Generalized System of Preferences: Agricultural Imports

Order Code RS22541 Updated November 10, 2008 Generalized System of Preferences: Agricultural Imports Renée Johnson Specialist in Agricultural Policy Resources, Science, and Industry DivisionJanuary 3, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS22541 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Generalized System of Preferences: Agricultural Imports Summary The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) provides duty-free tariff treatment for certain products from designated developing countries. Agricultural imports under the GSP totaled $2.1 2 billion in 20072009, about 711% of all U.S. GSP imports. Leading agricultural imports include sugar, confectionery, cocoa, olive oil, processed meats, drinking waters, and processed foods and food processing inputs, sugar and sugar confectionery, cocoa, processed and fresh fruits and vegetables, beverages and drinking waters, olive oil, processed meats, and miscellaneous food preparations and inputs for further processing. The majority of these imports are from Thailand, Argentina, BrazilBrazil, Argentina, India, and the Philippines. Some in Congress have called continued to call for changes to the program that could limit GSP benefits to certain countries, among other changes. Opinion within the U.S. agriculture industry is mixed, reflecting both support for and opposition to the current program. Congress made changes to the program in 2006, tightening its requirements on imports under certain circumstances. The 110th In the past few years, Congress has extended GSP through 2009, likely making the GSP a legislative issue in the 111th Congress. Also, the leadership of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee continue a series of short-term extensions. However, the 111th Congress did not extend the GSP in 2010, and it was set to expire December 31, 2010 (P.L. 111-124). The expiration of the GSP will likely become a legislative issue in the 112th Congress. In addition, leaders of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have continued to express an interest in evaluating the effectiveness of U.S. trade preference programs, including the GSP. Background The U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) was established by the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2465; Sec. 505) and now provides preferential duty-free entry to more than 4,650 agricultural and non-agricultural products from 131 designated beneficiary countries and territories.1 Agricultural products account for about 7% of the total value of annual GSP imports. Duty-free access for agricultural imports under the program is an important issue for many in the U.S. agriculture industry who either support or oppose 1 Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), Generalized System of Preferences, at [http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Development/Preference_Programs/GSP/Section_Index.html]. CRS-2 the program. However, some in Congress have called for changes to the program that could limit or curtail GSP benefits to certain countries, among other changes. The GSP is currently reauthorized through December 31, 2009 (P.L. 110-436). GSP Agricultural Imports In 2007, U.S. imports under the GSP program totaled $30.8 billion, accounting for less than 2% of all commodity imports. Leading U.S. imports under the GSP are manufactured products and parts, chemicals, plastics, minerals, and forestry products. Roughly one-fourth of all GSP imports consist of jewelry, electrical, and transportation equipment, both finished products and parts.2 Agricultural products accounted for 7% of all imports under the GSP, totaling $2.1 billion in 2007. Compared to 2000, the value of agricultural imports under the program has nearly doubled. In 2007, imports under the GSP accounted for about 4% of total U.S. agricultural imports.3 Table 1 shows the leading agricultural products (ranked by value) imported into the United States under the GSP program. Leading imports include sugar and confectionery products, processed fruit and vegetable preparations, olive oil, waters and other beverages, processed food inputs for further processing, processed meats and fish products, tropical and non-tropical fruits and vegetables, and cocoa and cocoacontaining products. Most GSP agricultural imports are supplied by beneficiary countries that have been identified for possible graduation from the program. In 2007, the top six beneficiary countries ranked by import value — Thailand, Argentina, Brazil, India, the Philippines, and Turkey — accounted for the majority of agricultural imports under the GSP (see Table 2). Brazil and India accounted for nearly one-fifth of agricultural imports under the program. These countries are among those identified by critics of GSP as countries whose benefits under the program should be limited or curtailed. More than 20% of GSP agricultural imports consist of sugar and sugar-based products, and cocoa and cocoa-containing products. Sugar and confectionery imports accounted for 17% of the value of agricultural imports under the GSP program (Table 1). Major GSP suppliers of cane and beet sugar imports were the Philippines, Paraguay, Peru, Panama, and South Africa. Major suppliers of confectionery were Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Thailand, and Turkey. Cocoa and cocoa-containing products accounted for 4% of GSP agricultural imports, and were supplied mainly by Brazil, the Côte d’Ivoire, and Indonesia. Indonesia, among other countries, is a supplier of imports of sugar alcohols and other agriculture-based organic chemicals, such as sorbitol. Another nearly 40% of agricultural imports under the GSP program include food processing inputs, such as miscellaneous processed foods, processed oils and fats, fruit and vegetable preparations, and ag-based chemicals and byproducts. Other product 2 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Estimated Impacts of the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences to U.S. Industry and Consumers, October, 2006, at [http://www.uschamber.com/publications/ reports/0610gsp]. 3 USDA reports U.S. agricultural imports totaled $47.7 billion in 2007 [http://www.ers.usda.gov/ Data/FATUS/MonthlySummary.htm]. CRS-3 categories and suppliers are as follows. Olive oil accounted for 7% of GSP agricultural imports in 2007, supplied by Tunisia, Turkey, and Argentina. Mineral waters and other types of nonalcoholic beverages (another 6%) were supplied by Fiji and Thailand, among others. Imports of fresh and prepared fruits and vegetables (about 10%) include bananas and other tropical produce, and dried beans, tubers, onions, and melons from most Latin American countries and India, the Philippines, and Thailand. Argentina is a leading supplier of processed meat under the GSP; Indonesia supplies processed fish and seafood. Table 1. U.S. Agricultural Imports under GSP, 2007 HTS Chapter(s) Subsection 17 19, 21, 13 20, 14 22 23, 3501-3505, 3301, 38 (part) 1509 16 8 (part), 7 18 12, 15 (part) 8 (part) 24 9 4 10, 11 2905 (part) 6 8 (part) 5, 4301, 41 (part) 1, 2 50-53 (part) Import Categories Sugars and sugar confectionery Processed foods & food processing inputs Processed fruits & vegetables, inputs Beverages, water, spirits, and vinegar Other ag-based chemicals, residues, & byproducts Olive oil Processed meat & fish products Other fresh fruits and vegetables Cocoa & cocoa-containing products Oilseeds & processed oils/fats Fresh tropical fruits Tobacco products Coffee, tea, & spices Dairy products Grain-based products Ag-based organic chemicals (e.g. sorbitol) Plants and cut flowers Nuts Misc. animal products, incl. hides Meat products, incl. live animals Ag-based textile inputs (cotton, wool, etc.) Total 2007 GSP Share ($ millions) % Share All Ag Imports 353.8 17% 14% 316.1 15% 4% 293.3 14% 6% 156.3 8% 1% 154.0 7% 3% 142.3 116.2 110.0 91.1 70.1 46.9 45.0 40.8 31.8 29.9 19.1 18.0 17.3 6.9 0.4 0.3 2059.7 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% <1% <1% <1% 100% 15% 3% 1% 3% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 1% 19% 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% 3% Source: CRS calculations from data from U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), [http://dataweb.usitc.gov]. Imports for consumption, actual U.S. dollars. Select GSP countries ranked in terms of value of imports. Agriculture commodities as defined by the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. Includes U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) chapters 1-24, excluding chapter 3 (fish and fish products, except processed), and parts of HTS chapters 29, 33, 35, 48, 41, 43, and 50-53 (for information, see USDA, Profiles of Tariffs in Global Agricultural Markets, AER-796, Appendix, January 2001). Legislative and Administrative Changes to GSP The 110th Congress extended the GSP for one year through December 31, 2009 (P.L. 110-436). Given this one-year extension, the GSP will continue to be a legislative issue in the 111th Congress. In addition, the leadership of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee continue to express the need to evaluate the effectiveness of the GSP, as well as other U.S. trade preference programs. Chairman Baucus of the Senate Finance Committee has said he hopes to review all U.S. trade preference programs in the 111th Congress, and to evaluate which countries are benefitting CRS-4 under the program.4 This follows an oversight hearing by the committee, which was conducted in June 2008 and focused on ways to reform trade preference programs, including the GSP. According to committee staff, that hearing was considered a first step toward a possible bill seeking to reform trade preference programs.5 Amendments to the GSP in 2006 followed extensive debate about the program during the 109th Congress. Specifically, some in Congress questioned the inclusion of certain more advanced developing countries (BDCs)6 as beneficiaries under the GSP and also commented that certain BDCs had contributed to the ongoing impasse in multilateral trade talks in the WTO Doha Development Agenda.7 In response to these concerns, Congress amended the program in 2006 by tightening the rules on “competitive need limits” (CNL)8 waivers that allow imports from beneficiary countries in excess of GSP statutory thresholds for some products (P.L. 109-432). Historically, there have been few CNL waivers to the GSP for agricultural products and it is unlikely that these program changes will greatly affect U.S. agricultural imports under the program. In 2006, Congress had also renewed the GSP for two years through 2008. In addition, the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC), an advisory committee chaired by the U.S. Trade Representative, has instituted a series of investigations to evaluate possible changes to the GSP.9 In its 2006 review the TPSC announced that the more than 80 previously granted CNL waivers would be individually evaluated, in addition to the standard practice of examining petitions for new CNL waivers. The TPSC said that it would also examine the eligibility status of several “middle income” economies.10 Among the countries identified for possible removal as beneficiaries under the program were Argentina, Brazil, India, the Philippines, Thailand, and Turkey. These countries account for over 60% of the value of U.S. agricultural products imported duty-free under the program. Although none of the countries cited lost their overall GSP eligibility as a result of these reviews, several previously granted CNL waivers from these countries were revoked. For agricultural imports under the GSP, the Côte d’Ivoire lost 4 See, e.g., “Senate Moves on APTA,” Washington Trade Daily, October 3, 2008. 5 “Senate Finance Mulls Preference Overhaul, May Focus on Poorest,” Washington Trade Daily, June 13, 2008. 6 BDCs under the GSP, as of 2008, are listed in the General Notes section of the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule, at [http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/tata/hts/bychapter/0800htsa.pdf]. 7 See, e.g., U.S. Senate, Committee on Finance, Opening Statement of Senator Charles Grassley, Hearing on the Nomination of Susan C. Schwab to be U.S. Trade Representative, May 16, 2006. 8 The previous law stipulated a CNL requiring that countries export no more than 50% of total U.S. imports of each product or no more than a specified dollar amount of the imports for a given year. The amended law further tightened these requirements. 9 72 Federal Register 35895, June 28, 2007 (2006 Review); and 73 Federal Register 38297, June 3, 2008 (2007 Review). Regulations for implementing the GSP are at 15 C.F.R. Part 2007. 10 Countries may “graduate” or be removed as a beneficiary developing country if the country is determined to be sufficiently competitive or developed (19 U.S.C. 2462(e)). For example, in 2008, the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago graduated from the GSP program when it was determined to have become a ‘’high income’‘ country. Also, countries that formally enter into a bilateral trading relationship with another developed country may also become ineligible, as happened in 2007 for Bulgaria and Romania when they joined the European Union. CRS-5 CNL waivers for fresh or dried, shelled kola nuts (HTS 0802.90.94), as part of the 2006 review. Argentina lost CNL waivers for cooked, shelled, fresh or dried peanuts (HTS 1202.20.40), as part of the 2007 review. These waivers had allowed for these products to be imported from the Côte d’Ivoire and Argentina duty-free under GSP despite the statutory import thresholds. Other countries lost CNL waivers for some non-agricultural products, but not for agricultural products. The 2006 review included decisions on other country and product petitions involving agricultural products, but these changes are unlikely to greatly affect U.S. agricultural imports under the program. For more information and for a discussion of possible legislative options, see CRS Report RL33663, Generalized System of Preferences: Background and Renewal Debate, by Vivian C. Jones. Table 2. U.S. Agricultural Imports under GSP, by Country, 2007 Country of Origin 2007 % % Change ($ mill) Share 2003-2007 Thailand Argentina Brazil 360 242 240 17.5% 11.8% 11.6% India 179 8.7% Philippines 136 6.6% Turkey 134 6.5% Peru 94 4.6% Indonesia Fiji Tunisia Colombia 87 69 69 50 4.2% 3.4% 3.4% 2.4% Ecuador 39 1.9% South Africa Subtotal Other BDCs Total 35 1.7% 1,734 84.0% 325 15.8% 2,060 100.0% Major import product categories nonalcoholic beverages, misc. food preparations, misc. preserved fruits and 61% vegetables, confectionery, pasta 88% prepared meat, sugar confectionery, cheese, olive oil, gelatin derivatives 15% gelatin derivatives, chocolate and cocoa products, confectionery, mangoes vegetable saps/extracts, gelatin derivatives, preserved cucumbers, essential oils 108% (peppermint), ground/crushed peppers, miscellaneous food preparations cane/beet sugar, coconut oil and coconuts, banana products, fresh/processed 22% tropical fruits, nonalcoholic beverages, misc. food preparations fruit juice, olive oil, prepared/preserved vegetables, ground/crushed peppers, 103% preserved bell peppers, confectionery ground/crushed peppers, mangoes, artichokes, onions, artificial margarine 143% products and other edible fats/oils, melons, misc. prepared vegetables tobacco products, edible animal products, confectionery, organic chemicals, 50% cocoa powder, misc. food preparations, seafood products 115% mineral waters, sugar cane, molasses, tropical fruits/vegetables, snack foods 1459% olive oil/oil products, dates, pasta, misc. food preparations, sauces, capers 3% sugar, chewing gum, confectionery, processed fruits/nuts, grains/preparations preserved/frozen fruit products, sugar, floriculture/plants, seeds, bulbs, tuber 131% vegetables cane/beet sugar, misc. food preparations, wine, plant bulbs/roots and plants, 57% active yeasts, spices, essential oils (citrus), fruit juices 66% -41% 29% Source: CRS calculations from data from U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), [http://dataweb.usitc.gov]. Imports for consumption, actual U.S. dollars. Includes U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) chapters 1-24, excluding chapter 3 (fish and fish products, except processed), and parts of HTS chapters 29, 33, 35, 48, 41, 43, and 50-53. Select GSP countries ranked in terms of value of imports in 2007 (10-digit HTS level). Agriculture commodities as defined by the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (for information, see USDA, Profiles of Tariffs in Global Agricultural Markets, AER-796, Appendix, January 2001). Possible Implications of Changes to the GSP The 2006 statutory changes to the GSP tightening rules for CNL waivers are unlikely to greatly affect U.S. agricultural imports under the program. Historically, there have been few CNL waivers for agricultural products imported duty-free under the GSP. Current waivers include sugar and preserved bananas (Philippines), sugar, carnations, figs, yams, and gelatin derivatives (Colombia), certain nuts (Argentina), animal hides CRS-6 (Argentina, South Africa, and Thailand), and caviar (Russia).11 Other types of program changes, however, could affect U.S. agricultural imports under the GSP, including additional limits on CNL waivers from certain countries or graduation of some beneficiary countries. Countries that account for the majority of U.S. agricultural imports under the GSP are Thailand, Brazil, Argentina, India, the Philippines, and Turkey. Comments submitted to USTR on its 2006 proposal from U.S. agricultural industry groups are mixed.12 The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) expressed its general opposition to the GSP program, stating that products imported duty-free under the program compete with U.S.-produced goods without granting a commensurate level of opportunity for U.S. producers in foreign markets. AFBF further supported withdrawal of CNL waivers for the Philippines, Argentina, and Colombia. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) expressed support for the current GSP program and identified certain agricultural products of importance to GMA under the program, including sugar confections, spices, and certain processed foods and inputs from Brazil, India, and Argentina. GMA’s position was generally supported by comments from the American Spice Trade Association, the National Confectioners Association, and the Chocolate Manufacturers Association. What remains unclear is whether duty-free access for most agricultural imports under the GSP greatly influences a country’s willingness to export these products to the United States. In most cases, costs associated with import tariffs are borne by the importer. These costs may be passed on to the BDCs in terms of lower import prices. However, import tariffs to the United States for most of these products tend to be low. As calculated by CRS, ad valorem equivalent tariffs range from 3%-4% for sugar, 2%-10% for cocoacontaining products, 5%-12% for confectionery, 1%-2% for most processed meats, about 2% for olive oil, less than 1% for mineral water, and about 5% for agriculture-based organic chemicals.13 In general, any additional costs that might be incurred by the BDCs as a result of the proposed changes could be more than offset by the generally higher U.S. prices for most products compared to prices in other world markets. Nevertheless, the imposition of even relatively low import tariffs could represent an increase in input costs to some U.S. food processors and industrial users. These costs could be passed on to consumers through higher prices for these and other finished agricultural or manufactured products. As shown in Table 1, about one-half of GSP agricultural imports are intermediate goods and inputs, such as raw sugar, miscellaneous processed foods, preparations, and byproducts, and agriculture-based organic chemicals. 11 USTR, CNL Waivers, at [http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Development/Preference_Programs/ GSP/CNL_Waivers_Current_Waivers_to_GSP_Competitive_Need_Limitations_(CNLs).html]. 12 13 Public comments are posted at USTR’s website, at [http://www.ustr.gov/]. Calculated tariffs based on the in-quota rate. Under the GSP, agricultural products subject to a TRQ exceeding the in-quota quantity is ineligible for duty-free import (19 U.S.C. 2463(b)(3))., and broader reform of these programs might be possible. Congressional Research Service Generalized System of Preferences: Agricultural Imports Contents Background ................................................................................................................................1 GSP Agricultural Imports ............................................................................................................1 Legislative and Administrative Changes to GSP ..........................................................................4 Possible Implications of Changes to the GSP...............................................................................5 Tables Table 1. U.S. Agricultural Imports under GSP, 2009 ....................................................................2 Table 2. U.S. Agricultural Imports under GSP, by Country, 2009 .................................................3 Contacts Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................6 Congressional Research Service Generalized System of Preferences: Agricultural Imports Background The U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) was established by the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2465; Sec. 505) and now provides preferential duty-free entry to more than 4,800 agricultural and non-agricultural products from 131 designated beneficiary countries and territories. 1 Agricultural products under the GSP totaled $2.2 billion in 2009, accounting for about 11% of the total value of annual GSP imports. Duty-free access for agricultural imports under the program is an important issue for many in the U.S. agriculture industry who either support or oppose the program. However, some in Congress have called for changes to the program that could limit or curtail benefits to certain countries, among other changes. In 2008 and again in 2009, GSP was reauthorized through a series of one-year extensions. The 111th Congress did not extend the GSP in 2010, and it was set to expire December 31, 2010 (P.L. 111-124).2 GSP Agricultural Imports In 2008, U.S. imports under the GSP program totaled $20.3 billion, accounting for less than 2% of all commodity imports. Leading U.S. imports under the GSP are manufactured products and parts, chemicals, plastics, minerals, and forestry products. Roughly one-fourth of all GSP imports consist of jewelry, electrical, and transportation equipment, both finished products and parts.3 Agricultural products accounted for 11% of all imports under the GSP, totaling $2.2 billion in 2009. Compared to 2000, the value of agricultural imports under the program has nearly doubled. In 2009, imports under the GSP accounted for about 3% of total U.S. agricultural imports.4 Table 1 shows the leading agricultural products (ranked by value) imported into the United States under the GSP program. Leading imports include processed foods and food processing inputs, sugar and sugar confectionery, cocoa, processed and fresh fruits and vegetables, drinking waters, olive oil, processed meats, and miscellaneous food preparations and inputs for further processing. Most GSP agricultural imports are supplied by beneficiary countries that have been identified for possible graduation from the program. In 2009, the top six beneficiary countries ranked by import value—Thailand, Brazil, Argentina, India, the Philippines, and Turkey—accounted for the majority of agricultural imports under the GSP (see Table 2). Brazil and India accounted for nearly one-fifth of agricultural imports under the program. These countries are among those identified by critics of GSP as countries whose benefits under the program should be limited or curtailed. 1 Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), Generalized System of Preferences, http://www.ustr.gov/ Trade_Development/Preference_Programs/GSP/Section_Index.html. 2 The African Growth and Opportunity Acceleration Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-274) extended GSP preferences for all beneficiary developing sub-Saharan African countries under the African Growth and Opportunity Act through September 30, 2015. 3 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Estimated Impacts of the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences to U.S. Industry and Consumers, October, 2006, http://www.uschamber.com/reports/estimated-impacts-us-generalized-system-preferencesus-industry-and-consumers. 4 The value of U.S. agricultural imports totaled $78.8 billion in 2009 (compiled by CRS using trade data from U.S. International Trade Commission. Imports for consumption, actual U.S. dollars. Agriculture commodities as defined by the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (USDA, Profiles of Tariffs in Global Agricultural Markets, AER-796, Appendix, January 2001). Congressional Research Service 1 Generalized System of Preferences: Agricultural Imports More than 20% of GSP agricultural imports consist of sugar and sugar-based products, and cocoa and cocoa-containing products. Sugar and confectionery imports accounted for 18% of the value of agricultural imports under the GSP program (Table 1). Major GSP suppliers of cane and beet sugar imports were the Philippines, Paraguay, Peru, Panama, and South Africa. Major suppliers of confectionery were Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey. Cocoa and cocoa-containing products accounted for 5% of GSP agricultural imports, and were supplied mainly by Brazil, the Côte d’Ivoire, and other African nations. Indonesia, among other countries, is a supplier of imports of sugar alcohols and other agriculture-based organic chemicals, such as sorbitol. Table 1. U.S. Agricultural Imports under GSP, 2009 HTS Chapter(s) Subsection Import Categories 19, 21, 13 Processed foods & food processing inputs 385.1 18% 5% 17 Sugar and sugar confectionary 378.9 17% 13% 20, 14 Processed fruits & vegetables, inputs 329.8 15% 7% 22 Beverages, water, spirits, and vinegar 152.7 7% 1% 1509 Olive oil 150.5 7% 17% 23, 3501-3505, 3301, 38 (part) Other ag-based chemicals, residues, & byproducts 148.2 7% 3% 16 Processed meat & fish products 120.9 6% 3% 8 (part), 7 Other fresh fruits and vegetables 116.3 5% 1% 18 Cocoa & cocoa-containing products 102.1 5% 3% 8 (part) Fresh tropical fruits 48.3 2% 2% 10, 11 Grain-based products 42.3 2% 1% 12, 15 (part) Oilseeds & processed oils/fats 41.3 2% 1% 24 Tobacco products 39.5 2% 3% 4 Dairy products 36.8 2% 2% 9 Coffee, tea, & spices 33.2 2% 1% 2905 (part) Ag-based organic chemicals (e.g. sorbitol) 19.7 1% 25% 6 Plants and cut flowers 15.8 1% 3% 5, 4301, 41 (part) Misc. animal products, incl. hides 5.3 0% 1% 8 (part) Nuts 3.6 0% 0% 1, 2 Meat products, incl. live animals 0.3 0% 0% 50-53 (part) Ag-based textile inputs (cotton, wool) 0.2 0% 0% 2,170.8 100% 3% Total 2009 ($ millions) % Share GSP Share All Ag Imports Source: CRS calculations from data from U.S. International Trade Commission, http://dataweb.usitc.gov. Imports for consumption, actual U.S. dollars. Select GSP countries ranked by value of imports. Agriculture commodities as defined by the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. Includes U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule chapters 1-24, excluding chapter 3 (fish and fish products, except processed), and parts of chapters 29, 33, 35, 48, 41, 43, and 50-53 (USDA, Profiles of Tariffs in Global Agricultural Markets, AER-796, Appendix, January 2001). Congressional Research Service 2 Generalized System of Preferences: Agricultural Imports Table 2. U.S. Agricultural Imports under GSP, by Country, 2009 Country of Origin 2009 ($ millions % Share % Change 20052009 Major import product categories Thailand 425.4 19.6% 48% food preparations, preserved fruits and vegetables, waters, grain products, sauces and condiments, confectionery, Brazil 273.0 12.6% 30% fruit juices, gelatin derivatives, sugar confectionery, tropical fruits, miscellaneous food preparations, cocoa products Argentina 241.7 11.1% 24% casein, olive oil, prepared meats, gelatin derivatives, cheese and curd, sugar confectionery, wine India 211.9 9.8% 71% vegetable saps/extracts, gelatin derivatives, preserved cucumbers, essential oils (peppermint), spices Philippines 137.1 6.3% 18% cane/beet sugar, fresh/processed fruits and tropical fruits, fish products, coconut oil and coconuts, grains, waters Turkey 131.7 6.1% 16% sugar confectionary, olive oil, prepared/preserved fruits and vegetables, fruit juices, condiments and spices Tunisia 106.1 4.9% 406% Indonesia 78.9 3.6% 61% Colombia 72.6 3.3% 1% Fiji 47.4 2.2% -20% South Africa 42.1 1.9% 34% sugar, wine, fish products, yeasts, live plants and seeds, essential oils, food preparations, spices Cote d`Ivoire 40.8 1.9% 85% preserved/frozen fruit products, sugar, floriculture/plants, seeds, bulbs, tuber vegetables Pakistan 34.9 1.6% 272% Ecuador 33.4 1.5% 52% Venezuela 29.2 1.3% 161% 1,906 87.8% 42% 265 12.2% 16% 2,171 100.0% -49% Subtotal Other Total olive oil and olive products, tropical fruits, sugar confectionary, sauces and condiments, spices sugar alcohols and organic chemicals, seafood, tobacco products, sugar confectionary, edible animal products sugar and confectionary, miscellaneous food preparations, molasses, tropical fruits/vegetables, cocoa products mineral waters, molasses, tropical fruits/vegetables, grain products, miscellaneous food preparations, plants cane/beet sugar, rice, miscellaneous food preparations, spices, fresh/processed fruits and tropical fruits tropical fruits/vegetables, prepared fish products, miscellaneous food preparations, fruit juices, cocoa products Source: CRS calculations from data from U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), http://dataweb.usitc.gov. Imports for consumption, actual U.S. dollars. Includes U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) chapters 1-24, excluding chapter 3 (fish and fish products, except processed), and parts of HTS chapters 29, 33, 35, 48, 41, 43, and 50-53. Select GSP countries ranked in terms of value of imports in 2007 (10-digit HTS level). Agriculture commodities as defined by the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (for information, see USDA, Profiles of Tariffs in Global Agricultural Markets, AER-796, Appendix, January 2001). Congressional Research Service 3 Generalized System of Preferences: Agricultural Imports Another nearly 40% of agricultural imports under the GSP program include food processing inputs, such as miscellaneous processed foods, processed oils and fats, fruit and vegetable preparations, and ag-based chemicals and byproducts. Other product categories and suppliers are as follows. Olive oil accounted for 7% of GSP agricultural imports in 2009, supplied by Tunisia, Turkey, and Argentina. Mineral waters and other types of nonalcoholic beverages (another 6%) were supplied by Fiji and Thailand, among others. Imports of fresh and prepared fruits and vegetables (about 10%) include bananas and other tropical produce. Legislative and Administrative Changes to GSP In the past few years, Congress has extended GSP through a series of short-term extensions. However, the 111th Congress did not extend the GSP in 2010, and it was set to expire December 31, 2010 (P.L. 111-124). The expiration of the GSP will likely become a legislative issue in the 112th Congress, especially since many in Congress continue to support the program. 5 In addition, the leaders of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have continued to express an interest in evaluating the effectiveness of U.S. trade preference programs, including the GSP, and broader reform of these programs has been expected in recent years. The House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade conducted a hearing evaluating the effectiveness of U.S. trade preference programs, including the GSP, in November 2009;6 the Senate Finance Committee conducted an oversight hearing in June 2008, focusing on ways to reform U.S. trade preference programs.7 Prior to the one-year extension in December 2009, the Obama Administration had indicated that the debate on preference reform may extend into next year; however, some Members have expressed their reluctance to pass a GSP renewal without also enacting meaningful reform legislation. 8 Amendments to the GSP in 2006 followed extensive debate about the program during the 109th Congress. Specifically, some in Congress questioned the inclusion of certain more advanced developing countries (BDCs)9 as beneficiaries under the GSP and also commented that certain BDCs had contributed to the ongoing impasse in multilateral trade talks in the WTO Doha Development Agenda.10 In response to these concerns, Congress amended the program in 2006 by tightening the rules on “competitive need limits” (CNL)11 waivers that allow imports from beneficiary countries in excess of GSP statutory thresholds for some products (P.L. 109-432). 5 “Congress Passes Short-Term ATPDEA, TAA Extensions, But Not GSP,” Inside U.S. Trade, December 23, 2010; and press release of Senator Max Baucus, “Baucus Commends Passage of Short-Term Extension of Job-Creating Trade Bill, Seeks Longer Extension,” December 22, 2010. 6 House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, “Hearing on the Operation, Impact, and Future of the U.S. Preference Programs,” November 17, 2009. 7 Senate Finance Committee, “Oversight of Trade Functions: Customs and Other Trade Agencies,” June 24, 2008. 8 See, e.g., remarks of Senator Charles Grassley, Ranking Member of Senate Finance Committee, Washington International Trade Association, June 18, 2009. 9 A current listing of BDCs under the GSP is available in the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (General Notes). 10 See, e.g., U.S. Senate, Committee on Finance, Opening Statement of Senator Charles Grassley, Hearing on the Nomination of Susan C. Schwab to be U.S. Trade Representative, May 16, 2006. 11 The previous law stipulated a CNL requiring that countries export no more than 50% of total U.S. imports of each product or no more than a specified dollar amount of the imports for a given year. The amended law further tightened these requirements. Congressional Research Service 4 Generalized System of Preferences: Agricultural Imports Historically, there have been few CNL waivers to the GSP for agricultural products and it is unlikely that these program changes will greatly affect U.S. agricultural imports under the program. In 2006, Congress had also renewed the GSP for two years through 2008. Also, in 2006, the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC), an advisory committee chaired by the U.S. Trade Representative, instituted a series of investigations to evaluate possible changes to the GSP.12 In its 2006 review the TPSC announced that the more than 80 previously granted CNL waivers would be individually evaluated, in addition to the standard practice of examining petitions for new CNL waivers. The TPSC said that it would also examine the eligibility status of several “middle income” economies.13 Among the countries identified for possible removal as beneficiaries under the program were Argentina, Brazil, India, the Philippines, Thailand, and Turkey. These countries account for over 60% of the value of U.S. agricultural products imported duty-free under the program. Although none of the countries cited lost their overall GSP eligibility as a result of these reviews, several previously granted CNL waivers from these countries were revoked. For agricultural imports under the GSP, the Côte d’Ivoire lost CNL waivers for fresh or dried, shelled kola nuts (HTS 0802.90.94), as part of the 2006 review. Argentina lost CNL waivers for cooked, shelled, fresh or dried peanuts (HTS 1202.20.40), as part of the 2007 review. These waivers had allowed for these products to be imported from the Côte d’Ivoire and Argentina duty-free under GSP despite the statutory import thresholds. Other countries lost CNL waivers for some non-agricultural products, but not for agricultural products. The 2006 review included decisions on other country and product petitions involving agricultural products, but these changes are unlikely to greatly affect U.S. agricultural imports under the GSP. For more information and for a discussion of possible legislative options, see CRS Report RL33663, Generalized System of Preferences: Background and Renewal Debate. Possible Implications of Changes to the GSP The 2006 statutory changes to the GSP tightening rules for CNL waivers are unlikely to greatly affect U.S. agricultural imports under the program. Historically, there have been few CNL waivers for agricultural products imported duty-free under the GSP. Current waivers include sugar and preserved bananas (Philippines), sugar, carnations, figs, yams, and gelatin derivatives (Colombia), certain nuts (Argentina), animal hides (Argentina, South Africa, and Thailand), and caviar (Russia). Other types of program changes, however, could affect U.S. agricultural imports under the GSP, including additional limits on CNL waivers from certain countries or graduation of some beneficiary countries. Countries that account for the majority of U.S. agricultural imports under the GSP are Thailand, Brazil, Argentina, India, the Philippines, and Turkey. Comments submitted to USTR as part of its 2006 review from U.S. agricultural industry groups are mixed.14 For example, the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) expressed its general 12 72 Federal Register 35895, June 28, 2007 (2006 Review); and 73 Federal Register 38297, June 3, 2008 (2007 Review). Regulations for implementing the GSP are at 15 C.F.R. Part 2007. 13 Countries may “graduate” or be removed as a beneficiary developing country if the country is determined to be sufficiently competitive or developed (19 U.S.C. 2462(e)). For example, in 2008, the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago graduated from the GSP program when it was determined to have become a ‘‘high income’’ country. Also, countries that formally enter into a bilateral trading relationship with another developed country may also become ineligible, as happened in 2007 for Bulgaria and Romania when they joined the European Union. 14 Based on public comments to the 2006 TPSC recommendations, posted at USTR’s website. Congressional Research Service 5 Generalized System of Preferences: Agricultural Imports opposition to the GSP program, stating that products imported duty-free under the program compete with U.S.-produced goods without granting a commensurate level of opportunity for U.S. producers in foreign markets. AFBF further supported withdrawal of CNL waivers for the Philippines, Argentina, and Colombia. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) expressed support for the current GSP program and identified certain agricultural products of importance to GMA under the program, including sugar confections, spices, and certain processed foods and inputs from Brazil, India, and Argentina. GMA’s position was generally supported by comments from the American Spice Trade Association, the National Confectioners Association, and the Chocolate Manufacturers Association. GMA also was a signatory of a letter sent to House and Senate leaders in late 2010 urging Congress to extend the GSP.15 What remains unclear is whether duty-free access for most agricultural imports under the GSP greatly influences a country’s willingness to export these products to the United States. In most cases, costs associated with import tariffs are borne by the importer. These costs may be passed on to the BDCs in terms of lower import prices. However, import tariffs to the United States for most of these products tend to be low. As calculated by CRS, ad valorem equivalent tariffs range from 3%-4% for sugar, 2%-10% for cocoa-containing products, 5%-12% for confectionery, 1%2% for most processed meats, about 2% for olive oil, less than 1% for mineral water, and about 5% for agriculture-based organic chemicals. 16 In general, any additional costs that might be incurred by the BDCs as a result of the proposed changes could be more than offset by the generally higher U.S. prices for most products compared to prices in other world markets. Nevertheless, the imposition of even relatively low import tariffs could represent an increase in input costs to some U.S. food processors and industrial users. These costs could be passed on to consumers through higher prices for these and other finished agricultural or manufactured products. As shown in Table 1, about one-half of GSP agricultural imports are intermediate goods and inputs, such as raw sugar, miscellaneous processed foods, preparations, and byproducts, and agriculture-based organic chemicals. Author Contact Information Renée Johnson Specialist in Agricultural Policy rjohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-9588 15 Letter to Representatives Sander Levin and Dave Camp, and Senators Max Baucus and Charles Grassley, from several U.S. companies and manufacturing associations, including GMA, November 10, 2010, https://www.apparelandfootwear.org/UserFiles/File/Letters/2010/111010gspcoalition.pdf. 16 Calculated tariffs based on the in-quota rate. Under the GSP, agricultural products subject to a TRQ exceeding the inquota quantity is ineligible for duty-free import (19 U.S.C. 2463(b)(3)). Congressional Research Service 6