalisation of electronic certification (eCert) to modernise SPS policies and measures, strengthen traceability and streamline trade. Key developments with partner countries in 2025‑26 included the following examples:

• United States: implementation of electronic zoosanitary certifications

• Brazil and Guatemala: expansion of bilateral electronic phytosanitary certification (ePhyto)

• China, Japan and Uruguay: strengthening interoperability testing to support secure and automated SPS certification.

In 2025, through the Sustainable Agri‑Export Competitiveness Agenda, Chile continued to focus on expanding market access, strengthening SPS modernisation and deepening digital trade facilitation. Between 2022 and 2025, Chile completed 120 sanitary processes, including 93 market openings and re‑openings and 27 trade facilitation measures. In 2025–26, policy developments focused on enhancing the efficiency and scope of SPS frameworks and market access strategies, including:

• Strengthening bilateral SPS negotiation frameworks to accelerate sanitary approvals and diversify export markets.

• Expanding the use of systems approaches and risk-based certification to facilitate trade while maintaining compliance with partner country requirements.

These policy efforts contributed to progress in sanitary approvals in 2025–26, including:

• India and China: authorisation for exports of sheep wool

• Indonesia: approval for the export of lemons and frozen fruits

• Brazil: new access for honey and fresh peonies

• Mexico: approval for oranges and an expanded systems approach for table grapes

• United States: approval for imports of trimming beef

• China: updated poultry and animal product protocols.

Policy context

Key economic and agricultural statistics

In 2025, Agriculture as a share of GDP accounted for 4.3% and 6.0% of total employment. The agricultural sector is characterised by a dual structure, where small-scale farms operate alongside large commercial farming enterprises. Chile’s strong openness to international trade has supported its emergence as a major producer and exporter of agricultural and food products, including fruits, vegetables, pig meat, and wine. Chile is a net exporter of agro-food products with a surplus of around USD 5.36 billion (excluding fish and forestry) in 2024. Agro-food products accounted for 15.6% of Chile’s total exports in 2024, and for 11.9% of its imports.

Table 7.2. Chile: Contextual indicators

	Chile		International comparison
	2000*	2024*	2000*	2024*
Economic context			Share in total of all countries
GDP (billion USD in PPPs)	145	715	0.4%	0.4%
Population (million)	15	20	0.4%	0.4%
Land area (thousand km2)	744	743	0.9%	0.9%
Agricultural area (AA) (thousand ha)	15 110	10 698	0.5%	0.4%
			All countries1
Population density (inhabitants/km2)	21	26	52	64
GDP per capita (USD in PPPs)	9 440	35 602	9 508	31 740
Trade as % of GDP	22.3	27.8	12.3	15.0
Agriculture in the economy			All countries1
Agriculture in GDP (%)	5.7	4.3	3.0	3.6
Agriculture share in employment (%)	14.1	6.0	-	-
Agro-food exports (% of total exports)	17.0	15.6	6.4	8.3
Agro-food imports (% of total imports)	7.7	11.9	6.1	7.5
Characteristics of the agricultural sector			All countries1
Crop in total agricultural production (%)	67.6	52.7	62.1	60.4
Livestock in total agricultural production (%)	32.4	47.3	37.9	39.6
Share of arable land in AA (%)	11.6	13.2	33.0	34.0

Note: *or closest available year.

1. Average of all countries covered in this report.

Sources: OECD statistical databases; International Labour Organisation (ILO); UN Comtrade; World Bank, WDI; FAO database and national data.

In 2025, Chile’s real GDP growth continued to recover from the contraction in 2023 and reached 2.38%, slightly below 2.64% in 2024. The unemployment rate fell to 7.60% from 8.12% in 2024. Inflation rose slightly to 4.38% in 2025 from 4.30% in 2024, however continues to decline from peak levels in 2022.

As of 2025, Chile’s agricultural and agro‑food sector has strengthened value addition to primary commodities through the production of differentiated products such as fruits and processed products such as wine. In 2024, 86% of agro-food exports were products for final consumption, both primary and processed, and only 14% were products for further industrial processing. Agro-food imports were mostly processed products for consumption, with 60% of both primary and processed of products.

Total Factor Productivity (TFP) has been the dominant driver for Chile’s growing agricultural production. While output growth averaged 1.67% during the period 2014-23, slightly below the global average (1.81%). Chilean TFP growth averaged 2.9%, more than triple the world average of 0.8%. Agriculture accounts for around 8.3% of Chile’s GHG emissions in 2024, down from 10.6% in 2023, and below the OECD average of 10.1%. Around 7% of the total agricultural land was irrigated for the year 2024.

Table 7.3. Chile: Productivity and environmental indicators

	Chile		International comparison
	1991-2000	2014-23	1991-2000	2014-23
			World
TFP annual growth rate (%)	4.0%	2.9%	1.8%	0.8%
			OECD average
Environmental indicators	2000*	2024*	2000*	2024*
Nitrogen balance, kg/ha	..	..	32.3	29.0
Phosphorus balance, kg/ha	..	..	3.3	2.3
Agriculture share of total energy use (%)	..	1.4	1.7	2.0
Agriculture share of GHG emissions (%)	17.0	8.3	8.7	10.3
Share of irrigated land in AA (%)	7.0	7.3	-	-
Share of agriculture in water abstractions (%)	..	..	46.1	47.7
Water stress indicator	..	..	..	..

Note: * or closest available year.

Sources: USDA Economic Research Service, Agricultural Productivity database; OECD statistical databases; FAO database and national data.

Historical trends in agricultural policies

Before 1973, agricultural policies in Chile followed an import substitution industrialisation model, with measures such as price and production controls for staples (e.g. wheat), import tariffs, and export restrictions. Longstanding institutions were created in this period, including the Institute for Agricultural Development (INDAP – the smallholders’ agency), the Agriculture and Livestock Service (SAG – animal and plant health institute), INIA (agricultural innovation agency), and others. This period also saw land reforms that provided land to small-scale farmers and landless people (Anderson and Valdes, 2007[1]).

Economic and agricultural policies shifted in 1973 with the military coup. Chile was the first country in the developing world to adopt a market-oriented open economy and structural macroeconomic reforms. These reduced the role of government in the economy and liberalised trade (OECD, 2008[2]).

From 1973-83, general reforms such as macroeconomic stabilisation were advancing more rapidly than agricultural sector-specific reforms. However, marketing boards and price control agencies for agricultural products were dismantled, import tariffs were reduced, and export restrictions were lifted. From the mid-1980s, the government took measures to improve competitiveness and stimulate production and exports, with general services to the sector playing a central role. Several agricultural institutions related to innovation and irrigation were created, but smallholder development, the environment and resource use received little attention (Anderson and Valdes, 2007[1]).

Since the restoration of democracy in 1990, agricultural policy has focused on three objectives: (1) increasing competitiveness, (2) achieving more balanced agricultural development by better integrating poorer, less-competitive farmers into commercial supply chains, and (3) preserving the environment through sustainable use of resources. Tariffs were further reduced, and numerous Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) were signed, granting trade preferences to partners for agricultural products (OECD, 2008[2]). In 2022, the previous administration emphasised policies to address inequality issues in the sector, as well as sustainability and water management (Table 7.4).

Table 7.4. Chile: Agricultural policy trends

Period	Broader framework	Changes in agricultural policies
Prior to 1973	Import substitution industrialisation model Closed economy	High import tariffs Price controls (e.g. minimum prices of main agricultural products such as wheat, fixed consumer prices, fixed marketing margins) Export quotas, licenses and export bans on the main staple foods Subsidies to some producers (e.g. milk) Interventions in input markets Investments in agricultural infrastructure (e.g. slaughterhouses, storage and processing facilities, roads) Establishment of key agricultural institutions (e.g. INDAP, SAG, INIA, COTRISA) Land reform
1973-1990	Reforms for trade liberalisation	Removal of agricultural price controls Dismantling of marketing boards and price control agencies, except for wheat, milk and oilseeds Rapid tariff reduction on most imports Introduction of a uniform, non-discriminatory tariff system Elimination of export restrictions Establishment of price stabilisation mechanisms (price band systems) for imported products (wheat, sugar and oilseeds) Creation of further agricultural institutions (e.g. FIA, CNR)
1990-2022	Return to democracy continues with the open markets model	Most Favoured Nation tariff reduction up to 1% by 2020 for all agricultural products Many free trade agreements have been signed Dismantling of the price band systems for sugar and oilseed Increase in budgetary allocation to support smallholders and for investments in general services
2022- present	More emphasis on inequality issues addressing small-scale agriculture, women, indigenous people and youth. Greater emphasis on sustainability and water management.	While the country continued with open markets, more emphasis on small-scale agriculture took place by providing greater resources to INDAP. Law modifications on water management. Law modifications on soil programmes Development of National Strategy of Sovereignty for Food Security Agriculture sustainability programmes.

MPS is relatively low with producer support declining from 10% of gross farm receipts at the end of the 1990s to below 4% throughout the 2010s and averaging around 3% for the period 2023-2025.

References

[1] Anderson, K. and A. Valdes (2007), Distortions to Agricultural Incentives in Latin America, World Bank Group, Washington, DC, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/518211468170062688/Distortions-to-agricultural-incentives-in-Latin-America.

[2] OECD (2008), OECD Review of Agricultural Policies: Chile 2008, OECD Review of Agricultural Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264042247-en.