{ "id": "R44119", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44119", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 587686, "date": "2016-09-21", "retrieved": "2020-01-02T15:21:50.173148", "title": "U.S. Agricultural Trade with Cuba: Current Limitations and Future Prospects", "summary": "After more than half a century during which trade relations between the United States and Cuba have evolved from a tight economic embargo to a narrow window of trade in U.S. agricultural and medical products, the diplomatic initiative that President Obama announced in December 2014 to restore more normal relations with Cuba has raised the possibility that bilateral relations could move toward an expansion in commercial opportunities. \nMany U.S. agricultural and food industry interests believe the Cuban market could offer meaningful export expansion potential for their products\u2014but only if a number of restrictions under the U.S. embargo on trade with Cuba were to be removed. Among the measures most often cited as inhibiting exports of U.S. products, while simultaneously benefiting foreign competitors, are a prohibition on the provision of private financing and credit on sales to Cuba; denial of access to U.S. government credit guarantees and export promotion programs; the ban on general tourism to Cuba; and the general prohibition on U.S. imports of Cuban goods. \nA question that arises for policymakers as diplomatic relations with Cuba are restored is what the potential opportunity is for U.S. food and agricultural exports to Cuba if bilateral relations are returned to a more normal status in the future. Corollary questions are what agricultural products Cuba might export to the United States if the existing prohibition on Cuban products were to be removed, and what implications trade in Cuban products could hold for U.S. agriculture. \nNumerous stakeholders within the food and agriculture industry, as well as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), contend that U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba could expand markedly if key elements of the embargo against Cuba were removed. The prohibition on providing private credit and financing and the ban on access to government export promotion programs are two that are often cited. USDA asserts that basic commodities, like U.S. rice, wheat, dry beans, and dried milk could readily gain market share in Cuba under more normal trade relations in view of the close proximity of U.S. ports to Cuba compared with export competitors. Higher value food and agricultural products might make inroads in Cuba over time, it is argued, particularly if Cuba could increase its access to foreign exchange by selling its products in the United States. \nSimilarly, a report on Cuban imports and the effects of U.S. restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba that the U.S. International Trade Commission issued in March 2016 at the request of the Senate Finance Committee concluded that the removal of U.S. restrictions on trade could result in significant gains for U.S. agricultural exports.\nA concern voiced by some in agriculture is that opening the U.S. market to Cuba could pave the way for a new influx of tropical fruit and vegetable products that would compete directly with winter-season production in Florida, particularly if foreign investors perceive the opportunity to create an export platform for the U.S. market in Cuba. Among the concerns raised is that Cuban production is often subsidized by the government; also, that allowing Cuban produce into the U.S. market could become a conduit for introducing new pests and plant diseases. While Cuba was once a leading sugar producer and the largest foreign supplier to the U.S. market prior to the embargo, its sugar industry has undergone a steep decline since the demise of the Soviet Union. Cuba continues to export limited quantities of sugar and might very well request access to the lucrative U.S. sugar market if normal trade relations were restored. But any such opportunity would most likely be the result of a negotiated agreement between the United States and Cuba.\nSome Members of Congress have introduced legislation in the 114th Congress that would ease U.S. economic sanctions on Cuba. These bills span a broad range of approaches, from a narrow focus on removing the ban on providing private financing and credit for the sale of agricultural goods to Cuba to far broader legislative initiatives that seek to lift the Cuban embargo altogether.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44119", "sha1": "3d00a6109437174081b74dcdddd78be282390547", "filename": "files/20160921_R44119_3d00a6109437174081b74dcdddd78be282390547.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44119_files&id=/1.png": "files/20160921_R44119_images_6783ddef7fb3c178d69151bc580fbc089d4dc7f2.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44119_files&id=/2.png": "files/20160921_R44119_images_160eae94dd952abbd12e5052662bc15db3000f87.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44119_files&id=/0.png": "files/20160921_R44119_images_2f9d0d98e885ef52fe8d72a2c343de24cf1d3195.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44119_files&id=/3.png": "files/20160921_R44119_images_fd209c288dd27e6fb4a40b4398541e752dca7213.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44119", "sha1": "08bce44b621afa98e26e9a9e33ecf3582c4d4657", "filename": "files/20160921_R44119_08bce44b621afa98e26e9a9e33ecf3582c4d4657.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4829, "name": "Agricultural Trade & Food Aid" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4893, "name": "Agricultural Trade" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 445994, "date": "2015-10-01", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T18:17:25.305345", "title": "U.S. Agricultural Trade with Cuba: Current Limitations and Future Prospects", "summary": "After more than half a century during which trade relations between the United States and Cuba have evolved from a tight economic embargo to a narrow window of trade in U.S. agricultural and medical products, the diplomatic initiative that President Obama announced in December 2014 to restore more normal relations with Cuba has raised the possibility that bilateral relations could move toward an expansion in commercial opportunities. \nMany U.S. agricultural and food industry interests believe the Cuban market could offer meaningful export expansion potential for their products\u2014but only if a number of restrictions under the U.S. embargo on trade with Cuba were to be removed. Among the measures most often cited as inhibiting exports of U.S. products, while simultaneously benefiting foreign competitors, are a prohibition on the provision of private financing and credit on sales to Cuba; denial of access to U.S. government credit guarantees and export promotion programs; the ban on general tourism to Cuba; and the general prohibition on U.S. imports of Cuban goods. \nSome Members of Congress have introduced legislation in the 114th Congress that would ease U.S. economic sanctions on Cuba. These bills span a broad range of approaches, from a narrow focus on removing the ban on providing private financing and credit for the sale of agricultural goods to Cuba to far broader legislative initiatives that seek to lift the Cuban embargo altogether. \nA question that arises for policymakers as diplomatic relations with Cuba are restored is what the potential opportunity is for U.S. food and agricultural exports to Cuba if bilateral relations are returned to a more normal status in the future. Corollary questions are what agricultural products Cuba might export to the United States if the existing prohibition on Cuban products were to be removed, and what implications trade in Cuban products could hold for U.S. agriculture. \nNumerous stakeholders within the food and agriculture industry, as well as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), contend that U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba could expand markedly if key elements of the embargo against Cuba were removed. The prohibition on providing private credit and financing and the ban on access to government export promotion programs are two that are often cited. USDA asserts that basic commodities, like U.S. rice, wheat, dry beans, and dried milk could readily gain market share in Cuba under more normal trade relations in view of the close proximity of U.S. ports to Cuba compared with export competitors. Higher value food and agricultural products might make inroads in Cuba over time, it is argued, particularly if Cuba could increase its access to foreign exchange by selling its products in the United States. \nA concern voiced by some in agriculture is that opening the U.S. market to Cuba could pave the way for a new influx of tropical fruit and vegetable products that would compete directly with winter-season production in Florida, particularly if foreign investors perceive the opportunity to create an export platform for the U.S. market in Cuba. Among the concerns raised is that Cuban production is often subsidized by the government; also, that allowing Cuban produce into the U.S. market could become a conduit for introducing new pests and plant diseases. While Cuba was once a leading sugar producer and the largest foreign supplier to the U.S. market prior to the embargo, its sugar industry has undergone a steep decline since the demise of the Soviet Union. Cuba continues to export limited quantities of sugar and might very well request access to the lucrative U.S. sugar market if normal trade relations were restored. But any such opportunity would most likely be the result of a negotiated agreement between the United States and Cuba.\nA report on Cuba imports and the effects of U.S. restrictions on U.S. exports to that country that the U.S. International Trade Commission was expected to provide to the Senate Finance Committee in September 2015 has been rescheduled for March 2016 to accommodate the committee\u2019s request to expand the scope of the report.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44119", "sha1": "220249ba581f518817101c6f8fec020e65d65013", "filename": "files/20151001_R44119_220249ba581f518817101c6f8fec020e65d65013.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44119", "sha1": "30c1e4f3a91ca38305edb2428be09174b6fb8efb", "filename": "files/20151001_R44119_30c1e4f3a91ca38305edb2428be09174b6fb8efb.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 217, "name": "Agricultural Trade" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc743399/", "id": "R44119_2015Jul23", "date": "2015-07-23", "retrieved": "2015-10-20T21:35:54", "title": "U.S. Agricultural Trade with Cuba: Current Limitations and Future Prospects", "summary": "This report reviews the current state of agricultural trade between the United States and Cuba. It identifies key impediments to expanding bilateral trade in agricultural products and key provisions in the law to which these obstacles are anchored, and also considers the potential consequences for trade in agricultural goods if bilateral trade were returned to a more normal footing. It also summarizes several of the bills introduced in the 114th Congress that propose to remove specific restrictions that impede trade in agricultural goods or that seek to lift the embargo on Cuba entirely.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150723_R44119_9bb3cdcba2be1c6800fa5f1f8def7646af68aeb0.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150723_R44119_9bb3cdcba2be1c6800fa5f1f8def7646af68aeb0.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Trade", "name": "Trade" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Foreign trade", "name": "Foreign trade" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Agriculture in foreign trade", "name": "Agriculture in foreign trade" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Agriculture", "name": "Agriculture" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Agricultural Policy", "Foreign Affairs" ] }