You are here: / China
thumbnail
, , , ,

2019 Trade Policy Outlook

By Ben Conner, USW Vice President of Policy

If there is anything we learned from 2018, it is that the trade policy landscape is unpredictable. While many upcoming or ongoing issues are known, there are a range of possible outcomes within each, some of which could drastically alter the trade landscape in the future.

Let us start with China. This week, U.S. and Chinese negotiators met in Beijing to work toward resolving the current trade dispute, which has seen tariffs slapped on over $300 billion in trade. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, there is a hard deadline of Mar. 1 to reach a deal that will at least prevent further imposition of tariffs. U.S. wheat farmers have been shut out of China since March 2018, leaving their Chinese customers scrambling for other sources. The next couple months could reveal if trade will resume this year, or if the conflict will continue.

The United States has also initiated formal processes for trade negotiations with Japan, the European Union, and the United Kingdom (U.S. Wheat Associates will submit comments on the UK negotiations next week). However, there are still a number of unknowns, such as the scope and length of negotiations with Japan, the inclusion of agriculture in negotiations with the EU and the nature of the UK’s post-Brexit relationship with the EU.

The new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) will likely be submitted to Congress this year to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but shifting political dynamics in the United States complicate Congressional approval and implementation of the agreement.

There is the threat of new tariffs on automobiles under Section 232 authority, potentially covering hundreds of billions in trade. While this is mitigated somewhat due to side letters negotiated alongside USMCA and the promise to avoid imposing tariffs on Japan and the EU while negotiations are ongoing, declaring automobile imports to be a national security threat has the potential to enrage U.S. trading partners and lead to new retaliatory measures.

Finally, there is the possibility that the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body will cease to function by December 2019. This is the culmination of over a decade of complaints by the United States about the way the Appellate Body functions. It is important for other countries to engage the United States to find a solution, because if a solution is not reached, it will mean the effective end of the WTO’s dispute settlement function and the ability of countries to enforce trade commitments.

In other words, based on the uncertainty these trade issues represent, we cannot expect 2019 to be less exciting than 2018.

/by
thumbnail
, , , ,

A Wild Trade Ride

By Ben Conner, USW Vice President of Policy

U.S. trade policy has been going through a wild ride recently. The current U.S. administration believes that the existing trade architecture is outdated or constricting, and new forms of leverage are needed to achieve its goals. Meanwhile, they have correctly pointed out that some countries seem to interpret trade commitments as rules to ignore until caught, and then to be circumvented. In the words of President Trump, “they have been taking advantage of us.”

In our view, this perspective has a ring of truth but understates the major benefits of international trade institutions to the United States and may have long-term costs. However, using the space such leverage creates has certainly produced results in trade talks, including an updated U.S.-Korea agreement, a completed North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) renegotiation, renewed efforts to address longstanding U.S. complaints at the World Trade Organization (WTO) and agreements to begin negotiations with Japan and the European Union.

This situation has even allowed U.S. Wheat Associates (USW) to make progress on some longstanding issues, so we certainly appreciate the effort to use the tools available in ways that can help U.S. wheat farmers and their customers.

Overall, these tactics have shifted the U.S. role from a bulwark of the global trading system to a major disruptor. The Trump Administration is making a case that the rules-based system has been inadequate in disciplining policies of countries like China that have pursued state-led economic growth at the expense of once-vibrant industries in the United States and elsewhere. Regardless of one’s views on the approach, this case does deserve consideration and new rules will likely be needed to keep the rules-based system relevant.

Of course, we do not know fully what the cost of these tactics will be. The most obvious cost to U.S. wheat farmers is being shut out of the growing Chinese wheat market, uncertainty during the NAFTA negotiations and vulnerability created by the withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The imposition or threat of unilateral tariff barriers is particularly worrisome and has damaged crucial trade relationships.

USW will continue to question certain approaches that we believe could disrupt the hard-won, mutually beneficial trade between the wheat farmers we represent and their overseas customers. But we will also strongly support the Administration when its approach can help strengthen the international trading system and make trade freer. If that is the ultimate outcome perhaps the ride will have been worth it.

/by
thumbnail
, , ,

In Spite of Trade Conflicts, U.S. Wheat Farmers Will Not Abandon Customers in China

By Vince Peterson, USW President

Chinese Vice Minister of Agriculture Han Jun recently acknowledged the decades of work that U.S. farmers have put into growing the Chinese market for U.S agriculture. He then warned that this market may never come back to where it was if the trade dispute with the United States continues much longer.

We can guarantee the Vice Minister, and the wheat food industry in China, that U.S. Wheat Associates (USW) and the farmers we represent will not turn our backs on our outstanding customers in China. We remain dedicated to our core mission in China, as we are everywhere in the world, to bring profitability and value to our customers even if that is temporarily more difficult today.

Presumably, Chinese leaders believe that U.S. farmers can persuade the Trump Administration to end this trade war with China. However, U.S. farmers have been clear with their own government that China’s predictable response to the conflict has harmed them and we have supported negotiations to resolve this conflict. While we agree that escalating rounds of tariffs are a bad idea, we also believe that many of the U.S. government complaints about China’s policies are valid.

In our experience, state disruption of the wheat trade has been an enormous problem, severely limiting opportunities and profitability for both U.S. farmers and our wheat food industry customers in China. Through opaque administration of its wheat tariff rate quota (TRQ), China has deprived its flour mills of an average of 6.5 MMT of imported wheat annually over the past decade. In fact, recent import volumes are still well below what China imported in the 1980s and early 1990s; that is, before it joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). One could be forgiven for thinking China was a more promising market before joining the WTO than after; almost entirely because of excessive subsidies to the domestic wheat crop in recent years, as well as tight limits on TRQ access. This is why the U.S. government, under the Obama Administration, initiated two WTO cases on these issues in the fall of 2016. The prosecution of those cases have been continued and pressed forward by the Trump Administration. We are highly supportive of this action.

The Chinese government should recognize that its many years of flouting international commitments and highly interventionist “state capitalism” have led directly to the present conflict. If China had lived up to the commitments made when it joined the WTO, it is highly doubtful that we would still find ourselves in this situation. If Chinese leaders want to avoid further conflict and bolster the international trading system that they claim to defend, China can first start behaving like a responsible economy and adhere to its trade commitments in both letter and spirit. Of course, we are urging the same from the United States, which must also approach China with clear demands and a path towards achieving them.

Nevertheless, we are confident that this trade confrontation will one day be resolved. In the meantime, we will continue to reach out to our customers and friends in China, to reassure them of our unfailing dedication to our work with them. Further, we will make the guarantee that, once this trade dispute is resolved and behind us, we will work harder than ever to continue earning their business as we chart a path, together, to build the commercial channels that hold so much promise for Chinese and American industries and people.

/by
thumbnail
, , , , ,

Montana Wheat Farmer Testifies on the Impact of Tariffs on Agriculture and Rural Communities

Overall, U.S. wheat farmers are certain they produce some of the highest quality milling wheat in the world and want to compete on that basis freely and fairly. That desire is being challenged in unique ways right now by trade policies and global reactions that have never been a part of the world wheat market. To express the challenges of these policies on farmers and the rural community, the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) this week arranged for one of their members to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee’s Trade Subcommittee. We want to share that testimony here:

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Michelle Erickson-Jones and I am the Co-Owner of Gooseneck Land and Cattle from Broadview, Montana. I also currently serve as the President of the Montana Grain Growers Association, am on the Board of Directors of the National Association of Wheat Growers and a member of Farmers for Free Trade. As a fourth generation farmer, it is my honor to testify today on the impacts of tariffs on my farm, my industry and most importantly my community that depends on trade for its livelihood.

American agriculture is a tremendous global marketing success story. We export 50 percent of our wheat and soybeans, 70 percent of fruit nuts, and more than 25 percent of our pork. We are also the top exporter of corn in the world. Exports account for 20 percent of all U.S. farm revenue and we rely on strong commercial relationships in key markets including Canada, Mexico, Japan, the European Union and, of course, China – the second largest market for U.S. agriculture, accounting for nearly $19 billion in exports in 2017. U.S. agriculture exports also support over 1,000,000 American jobs. As such, trade is critically important to the U.S. economy and our rural communities.

Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA) and Michelle Erickson-Jones.

Farmers across the country depend heavily on the ability to sell our commodities to foreign consumers. We are painfully aware of the prevalence of unfair trading practices used by some countries and we support the Administration’s interest in finding solutions to tariff and non-tariff barriers that impede fair trade. But what I’d like to share with you today are some examples of the impact of tariffs imposed by our own Administration and by the retaliatory tariffs levied by our trading partners. These impacts are felt by farmers such as myself throughout our supply chain, from higher input costs to reduced exports and lower market prices.

In May, I testified at Section 301 hearing at the International Trade Commission. As I said then and believe more strongly than ever now, “while many rural American families are optimistic about economic growth under the current Administration, there is mounting concern among farmers about trade policies that would reduce access to the export markets they depend on.”

There have been very few issues in my career as a farmer that have caused me to lose sleep. But these tariffs are one of them. I’d like to share some of the effects that have directly impacted my farm and family.

The first wave started at the time the Administration imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum. For me and farmers across the country that translates into increased costs of capital investments. For example, earlier this year we priced a new 25,000-bushel grain bin to increase grain storage capacity on our farm. The price was 12 percent higher than an identical bin we had built in 2017.

As we weighed our options, the bid on bin #2 expired, so we sought a second bid. This bid was 8 percent higher than the one we received just a few weeks prior – a 20 percent increase total in the cost of the same steel product in just one year.

The bin company attributed the difference in the final bin cost to a significant increase in their cost of steel. I learned that their domestically sourced steel suppliers had increased their prices to match the price of imported steel which was subject to an additional 25 percent duty when imported. As a result of this dramatic cost increase and volatility in the market, we abandoned our grain storage expansion project. The implications of that decision not only harmed my operation, it also hurt my community: a small local construction company lost a project, a U.S. grain bin company missed a sale, and a domestic steel company had one less shipment to send out of their factory.

Another unexpected outcome is something we are living through right now. Back in January, we built cattle guards for several capital improvement projects we had planned for later in the fall. A neighbor saw the finished product and asked to buy several from us. We agreed because we thought we would be able to utilize the profits for other investments. Last week I priced the steel needed to replace the cattle guards I had sold. To my shock, the price of steel had increased 38 percent – evaporating our profits. To make matters worse, now we will no longer break even on the project.

These scenarios are playing out across the nation, particularly the states that depend on agriculture. These states depend on healthy agricultural commerce for a robust economy. As our profits evaporate and our ability to spend on rural main street businesses or take weekends away decreases, our other top economies, including tourism and manufacturing, are negatively impacted as well.

While one singular example is a small sum of money in the big picture, adding up those small singular examples shows the real and substantial increase to agriculture and rural main street.

There are countless examples in Montana, where last summer, large portions of my state were on fire. Just imagine the cost or replacing fencing or other equipment with prices increasing by double digits – at a time of record low prices for agriculture commodities. The impacts on our input costs coupled with increased market volatility and lower farmgate prices have further reduced our already slim margins. According to the USDA Economic Research Service net farm income is expected to drop to a 12-year low, down 6.7 percent from 2017.

Now allow me to further illustrate the impact of tariffs on our topline – sales – especially in an industry that exports $450 million in wheat to China annually, $65 million of which was from Montana. China is the world’s largest wheat consumer, with a significant trade opportunity in their market. In market year 2016/2017 China was our fourth largest customer, however when China placed a 25 percent retaliatory tariff against U.S. wheat not one new shipment has been purchased from the United States since March, and the last shipment arrived in June.

Wheat growers also understand that China hasn’t been keeping to their trade obligations they agreed to when they joined the WTO (World Trade Organization), and as such the United States has two cases against China for their domestic support programs and their TRQ (tariff rate quota) requirements for wheat, rice and corn. We applaud the Administration for moving forward with these cases and believe this is the proper course of action to hold our trading partners accountable to their trade commitments. We do not, however, support the tariffs which have already hurt many farmers across the United States through both the tariff retaliation and domestic decisions as I have outlined.

For Montana, other commodities are also being hurt. Our producers are already suffering from the 25 percent import tariff on American pork and are bracing for the impacts on beef. Mexico has also targeted these two sectors in response to the steel tariffs.

In addition, these markets that we’ve been growing for decades could be lost to our competitors who do not have tariffs against their products, a fate that could last for years or decades to come. The same can also be said by not seeking or joining new trade agreements, for example when CPTTP (Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership) is implemented our Canadian and Australian wheat competitors will gain a price advantage in Japan against U.S. wheat, potentially losing our largest wheat market.

Currently farmers like me are not only struggling to ensure this year’s crop is profitable, but we are also concerned about the long-term impacts to our valuable export markets. For young and beginning farmers like me the stakes are even higher. We are often highly leveraged, just establishing our operations, as well trying to ensure we have access to enough capital to successfully grow our operations. Increased trade tensions and market uncertainty makes our path forward and our hopes to pass the farm on to our sons less clear. I hope to pass my farm to my sons and as such urge you to consider the tolls these tariffs will have on my operation and how it impacts that possibility, and many other family farms, as outlined in my testimony.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

/by
thumbnail
, ,

Wheat Exports on the Line in U.S.-China Tariff Dispute

By Ben Conner, USW Vice President of Policy

Tomorrow, June 15, 2018, marks the next step in the accelerating U.S.-China trade dispute as the Trump Administration plans to reveal its final tariff list on up to $50 billion in Chinese exports. China is expected to retaliate immediately, an outcome that could further erode the incomes of farm families who strongly support addressing the real concerns about China’s trade policies.

In marketing year 2016/17, China was the fourth largest export destination for U.S. wheat. That dropped to eighth in 2017/18, in part because of uncertainty about whether the U.S. would implement tariffs on Chinese goods.

U.S. Wheat Associates is not in the business of ceding a market like China with so much potential for growth. That is why in 2016 we called for World Trade Organization (WTO) cases intended to push China to meet its WTO commitments on domestic support and tariff rate quota management. We are happy that the Trump Administration supports and is pursuing those cases.

USW and the National Association of Wheat Growers know that farmers still want our organizations to keep fighting for fair opportunities to compete in China and other countries. They would prefer, however, to see our government do that within the processes already in place.

On June 1, 2018, USW and 17 other agriculture groups sent a letter to President Trump asking the Administration to continue negotiations to address trade concerns with China, rather than imposing mutually destructive tariffs

At this point it remains unclear what will happen after U.S. tariffs are implemented; but there no doubt that it will be a bumpy ride.

/by
thumbnail
, ,

USTR Report Highlights Need for Rules-Based Trading System

By Ben Conner, USW Director of Policy

Every year, the USW Wheat Letter features an article on the annual release of the National Trade Estimate (NTE) report by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). While the issues it quantifies do not change rapidly, the latest NTE shows the extent of the problems facing the Trump Administration, which has made trade enforcement a cornerstone of its economic policy.

The NTE is the U.S. government’s most comprehensive report on trade barriers. It covers more than 40 countries or country groupings. In just under 500 pages, it clearly shows that these barriers pose a major challenge for U.S. exporters and investors. Most of the issues are policies that violate rules of a U.S. trade agreement or the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Considering trade enforcement, the NTE may understate the challenge. For the wheat industry alone there are several barriers not listed in this massive report. If USTR decided to pursue every long-standing issue facing the United States through dispute settlement, it would stretch its resources far past the breaking point. Unfortunately, new problems seem to arise faster than it takes governments to fix old problems.

This underscores the need for countries to commit strongly to a rules-based trading system. Trade disputes are one way to address the problems, but even a country with considerable resources for trade disputes like the United States, which has sued or been sued in nearly half of all WTO disputes, can barely begin to address outstanding issues through disputes alone.

However, strategic enforcement is important to maintaining the effectiveness of international trade rules. There are economic benefits from fixing specific trade barriers, but just as vital is the deterrence effect on countries that would consider implementing new barriers. If we must litigate every issue, the system could collapse.

Last year, USTR took a big step in challenging non-compliant domestic support programs in China — a growing problem for at least a decade. The NTE mentions similar problems in India, Turkey and Brazil and the hope is that the China cases lead to serious reforms to subsidies in these countries as well. USW and USTR need to stay vigilant to help reverse the trend of increasing WTO-violating subsidies and ensure that countries consider their trade commitments before implementing new policies.

Every country, including the United States, has unique internal pressures that may divert them from trade commitments at the margins. The NTE is an important way to demonstrate how those pressures affect U.S. industries, but without effective enforcement and negotiated solutions, it is just a very long list.

As an industry stakeholder, USW provided input on its key trade barriers through comments submitted in October 2016. Read those comments here. The full 2017 NTE report is posted online here.

/by
thumbnail
, , ,

USW Discusses Changes in Global Wheat Trade

USW President Alan Tracy joined the International Grains Council (IGC) for their 25th annual conference June 14 to present an overview of changes in global wheat trade, trade distorting government policies and the United States’ shift to quality-based wheat markets. More than 200 attendees at the conference in London, United Kingdom, came from grain importing and exporting countries around the world to hear updates on production prospects and discuss major issues facing the grain trade.

One of the biggest shifts in the world wheat market in the last 15 years has been the emergence of Russia as a major wheat exporter, averaging 17.9 MMT from 2011/12 to 2015/16. With that growth, Russia has become a primary supplier of wheat to price-sensitive markets across the Middle East and North Africa, displacing other traditional suppliers including the United States, Canada and the European Union (EU).

USW has narrowed its activities in markets now served mainly by Black Sea suppliers but increased its resources in growing quality-sensitive markets, primarily in Southeast Asia and Latin America. An increasing majority of flour millers and wheat food processors in those markets see wheat as a food ingredient with specific value, rather than as a bulk commodity sourced merely on price. Connecting with these new markets provides more value for overseas customers and, in turn, helps U.S. farmers capture more revenue per acre for the high-quality wheat they produce.

Tracy also discussed government policies that distort trade. Reflecting on previous IGC meetings, he recalled long-past discussions on the harm caused by rival country export subsidy programs — which are largely no longer in use. Today, instead of export subsidies, the biggest market distortion comes from domestic support programs, primarily in several advanced developing countries.

Every WTO member country has agreed to specific limits and rules on agricultural support programs. However, many countries exceed those limits and fail to report their programs accurately. When an importing country provides a government support price above world market prices, they encourage domestic production. That offsets imports to the detriment of the global trading system and to farmers in other countries.

USW has spent the last five years documenting and quantifying the effects from these programs. The forum presented an ideal place to share and discuss the data as out-of-compliance programs not only harm the United States, but also exporters around the world.

By Dalton Henry, USW Director of Policy

/by
thumbnail
, , , , ,

Wheat Industry Trade Priorities Included in USTR National Trade Estimate

Last week marked the annual release of the National Trade Estimate (NTE) to Congress by the Offices of the U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR). The NTE report is a 474-page- list of trade barriers facing U.S. companies and producers. It documents a range of trade barriers, including Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS), technical and market access restrictions. USW submitted a host of concerns to USTR on October 28, 2015.

The report highlights a few major accomplishments from 2015, including completion of Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations and the U.S. ratification of the Trade Facilitation Agreement — the first multilateral trade agreement in the WTO’s 20-year history. Beyond the successes of the past year, the report also lays out a roadmap of future work for USTR. Numerous wheat industry priorities made the listing, two of which are highlighted here.

A new addition to the 2016 report was China’s administration of their tariff-rate quota (TRQ) system, which Chinese millers and USW have repeatedly identified as a major hurdle in expanding the use of U.S. wheat in China. The report stated, “Market access promised through the tariff-rate quota system set up pursuant to China’s WTO accession agreement has yet to be fully realized.” Each year China completely uses the portion of the TRQ allocated directly to flour millers. However, the portion held by the state is not fully utilized and almost never reallocated as required by the WTO agreement.

China is not the only country where a TRQ keeps out potential wheat exports. Nearly two decades ago, Brazil committed to a 750,000 ton duty-free TRQ. The NTE report notes that Brazil never opened the TRQ, and therefore has imported no wheat under it. Without either ad hoc access, which Brazil opened in 2013 and 2014, or a functioning TRQ, Brazilian millers must pay a 10 percent tariff to purchase supplies anywhere outside of the Mercosur trade bloc. That leaves the United States, Canada and others at a significant price disadvantage.

These two barriers are just a preview of the issues listed by USTR. USW will continue to work with our partners to pursue resolutions to these barriers that hinder our customer’s ability to purchase U.S. wheat.

By Dalton Henry, USW Director of Policy

/by
thumbnail
, , , , ,

USW Lays Down Policy Priorities for Year Ahead

By Ben Conner, USW Deputy Director of Policy

A professor once told me this about achieving goals: “If you don’t write it down, it will never happen.” On behalf of the farmers we represent, USW takes a similar approach to our policy priorities: we write them down for the board to review every year. That happened again last week at the USW Board of Directors meeting in Washington, DC.

USW divides policy goals into three general categories: the World Trade Organization (WTO), free trade agreements (FTAs) and U.S. government policies. USW priorities in all three categories reflect our mission, which is ultimately to enhance the profitability of U.S. wheat producers and their customers.

The WTO category includes both trade enforcement and negotiations. A major policy priority is to ensure that wheat-producing countries follow WTO rules. Right now, a number of major developing countries are blatantly ignoring those rules, costing U.S. farmers in the form of lower exports and prices, and hurting their overseas customers in the form of more expensive domestic supplies. Studies conducted for USW estimated U.S. wheat farmers are losing more than $1 billion in revenue from domestic support policies in just four countries: China, Turkey, Brazil and India. Some of those countries have blatantly ignored WTO import rules in order to protect domestic wheat sectors. That is unacceptable and underscores the need to enforce past trade commitments. Similarly, our board supports negotiations through the WTO that create a more level playing field, but opposes rules that weaken current disciplines in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture or in continued negotiations under the failed Doha framework.

Free Trade Agreements are another priority. If the WTO negotiations remain at an impasse, aggressive market access gains will only come through bilateral regional sectoral trade agreements. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is now signed and, hopefully, will soon be ratified by legislatures including the U.S. Congress. Beyond that, the wheat industry is hoping for rapid TPP expansion to other countries in the Asia-Pacific region as well as to new FTA opportunities.

Finally, U.S. government policies also affect U.S. wheat export potential. One of our priorities is on-going funding for the beneficial federal market promotion programs that — along with investment from state wheat commissions — help organizations like USW provide valuable services and information to customers around the world. USW also supports an end to the U.S. embargo of Cuba.

Now that we have written our 2016 Policy Priorities, it is time to make it happen. We are passionate about the profitability of farmers and their overseas customers, so we will be working hard to remove the policy obstacles in the way.

 

/by

Think Farm Export Programs Don’t Matter? Think Again.

GET THE REST OF THE STORY

DTN Wheat Detail
DTN Corn Detail

2008-2013 U.S. Wheat Associates. All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy | Non-Discrimination Statement