Softwood Lumber Imports from Canada: Issues and Events
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
U.S. lumber producers have long raised concerns about softwood imports from Canada.They argue that Canada subsidizes its lumber producers with low provincial stumpage fees (for the right to harvest trees).In Canada, the provinces own 90% of the timberlands, which contrasts with the United States, where 42% of timberlands are publicly owned and where government timber is often sold competitively; these differences in land tenure make comparisons difficult.U.S. producers also argue that Canadian log export restrictions subsidize producers by preventing others from getting access to Canadian timber; U.S. log exports from federal and state lands are also restricted, but logs are exported from U.S. private lands.Finally, U.S. producers argue that they have been injured by imports of Canadian lumber.They point to the growth in Canadian exports and market share, from less than 3 billion board feet (BBF) and 7% of the U.S. market in 1952 to more than 18 BBF per year and a market share of more than 33% since the late 1990s.Canadians counter these arguments, asserting that their stumpage fees are based on markets, that the WTO prohibits treating export restrictions as subsidies, and that the U.S. industry has been unable to satisfy the growth in U.S. lumber demand for homebuilding and other uses.The United States initiated investigations of Canadian subsidies -a prerequisite for establishing countervailing duties (CVDs) -in 1982, 1986, and 1991.Subsidy findings led to a 15% Canadian tax on lumber exports in 1986 and a 6.51% CVD in 1992.Canada challenged the CVD, which was revoked in 1994.A 1996 Softwood Lumber Agreement restricted Canadian exports until March 31, 2001.U.S. producers filed antidumping (AD) and CVD petitions immediately after the 1996 agreement expired.U.S. agencies determined that Canadian lumber was subsidized and was being dumped and that the imports threatened to injure U.S. industry.Final AD and CV duties of 27% were imposed in May 2002, although lumber duties were later lowered as a result of annual Commerce Department reviews.Canada filed NAFTA and WTO cases and, with Canadian producers, suits in U.S. federal court challenging U.S. agency actions in the AD and CVD investigations.Canadian companies also filed claims against the United States under the NAFTA investment chapter.On July 1, 2006, the United States and Canada signed a Softwood Lumber Agreement (2006 SLA) to end the dispute.A finalized version was signed September 12, 2006, and, with subsequent amendments, entered into force October 12, 2006.Among other things, the seven-year agreement provides for the settlement of pending litigation and establishes Canadian export charges, varying by weighted average lumber prices and lower if the Canadian exporting region also accepts volume restraints.The United States has revoked the AD and CVD orders, with at least 80% of the duty deposits being returned to the importers of record.The remaining 20% is being used to fund lumber-related entities and initiatives provided for in the agreement.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,016 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».