CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web

Similar documents
CRS Report for Congress

WikiLeaks Document Release

WikiLeaks Document Release

CRS Report for Congress

All Approved Insurance Providers All Risk Management Agency Field Offices All Other Interested Parties

Common Crop Insurance Policy & Area Risk Protection Insurance 1

The End of the Tobacco Transition Payment Program. Blake Brown, Professor and Extension Economist, NCSU November 14, 2013

Proposed Tobacco Quota Buyout Legislation: Effects on Tennessee Tobacco Farms 1,2

Payment Limits for Farm Commodity Programs: Issues and Proposals

11/14/2011. Bradley D. Lubben, Ph.D. Special thanks to: Federal Budget. Economy Farm & General Economy. Politics. Super Committee (more politics)

Brazil s WTO Case Against the U.S. Cotton Program: A Brief Overview

Commodity Programs in 2014 Farm Bill. Key Provisions

AGEC 429: AGRICULTURAL POLICY LECTURE 19: ANALYSIS OF THE 2014 FARM BILL I

INTERNATIONAL COTTON ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Risk Management Agency

Buying and Selling Burley Quota: What Factors Should Farmers Consider?

Farm Bill Principles and Commodity Program Proposals: A View from the House

2002 FSRIA. Farm Security & Rural Investment Act. (2002 Farm Bill) How much money is spent with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)?

Archie Flanders University of Arkansas Northeast Research and Extension Center Keiser, AR. The Farm Bill Decision Making Process

Price-Risk Management in Grain Marketing

Grain Stocks. Corn Stocks Up 11 Percent from March 2014 Soybean Stocks Up 34 Percent All Wheat Stocks Up 6 Percent

All Approved Insurance Providers All Risk Management Agency Field Offices All Other Interested Parties

CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Grain Stocks. Corn Stocks Down 3 Percent from March 2018 Soybean Stocks Up 29 Percent All Wheat Stocks Up 6 Percent

Current Crop Insurance and Federal Policy Situation

12/7/2007 GOALS TODAY. Introduction. Provide a basic overview of crop insurance for tobacco in North Carolina

CRS Report for Congress

2014 Farm Bill How does it affect you and your operation? Section II: PLC, SCO, ARC-C, and ARC-I

harvested. According to USDA, a crop year is the 12-month period starting with the month when the harvest of a specific crop typically begins.

2015 COTTON MARKET OUTLOOK AND RISK MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

Counter-Cyclical Agricultural Program Payments: Is It Time to Look at Revenue?

Risk Management Tools for Peanuts. Hot Topics Georgia Peanut Tour September 17, 2013

Selected economic indicators of banking, agricultural and business conditions in the Eighth Federal Reserve District

Background Information

Harry de Gorter Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management Cornell University

AFPC Crop Decision Aids Data Collection Form and Instructions

CRS Report for Congress

All Approved Insurance Providers All Risk Management Agency Field Offices All Other Interested Parties

Sugar Program: The Basics

INSIGHTS FROM AGRICULTURAL LENDERS. January 11 th, 2019 Top Farmer Conference Beck Agricultural Center Dr. Brady Brewer

CRS Report for Congress

Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. November 7, 2005 SUBJECT

Managing Feed and Milk Price Risk: Futures Markets and Insurance Alternatives

Farm Radio Connects. Research Conducted by Millennium Research

All Approved Insurance Providers All Risk Management Agency Field Offices All Other Interested Parties

WikiLeaks Document Release

Farm Safety Net. Dr. Alejandro Plastina Assistant Professor, Economics

2008 FARM BILL: FOCUS ON ACRE

Pat Westhoff FAPRI-MU, University of Missouri

Allan Gray and Luc Valentin. Purdue University

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFAGRICULTURE

FARM BILL CONTAINS SIGNIFICANT DOMESTIC NUTRITION IMPROVEMENTS By Dorothy Rosenbaum 1

Risk Management Agency

Counter-Cyclical Farm Safety Nets

Agricultural Risk Coverage County (ARC CO) vs. Price Loss Coverage (PLC)

All Reinsured Companies All Risk Management Agency Field Offices All Other Interested Parties Administrator

Fourth Quarter 2014 Earnings Conference Call. 26 November 2014

FLUE-CURED TOBACCO BUDGET INFORMATION Eric Eberly, Retired Extension Agent, Farm Business Management

Farm Level Impacts of a Revenue Based Policy in the 2007 Farm Bill

Farm Safety Net Provisions in a 2013 Farm Bill: S. 954 and H.R. 2642

AN OVERVIEW OF CORN, SOYBEAN AND WHBAT PRICE AND INCOME SUPPORT PROGRAMS FOR Carl Zulauf. February 1988

Estimated ARC and PLC Payments for 2016 Covered Commodities

Second Quarter 2010 Earnings Conference Call. 19 May 2010

Renegotiation of the Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA) for Federal Crop Insurance

GAO. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Marketing Assistance Loan Program Should Better Reflect Market Conditions

2014 Farm Bill Provisions and WTO Compliance

Risk Management Agency Dave Schumann

THE FARM BILL AND THE WESTERN HAY INDUSTRY. Western States Alfalfa and Forage Symposium November 29, 2017 Reno, Nevada

Cotton Market Outlook

AGEC 429: AGRICULTURAL POLICY LECTURE 10: GENERAL POLICY INSTRUMENTS I

Farm Bill Meeting Stoddard County

Agricultural Disaster Assistance

STATE AND LOCAL TAXES A Comparison Across States

Agricultural Disaster Assistance

Crop Insurance and Disaster Assistance

The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States

Maryland Crop Insurance Workshop

A Whole-Farm Crop Disaster Program: Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE)

2014 Farm Bill How does it affect you and your operation? Section 1: Overview, Base Reallocation, and Yield Updates

Farm Policy: 2012 and Beyond

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Categorical Eligibility

Impact of the New Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA) on Multi-Peril Crop Insurance (MPCI) Gain and Loss Probabilities

WikiLeaks Document Release

Fourth Quarter 2016 Earnings Conference Call. 23 November 2016

Farm Bill Details and Decisions

Loan Deficiency Payments versus Countercyclical Payments: Do We Need Both for a Price Safety Net?

The Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) Program of the 2014 Farm Bill

Fundamental Factors Affecting Agricultural and Other Commodities. Research & Product Development Updated July 11, 2008

Social Security: The Public Servant Retirement Protection Act (H.R. 2772/S. 1647)

The Florida Senate THE IMPACT ON FARMERS OF THE FEDERAL QUOTA SYSTEM VOLUME REDUCTION. Interim Project Report September 1999 SUMMARY

Farm Bill Details and Decisions

Farm Bill and Texas A&M Computer Training. Nebraska Innovation Campus Conference Center January 14, 2015

u.s. FARM PROGRAM AND ITS 1988 PROVISIONS A Brief Explanation of the Basic Features Related to Grains and Soybeans HARVEY L. KISER

Enterprise Budgets. How is it constructed?

2014 FARM BILL DECISION AID

NGFA Country Elevator Conference St. Louis, Missouri Dec. 9, 2013

4Q 2017 Earnings Call. 22 November 2017

AGEC 429: AGRICULTURAL POLICY LECTURE 18: ANALYSIS OF PAST FARM BILL PROGRAMS III

The federal crop insurance program is ripe for reform: TWO CHANGES TO CROP INSURANCE TO IMPROVE EQUITY AND EFFICIENCY

Transcription:

CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Order Code RS21642 October 14, 2003 Comparing Quota Buyout Payments for Peanuts and Tobacco Summary Jasper Womach Specialist in Agricultural Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division Legislation is pending in the 108 th Congress (S. 1490, H.R. 3160) to eliminate tobacco quotas and compensate quota owners (whether they are absentee owners or active producers) at the rate of $8 per quota pound. Active producers would lose price support, but would receive a lump sum transition payment of $4 per pound on their production history, including the quota they own as well as any quota they rent. A precedent for quota buyouts was established in the 2002 farm bill, which terminated peanut quotas and compensated the owners with a $0.55 per pound payment. Active peanut producers continue to receive price support. A comparison of peanut and tobacco quota buyout rates shows that the two are substantially comparable (relative to past quota rental rates). However, current USDA budget projections indicate that continuing operation of the peanut subsidy program likely provides significantly higher benefits than the proposed tobacco transition payment (relative to the costs of production of each commodity). Both peanuts and tobacco have had a long history (dating back to the 1930s) of federal price support achieved through a combination of marketing quotas and nonrecourse loans. The 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171, Sec. 1301-1310) ended peanut quotas with a buyout payment to peanut quota owners, but continued a support program for producers. Legislation is pending in the 108 th Congress (S. 1490, McConnell; H.R. 3160, Fletcher) that likewise would provide tobacco quota owners with a buyout payment. However, unlike peanuts, active tobacco producers would be given a lump sum transition payment but no future support. Another important distinction is that tobacco payments would be funded from assessments on tobacco product manufacturers and importers. In contrast, peanut buyout payments and continuing support program operations are funded by the federal government. The purpose of this analysis is to provide a generally consistent comparison of the benefits provided to peanut quota holders and producers and proposed benefits concerning tobacco. It is not the intention of this analysis to attempt to determine the appropriate size of these buyout payments. Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress

CRS-2 Peanuts There were about 12,000 farms that harvested an average of 111 acres of peanuts in the United States in 1997, according to the Census of Agriculture. In 2002, total peanut production was 3.32 billion pounds harvested from 1.30 million acres. The leading production states were Georgia (40%) and Texas (26%), with the remaining 34% of output coming from Alabama, North Carolina, Florida, Oklahoma, Virginia, New Mexico, and South Carolina. With a season average price of $0.179 per pound, the value of the 2002 crop was $594 million. 1 Prior to 2002, federal support prices for peanuts were guaranteed through a twotiered nonrecourse loan program that differentiated between peanuts marketed for domestic edible consumption ($0.305 per pound loan rate in 2001) and peanuts crushed for oil and meal or exported ($0.066 per pound loan rate in 2001). In order to minimize the cost of the nonrecourse loan program, marketing quotas were allocated among producers to limit the quantity of peanuts eligible for the higher support given on domestic edible production. In addition, import quotas allowed only a small, but gradually increasing, quantity to enter the U.S. market from overseas. In 2001, imports amounted to about 6% of domestic use, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The 2002 farm bill, which applies to the six crop years 2002 through 2007, replaced the old framework of peanut support with a new framework identical to that adopted for soybeans, wheat, corn, cotton, and rice. Now, producers with a past peanut production history are eligible for annual fixed direct payments of $0.018 per pound on 85% of their base production. USDA s average budgeted cost for these direct payments to peanut producers is $65 million per year. The same producers are eligible for counter-cyclical payments when the marketing year average farm price falls below a target price of $0.2475 per pound. USDA s payment rate on 85% of base production was $0.086 per pound in 2002 and was estimated to average $0.092 per pound in future years (for an average annual total of $175 million per year). All farmers eligible to receive direct and counter-cyclical payments have planting flexibility privileges, and so may produce peanuts or other eligible crops. 2 Farms that actually produce peanuts, and there is no restriction to limit entry, are eligible for marketing assistance loans or loan deficiency payments on their total production. The loan rate for all peanuts is $0.1775 per pound. The value to producers of marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments depends on how low market prices drop below the loan rate each year. USDA s budget estimate anticipates an average annual payment of about $0.033 per pound of peanut production, for an average annual total cost of almost $136 million. 1 Unless otherwise documented, the data characterizing peanut and tobacco farms, production, and prices are from the USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2 Here, and throughout this analysis, budget data are from the USDA, Commodity Credit Corporation, Commodity Estimates Book, FY 2004 President s Budget, February 3. 2003.

CRS-3 The combined average estimated budgeted cost of direct payments, counter-cyclical payments, and marketing loan benefits is about $0.091 per pound of actual projected peanut production, or $376 million per year. Peanut quota owners were given direct payments to compensate for lost quota values. This quota buyout payment was equal to $0.55 per pound on 2001 quota levels. Quota owners had the option of a lump sum payment or five equal annual installments of $0.11 per pound. Nationally, quota buyout payments were estimated by USDA to cost a total of $1.475 billion. Tobacco There were 90,000 farms that harvested an average of 9.3 acres of tobacco in the United States in 1997, according to the Census of Agriculture. 3 In 2002, total tobacco production was 881 million pounds harvested from 429,000 acres. The leading states were North Carolina (40%) and Kentucky (25%), with an additional 30% of production coming from Tennessee, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia (the remaining 5% came from 10 other states). With a season average price of $1.907 per pound, the value of the 2002 crop was $1.726 billion. The price of each kind of federally supported tobacco is now guaranteed through nonrecourse loans. The two major kinds of tobacco, which both receive price support and together constitute nearly 95% of U.S. tobacco production, are flue-cured and burley. The 2003 loan rate for flue-cured is $1.663 per pound, and for burley is $1.849 per pound. The loan rates are set each year by USDA using a formula mandated by law. The loan program, under a legal mandate enacted in 1982, is supposed to operate at no net cost to taxpayers. If tobacco is put under loan by producers and later is sold for less than the loan principal plus interest, losses are supposed to be covered from assessments on growers and buyers of tobacco. From FY1983 through FY2002, tobacco operations have resulted in a cumulative net federal expenditure of nearly $1.4 billion (an annual average of $69 million). The reason for the net expenditure largely is due to the congressionallymandated assumptionoflosseson large loan inventories that developed in 1983 and 1999, as well as direct payments in FY2000 and FY2001 to offset recent reductions in quota. (See CRS Report RS20802, Tobacco Farmer Assistance.) Similar bills in the Senate (S. 1490) and House (H.R. 3160) would make buyout payments to quota owners and transition assistance payments to active producers. Tobacco quota owners (including an estimated 335,000 that are not actively producing the crop and 81,000 that are active producers) would be paid $8 per pound of basic quota that they were assigned in past years. The 81,000 active producers would receive a separate payment of $4 per pound on their effective quota in past years as transition assistance to a market environment absent federal support. 3 Since 1997, the number of farms producing tobacco has declined as production has been consolidated, and the acreage harvested has declined due to the drop in national quotas under the price support program. An updated count of farms will be forthcoming when the 2002 Census of Agriculture is published.

CRS-4 The total expected cost of each bill is about $15 billion, which would be collected from tobacco product manufacturers and importers (about 98% from cigarette manufacturers). On a per pack basis, using the 2002 U.S. consumption rate of 21 billion packs, $15 billion is equal to $0.714 per pack. Spread over the life of the buyout payments, the average annual cost to manufacturers and importers would be $0.10 to $0.12 per pack per year (if consumption remains constant). How much of this cost would be passed on to consumers and how much would be absorbed by manufacturers is uncertain. Comparing Peanut and Tobacco Buyout Payment Rates While the peanut quota buyout and farm support provisions of the 2002 farm bill are not identical to the proposed buyout program for tobacco, comparisons are possible. The following analysis is based on revenue and cost of production data for 2001, published by USDA s Economic Research Service. The analysis is divided into two parts. First, a comparison is made of quota buyout payment for peanuts and tobacco. Owners of quota may be non-producing or absentee owners earning rent by leasing the quota to active producers (farm operators). Absentee quota owners give up all future rental income when they accept a quota buyout. Quota owners who are active producers realize a drop in the value of their land when quotas are eliminated. Second, a separate comparison is made of payments to active producers. After the quota buyout, peanut producers became eligible for continuing annual subsidy program payments. In the pending tobacco legislation, active producers would receive a lump sum payment and there would be no future ongoing subsidy program. Quota Buyout Payments. The proposed quota buyout payment of $8 per pound for tobacco, and the actual quota buyout payment of $0.55 per pound for peanuts, is compensation for forgone future rental or asset values. Using a discount rate of 5%, a lump sum payment of $0.55 is the equivalent of annual income of $0.028 each year in perpetuity; a lump sum payment today of $8 is the equivalent of rental income of $0.40 each year in perpetuity. Using these calculations as a standard for comparison (see Table 1), the buyout payment to peanut quota owners (amounting to 74% of average annual rent) appears to be somewhat less favorable than the proposed payment for tobacco quota owners (85% of average annual rent for flue-cured and 97% for burley).

CRS-5 Table 1. Quota Rental Rates for Peanuts and Tobacco Peanuts Flue-cured Burley 1995 $0.042 $0.41 $0.59 1996 $0.036 $0.40 $0.38 1997 $0.039 $0.37 $0.26 1998 $0.035 $0.44 $0.28 1999 $0.037 $0.52 $0.35 2000 $0.040 $0.57 $0.50 2001 $0.032 $0.59 $0.52 7-Year Simple Average Rent $0.037 $0.47 $0.41 Quota Buyout Annual Rent Equivalent $0.028 $0.40 $0.40 Buyout as Share of Average Rent 74% 85% 97% Source: Primary data are from USDA, Economic Research Service, periodic cost of production reports. The rental rates for flue-cured and burley tobacco include a small land fee while for peanuts the rental rate is for quota only. Another data series developed by Dr. Will Snell, University of Kentucky, estimates the 7-year average burley quota rent at $0.44 per pound, which would put the buyout at 92% of the average burley rent. Producer Assistance Payments. The quota buyout proposal for tobacco includes a $4 per pound payment for active producers to serve as transition assistance to a new economic environment without federal price support. In contrast, peanut producers have continuing federal support in the form of annual fixed direct payments, countercyclical payments, and marketing loan benefits. The $4 per pound payment for active tobacco producers is equivalent to an annual subsidy of $0.20 per pound in perpetuity on base production (using a discount rate of 5%). Peanut producers are expected to receive an average of $0.091 per pound on estimated actual production (USDA budget estimate). As displayed in Table 2, the $0.091 yearly peanut payment is 57% of 2001 cash expenses, while a $0.20 per pound yearly tobacco payment is 19% of 2001 flue-cured cash expenses and 25% of burley cash expenses. The USDA estimate of $0.091 per pound as the average annual future cost of the peanut support provisions can be converted to a lump sum present value of $1.82 per pound (using a present value formula with a discount rate of 5%). For purposes of comparison with the tobacco payment, a $1.82 per pound lump sum payment to peanut producers would be 11.4 times greater than cash expenses, while $4 per pound for tobacco is 3.9 times greater than flue-cured cash expenses and 4.9 times greater than burley cash expenses in 2001.

CRS-6 Table 2. Comparison of Peanut and Tobacco Producer Payments (2001 Crop Year Data) Peanuts Flue-Cured Burley Dollars Per Pound $0.23 $1.86 $1.97 1 Market Revenue (Season Average Price) 2 Less: Cash Expenses $0.16 $1.03 $0.81 3 Equals: Net Cash Revenue $0.08 $0.82 $1.16 4 Producer Lump Sum Payment a $1.82 $4.00 $4.00 5 Annual Support Payment a $0.091 $0.20 $0.20 6 Lump Sum Producer Payment as Multiple of 2001 Cash Expenses (line 4 line 2) 7 Annual Producer Payment as Share of 2002 Cash Expenses (line 5 line 2) 11.4 3.9 4.9 57% 19% 25% Source: Data on 2001 market revenue and cash expenses are from USDA, Economic Research Service. Data on expected peanut support payments are from USDA, Farm Service Agency. Calculations are by the author. a Peanut producers are eligible each year for marketing loan benefits, direct fixed payments, and countercyclical paymentsforthe6-yearlifeofthe2002farmbill. USDA sbudget projectsanaverage annual cost of $0.091 per pound for payments (from 2002 through 2008). If producers were to receive this benefit indefinitely into the future, the discounted present value would be equal to $1.82 (using a discount rate of 5%). The proposed $4 per pound lump sumtobacco producer payment is equivalent to an annual payment of $0.20 per pound in perpetuity (using a discount rate of 5%). The most obvious difference between tobacco and peanuts in the above calculations (in Table 2) is the comparatively high benefit to peanut producers from the continuing support program compared to the proposed lump sum payment to tobacco producers. Whether comparing annual payments to cash expenses, or comparing lump sum payments to cash expenses, flue-cured producer payments are 34% and burley producer payments are 43% of peanut producer payments. The quota buyout payments for peanuts and tobacco (in Table 1) appear to be reasonably comparable, though this is a matter of interpretation. The data in the tables are presented for the purposes of making generally consistent comparisons across totally different commodities with dramatically different unit prices and costs of production, and thus are potentially subject to misinterpretation. Despite this admittedly inexact comparison, the data do appear to indicate that the continuing support program provided to peanut producers likely will generate substantially more benefit than the proposed $4 per pound lump sum transition payment for tobacco producers. The financial adequacy to farmers of either the peanut program or the proposed tobacco program is not the subject of this analysis and it should not be used for such purposes.