Category: Trade

Under the USMCA, Canada established tariff rate quotas (TRQs) for 13 categories of U.S. dairy products.^[i] Up to the defined quota amount, these products were to receive tariff-free access to the Canadian market. However, last year, Canada reserved between 85 and 100% of the TRQs for many of the product categories exclusively for Canadian dairy processors. As a result, TRQs were substantially under-filled for many of the products (Figure 1a).^[ii]

In May 2021, the U.S. filed the first official grievance under the USMCA, claiming that Canadian dairy quota administration procedures were in violation of USMCA trade obligations. In a decision publicly released on January 4, 2022, the dispute settlement panel found that, “The current Canadian system, which sets aside significant TRQ volumes only for processors, does not pass muster under the Treaty.”^[iii] Canada is now required to reach agreements with the U.S. on the allocations process or face retaliatory trade sanctions.

In an upcoming working paper, Chris Wolf and I calculate the economic costs of these Canadian dairy quota restrictions for the U.S. dairy industry. We find that the effective trade barrier created by Canadian quota allocation practices was as much as 71% to 94% more restrictive than the negotiated quota for some products.

Figure 2 plots the total TRQ value versus actual imports under USMCA holding current prices and quota fill rates constant. The administrative trade barrier created by Canada dairy quota allocation practices equates to approximately $1.27B in lost trade, or 67% of the total TRQ value, between now and 2030. 

Figure 1: USMCA Dairy Quota Fill Rates (2021)

Figure 2: Total TRQ Value versus Actual Imports

---

^[i] Canadian Dairy Quotas are defined in Chapter 2 “National Treatment and Market Access” of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). 

^[ii] Data for this figure are obtained from the Canadian Government Supply-Managed Tariff Rate Quota Utilization Tables (https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/controls-controles/supply_managed-gestion_offre.aspx?lang=eng&type=Utilization%20Tables#data)

^[iii] USMCA Arbitral Panel (2021). Final Report. Canada – Dairy TRQ Allocation Measures (CDA-USA-2021-31-010). 

Schaefer, K. Aleks. “The Economic Costs of Canadian Dairy Quota Restrictions under USMCA“. Southern Ag Today 2(25.4). June 16, 2022. Permalink

Animal disease outbreaks have severe economic consequences, especially for international trade. A recent example was the identification of two atypical cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Brazil in early September 2021. Although Brazil’s BSE status did not change within the World Organization for Animal Health, severe sanitary restrictions interrupted Brazilian beef trade. Egypt and Saudi Arabia halted beef imports from Brazil for two weeks. China and Hong Kong, which account for about 60% of Brazil’s beef exports, suspended beef imports from Brazil for more than three months. In the month following the notification of the BSE cases, international shipments of Brazilian beef were 49% lower compared to the same period in 2020. Consequently, domestic prices of live animals decreased by 8% in September, and 11.8% in October 2021, leading to the most unfavorable cattle market conditions in Brazil since 2000.

As in the case of Brazil, identification of animal disease is an imminent risk for the U.S., simply because diseases can be difficult to control and have widespread consequences. This risk is demonstrated by the current outbreak of avian influenza in the U.S., which has affected 24 states so far and led to restrictions on American poultry products imported by Canada, Mexico, and China. The extent of the economic damage from this current outbreak is still unknown.

Countries that are major exporters of animal products, such as the U.S., are substantially impaired by sanitary barriers when animal disease outbreaks occur. Trade diversion to other suppliers can cause significant export market losses, as observed during the 2000’s after the BSE outbreak in the U.S. Animal disease events in Brazil and the U.S. highlight the importance of understanding risks within agricultural systems in terms of the direct impact of disease on animal health and food safety, as well as the amplified international trade impacts.

Figure 1. Monthly Beef Exports and Cattle Price Index in Brazil in 2021

Menezes, Tais and Amanda Countryman. “The Imminent Menace of Sanitary Barriers in International Trade.” Southern Ag Today 2(23.4). June 2, 2022. Permalink

The U.S. has consistently ranked among the top-5 rice exporters in the world. However, since hitting a record 3.98 million metric tons (mmt) in 2002, U.S. rice exports have shown a downward trend, reaching 2.98 mmt in the marketing year 2020/21. The decrease in US exports contrasts with a growing global rice market and results in a significant drop in the US share in global rice exports in the last two decades. The decrease in U.S. exports is exclusively a result of a drop in long-grain rice exports since exports of medium- and short-grain rice have shown a positive trend. Long-grain rice is the main type of rice produced in the Mid-South, accounting for over 91% of the volume of production. 

In the last 20 years, exports of long-grain rice to North America and the Caribbean, the two largest market destinations, have grown marginally (less than 1% a year), while those to Central America and the Middle East have decreased moderately (between 1 and 2% a year on average). Exports to Europe have not recovered since the GM-contamination case in the mid-2000s. Exports to Mexico, the largest market for US long-grain rice accounting for a quarter of total exports in the period 2018-2020, show almost no growth since the early 2000s, and more recently are in a downward trend as competition from other suppliers, primarily Mercosur, grow. Haiti remains a core and growing market for US rice, but one plagued with risks and uncertainty. Competition in Central America, primarily from Mercosur, is eroding the market share of US rice despite its preferential access under DR-CAFTA. 

Efforts are being made to improve the competitiveness of US rice, particularly when it comes to rice quality. The US was once regarded as the golden standard for long-grain rice quality, but many will argue that is a thing of the past. The blame goes far and wide as to why the quality of US long-grain rice has diminished, but what matters is that the industry is taking steps to address the issue. The US exports around half of its rice crop every year, so working on regaining competitiveness in the global market is of utmost importance.   

Durand-Morat, Alvaro. “U.S. Long-Grain Rice Faces Growing Challenges Overseas“. Southern Ag Today 2(21.4). May 19, 2022. Permalink

Last month, 90 members of Congress sent a letter to the chair of the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) requesting suspension of the countervailing duties on phosphates from Morocco to help ease fertilizer prices for American farmers. These duties were imposed in March 2021 when the USITC ruled that fertilizer imports from Morocco and Russia were receiving illegal subsidies that were hurting the U.S. fertilizer industry. Farmers know the rest of the story—since the duties took effect, prices of phosphates have increased over 300% to record levels (See Figure 1). While inflation, China’s recent export ban, and other supply chain issues may be putting additional strain on the fertilizer industry, the USITC tariffs are certainly not helping. 

The USITC is not stuck between a (phosphate) rock and a hard place on this issue. The U.S. is the third largest phosphate producer in the world, behind China and Morocco. The Mosaic Company—the largest U.S. producer—was the original petitioner requesting the USITC to investigate Moroccan and Russian imports. After a recent acquisition of CF Industries’ phosphate mines in Florida, Mosaic’s market share was recently estimated at around 74% of the U.S. market. And, instead of being crowded out of the market by foreign competitors, Mosaic exports around half of its annual production, mostly to Canada and Mexico. In fact, Mosaic’s own statements suggest that it does not need tariff protection. Larry Stranhoener, former CFO of Mosaic, said in an interview in 2013, “[fertilizer] is a product that is freely traded and frequently traded across borders, so regional market share data should not matter.”

We agree with Mr. Stranhoener. The U.S. fertilizer industry will be fine if the USITC removes these duties. Doing so would alleviate at least some of the strain on U.S. fertilizer prices. On top of ongoing energy and food inflation pressure, global supply chain failures, and the ongoing agri-food consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, U.S. farmers and consumers should not have to bear the costs of geopolitical posturing in the fertilizer market. 

Figure 1. Phosphate rock and diammonium phosphate (DAP) and triple superphosphate (TSP) prices ($/MT): January 2017 – December 2021  

Beeler, Ashley, and K. Aleks Schaefer. “Removing Fertilizer Tariffs is Not A (Phosphate) Rock and a Hard Place Issue.” Southern Ag Today 2(19.4). May 5, 2022. Permalink

The coronavirus pandemic had significant consequences for the U.S. economy, prompting the federal government to help households through stimulus payments. Coupled with deferred consumer spending, these payments created additional demand for durable goods, satisfied by a considerable expansion of imports from Asia. At the same time, U.S. ports suffer from infrastructure constraints, resulting in an unprecedented supply chain bottleneck in Fall 2021. In addition, because of increasing freight rates from Asia to the U.S., it became more lucrative for shipping companies to export empty containers instead of filling them with agricultural products. This development had adverse consequences for U.S. containerized agricultural exports from Southern ports.

Figure 1 shows estimated containerized agricultural export losses from May 2021 to January 2022 and across product groups for Southern ports. The counterfactual export losses for Southern ports were comparably low between June and August 2021, amounting to an average of $94 million per month. However, the adverse impact tripled to $343 million in September 2021, and the next three months saw a further increase in export losses. Although a slight decrease is observable in December 2021 and January 2022, the export losses remained elevated at $490 million per month.

The estimated export losses vary widely across agricultural product groups. Panel (B) shows that containerized cereals and dairy exports were above the counterfactual level, experiencing trade gains of $258 and $48 million, respectively. In contrast, meat products saw the most extensive exports losses, amounting to $640 million between May 2021 and January 2022. Containerized animal food exports trailed closely behind, experiencing export losses of about $400 million. Fat and oil products were also disrupted, recording a reduction in containerized trade by $310 million, followed by oilseeds ($282 million) and beverage products ($207 million). Comparatively, vegetables and fruit & nuts saw more minor trade destruction, down about $147 million in total.

Our counterfactual estimates show that Southern agricultural exporters faced considerable difficulties due to container shipping disruptions in 2021. Although U.S. policymakers spearheaded several initiatives to resolve port congestion and container shortages, our estimates show that these initiatives failed to ease supply chain disruptions in the short run. To reduce port congestion, the Biden administration decided in November 2021 to extend the operation hours of U.S. ports. In addition, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal was passed in the same month, promising to expand port infrastructure, which could benefit U.S. agricultural exporters, but these investments will take time to materialize.

Figure 1. Agricultural Export Losses for Southern ports between May 2021 and January 2022

(A) Containerized Agricultural Export Losses by Month

(B) Containerized Export Losses

Note. Estimates based on trade data and empirical approach by Steinbach (2022).

See: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2022.110392

*Sandro Steinbach, Corresponding Author, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut, phone: 860-486-2836, email: sandro.steinbach@uconn.edu; Xiting Zhuang, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Connecticut, email: xiting.zhuang@uconn.edu. This work was supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture through the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Award 2019-67023-29343. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Agriculture. We are thankful to seminar participants of the 2022 USDA ERS Brownbag Seminar for comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Steinbach, Sandro, and Xiting Zhuang. “Shipping Container Disruptions Cause Considerable Export Losses for Southern Ports.” Southern Ag Today 2(17.4). April 21, 2022. Permalink