{
  "id": "RL30826",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30826",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 100284,
      "date": "2001-02-02",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:27:59.687941",
      "title": "Softwood Lumber Imports From Canada: History and Analysis of the Dispute",
      "summary": "Softwood lumber imports from Canada have been of concern to U.S. lumber producers for many\nyears because of questions about Canadian government timber pricing policies. In 1996, the United\nStates and Canada reached a 5-year agreement on restrictions -- a fee on lumber imports from four\nCanadian provinces in excess of the specified quota -- that expires on March 31, 2001. Resolutions\nand bills have been introduced in recent Congresses that, had they been enacted, would have\nrestricted lumber imports from Canada or eliminated the basis for restricting those imports. The\n107th Congress may also consider legislation on this issue.\n  U.S. lumber producers argue that they have been injured by subsidies to their Canadian\ncompetitors. Stumpage fees (for the right to harvest trees) charged by the provinces are asserted to\nbe subsidized (priced at less than their market value). In Canada, provincial government timberlands\ndominate the supply system, with long-term leases to private firms to assure stable timber supplies,\nand with timber priced administratively to assure financially feasible production. Private\ntimberlands dominate the U.S. supply system, with competitive bidding to allocate and price most\npublic timber. The use of administered prices by the provincial governments opens the possibility\nthat the Canadian system results in transfers to the private sector at less than the fair market value. \nMajor differences in tree species, sizes, and grades, in measurement systems, in requirements on\nharvesters, in environmental protection, and in other factors, however, make comparisons difficult,\ncontroversial, and generally inconclusive.\n  Canadian log export restrictions are also asserted to be subsidies, because the restrictions assure\nmore supply (less competition for timber) for Canadian producers. Evidence from the U.S. Pacific\nNorthwest, where private logs can be exported but public timber cannot, indicates a substantial price\ndifferential, with higher prices for exported logs. However, Canada has recently challenged as\nGATT violations the U.S. trade law provisions that include export restrictions as subsidies.\n  Injuries to U.S. lumber producers have also been difficult to establish decisively. Canada's\nshare of the U.S. lumber market has risen substantially, from less than 7% in the early 1950s to more\nthan 35% in the mid-1990s. Under the 1996 agreement, the quantity of imports has continued to\nrise, but the market share has been relatively stable. In the past two years, the dispute has also\nincluded whether certain softwood products are modified construction lumber subject to the 1996\nrestrictions (the U.S. view) or are specialty products outside the agreement (the Canadian view). The\nimpact of import restrictions on domestic lumber prices is not easily estimated, but supply/demand\ntheory suggests that restrictions would put upward pressure on U.S. lumber prices.\n  Other factors are also important. The persistence of the dispute may reflect tensions between\nincreasingly free-trade U.S. policies and protection from imports available under U.S. trade law. \nAlso, probable differences in environmental protection complicate cross-border comparisons.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30826",
          "sha1": "7204a9337e68bf4dfbd9f3d6570bb9a3b6a48dbe",
          "filename": "files/20010202_RL30826_7204a9337e68bf4dfbd9f3d6570bb9a3b6a48dbe.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20010202_RL30826_7204a9337e68bf4dfbd9f3d6570bb9a3b6a48dbe.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economic Policy",
    "Foreign Affairs"
  ]
}