Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act: Overview for Reauthorization in the 116th Congress

Summary: The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) collects livestock and meat price data and related market information from meat packers under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. Â§1621 et seq. ). This information was collected on a voluntary basis until 2001, when most of it became mandatory. As the livestock industry became increasingly concentrated in the 1990s, fewer animals were sold through negotiated (cash or "spot") purchases and with increasing frequency were sold under alternative marketing arrangements that were not publicly disclosed under voluntary reporting. Some livestock producers, believing such arrangements made it difficult to impossible for them to assess "fair" market prices for livestock going to slaughter, called for livestock mandatory reporting (LMR) for packers who purchase livestock, process them, and market the meat.

Summary: In response, Congress passed the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999 ( P.L. 106-78 ) that mandated price reporting for cattle, boxed beef, and swine and allowed USDA to establish mandatory price reporting for lamb purchases. USDA issued a final rule that included lamb reporting in December 2000 and took effect in April 2001. Since then, the law has been amended to include more detail on swine reporting and has added wholesale pork as a covered product. The act has been reauthorized four times, and most recently the Agriculture Reauthorizations Act of 2015 ( P.L. 114-54 ) reauthorized LMR through September 30, 2020. In addition to extending LMR, the enacted legislation established the "negotiated formula purchase" category for swine and added additional swine reporting requirements (e.g., net prices and head counts by type of swine). The act also amended reporting volume thresholds for lamb importers and lamb packers.

Summary: The reauthorization required USDA to conduct a study that analyzed current marketing practices, identified livestock industry stakeholder concerns, and solicited stakeholder legislative and regulatory recommendations for LMR. AMS submitted this report to Congress in April 2018.

Summary: The LMR study found that the meatpacking industry has become more concentrated and vertically integrated since LMR was established. It also found that the industry is responding to domestic and global consumer meat demand with product differentiation and a mix of new products that did not exist when LMR began. And it concluded that the types of transactions for livestock and meat have significantly changed as negotiated trades decrease and are replaced by formula pricing, forward contracts, and other arrangements.

Summary: AMS held several meetings with cattle, swine, and lamb industry stakeholders to gather feedback on the LMR program in 2016 and 2017. Stakeholders represented at the meetings included industry associations, farm groups, meat processors, and food companies. Since then, AMS has implemented reporting changes that address several concerns raised by stakeholders.

Summary: A common concern among stakeholders is the low volume of negotiated purchases and a parallel trend toward increased formula purchases or other marketing arrangements. Other concerns are about confidentiality and a lack of clarity on how transactions are categorized in reports, with some stakeholders advocating for the inclusion of more details about transactions, such as premium levelsâespecially as the market changesâand reporting on the number of livestock committed to packers.

Summary: Swine and lamb stakeholders have provided specific legislative recommendations to be considered during possible reauthorization of the act in the 116 th Congress. Swine stakeholders have recommended eliminating the "negotiated formula purchase" transaction and the reporting of wholesale pork prices based on shipment to Omaha, Nebraska, because these reporting requirements are rarely used in the swine industry today. They also recommended expanding definitions and reporting on certain swine attributes. Lamb stakeholders have recommended setting a lower threshold for the number of lambs processed by a packer to be covered by LMR and requiring custom slaughtered lambs and the number of lambs committed to packers to be reported.

T he Livestock Mandatory Reporting (LMR) Act of 1999 ( P.L. 106-78 , Title IX; 7 U.S.C. Â§ 1635 et seq. ) amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. Â§1621 et seq. ) to require that meat packers report prices and other information on purchases of cattle, swine, and boxed beef (wholesale cuts of beef) to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Lamb and lamb meat were added through initial rulemaking, and the act was amended to include wholesale pork in 2010. In September 2015, Congress reauthorized LMR until September 30, 2020, in the enacted Agriculture Reauthorizations Act of 2015 ( P.L. 114-54 ). In past reauthorizations, most livestock industry stakeholders have supported reauthorization of the act and put forward proposals amending mandatory reporting. This report provides an overview of LMR and its legislative and rulemaking history; a description of the LMR program; and issues that the cattle, swine, and lamb industries have raised with USDA that could be considered during possible reauthorization. Information on House and Senate bills that would reauthorize LMR will be added should they become available.

Before Congress enacted LMR in 1999, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) collected livestock and meat price and related market information from meat packers on a voluntary basis under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. AMS market reporters collected and reported prices from livestock auctions, feedlots, and packing plants. The information was disseminated through hundreds of daily, weekly, monthly, and annual written and electronic USDA reports on sales of live cattle, hogs, and sheep and wholesale meat products from these animals. The goal was to provide all buyers and sellers with accurate and objective market information.

By the 1990s, the livestock industry had undergone many changes, including increased concentration in meat packing and animal feeding, production specialization, and vertical integration (firms controlling more than one aspect of production). Fewer animals were sold through negotiated (cash or "spot") sales, while an increasing number of purchases were made under alternative marketing arrangements (e.g., formula purchases based on a negotiated price established in the future). These formula purchases were based on prices not publicly disclosed or reported. Some livestock producers, believing that such arrangements made it difficult or impossible for them to assess "fair" market prices for livestock going to slaughter, called for mandatory price reporting for packers and others who process and market meat. USDA had estimated in 2000 that the former voluntary system was not reporting transactions of the order of 35%-40% of cattle, 75% of hogs, and 40% of lambs.

During initial debate in Congress on LMR, opponents, including some meat packers and other farmers and ranchers, argued that a mandate would impose costly new burdens on the industry and could cause the release of confidential company information. Nonetheless, some of these early opponents ultimately supported an LMR law. Livestock producers had experienced low prices in the late 1990s and were looking for ways to strengthen market prices. Some meat packers also supported a national consensus bill at least partly to preempt what they viewed as an emerging "patchwork" of state price reporting laws that could alter competition among packers operating under different state laws.

LMR was enacted in October 1999 as part of the FY2000 Agriculture appropriations act. (See Table 1 , "Legislative and Rulemaking History.") The law mandated price reporting for live cattle, boxed beef, and live swine and allowed USDA to establish LMR for lamb purchases and lamb meat sales. The law authorized appropriations as necessary and required USDA to implement regulations no later than 180 days after the law was enacted. LMR was authorized for five years, until September 30, 2004.

USDA issued a final rule on December 1, 2000. Although reporting for lamb was optional in the LMR statute, USDA established mandatory reporting for lamb in the final rule. The rule was to be implemented on January 30, 2001, but USDA delayed implementation until April 2, 2001, to allow for additional time to test the automated LMR program to ensure program requirements were being met.

The implementation of LMR did not affect the continuation of the AMS voluntary price-reporting program. AMS continues to publish prices from livestock auctions and feeder cattle and pig sales through voluntary-based market news reports.

LMR authority lapsed for two months in October 2004 before Congress extended it for one year to September 30, 2005. Authority for LMR lapsed again on September 30, 2005. At that time, USDA requested that all packers who were required to report under the 1999 act continue to submit required information voluntarily. About 90% of packers voluntarily reported, which allowed USDA to continue to publish most reports. In October 2006, Congress passed legislation to reauthorize LMR through September 30, 2010. This act also amended swine reporting requirements from the original 1999 law by separating the reporting requirements for sows and boars from barrows and gilts, among other changes.

Because statutory authority for the program had lapsed for a year, USDA determined that it had to reestablish regulatory authority through rulemaking in order to continue LMR operations. On May 16, 2008, USDA issued the final rule to reestablish and revise the mandatory reporting program. This rule incorporated the swine reporting changes and was intended to enhance the program's overall effectiveness and efficiency based on AMS's experience in the administration of the program. The rule became effective on July 15, 2008.

Mandatory wholesale pork price reporting was not included in the original LMR act because the swine industry could not agree on reporting for pork. Section 11001 of the 2008 farm bill ( P.L. 110-246 ) directed USDA to study the effects of requiring packers to report the price and volume of wholesale pork cuts, which was a voluntary reporting activity at the time. The study was released in November 2009 and concluded that there would be benefits from a mandatory pork reporting program.

On September 27, 2010, the President signed into law the Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 2010 ( P.L. 111-239 ), reauthorizing LMR through September 30, 2015. The act added a provision for LMR of wholesale pork cuts, directed USDA to engage in negotiated rulemaking to make required regulatory changes for mandatory wholesale pork reporting, and established a negotiated rulemaking committee to develop these changes. The committee was composed of representatives of pork producers, packers, processors, and retailers. The committee met three times, was open to the public, and developed recommendations for mandatory wholesale pork reporting. USDA released the final rule on August 22, 2012, and the regulation was implemented on January 7, 2013.

The Agriculture Reauthorizations Act of 2015 ( P.L. 114-54 ) was enacted into law on September 30, 2015, extending LMR to September 30, 2020. P.L. 114-54 included amendments to swine and lamb reporting and addressed certain issues that livestock stakeholders had raised about LMR. (See " LMR Provisions Enacted in 2015 " below.)

The Agriculture Reauthorizations Act of 2015 ( P.L. 114-54 ) extended LMR through September 30, 2020, and established the negotiated formula purchase reporting category for swine. A negotiated formula purchase is a purchase of swine based on a formula, negotiated on a lot-by-lot basis, in which the swine are committed to packers and scheduled for delivery no later than 14 days after the formula is negotiated.

The enacted legislation also amended swine LMR by requiring the reporting of the low and high range of net swine prices to include the number of barrows and the number of gilts within the ranges and the total number and weighted average price of barrows and gilts. Lastly, the act requires that next-day reports include transaction prices that were concluded after the previous day's reporting deadlines.

P.L. 114-54 amended lamb reporting regulations to redefine lamb importers and lamb packers . Importer is defined as an entity that imports an average of 1,000 metric tons (MT) of lamb meat per year during the immediately preceding four years. The original threshold was 2,500 MT. If an importing entity does not meet the volume limit, the Secretary of Agriculture may still determine that an entity should be considered an importer. Lamb packer is defined as an entity having 50% or more ownership in facilities, including federally inspected facilities, that slaughtered and processed an average of 35,000 head per year over the immediately preceding five years. The original threshold was 75,000 head. Also, the Secretary may consider other facilities to be packers based on processing plant capacity.

Lastly, the reauthorization required USDA to study the price-reporting program for cattle, swine, and lamb. The study, to be conducted by AMS and the USDA Office of the Chief Economist, was directed to analyze current marketing practices and identify legislative and regulatory recommendations that are readily understandable; reflect current market practices; and are relevant and useful to producers, packers, and other market participants. AMS submitted the report to Congress in April 2018.

LMR requires livestock buyers and sellers of meat products to report prices and other characteristics of their transactions. Ten types of transactions are reported for livestock, and each is described below. Several other marketing terms are defined in the text box following the description of transactions. Lastly, there is a discussion of LMR confidentiality requirements, AMS reporting, and enforcement measures.

Some types of transactions required under LMR are for specific livestock, such as cattle or swine, others cover all covered species.

Negotiated purchase: a cash or "spot" market purchase by a packer of livestock from a producer under which the base price for the livestock is determined by seller-buyer interaction and agreement on a delivery day. Cattle are delivered to the packer within 30 days of the agreement. Swine are delivered within 14 days.

Negotiated grid purchase (cattle): the negotiation of a base price, from which premiums are added and discounts are subtracted, determined by seller-buyer interaction and agreement on a delivery day. Cattle are usually delivered to the packer not more than 14 days after the date the livestock are committed to the packer.

Forward contract: an agreement for the purchase of livestock, executed in advance of slaughter, under which the base price is established by reference to publicly available prices. For example, forward contracts may be priced on quoted Chicago Mercantile Exchange prices or other comparable public prices.

Formula marketing arrangement: the advance commitment of livestock for slaughter by any means other than a negotiated or negotiated grid purchase or a forward contract using a method for calculating price in which the price is determined at a future date.

Swine or pork market formula purchase: a purchase of swine by a packer in which the pricing mechanism is a formula price based on a market for swine, pork, or a pork product other than a future or option for swine, pork, or a pork product.

Negotiated formula purchase (swine): a purchase of swine based on a swine/pork market formula that is negotiated lot-by-lot and scheduled for delivery and committed to the packer within 14 days of the negotiation. The sales are reported as producer- or packer-sold.

Other market formula purchase: a purchase of swine by a packer in which the pricing mechanism is a formula price based on one or more futures or options contracts, and the sales are reported as producer- or packer-sold.

Other purchase arrangement: a purchase of swine by a packer that is not a negotiated purchase, swine or pork market formula purchase, negotiated formula, or other market formula purchase and does not involve packer-owned swine. The sales are reported as producer- or packer-sold.

Packer-sold swine: the swine that are owned by a packer (including a subsidiary or affiliate of the packer) for more than 14 days immediately before sale for slaughter and sold for slaughter to another packer.

Packer-owned: livestock that packers (includes a subsidiary or affiliate of swine packers) own for at least 14 days immediately before slaughter. Information such as weight and dressing percent is reported on packer-owned livestock.

Meat packers are also required to report negotiated sales, formula sales, and forward contracts for boxed beef, boxed lamb, carcass lamb, and wholesale pork.

Negotiated sales : a wholesale pork, boxed beef, or boxed lamb trade in which a price is determined by seller and buyer and is scheduled for delivery no more the 14 days from the date the price is established.

Formula marketing arrangements: agreements in which the price is determined based on publicly available quoted prices.

Forward sales: a wholesale pork, boxed beef, or boxed lamb sale in which the price is determined by seller and buyer and the delivery is scheduled beyond the time of a negotiate sale (over 14 days).

Export sales: meats that are delivered outside the United States but not to Canada or Mexico.

Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the monthly percentage since 2002 of cattle and swine purchases by transactions type. Both demonstrate the long-term declining trend in negotiated purchases and the move to formula-based purchases. In January 2002, almost 50% of cattle were traded on a negotiated basis, but negotiated purchases amounted to about 25% of purchases in May 2019. The declining trend in negotiated purchases in swine has gone from 17% in January 2002 to less than 2% in February 2019.

AMS does not report the number of lambs sold on a formula basis because of confidentiality requirements. Throughout 2017 AMS was unable to report formula purchases in its National Weekly Lamb Report that included both lamb negotiated and formula purchases because of confidentiality requirements. AMS stopped publishing the report in December 2017. In 2016, about 40% of lambs were purchased on a negotiated basis and 60% on a formula basis.

Currently, AMS reports the number of lambs, their weight and price range, and the weighted average price of purchased lambs on a negotiated basis, as well as comprehensive information that includes the average weight, net price, and dressing percent that combines negotiated and formula purchase information. Sufficient data are not available to publish all of the regular LMR transactions due to the limited number of transactions.

The text box above provides definitions of selected marketing terms that are used in LMR reports. The following sections discuss some of the main LMR reporting requirements, a description of confidentiality, and AMS reporting and enforcement of LMR. The complete LMR reporting requirements for cattle, swine, lamb, beef, pork, and lamb meat are in the LMR statute (7 U.S.C. Â§1635 et seq. ) and the LMR regulations (7 C.F.R. Part 59). LMR reports are available at the AMS Livestock, Poultry, and Grain Market News Portal . A description of selected reporting requirements under the LMR, and of the entities that are subject to them, follow.

Packers that are subject to mandatory reporting are defined as federally inspected plants that have slaughtered a minimum annual average of 125,000 head of cattle, 100,000 head of swine, 200,000 head of sows and boars or a combination thereof, or 35,000 lambs during the immediate five preceding years. If a plant has operated for fewer than five years, USDA determines, based on capacity, if the packer must report. Packers are required to report the prices established for steers and heifers twice daily (10 a.m. and 2 p.m. central time), for cows and bulls twice daily (10 a.m. central for current day and 2 p.m. for previous-day purchases), barrows and gilts three times daily (7 a.m. central for prior-day purchases and 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. central), sows and boars once daily (7 a.m. central for prior-day purchases), and lambs once daily (2 p.m. central). Besides the established prices, packers report premiums and discounts and the type of purchase transactionâfor example, negotiated sales, formula sales, or forward contracts. Depending on the species, packers are required to report the quantity delivered for the day; the quantity committed to the packer; the estimated weight on a live weight basis or a dressed weight basis; and quality characteristics, such as quality grade. In addition to daily reporting, on the first reporting day of the week, packers file a cumulative weekly report of the previous week's purchases of steers, heifers, and swine. Lamb packers are required to report the previous week's purchases on the first and second reporting day of the week, depending on the data. Steer and heifer and lamb packers are to include data on type of purchase (negotiated, formula, or forward contract), premiums and discounts, and some carcass characteristics (e.g., quality grade and yield, average dressing percentage). Swine packers are required to report the amount paid in premiums that are based on noncarcass characteristics (e.g., volume, delivery timing, hog breed). Also, packers must provide producers a list of such premiums. In addition to livestock purchase prices, packers are required to report sales data for boxed beef, wholesale pork, and carcass and boxed lamb. Sales are reported twice daily for beef and pork and once daily for lamb. Packers are required to provide price, quantity, quality grade for beef and lamb, and type of cut. Packers must also report beef and pork domestic and export sales and domestic boxed lamb sales. Lamb importers who have imported a minimum average of 1,000 MT of lamb in the immediate four preceding years are required to report weekly lamb prices; quantities imported; the type of sale (negotiated, formula, or forward contract); cuts of lamb; and delivery period.

The LMR law requires that price reporting be confidential to protect packer identity, contracts, and proprietary business information. In determining what data could be published, AMS initially adopted a "3/60" confidentiality guideline, which is commonly used throughout the federal government. Under 3/60, at least three entities must report in the regional or national reporting area, and no single entity may account for more than 60% of the reported market volume. Because of concentration in the livestock industry, AMS found that the "3/60" guideline resulted in large gaps in data reporting. For example, between April 2, 2001, and June 15, 2001, 24% of daily reports and 20% of weekly reports were not published because of confidentiality provisions.

In order to address the data gaps, in August 2001 AMS adopted a "3/70/20" guideline, which requires that (1) at least three entities report 50% of the time over the most recent 60-day period, (2) no single reporting entity may account for more than 70% of reported volume over the most recent 60-day period, and (3) no single reporting entity may be the only reporting entity for a single report more than 20% of the time over the most recent 60-day period. These new guidelines eliminated most of the data gaps.

The Livestock, Poultry, and Grain Market News Division of the AMS Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program is responsible for compiling and disseminating the information collected under LMR. It continues to operate a voluntary reporting program for livestock, poultry, and grain not covered under LMR.

Under LMR, AMS publishes 24 daily cattle reports, 20 daily swine reports, and 2 daily lamb reports, and on a weekly basis, 21 cattle reports, 2 swine reports, and 3 lamb reports. It also publishes daily 6 boxed beef reports, 4 wholesale pork reports, and 1 boxed lamb and 1 lamb carcass report, and weekly 11 boxed beef reports, 10 wholesale pork reports, and 1 boxed lamb and 1 lamb carcass report. AMS also publishes 13 monthly cattle reports under LMR.

According to AMS, LMR provides data for 78% of total slaughtered cattle, 94% of hogs, and 43% of sheep. For meat products, LMR covers 93% of boxed beef production, 87% of wholesale pork, and 43% of boxed lamb. Small operations that fall below required thresholds or nonfederally inspected meat packing facilities account for the remaining percentage of livestock slaughter and meat production. AMS market news operates on an annual appropriation of about $34 million, and the LMR program accounts for about $4 million of that amount.

AMS compliance staff enforces LMR through audits once every six months. AMS accomplishes this by reviewing support documentation for randomly sampled lots.

AMS classifies noncompliance as major or minor violations. Major violations occur when packers do not submit information or submit incorrect information that affects the accuracy of reports. Minor violations are submissions that have typographical or data entry errors, for example, but have a minimal effect on report accuracy. If noncompliance is found, AMS will ask the packer to correct the problem. If the packer does not correct the problem, AMS may issue a warning letter and conduct additional audits. Ultimately, AMS could fine the packer $10,000 for each violation if corrective action is not taken. Packing plants have the right to appeal any noncompliance findings within 30 days of receiving a request for corrective action.

In FY2015, AMS switched from quarterly plant visit reports to semiannual compliance reports on plant visits. For FY2018, AMS issued 369 noncompliance violations (270 major and 99 minor) during audits of 457 plants and 4,389 audited lots.

As part of the 2015 reauthorization study requirement, AMS held several meetings with cattle, swine, and lamb industry stakeholders to gather feedback on the LMR program. Stakeholders represented at the meetings included industry associations, farm groups, meat processors and food companies. In several cases AMS has already implemented reporting changes to address industry concerns. A common concern among stakeholders is the limited volume of the negotiated purchase market (see Figure 1 and Figure 2 ). Other concerns cited went to issues of confidentiality and the need for greater clarity in how transactions are categorized in reports. Some stakeholders want to see more detailed information on transactions, such as premiums, especially as pricing models evolve, as well as changes in reporting on the number of livestock committed to packers. The sections below provide summaries of the baseline study and stakeholder feedback.

In response to the report requirements in the 2015 reauthorization, AMS commissioned a baseline study that explored underlying changes in the livestock and meat markets that affect LMR. The study's findings include the following:

1. Since LMR was established, the meatpacking industry has become more concentrated and vertically integrated. Many producers are also looking to vertical integration to remain competitive. 2. The industry is responding to domestic and global consumer meat demand with product differentiation and a mix of new products that did not exist when LMR began. 3. Livestock and meat are traded differently than they were 20 years ago as negotiated trades represent a smaller share of transactions, while formula pricing, forward contracts, and other arrangements comprise an increasing share of the total trade. 4. There are new platforms for pricing, such as internet auctions, that did not exist in early years of LMR. The industry is likely to continue to develop other platforms that vary greatly from traditional trading of livestock and meat.

The study's authors concluded that the loss of LMR data during the 2013 government shutdown left the industry without a benchmark to accurately evaluate the markets. During the 2018-2019 shutdown AMS continued LMR reporting.

Further structural changesâconcentration and integrationâin the livestock industry create challenges for confidentiality in reporting. In addition, the effectiveness of LMR as a means of providing relevant information for market participants may need to be assessed in the context of changes, such as introduction of branded or specialty programs that are not captured by LMR as it is currently structured. Also, with international trade in meat increasing, the inclusion of more market information on exported meat products could add to transparency in the market. Lastly, the study noted that timely AMS collaboration with the industry is crucial to the usefulness of LMR.

Stakeholders in the cattle, swine, and lamb industries provided a range of comments and suggestions during their meetings with AMS, and these are summarized below.

Cattle stakeholders did not offer legislative recommendations to AMS but suggested changes to LMR reporting. AMS has already addressed some cattle stakeholder concerns. For example, cattle stakeholders raised concerns about how AMS reports delivery periods for negotiated purchases. A period of 15-30 days for deliveries was added in 2008, but AMS was unable to report data because of confidentiality guidelines. Instead data was reported as deliveries of 0-30 days. In response, AMS conducted a study of delivery periods, and in November 2017 it began reporting weighted average negotiated cattle prices for delivery periods of 0-14 and 15-30 days. AMS has also adjusted reporting so that negotiated purchases delivered beyond 30 days are separate from forward contract purchase. Some in the cattle industry expressed the need for greater reporting of committed cattle. For example, hog packers report each morning the number of hogs they have committed to take delivery of during the next 14 days. Conversely, some cattle stakeholders disagree that additional data on committed cattle is needed, pointing out that cattle market numbers are smaller than swine numbers, and therefore the information could be misleading.

Stakeholders in the swine industry also expressed concern about the low volume of transactions in the negotiated markets. They were also skeptical about whether LMR can adequately capture market information related to changes in consumer preferences for porkâsuch as organic, antibiotic-free, raised without sow crates, or pork raised without the growth promoter ractopamine. In general, swine stakeholders also want AMS to report more noncarcass premiums, revise its reporting on the pork cutout (cut up parts of the carcass), and provide guidance on how transactions are categorized.

Swine stakeholders offered the following six recommendations for legislative changes to LMR:

1. Remove the "negotiated formula purchase" definition and reporting requirement for swine that was included in the 2015 LMR reauthorization; 2. Amend the definition of non-carcass merit premium to more clearly differentiate the reporting requirements from premiums offered for carcass merit; 3. Define and report swine attributes, specifically addressing how attribute premiums, base prices, and net prices are reported by purchase type; 4. Amend the definitions of affiliate to lower the threshold of ownership or control to anything greater than 0 percent; 5. Add to reporting the volume of swine or pork market formula transactions that are priced on the pork carcass cutout; and 6. Remove the requirement for reporting wholesale pork on a free-on-board (FOB) Omaha basis. Wholesale pork is reported on an FOB plant basis and FOB Omaha basis, but most of the pork industry now uses FOB plant as the basis for pricing.

The U.S. sheep and lamb industry is a concentrated market that results in price-reporting challenges not necessarily experienced by the larger cattle and hog sectors. As a result, AMS is no longer able to publish lamb formula purchases because too few companies purchase the volume needed to meet reporting confidentiality guidelines. At the request of the lamb industry, AMS commissioned a study of lamb data and confidentiality. The study found that it is not feasible to relax confidentiality guidelines but suggested alternatives such as publishing a comprehensive report, which AMS has done, and developing a standardized pricing model that would produce a price based on the relationship of various reporting attributes.

The lamb stakeholders raised concerns that AMS was not capturing price information for cooperative-owned lambs and for custom slaughtered lambs. AMS addressed the cooperative owned lamb issue in November 2017 by adding these lamb prices and their carcass weight information to its weekly sheep report. Under custom slaughter, ownership does not change. A producer's lambs are slaughtered on contract and are usually priced on a per-head basis. The lamb carcasses may then be sold to a lamb processor for fabrication (processing the carcasses into various cuts), but prices are not reported to AMS. Lastly, some stakeholders requested reporting of the number of lambs committed to be delivered to packers. However, the industry is not in agreement on reporting of committed lambs because of concern among some that this information would provide market information to import competitors.

Lamb stakeholders involved in discussions with AMS proposed that three amendments be included in the reauthorization of LMR:

1. Lower the reporting threshold for lamb packers from 35,000 head per year on average to 20,000 head per year on average. 2. Define and require reporting of custom slaughtered lambs. 3. Define and require reporting of committed lambs.

LMR, as enacted and amended over the past 20 years, has increased market transparency for all market participants and livestock analysts. Livestock stakeholders have been generally supportive of LMR and its reauthorization over the years. The five-year reauthorization period has provided an opportunity for Congress to receive input from livestock stakeholders and evaluate whether or not the law and its implementation is fulfilling its purpose. This has proven especially critical when the industry is constantly changing and adapting to market and consumer demands.

The 2015 reauthorization law that required that USDA provide a report to Congress on the LMR program offers a potential starting point for Congress to consider for possible 2020 reauthorization. Livestock stakeholders have offered specific proposals for Congress to consider should it choose to address reauthorization legislation. Other recommendations may be forthcoming. AMS regularly engages the livestock industry on LMR reporting issues and makes changes to reporting. During consideration of reauthorization, Congress may consider legislation to bolster LMR and whether AMS needs additional regulatory authority to address LMR issues. Stakeholders may have particular interest in adjusting confidentiality requirements for lamb reporting and expanding reporting requirements for certain attributes that address changing livestock markets.


COVID-19: Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Supplemental Appropriations in the CARES Act

Summary: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law ( P.L. 116-136 ). The CARES Act includes $3.5 billion in supplemental appropriations for the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). These funds are to be used to "prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus."

Summary: The CCDBG Act (42 U.S.C. Â§Â§9858 et seq.) is the main federal law supporting child care programs for low-income working families. The CCDBG is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS allocates CCDBG funds to states, territories, and tribes according to a statutory formula. State, territory, and tribal lead agencies submit CCDBG plans to HHS every three years describing how their child care programs will operate. CCDBG funds are used to subsidize the cost of child care for eligible children of low-income working parents. Funds are also used to support activities to improve the quality of child care and for certain other activities.

Summary: The $3.5 billion in supplemental CCDBG funds are provided in addition to FY2020 annual appropriations of $5.8 billion ( P.L. 116-94 ). The additional $3.5 billion represents a 60% increase in total appropriations to the CCDBG in FY2020.

Summary: The CARES Act funds may be used under existing CCDBG Act authorities. In addition, the CARES Act includes a number of provisions that clarify allowable uses and, in some cases, waive certain underlying requirements of the CCDBG Act. For instance, the CARES Act specifies that the funds

Summary: may be used to provide continued payments and assistance to child care providers in cases of decreased enrollment or closures related to coronavirus, and to ensure they are able to remain open or reopen; may be used to continue to pay staff salaries and wages of child care providers (CCDBG lead agencies are encouraged to place conditions on payments to child care providers aimed at ensuring that a portion of the funds they receive go toward costs of salaries and wages); may be used to provide child care assistance to health care sector employees, emergency responders, sanitation workers, and other workers deemed essential during the response to the coronavirus, without regard to typical CCDBG income eligibility requirements (federal law generally limits eligibility to those whose family income does not exceed 85% of state median income, though most states set income limits below this federal threshold); shall be available to eligible child care providers under the CCDBG Act (even if they were not receiving CCDBG funds previously) for the purposes of cleaning and sanitation, and other activities necessary to maintain or resume program operation; are exempt from the minimum spending requirements for quality activities and direct services; may be used for allowable obligations incurred prior to enactment of the CARES Act; may be used for purposes provided in the CARES Act before the lead agency submits any applicable CCDBG plan amendments to HHS (under regulations, lead agencies generally must submit state plan amendments within 60 days of policy change); shall be used to supplement, not supplant, state, territory, and tribal general revenue funds for child care assistance for low-income families; and are to remain available for obligation by HHS through the end of FY2021 and may remain available for obligation by CCDBG le ad a gencies through the end of FY2022.

On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law ( P.L. 116-136 ). The CARES Act includes $3.5 billion in supplemental appropriations for the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). This report provides an overview of the CCDBG provisions in the CARES Act. Among other things, these provisions address allowable uses and flexibilities of the supplemental funds. The report also includes allocations for the additional $3.5 billion in CCDBG appropriations.

The CCDBG Act (42 U.S.C. Â§Â§9858 et seq.) is the main federal law supporting child care programs for low-income working families. The CCDBG is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS allocates CCDBG funds to states, territories, and tribes according to a statutory formula. In addition, certain funds may be reserved for other activities, such as technical assistance and research. State, territory, and tribal lead agencies submit CCDBG plans to HHS every three years describing how their child care programs will operate. CCDBG funds are used to subsidize the cost of child care for eligible children of low-income working parents. Funds are also used to support activities to improve the quality of child care and for certain other costs.

The CARES Act appropriates $3.5 billion in FY2020 emergency supplemental funds to the CCDBG. The funds are to be used to "prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus." The CARES Act funds are provided in addition to FY2020 annual appropriations of $5.8 billion (see P.L. 116-94 ). The additional $3.5 billion represents a 60% increase in total appropriations to the CCDBG in FY2020. The additional funds are to remain available for obligation by HHS through September 30, 2021 (i.e., the end of FY2021). The CARES Act includes a number of provisions that clarify allowable uses and, in some cases, waive certain underlying requirements of the CCDBG Act. Below is a brief discussion of key provisions.

Continued Assistance to Child Care Providers

Under the CCDBG Act, lead agencies subsidize the cost of child care for eligible children. Lead agencies commonly provide subsidy payments directly to child care providers. In some cases, lead agencies may provide additional CCDBG funds to eligible providers for other purposes, such as supporting professional development or helping build the supply of quality child care.

The CARES Act specifies that CCDBG funds appropriated in the act may be used to provide continued payments and assistance to child care providers

in cases of decreased enrollment or closures related to coronavirus, and to ensure that providers are able to remain open or reopen as appropriate and applicable.

The CCDBG Act generally encourages (but does not require) lead agencies to make payments to child care providers based on enrollment rather than attendance. Specifically, the law states that lead agencies should "to the extent practicable" delink provider reimbursements from an eligible child's occasional absences due to holidays or unforeseen circumstances such as illness. This provision of the law is intended to support the fixed costs incurred by providers.

The CARES Act specifies that CCDBG funds appropriated in the act shall be available to eligible child care providers under the CCDBG Act for the purposes of cleaning and sanitation, and other activities necessary to maintain or resume the operation of programs. The act clarifies that this provision applies to eligible child care providers even if those providers were not receiving CCDBG assistance prior to the public health emergency resulting from coronavirus.

Under the CCDBG Act, eligible child care providers generally must

be licensed, regulated, or registered by the state (though states may exempt certain providers from this requirement); and meet certain minimum health and safety standards.

An exception to these requirements is made in cases of child care providers caring only for relatives. However, such providers must comply with requirements applicable to relative caregivers.

The CARES Act encourages states, territories, and tribes to place conditions on payments to child care providers aimed at ensuring providers use a portion of the funds to continue to pay staff salaries and wages. Payment of salaries and wages is not explicitly addressed in the CCDBG Act, though presumably it is typical for some share of CCDBG provider payments to support these expenses. According to national estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the mean hourly wage for child care workers was $12.27 in May 2019. BLS estimated the mean annual wage for child care workers at $25,510 nationally.

The CARES Act specifies that states, territories, and tribes are authorized to use CCDBG funds appropriated in the act to provide child care assistance to

health care sector employees, emergency responders, sanitation workers, and other workers deemed essential during the response to coronavirus by public officials.

Further, the act specifies that such workers may receive CCDBG assistance without regard to the typical income eligibility requirements under the CCDBG Act.

The CCDBG Act generally stipulates that eligible children must

be under age 13 (children may be older in limited circumstances ); reside with a parent who is working or attending job training (unless the child is receiving or needs to receive protective services); have family income no greater than 85% of state median income (SMI), or lower depending on state policy; and have no more than $1 million in family assets.

While the CARES Act waives income requirements for essential workers as noted above, it does not waive other eligibility requirements (e.g., those related to the child's age or the parent's work status).

The CARES Act requires HHS to remind states that CCDBG state plans do not need to be amended prior to using "existing authorities in the CCDBG Act for the purposes provided" in the CARES Act. Typically, if a state intends to make a substantial change to policies laid out in its CCDBG plan (e.g., a change in eligibility rules, provider payment rates, family copayments), the state would submit a state plan amendment to HHS for approval. Under regulations, a plan amendment must be submitted within 60 days of the effective date of the requirement (i.e., the state may execute the policy change before submitting the amendment). HHS has 90 days to approve or deny a plan amendment.

In the current circumstances, there are several reasons states might want to amend their plans. For instance, the CARES Act authorizes HHS to provide child care assistance to essential workers regardless of income. This is a substantial change, as federal law and state policies generally condition eligibility on family income.

Spending Flexibilities and Other Technical Provisions

The CARES Act effectively waives or adjusts certain requirements related to the obligation and expenditure of the CCDBG funds appropriated in the act.

The CCDBG Act generally requires lead agencies to spend at least 9% of their FY2020 allotments on quality activities, plus an additional 3% on activities to improve the quality of care for infants and toddlers. All told, these quality set-asides are intended to account for at least 12% of spending from FY2020 allotments. The CARES Act effectively waives these quality spending minimums for funds provided in the act, offering lead agencies greater flexibility in how funds may be spent.

The CCDBG Act includes requirements related to minimum spending on direct services. (The term direct services generally refers to child care assistance provided to families and is often, but not always, provided in the form of a voucher.) For instance, after lead agencies set aside funds to meet minimum quality spending requirements and for spending on administrative costs (capped at 5% for states and territories ), they must use at least 70% of remaining CCDBG funds for direct services. The CARES Act effectively waives direct spending requirements in the CCDBG Act, again offering lead agencies greater flexibility in how funds may be spent.

The CARES Act specifies that funds provided via the CCDBG are to be used to supplement, not supplant , state, territory, and tribal general revenue funding for child care assistance for low-income families (i.e., the funds provided under the act should not be used to replace existing state, territory, or tribal spending on such activities). CCDBG provisions in annual appropriations acts typically include similar provisions.

Past guidance from HHS suggests that this requirement would likely be considered satisfied if a state, territory, or tribe does not make any administrative or legislative changes to reduce general revenue spending after the enactment of a new CCDBG appropriation. An action occurring after this date could potentially be considered a violation of the non-supplantation requirement, unless the lead agency demonstrates that the reduction was not due to increased federal CCDBG funds.

The CARES Act specifies that the CCDBG funds it appropriates may be made available to restore amounts, either directly or through reimbursement, for obligations incurred prior to enactment. These amounts may only be restored with CARES Act funds if they were used to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.

Obligation Deadline for Lead Agencies (or Other Recipients)

The CARES Act states that payments made by HHS may be obligated by the state, territory, tribe, or other recipient in the current fiscal year or the succeeding two fiscal years. Effectively, this means that lead agencies have through FY2022 to obligate funds they receive under the CARES Act. The CCDBG Act typically gives states or other recipients two fiscal years, rather than three, to obligate funds.

CCDBG funds are generally allocated according to a formula set in statute. Under the CCDBG Act formula, HHS is to reserve up to 0.5% for territories and not less than 2% for tribes and tribal organizations. The formula also includes set-asides for technical assistance (up to 0.5%); research, demonstrations, and evaluation (0.5%); and a national toll-free hotline and website (up to $1.5 million). After all reservations have been made, the remaining funds go to states. Funds are allocated to states according to a formula based on their share of children under age five, their share of children receiving free- or reduced-price lunches, and state per capita income.

Table 1 presents FY2020 CCDBG allocations released by HHS. The table includes allocations from FY2020 annual appropriations ( P.L. 116-94 ), as well as the CARES Act ( P.L. 116-136 ).


Indigenous Peoples in Latin America: Statistical Information

Summary: This report provides statistical information on indigenous peoples in Latin America, including populations and languages, socioeconomic data, land and natural resources, human rights and international legal conventions. Resource lists for each section (languages; socioeconomics; land and resources; international organizations; and human rights) are available in the appendix as well as a lists of national agencies that oversee indigenous affairs in each Central American or South American country.

Congress has long been interested in the status of indigenous peoples abroad. In 1992, the 102 nd Congress enacted H.R. 5368 ( P.L. 102-391 ) requiring the State Department's annual human rights report to "describe the extent to which indigenous people are able to participate in decisions affecting their lands, cultures, traditions and the a llocation of natural resources, and assess the extent of protection of their civil and political rights." Issues relating to indigenous peoples periodically have been considered in hearings focused on such issues as environmental protection, energy opportunities, and security cooperation.

This report provides statistical information on indigenous peoples in Latin America, including populations and languages, socioeconomic data, land and natural resources, human rights, and international legal conventions. Resource lists for each section (languages; socioeconomics; land and resources; international organizations; and human rights) are available in the tables of Appendix A . Table B-1 lists national agencies that oversee indigenous affairs in each country.

Definitions of indigenous peoples vary. The United Nations (U.N.) has not adopted an official definition, but instead relies on self-identification to categorize indigenous populations around the world; many countries do the same. However, the U.N. web page dedicated to indigenous peoples does state "indigenous peoples are inheritors and practitioners of unique cultures and ways of relating to people and the environment. They have retained social, cultural, economic and political characteristics that are distinct from those of the dominant societies in which they live." The annex of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states "indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia , their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources."

The Organization of American States' (OAS) American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples repeats the U.N. Declaration language and adds "indigenous peoples are original, diverse societies with their own identities that constitute an integral part of the Americas." According to OAS estimates, there are more than 50 million people of indigenous descent in the Western hemisphere. This report examines those living in Latin American and the Caribbean.

According to the Manual for National Human Rights Institutions that accompanied the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, "indigenous peoples have argued against the adoption of a formal definition at the international level, stressing the need for flexibility and for respecting the desire and the right of each indigenous people to define themselves.â¦ As a consequence, no formal definition has been adopted in international law. A strict definition is seen as unnecessary and undesirable."

In counting distinct groups, this report uses the term "indigenous groups" rather than "tribe," "nation," "ethnic minority," or "sociolinguistic group."

A 2019 United Nations report included sections titled "the need for disaggregated data" and "the persistent invisibility of indigenous peoples" to address data limitations regarding indigenous people around the globe. However, the report notes progress in Latin America: "only two censuses included self-identification criteria in the 1990 round, but by the 2010 round such criteria were present in 21 of them." Despite some advances, the sources cited in this report contain data limitations, which are discussed in Appendix A . The countries listed in each table or graph may differ from others in this report based on the information available in the sources.

Latin America is home to 29-45 million indigenous people according to several studies that provided estimates for around 2010. The World Bank stated in a report that "official data on indigenous people are not conclusive, as many technical and sociological difficulties persist in census data collection. Other sources based on estimates and unofficial data refer to 50 million indigenous inhabitants in Latin America (about 10 percent of the total population). For this report, however, we will refer to the officialâalbeit imperfectânumbers provided by the national censuses [41.81 million]." Figure 1 illustrates the total number of indigenous people and their share of the total population according to three sources: a 2009 UNICEF report, a 2015 report from the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and a 2015 World Bank Report. Census projections forecast indigenous population increases in many countries in part due to populations that are younger on average than non-indigenous populations and in part due to an increase in self-identification.

Table 1 shows a breakdown by country of indigenous populations and their share of the overall population. CRS created the following tables from several sources; publication dates and methodologies differed. The countries listed in each table may differ from others in this report based on the information available in the sources.

Figure 2 illustrates the range of estimates regarding the indigenous population as a percentage of the general population in each country. Bolivia's steep decrease in the indigenous population reflects "reasons that probably have more to do with discrepancies in how the data were collected between the last two censuses than with a real trend to negative growth," according to the World Bank. More generally, differences in data collection between censuses and across countries make it difficult to estimate population increases.

To raise awareness and mobilize action, the U.N. declared 2019 the International Year of Indigenous Languages, yet figures on indigenous groups and languages vary among sources.

Figure 3 shows the total number of indigenous groups in Latin America as identified by three sources. A 2009 UNICEF report identified a total of 655 indigenous groups in Latin America. The 2014 ECLAC report cites 826 indigenous groups in Latin America although it does not provide a country breakdown. Of these 826, about 200 indigenous groups live in voluntary isolation, which is defined by an Inter-American Commission on Human Rights report as groups that "do not maintain sustained contacts with the majority non-indigenous population." The World Bank's 2015 report identifies 772 indigenous groups in Latin America.

According to several sources, indigenous languages number fewer than the number of indigenous groups across the region (see Figure 4 ). The 2015 World Bank report found 558 indigenous languages across 20 countries of Latin America, while a 2009 UNICEF report found 551 languages across the same 20 countries. Of these 551, the latter report found that 111 languages are vulnerable to extinction although five (Quechua, Nahuatl, Aymara, Yucatan Maya, and Ki'che') had over a million speakers each. In 2019, the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL International) reported 880 indigenous languages are spoken across the same 20 Latin American countries.

Table 2 shows a breakdown of Latin America's indigenous groups and languages by country according to two sources. CRS created the table from several sources; publication dates and methodologies differed. The countries listed in each table may differ from others in this report based on the information available in the sources.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 15,000-19,000 indigenous language speakers from Latin America reside in the United States.

Additional resources about indigenous groups and languages can be found in Table A-1 .

In a 2015 publication, the World Bank found that 43% of indigenous people in Latin America are poor (living on less than $5.50 a day in 2011 purchasing power parity prices or PPP), and 24% are extremely poor (living on less than $1.90 a day in 2011 PPP prices), more than twice the rates for non-indigenous people. The report also documented education gaps were across the region. Drawing from another World Bank resource, Figure 5 compares rates of indigenous peoples living on less than $5.50 a day compared to the general population in select countries of Central and South America.

The World Bank provides statistics on access to various services and opportunities for indigenous peoples in select countries of Central and South America, last updated in October 2018. The following graphs compare indigenous rates of access to these amenities compared with the general population rates by country ( Figure 6 , electricity; Figure 7 , internet; Figure 8 , home ownership; Figure 9 , sewage; and Figure 10 , water).

The World Bank also provides labor and education statistics for indigenous peoples in select countries of Central and South America, last updated in October 2018. The following graphs compare indigenous rates compared with general population rates by country ( Figure 11 , literacy; Figure 12 , school attendance; Figure 13 , unemployment; and Figure 14 , low-skill and high-skill employment).

In the appendix, Table A-2 lists resources relating to the socioeconomic standing of indigenous peoples in Latin America.

A 2017 World Resources Institute (WRI) report states "the precise amount of communal land is not known, but many experts argue that at least half of the world's land is held by Indigenous Peoples and other communities. Some estimates are as high as 65 percent or more of the global land area." The WRI goes on to specify that "globally, Indigenous Peoples and local communities have formal legal ownership of 10 percent of the land, and have some degree of government-recognized management rights over an additional 8 percent."

The United Nations' Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean's (ECLAC) 2014 report Guaranteeing indigenous people's rights in Latin America: Progress in the past decade and remaining challenges states that "over the past decade, booming international demand for primary goods (minerals, hydrocarbons, soybeans and other agricultural commodities) has boosted economic growth in the countries of Latin America but has had its cost in the form of a growing number of environmental, social and ethnic conflicts involving extractive industries located in or near indigenous territories."

According a 2012 Forest Peoples Programme global report, "[A]n estimated 350 million people live inside or close to dense forests, largely dependent on these areas for subsistence and income, while an estimated range of 60 million to 200 million indigenous people are almost wholly dependent on forests." For the region of Mexico, Central and South America, the report estimates 42-48 million indigenous peoples and 21-26 million forest peoples. Some but not all indigenous peoples are also forest peoples. Some countries did not have population figures for forest people.

A 2018 Science article classifies drivers of global tree cover loss using satellite imagery. In Latin America, deforestation accounts for over half of the tree cover loss, shifting agriculture about a third, and, to a smaller degree, forestry, wildfire, and urbanization.

In the 2015 report Indigenous Peoples, Communities of African Descent, Extractive Industries , the IACHR wrote that "through the implementation of its monitoring mechanisms, the Commission has consistently received information evidencing the human, social, health, cultural and environmental impacts of [extraction, exploitation, and development activities concerning natural resources] on indigenous peoples and Afrodescendent communities. Many extractive and development activities in the hemisphere are implemented in lands and territories historically occupied by indigenous and Afro-descendent communities, which often coincide with areas hosting a great wealth of natural resources."

Table A-3 lists resources about indigenous peoples' lands and natural resources in Latin America. While the titles may not exclusively focus on indigenous peoples, the industries' impact on indigenous people is a part of the analysis of each resource.

Human Rights and Multilateral Instruments

Various international human rights mechanisms protect the rights of indigenous peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean. Table 3 identifies those countries that have ratified or voted in favor of the following three multilateral instruments on indigenous peoples' rights:

International Labor Organization's Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169). 26 The convention includes sections on land; recruitment and conditions of employment; vocational training, handicrafts and rural industries; and social security and health; education and means of communication. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). 27 The 2007 declaration covers such topics as self-determination or autonomy; land and environment; employment; religion; language and media; education; discrimination and violence; and health. American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (ADRIP). 28 The 2016 declaration approved by the Organization of American States includes sections on human and collective rights; cultural identity; organizational and political rights; and social, economic and property rights.

The United Nations has a Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and in 2001 created the Special Rapporteurship on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which promote the rights of indigenous peoples across the globe. In 1990, the Organization of American States created the Rapporteurship on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to promote the rights of indigenous peoples throughout the Western Hemisphere. Table A-4 provides additional resources about the work of international organizations with indigenous peoples.

In a 2000 report, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) wrote "concern for the human rights of indigenous peoples and their members has been a constant feature in the work of the Commission." The IACHR has tracked its work involving indigenous peoples. It hosts multiple sessions per year to hold hearings regarding human rights issues affecting a particular country or subregion of the Western Hemisphere. One of the categories for hearings is the rights of indigenous peoples. Table 4 shows the number of IACHR hearings by country involving indigenous peoples' rights. It also shows the number of Inter-American Court of Human Rights cases brought by indigenous peoples against countries.

In the appendix, Table A-5 lists publications that document various human rights issues confronting indigenous peoples. CRS also publishes a number of reports with country-specific information on indigenous peoples' human rights issues.

Appendix A. Data Sources and Resources Lists

The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and FundaciÃ³n para la EducaciÃ³n en Contextos de MultilingÃ¼ismo y Pluriculturalidad (the Foundation for Education in Multilingual and Multicultural Contexts or FUNPROEIB) gathered data in 21 Latin American and Caribbean countries in 2009 for its report in two volumes titled Atlas SociolingÃ¼Ãstico de Pueblos IndÃgenas en AmÃ©rica Latina . The report notes the limitations of using national censuses.

In 2014, the United Nations' Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) gathered population data from 17 Latin American countries using national censuses for Guaranteeing Indigenous People's Rights in Latin America: Progress in the past Decade and Remaining Challenges . The report notes that most countries ask people to self-identify as indigenous with the exception of Peru, which asks people if they speak an indigenous language.

In 2015, the World Bank gathered data in 16 countries using national censuses and household survey data in order to publish Indigenous Latin America in the Twenty-First Century: the First Decade . The report notes that the definition of who is indigenous has become increasingly controversial and "underscores the complexity of identifying indigenous people across the region and argues that the conditions of indigeneity vary over time and are, in some cases, context- and country-specific."

The current edition of Ethnologue documents language counts for each country and divides them into indigenous and non-indigenous categories. Indigenous languages figures were used in Table 2 as non-indigenous is defined as "a language that did not originate in the country, but which is now established there either as a result of its longstanding presence or because of institutionally supported use and recognition." Only living languages were included in the count, not languages classified as extinct. Ethnologue's "about" section provides details on the methodology, language names, and status of usage.

The World Bank's Latin America and Caribbean Equity Lab provides data on poverty, access to services, education and labor (last updated in October 2018). The World Bank notes that ethnic identity is based on self-reported data. Statistics may vary from official statistics reported by governments as the World Bank uses SEDLAC, "a regional data harmonization effort that increases cross-country comparability."

The web page of the Inter-American Commission's Human Rights Rapporteurship on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provides detailed information on hearings and court cases related to indigenous peoples' rights.

The data on drivers of forest loss in Latin America are from: Philip G. Curtis, Christy M. Slay, Nancy L. Harris, Alexandra Tyukavina, Matthew C. Hansen, "Classifying drivers of global forest loss," Science , Vol. 361, Issue 6407, pp. 1108-1111, September 14, 2018, at https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6407/1108 . There are multiple methodologies for each driver of forest loss using map-based estimates and sample-based estimates.

For each table below, sources are listed in reverse chronological order with the year in parentheses following the title. Multiple sources from the same year are listed alphabetically as are sources without a publication date, such as websites. Some sources are global, with a section dedicated to Latin America.

Appendix B. National Agencies of Indigenous Affairs