This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-850 
entitled 'Export Promotion: Mixed Progress in Achieving a 
Governmentwide Strategy' which was released on October 07, 2002.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO products’ accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 

descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 

end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 

but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 

version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 

replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 

your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 

document to Webmaster@gao.gov.



Report to Congressional Requesters:



September 2002:



Export Promotion:



Mixed Progress in Achieving a Governmentwide Strategy:



GAO-02-850:



Contents:



Letter:



Results in Brief:



Background:



The TPCC’s National Export Strategies Do Not Identify Agencies’ 

Specific Goals or Use of Resources:



TPCC Has Had Modest Success in Coordinating Agency

Programs:



Agencies Seek to Increase Small-and Medium-sized Enterprises’ Export 

Participation:



Conclusions:



Recommendations for Executive Action:



Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:



Appendixes:



Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



Appendix II: U.S. Agencies’ Trade Promotion Services:



Export Training:



Developing Market Information:



Trade Events:



Trade Finance for Major Projects:



Advocacy:



Appendix III: Budgets of Export Promotion Agencies in Constant 2001 
Dollars

(in Millions, Fiscal Years 1996 through 2001):



Appendix IV: FCS Overseas Staff by Country, Fiscal Years 1996 though 
2001:



Appendix V: FAS Overseas Staff by Country, Fiscal Years 1996 though 
2001:

 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee:



Table:



Table 1: Export Promotion Services and Federal Providers:



Figures:



Figure 1: Agencies’ Share of Federal Dollars Devoted to Export 
Promotion 

Activities, Fiscal Years 1996 and 2002:



Figure 2: Distribution of Foreign Commercial Service Staff in G-6 

Countries, BEMs, and All Other Countries with FCS Presence, Fiscal 

Years 1996 and 2001:



Figure 3: Distribution of Foreign Agricultural Service Staff in G-6 

Countries, BEMs, and All Other Countries with FAS Staff Presence, 

Fiscal Years 1996 and 2001:



Abbreviations:



BEM: Big Emerging Market:



DOC: Department of Commerce:



EcoLinks: Eastern European Partnership for Environmentally Sustainable 

Economies:



EU: European Union:



Eximbank: U.S. Export-Import Bank:



FAS: Foreign Agricultural Service:



FCS: Foreign Commercial Service:



G-6: Group of Six industrialized countries :



GTN: Global Technology Network:



OMB: Office of Management and Budget:



OPIC: Overseas Private Investment Corporation:



SBA: Small Business Administration:



SME: Small-and Medium-sized Enterprises:



TDA: Trade and Development Agency:



TPCC: Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee:



USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development:



USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:



USTR: U.S. Trade Representative: :



Letter:



September 4, 2002:



The Honorable Christopher S. Bond

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

United States Senate:



The Honorable Donald A. Manzullo

Chairman

Committee on Small Business

House of Representatives:



Ten years ago, to coordinate the activities of the various federal 

agencies involved in export promotion and to ensure better delivery of 

services to potential exporters, Congress established the interagency 

Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee under the Export Enhancement Act 

of 1992 (P.L. 102-429). Among other things, the act required the 

committee to develop a governmentwide strategic plan that (1) 

establishes priorities for federal activities in support of U.S. export 

activities and (2) proposes an annual, unified federal trade promotion 

budget that supports the plan. The nine federal agencies that play 

important roles in assisting U.S. firms to export or invest overseas 

were to be part of the committee that would develop the plan and set a 

unified budget.[Footnote 1] These nine agencies’ export promotion 

budgets totaled about $2.5 billion in fiscal year 2002. The committee 

developed the first national export strategy in 1993 and has generally 

reported annually since then.



As you requested, we reviewed how the Trade Promotion Coordinating 

Committee has carried out these directives. Specifically, we assessed 

(1) whether the committee’s strategy has established export priorities, 

assessed progress made toward achieving the strategy’s priorities, and 

proposed an alignment of federal resources in support of these 

priorities; and (2) whether the committee has made progress in 

coordinating the various agencies’ export promotion programs. In 

addition, we also identified how the various agencies are including 

small-and medium-sized businesses in their export promotion programs.



To address these questions, we reviewed the Trade Promotion 

Coordinating Committee’s national export strategies for 1993-1998, 

2000, and 2002 and its coordination efforts during the past 10 

years.[Footnote 2] To examine how the committee developed the export 

strategy and coordinated various agencies’ export promotion programs, 

we reviewed the committee’s strategy for Central and Eastern Europe 

contained in the 1997 national export strategy. We visited five 

countries in this region including two of the designated “big emerging 

markets”[Footnote 3]--Poland and Turkey--as well as Croatia, a country 

in the early stages of making a transition to a market economy; and the 

Czech Republic, a country in a more advanced transitional phase. For 

perspective on the nature of U.S. programs in a more mature market, we 

visited and reviewed U.S. export promotion programs in Germany. To 

assess how small businesses have participated in these federal export 

programs we obtained data on agencies’ programs dedicated to small-and 

medium-sized businesses. Appendix I contains a more detailed 

description of our scope and methodology.



Results in Brief:



The Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee’s annual national export 

strategies identify broad priorities for promoting U.S. trade, but they 

do not discuss agencies’ specific goals or assess progress made. In its 

initial strategies, the committee identified 10 regionally dispersed 

priority markets for future trade promotion efforts, but it did not 

discuss agencies’ specific goals or report later on progress made in 

increasing exports to these markets. Shifting to a regional approach 3 

years later in its1997 strategy, the committee identified Central and 

Eastern Europe as a region where U.S. government assistance to U.S. 

exporters would be important in increasing market share. Again the 

strategy did not discuss agencies’ specific goals nor did later 

strategies report on progress made or even cover consistent topics from 

year to year. Without regular assessments of progress, it is not clear 

whether export promotion resources are being used most productively in 

support of the strategy. Furthermore, the committee has limited ability 

to align agency resources with its strategy. Nonetheless, the 

departments of Commerce and Agriculture did realign staff in support of 

most of the targeted markets.



The committee has made modest but inconsistent progress in coordinating 

federal agencies’ export promotion efforts. In its first national 

export strategy in 1993, the committee identified coordination 

weaknesses and recommended improvements, most of which required 

interagency consensus to implement. While many of its initial 

recommendations were implemented during the committee’s first few 

years, some have not been implemented --for example, the need for 

improved agency staff training and improved trade information services 

to bring clarity to the export process, as well as the need for 

expanded outreach and trade education for new-to-export firms. In its 

May 2002 national export strategy, the committee recognized the need to 

complete these early initiatives to clarify export processes and 

programs in order to better service potential exporters, but the 

strategy did not specify how its goals were to be accomplished. Unless 

the committee follows through consistently on its initiatives, 

potential U.S. exporters will continue to find the export process 

confusing.



Six export promotion agencies dedicate part of their programs to small-

and medium-sized businesses. The Department of Commerce reports that 

almost 91 percent of firms it helped at foreign posts and 25 percent of 

firms that received advocacy assistance were small-and medium-sized 

businesses. The Small Business Administration focuses exclusively on 

this customer base. According to data provided by the agencies, almost 

18 percent of the value of the U.S. Export-Import Bank’s fiscal year 

2001 loans, guarantees, and insurance, and 48 percent of the Trade and 

Development Agency’s total fiscal year 2000 obligations went to small-

and medium-sized businesses. The Overseas Private Investment 

Corporation stated that 40 percent of its programs in fiscal year 2000 

involved small-and medium-sized businesses. Although the U.S. Agency 

for International Development does not track the percentage of its 

programs that go to such businesses, two of their programs--the Global 

Technology Network and EcoLinks--assist smaller businesses.



In this report, we are recommending that the Chairman of the Trade 

Promotion Coordinating Committee ensure that its national export 

strategies consistently (1) identify specific goals established by the 

agencies within the strategies’ broad priorities, (2) identify how 

agencies’ resources are allocated in support of their specific goals, 

and (3) analyze the progress made in addressing the recommendations in 

the committee’s prior annual strategies.



We obtained comments from the Committee, and it agreed with our 

findings (see app. VI).



Background:



The Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC) is a cabinet-level 

interagency committee chaired by the Secretary of Commerce. It began 

meeting in 1993, and it has met at least once annually, except during 

an 18-month period between 1999 and 2001. The TPCC also encouraged the 

formation of various interagency staff-level working groups. These 

groups have met or communicated more frequently. The TPCC has a staff 

of three or four Commerce trade professionals, located in Commerce’s 

International Trade Administration. The TPCC has no independent budget 

and no specific authority to direct its member agencies.



Key Agencies’ Responsibilities:



Nine key TPCC member agencies provide a range of specific trade 

promotion programs for exporters. The Departments of Commerce and 

Agriculture identify export opportunities and conduct trade promotion 

activities. The U.S. Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) and the Overseas 

Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) help businesses participate in 

riskier markets by providing financing and insurance for exports or 

development projects. The Small Business Administration (SBA) provides 

export training and loans for small-and medium-sized businesses 

desiring to export. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and the 

Department of State seek to create and maintain open markets for U.S. 

exports and investments. Although it is not actually a trade agency, 

the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) seeks to promote 

economic growth; assist developing country governments make economic 

reforms and identify changes to laws, regulations, and banking systems; 

and provide firm-level assistance to small businesses, thus allowing 

these countries to become more attractive trade and investment partners 

to the United States. In developing country markets, basic 

infrastructure and capital equipment are also essential to assist 

market growth. The U.S. Trade and Development Agency (TDA) supports the 

planning of infrastructure development and trade capacity building in 

such areas as energy or transportation systems, with the expectation 

that U.S. exporters will later have opportunities to bid on these 

projects for which TDA has provided support.



Distribution of the Export Promotion Resources Among TPCC Agencies:



Total export promotion funding (excluding that for OPIC and 

USAID)[Footnote 4] declined slightly, from nearly $2.4 billion to $2 

billion between fiscal years 1996 and 2001, but rose to $2.5 billion in 

fiscal year 2002. The resource allocations among TPCC agencies did not 

change significantly over the last 5 years. The Department of 

Agriculture continued to have the largest share of total export 

promotion funding in fiscal year 2002, as it did in fiscal year 1996. 

(See fig 1.) Eximbank and the Department of Commerce still have the 

second and third largest funding levels among the agencies.



Figure 1: Agencies’ Share of Federal Dollars Devoted to Export 

Promotion Activities, Fiscal Years 1996 and 2002:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



During this period, the funding levels of the two agencies whose 

overseas staff identify and develop export opportunities for U.S. firms 

seeking to export--Commerce’s Foreign Commercial Service (FCS) and 

Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)--increased. The FCS 

budget increased about 14 percent, and the FAS budget increased by 

about 8 percent between fiscal years 1996 and 2002. However, beginning 

in 1998, these agencies’ administrative costs increased due to the 

implementation of the Department of State’s Interagency Cost Sharing 

System. According to Commerce, these costs made fewer funds available 

for export services.



Limits of TPCC Authority:



The Export Enhancement Act of 1992 requires that the TPCC develop and 

implement an annual national export strategy that, among other things,



* establishes a set of federal priorities supporting U.S. exports and 

explains their rationale;



* develops a plan to align federal programs with established 

priorities; and:



* proposes an annual unified federal trade promotion budget.



The act did not provide the TPCC with specific authority to create a 

unified export promotion budget,[Footnote 5] which would include the 

reallocation of agency resources to support the national export 

strategies. In practice, the TPCC:



* facilitates interagency discussions of trade issues,



* coordinates interagency responses to administrative or congressional 

initiatives, and:



* prepares the mandated national export strategy.



The TPCC’s National Export Strategies Do Not Identify Agencies’ 

Specific Goals or Use of Resources:



The TPCC’s annual national export strategies have identified broad 

priorities, but they have not discussed agencies’ specific export 

promotion goals, such as increasing exports in a TPCC targeted market, 

or assessed progress made toward achieving the committee’s broad 

priorities. The TPCC has limited ability to affect the alignment of 

export promotion resources across agencies, but some agencies have 

aligned resources to support the TPCC’s broad priorities.



Strategies Identify Broad Priorities but Not Agencies’ Specific Goals:



The TPCC’s annual strategies, called “national export strategies,” 

describe export promotion efforts and outline broad priorities. 

However, they do not identify specific goals and associated agency 

responsibilities. The first several strategies identified numerous 

markets and sectors of export promise as priorities. For example, the 

1994 national export strategy identified a broad set of 10 markets, 

called the big emerging markets (BEM), where the TPCC expected exports 

to grow over the next several decades. In 1995, the strategy gave 

additional attention to the traditional export markets of Japan, 

Canada, and Western Europe, and 3 years later the strategy expanded its 

targets further, emphasizing increasing exports to nontraditional 

markets in Latin America and Asia. However, none of these strategies 

discussed agencies’ specific goals for targeted markets or regions or 

outlined various agencies’ responsibilities in addressing goals over 

the coming years.



One of the regions identified as having promise as a market for U.S. 

exporters, for example, was Central and Eastern Europe. Citing Poland’s 

and Turkey’s rapid transitions to market economies, their pent-up 

demand for western goods, and their desire to join the European Union 

(EU), the 1997 strategy noted that these countries drove regional trade 

and, together with the Czech Republic and Hungary, were regional focal 

points for U.S. trade and investment. It identified the most 

competitive sectors for U.S. companies as well as regional barriers to 

U.S. exports. Later strategies also discussed broad trade objectives. 

Again, however, they did not identify specific goals or agency 

responsibilities in implementing the strategy.



TPCC Has Not Assessed Progress:



The TPCC’s successive strategies lack continuity in addressing 

identified issues, and they have not assessed progress made toward 

achieving the TPCC’s broad export priorities. For example, the 1997 

strategy noted that the United States was losing market share in 

Eastern Europe[Footnote 6] to the EU, but the 1998 strategy did not 

report on any changes in this condition. Instead, it discussed U.S. 

market share in the EU countries. Nor did the 1998 strategy update 

specific objectives for Central and Eastern Europe identified earlier, 

such as addressing bribery, negotiating for international product 

standards in Poland, or identifying specific barriers to trade in 

Turkey. Rather, the 1998 strategy focused on Europe and the challenges 

of competing in the EU market. The next strategy, for 2000, did not 

discuss East European markets but highlighted the opportunities in 

China. The 2002 strategy did not specifically discuss China.



The TPCC has been unable to identify common performance measures 

because it has not achieved consensus on how agencies should measure 

export program results. Moreover, it has not reviewed agencies’ annual 

performance reports under the Government Performance and Results Act of 

1993. This act mandates that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

require federal agencies to develop performance measures and assess 

performance. Since 1994, the TPCC has called for the development of 

common measures to evaluate trade promotion performance. The TPCC 

identified three common measures of success--the amount of new exports, 

the number of new jobs, or the value of sales resulting from exported 

services--to help assess agencies’ export promotion programs. However, 

the TPCC’s 2000 national export strategy noted that generally the 

indicators that each agency developed to measure its performance 

differed from those of other agencies, as well as from the cross-

cutting measures developed for prior TPCC reports. Without common 

indicators, it is not possible to trace performance over time in 

achieving TPCC priorities. The overall effect is that it is not clear 

whether federal export promotion resources are being used most 

productively.



TPCC Has Limited Ability to Align Agency Resources with Its Strategy:



The TPCC has sought to move toward developing a unified federal trade 

promotion budget and has worked with OMB to participate in the budget 

process. However, with no authority to reallocate resources among the 

agencies and occasional agency resistance to its guidance, the TPCC has 

provided limited direction over the use of export promotion resources 

used to support the strategy. Moreover, the most dramatic resource 

changes occurred within its own agency, Commerce, but even Commerce did 

not fully support all the targeted markets. Finally, resource 

allocations have been affected by other factors, such as foreign policy 

initiatives, the need to provide broad country coverage, and the 

agencies’ emphasis on pursuing export opportunities in the most 

accessible overseas markets.



TPCC Sought to Work with OMB to Influence Resource Allocations:



The TPCC has sought to propose a unified federal trade promotion budget 

by making recommendations to the President, through OMB, on selected 

export promotion budget matters. The TPCC also obtained OMB approval to 

screen member agencies’ high-priority trade promotion initiatives in 

1999; however, this effort was limited in that it highlighted only 

individual agency priorities and did not serve as an examination of how 

agencies’ trade promotion programs and budgets overall were most 

productively used to support the strategy. Agencies have continued to 

submit their proposed budgets separately to OMB, and agency 

representatives told us that their agencies would resist any TPCC 

“clearance” of their budgets. For example, in 1999, USAID decided not 

to participate in the TPCC budget reviews, even after representatives 

of the TPCC Chairman specifically requested that it do so. USAID 

representatives with whom we spoke did not view their programs as 

having a commercial application, although some TPCC member agencies 

consider some types of USAID technical assistance, such as energy or 

environmental projects, as possible precursors to potential exports of 

U.S. services.



The TPCC indicated to its members that the use of this process could 

more likely result in favorable funding decisions; however, OMB was not 

always responsive to TPCC recommendations. For example, of 10 items 

submitted by the TPCC to OMB for funding, only 2 received full funding, 

4 received partial funding, and 4 were not funded. The TPCC has not 

consistently used this process and did not submit a list of priorities 

to OMB in 2001 or 2002.



Staffing Resources Shifted to Targeted Markets:



Based on the TPCC’s strategy of targeting big emerging markets, we 

analyzed the shift in staffing allocations to these markets.[Footnote 

7] Generally, FCS and FAS have shifted their staffing allocations to 

support TPCC-identified priority markets. For example, in fiscal year 

1996, 32 percent of FCS overseas staff were located in the BEMs. In the 

same year, 23 percent of overseas staff were located in the group of 

industrialized countries called the Group of Six (G-6) countries (to 

exclude the United States).[Footnote 8] In fiscal year 2001, the 

distribution changed to 37 percent in the BEMs and 17 percent in G-6 

countries. (See fig. 2.):



Figure 2: Distribution of Foreign Commercial Service Staff in G-6 

Countries, BEMs, and All Other Countries with FCS Presence, Fiscal 

Years 1996 and 2001:



[See PDF for image]



Source: Department of Commerce.



[End of figure]



The distribution of FAS’s staff among G-6 countries, BEM countries, and 

all other countries with FAS offices also shifted between fiscal years 

1996 and 2001. In fiscal year 1996, 26 percent of FAS staff in overseas 

offices were located in BEM countries, and 22 percent were in G-6 

countries. In fiscal year 2001, the distribution changed to 29 percent 

in BEM countries and 21 percent in G-6 countries. (See fig. 3.):



Figure 3: Distribution of Foreign Agricultural Service Staff in G-6 

Countries, BEMs, and All Other Countries with FAS Staff Presence, 

Fiscal Years 1996 and 2001:



[See PDF for image]



Source: Department of Agriculture.



[End of figure]



With respect to the TPCC priority markets that we visited, Poland and 

Turkey, Commerce’s FCS staff increases have been at lower levels. In 

its 1997 national export strategy, the TPCC noted that the United 

States was losing market share in some of the BEMs and directed that, 

where resources allow, the TPCC agencies target the more promising of 

these markets. It identified Poland as one of four BEMs with the 

greatest market potential. Commercial staff in Poland initially rose 

from 9 to 18 between fiscal years 1996 and 1997; however, the Commerce 

Inspector General, noted in a 1997 report that this level was not 

sufficient. The Inspector General reported that Poland did not get 

increased resources, like other BEMs did, because FCS headquarters did 

not consider European countries a priority.[Footnote 9] In its report 
to 

the Congress in September 2001, the Inspector General citing declines 
in 

exports from the United States to Poland, recommended that the post 
develop 

a missionwide strategy that reflects U.S. priorities and objectives.

[Footnote 10] At the time of our visit in 2002, the FCS post staff 
level 

was 14. Nor did Commerce significantly increase staffing in Turkey, the 

other BEM in our study of the TPCC’s 1997 strategy for Central Europe, 

where FCS staff levels fluctuated from 13 to 15 staff between fiscal 
years 

1996 and 2001, and a key position was vacant for more than a year.



Other Factors Affect Resource Allocations:



Other factors, such as foreign policy initiatives; the need to provide 

minimum coverage for a broad set of countries; and agency emphasis on 

pursuing exports in open, accessible foreign markets, have also 

affected the decisions that agencies make regarding resource 

allocations.



In response to foreign policy initiatives, agencies have reallocated 

staff overseas and established offices, as illustrated by the following 

examples.



* In 1994, Congress directed the executive branch to develop an Africa 

trade and development policy,[Footnote 11] and in 2000 Congress enacted 

the African Growth and Opportunity Act (P.L. 106--200, title I). The 

act offers trade and other economic benefits to sub-Saharan countries 

that are committed to certain economic reforms. As a result, the Trade 

and Development Agency requested funding for a training initiative in 

Nigeria. Moreover, FCS increased its staffing level at its offices in 

sub-Saharan Africa. For example, FCS opened an office in Ghana in 

fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year 2002, FCS expects to increase staffing 

in Ghana and plans to open an office in Senegal.



* In 1999, TDA and OPIC established the Caspian Finance Center in 

Turkey. The center supports two national interests as well as offers 

opportunities for U.S. businesses. First, the development of the rich 

Caspian Sea energy reserves estimated to be 178 billion barrels or more 

of oil would reduce U.S. reliance on more volatile sources of oil; and 

second, the transport of oil over a western route through Turkey would 

economically benefit this vital U.S. ally. One staff person from both 

these agencies shares space with FCS in Ankara to help U.S. companies 

identify, evaluate, and finance commercially viable projects in the 

region.



* In 1999, the executive branch pledged to help stabilize and 

revitalize southeastern Europe by developing a strategy for trade and 

investment in the region. To support the President’s regional 

initiative, OPIC and TDA, with TPCC support, have had full-time 

regional representatives in Zagreb since about March 2000, and Commerce 

has increased its staff there by one. The office serves as a local 

point of contact, information, and support for U.S. investors in the 

region.



In addition, both FCS and FAS have had to spread their overseas 

staffing to cover a broad range of countries. During fiscal years 1998 

through 2001, Commerce’s FCS opened 21 new offices overseas--many in 

the newly independent former Soviet states and African countries where 

export markets are in the early stages of development. During the same 

time period, Agriculture’s FAS opened four offices but closed five 

offices overseas, with an overall decline of nearly 7 percent in the 

total number of staff located overseas. (App. V contains the number of 

staff at FCS offices by country from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 

2001. App. VI contains the number of staff at FAS offices by country 

during the same fiscal years.):



Finally, to meet U.S. exporters’ market preferences and increase 

exports, FCS has maintained relatively high staff levels in more mature 

markets that have open, accessible, and regularized trading 

relationships, compared to the often more difficult TPCC-targeted 

developing country markets, according to an FCS official. FCS decreased 

staff levels in three of the six G-6 markets between fiscal years 1996 

and 2001, but 2001 staffing levels are higher in each of the G-6 

countries than in six of the BEMs. For example, Argentina, Hong Kong, 

Poland, South Africa, South Korea, and Turkey each have fewer staff 

than Italy, the country with the lowest staff level among the G-6 

countries. Moreover, staff levels have increased dramatically in the 

United Kingdom and Canada--where the number of FCS staff grew by 63 

percent and 33 percent, respectively.



TPCC Has Had Modest Success in Coordinating Agency Programs:



The TPCC has improved interagency coordination in many areas, but as it 

recognized in its May 2002 national export strategy, it has not 

completed implementing several of its early initiatives to coordinate 

export promotion programs aimed at better delivery of federal export 

services. The TPCC has improved the delivery of export services by 

collocating export finance services and establishing a network to 

assist U.S. businesses in addressing barriers to trade. However, the 

TPCC did not complete its efforts to clarify and make more readily 

available the numerous resources available to exporters, in part 

because the TPCC did not consistently meet at the Cabinet level to 

address these issues. In October 2001, the committee reconvened at the 

cabinet level to readdress these issues, and it is currently working to 

alleviate exporters confusion over the export process by (1) 

instituting cross-agency staff training, (2) improving the 

dissemination of trade information, and (3) improving outreach to new-

to-export businesses. Overall, we found that, for overseas export 

promotion activities in the countries we visited, FCS staff serve as 

focal points in coordinating other agency efforts.



Progress Made:



With interagency cooperation, the TPCC achieved some early successes in 

coordinating member agencies’ export promotion activities, as the 

following examples show.



* The TPCC recommended the establishment of an “advocacy coordinating 

network” to develop a system of high-level government advocacy in 

coordination with the private sector, for U.S. firms seeking contracts 

from other governments. Created in 1993, this advocacy center is a unit 

within Commerce and functions as a coordinated, interagency effort.



* The TPCC recommended that the agencies work together to create “one-

stop shops” so that exporters could receive assistance from several 

agencies in one location. In 1994, the TPCC established a network of 

U.S. Export Assistance Centers that grew to 19 Centers by 1999. The 

Centers are staffed by Commerce, the SBA and, in some cases, the 

Eximbank to provide centralized export assistance.



* The TPCC recommended that the Eximbank and SBA streamline their pre-

export Working Capital programs to make them more customer focused and 

to take advantage of the agencies’ comparative strengths.[Footnote 12] 

In 1994, the agencies began the process of sharing the coverage of 

their similar loan programs and established a network of private sector 

lenders to support small businesses.



* The TPCC recommended that the export promotion agencies create a 

country commercial plan that combined disparate TPCC agency documents 

into one coordinated country report on commercial activities. This led 

to the creation of “country commercial guides” for prospective 

exporters or investors to use.



* More recently, in 1998, the TPCC developed a coordinated response to 

the Asian financial crisis, in response to direction from executive 

branch officials.



Progress Slowed:



The TPCC has not completed its original efforts to streamline the 

numerous federal export services available to exporters, in part, 

because the TPCC did not consistently meet at the cabinet level to 

address these issues. From June 1999 through October 2001, the TPCC did 

not meet at the cabinet level and, as a result, the TPCC was less 

active in coordinating agency efforts. During this period some staff-

level working groups continued to address trade promotion issues and 

work on publishing the national export strategy, but they were not able 

to complete work implementing the earlier recommendations. Key issues 

continuing to need resolution are:



* TPCC identified the need to have cross-agency training so that agency 

staffs would be knowledgeable enough about the export promotion 

programs of the other agencies to explain them to potential exporters. 

In 1999, the TPCC requested but did not receive funding from OMB for 

such training at overseas posts. At the five overseas posts that we 

visited, several of the staff that are responsible for providing U.S. 

firms with information on exporting said that they are not fully 

familiar with other agencies’ programs. Most FCS domestic and overseas 

staff acknowledge the need for training to better understand the needs 

of exporters, and FCS is attempting to institute an exchange program to 

address this issue. However, cross-agency training has not been 

systematically conducted. The national export strategy for 2002, 

released in May 2002, renews the 1993 call to improve cross-training 

among TPCC agencies in order to provide better service for U.S. 

exporters.



* The TPCC has recognized that improvements were needed in the 

accuracy, acquisition, and dissemination of information available to 

exporters. To provide this information, 19 TPCC agencies created 

Internet Web sites that identify trade assistance programs and in some 

cases export leads. However, according to the TPCC survey and focus 

groups, businesses have found these sites to be too numerous, 

difficult, and time-consuming to navigate. (See app. III for 

descriptions of programs that provide trade leads.) Moreover, some of 

the overseas FCS staff told us that some U.S. firms get frustrated when 

directed to another agency for assistance. The TPCC’s 2002 national 

export strategy addresses this difficulty, stating that a new TPCC task 

force is working to simplify and consolidate the various trade 

information Web sites.



* The TPCC was also unable to coordinate training programs for new-to-

export firms. Our 2001 report[Footnote 13] noted that the TPCC was 

unaware of duplicative, new-to-export training programs that the U.S. 

Export Assistance Centers provided. One of these programs was a new 

initiative within the Department of Commerce that had not been 

specifically coordinated with the TPCC.



Recent TPCC Initiatives:



In October 2001 the TPCC met and recognized the need to continue work 

on problems identified earlier, as well as to examine some new issues. 

The TPCC conducted a survey of U.S. businesses and found that the 

export process was still confusing to potential exporters. To address 

these issues, the TPCC made recommendations in its 2002 strategy, 

several of which were similar to those made in the TPCC’s earlier 

strategies.



Agency Coordination Was Good at Overseas Posts:



TPCC agencies generally coordinated their overseas export promotion 

activities through contacts with the FCS. In the countries we visited, 

FCS staff served as focal points to coordinate various agencies’ day-

to-day export activities. In addition to supporting Commerce programs, 

they worked in support of other U.S. trade agencies, such as TDA, the 

Eximbank, and OPIC, as well as visiting trade missions from various 

states and visitors from other U.S. agencies. Typical FCS assistance 

provided to U.S. government or business visitors included preparing 

country commercial briefings, researching market sectors, scheduling 

and attending appointments, arranging for transportation and 

translation services, and generally assisting in representing U.S. 

trade interests overseas. Overseas U.S. business representatives with 

whom we spoke cited numerous ways in which FCS and other embassy staff 

worked together to overcome the many foreign bureaucratic obstacles 

they encountered in trying to export. In the countries we visited, for 

example, FCS staff did the following:



* FCS staff in Poland coordinated eight visits by TDA officials, three 

visits by Department of Commerce officials, a visit by Eximbank 

officials, one trade association, two state delegations, and a 

presidential visit in 2001. FCS staff in Turkey coordinated the 

attendance at a security summit of the President and the secretaries of 

State and Energy in fiscal year 2000.



* FCS staff in Turkey prepared background information on the impact of 

proposed Turkish policy on U.S.-developed energy projects for the 

administration and edited a paper on telecommunication issues for 

Commerce’s Market Access and Compliance Division. They also assisted 

TDA and its contractors in arranging meetings with high-level Turkish 

officials, providing them with information on potential projects.



* Czech Republic FCS staff arranged a trade event in Prague for the 

Governor of Pennsylvania that included 36 U.S. firms in 2001.



While we found that the various agencies’ overseas staffs would benefit 

from cross-agency training to understand various agencies’ programs, we 

also found that these agencies collaborated on issues that affected 

exporters, such as market entry, regulation changes, and contract 

bidding. As members of the ambassadors’ interagency country teams, 

commercial officers shared information about U.S. export activities and 

became aware of broader political and economic concerns affecting the 

export environment. In the countries that we visited, these teams met 

at least weekly. FCS staff, embassy economic officers, agricultural 

attaches, and embassy political/military officers were aware of each 

other’s in-country activities and felt that they worked well together.



Agencies Seek to Increase Small-and Medium-sized Enterprises’ Export 

Participation:



The Department of Commerce, SBA, Eximbank, TDA, OPIC, and USAID have 

programs that assist small-and medium-sized enterprises 

(SME).[Footnote 14] According to the TPCC, SMEs may have limited 

resources to address the complex issues associated with exporting, and 

U.S. government agencies can help fill this information gap. These U.S. 

government agencies can provide market information, guarantee export 

loans, identify business opportunities, fund risk and credit insurance, 

and advocate on behalf of U.S. firms.



Commerce and SBA focus on providing help to SMEs as their core 

business. Commerce data show that for the five countries we visited, 

SMEs represented almost 91 percent of the firms that foreign posts 

helped during fiscal year 2001. Commerce’s Advocacy Center coordinates 

the actions of TPCC agencies to work on behalf of U.S. firms dealing 

with foreign governments, complex bidding rules, and regulatory 

regimes.[Footnote 15] From November 1993 through fiscal year 

2002,[Footnote 16] the Advocacy Center reported 685 successes,[Footnote 

17] of which 173 (25 percent) involved SMEs. The Advocacy Center valued 

the contracts won by SMEs at $3.9 billion (about 3 percent).



SBA provides credit and capital assistance, procurement and government 

contracting help, and entrepreneurial development assistance to small 

business exporters. To promote small business exports, the SBA offers 

three export loan guarantee programs: the Export Working Capital 

Program, the International Trade Program,[Footnote 18] and the Export 

Express Program.[Footnote 19] According to SBA, in fiscal year 2001 it 

guaranteed 425 export loans worth an estimated $167 million, or about 

1.8 percent of the total loan guarantees of $9.1 billion provided by 

the agency.



The Eximbank provides SMEs with pre-export financing from commercial 

lenders through its Export Working Capital Program. According to the 

Eximbank, almost 18 percent of the value of its fiscal year 2001 loan 

authorizations (more than $1.6 billion) went to SMEs, and almost 80 

percent of its overall number of loans in fiscal year 2001 loans 

benefited SMEs.[Footnote 20] Based on Eximbank data, the value of 

fiscal year 2001 Export Working Capital loans that benefited SMEs 

averaged about $1.5 million. The Eximbank also issued 1,723 export 

credit insurance policies to small businesses in fiscal year 2001. 

These represented 98 percent of Eximbank insurance policies and totaled 

more than $900 million.



As for TDA, all consultant contracts for desk studies, definitional 

missions, and feasibility studies are with either small-or medium-sized 

enterprises. TDA reported that small-and medium-sized business 

participation in its programs for fiscal year 2000 amounted to 48 

percent of total TDA obligations.



OPIC programs also involved small business in 40 percent of its fiscal 

year 2000 programs. According to OPIC, it funded 16 projects involving 

SMEs in fiscal year 2000 totaling $265 million.



USAID’s technology transfer programs--the Global Technology Network and 

the Eastern Europe Partnership for Environmentally Sustainable 

Economies (EcoLinks)--also have SME participation. Both programs 

provide trade leads for SMEs, and EcoLinks provides travel and project 

grants. (See app. III for a description of agencies’ various export 

promotion programs.):



Conclusions:



Our review of the TPCC’s national export strategies indicated that the 

strategies have not provided clear and consistent guidance over federal 

agencies export promotion programs and that some of the problems 

identified remain to be fixed. The TPCC has not used its annual export 

strategies to identify specific agencies’ goals and responsibilities or 

to examine how agencies’ resources are aligned, and it is not clear 

whether export promotion resources are being used most productively. In 

its 2002 strategy, the recently energized TPCC identified several key 

areas for improved agency coordination, some of which address problems 

initially recognized in the TPCC’s 1993 strategy, including the need 

for (1) cross training agency personnel so they are knowledgeable about 

other agency programs, (2) improving exporters’ access to timely and 

accurate trade information, and (3) expanding outreach and trade 

education for new-to-export firms. Without identification in the 

national export strategy of how these renewed initiatives are to be 

accomplished, it is not clear how the TPCC will overcome the problems 

experienced previously.



Recommendations for Executive Action:



To assist federal agencies in making the best use of federal export 

promotion resources and to assist U.S. exporters, we recommend that the 

Chairman of the TPCC ensure that its national export strategies 

consistently (1) identify agencies’ specific goals within the 

strategies’ broad priorities, (2) identify how agencies’ resources are 

allocated in support of their specific goals, and (3) analyze progress 

made in addressing the recommendations in the committee’s prior annual 

strategies.



Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:



We received written comments on our draft report from the TPCC 

Secretariat, which incorporated TPCC member agencies’ input (see app. 

VI). The TPCC agreed with the report’s call for the TPCC to provide 

clear and consistent strategic guidance from year to year, to identify 

agency-specific goals and responsibilities, and to report regularly on 

progress made toward achieving recommendations. The TPCC noted that it 

is committed to providing periodic reports to Congress on the 

implementation of its recommendations, including specific agency goals 

and associated responsibilities. It expects that the first of such 

progress reports will be sent in October to the Senate Banking 

Committee and the House International Relations Committee.



The TPCC noted that its 2002 National Export Strategy was based on a 

survey of exporters and potential exporters and that regular direct 

input from such TPCC customers now provides continuity and consistency 

in the TPCC’s strategic approach. It stated that changes in strategic 

approach will now be made in response to the changing needs of 

exporters. We agree that exporter needs should help define the national 

export strategy. We also believe that the TPCC needs to provide 

leadership to the various federal agencies involved in export promotion 

so that the government strategy better clarifies goals, agency 

responsibilities, and associated resource allocations.



The TPCC noted that our draft report was misleading in its reference to 

the TPCC’s not completing its implementation of earlier TPCC 

recommendations. It stated that it had made progress in establishing 

interagency services such as the Trade Information Center and the 

Export.gov Web site and that it did not expect its work ever to be 

completed. It also noted that training is another area where agencies 

are constantly striving to innovate and improve. We believe these areas 

are important, and we agree that continuous improvement is desirable. 

We commend the TPCC for its recently renewed efforts to implement 

earlier TPCC recommendations.



The TPCC also noted that the report’s attention to the “big emerging 

markets” detracted from the report’s otherwise valid findings on 

consistency and follow-up. According to the TPCC, the world economy, as 

well as the economies in these countries, has changed markedly since 

the TPCC’s 1994 report. Our purpose in selecting the October 1997 

National Export Strategy’s Central and East European regional strategy 

for closer review was to examine how the various export promotion 

agencies coordinated their efforts in implementing a TPCC strategy over 

a 5-year period--not to review the actual results of export activities. 

Many of the export agencies were represented in this region, including 

USAID. In addition, the region included two special offices designed to 

facilitate interagency coordination--the Caspian Finance Center in 

Turkey and the Southeastern Europe Initiative office in Croatia.



The Department of Commerce also provided written technical comments, 

which we incorporated into the report as appropriate.



As you requested, we plan no further distribution of this report until 

30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this 

report to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and 

Entrepreneurship and the Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee 

on Small Business and interested congressional committees. We are also 

sending copies to the Chairman of the TPCC. We will also make copies 

available to others on request. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www/gao/gov.



If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please 

call me at (202) 512-4128. Key contributors to this assignment were 

Virginia Hughes, Patricia Martin, Judith Knepper, Victoria Lin, Ernie 

E. Jackson, and Rona Mendelsohn.



Loren Yager

Director, International Affairs and Trade:



Signed by Loren Yager:



[End of section]



Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:



The Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business, 

as well as the Chairman of the House Committee on Small Business, asked 

us to determine if the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee’s (TPCC) 

strategies have helped to focus U.S. export promotion efforts. 

Specifically, we assessed (1) whether the committee’s strategy has 

established export priorities, assessed progress made toward achieving 

the strategy’s priorities, and proposed an alignment of federal 

resources in support of these priorities; and (2) whether the committee 

has made progress in coordinating the various agencies’ export 

promotion programs. In addition, we also identified how the various 

agencies are including small-and medium-sized businesses in their 

export promotion programs.



To determine if the committee had established export priorities and 

whether federal resources had been aligned in support of these 

priorities, we analyzed the TPCC’s and federal agencies’ 

responsibilities under the Export Enhancement Act of 1992 and the 

Export Enhancement Act of 1999. We also obtained and analyzed the 

TPCC’s national export strategies for 1993 through 2002 to see if, in 

an effort to increase exports, the committee targeted specific markets, 

identified agencies’ export goals, and reported on the progress made by 

agencies in implementing the committee’s strategy. We also spoke with 

TPCC member agency officials from the Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, and State; the U.S. Export-Import Bank; the Overseas Private 

Investment Corporation; the Small Business Administration; the U.S. 

Agency for International Development; and the U.S. Trade and 

Development Agency; about the usefulness of the strategy in defining 

their programs. To determine if the TPCC member agencies aligned their 

resources to support the strategy, we obtained and analyzed, but did 

not verify the budget and staffing data reported (1) in the national 

export strategies and (2) by the Department of Commerce’s International 

Trade Administration and the Department of Agriculture’s Foreign 

Agricultural Service, the two major agencies with overseas staffs. We 

obtained documentation from officials of these agencies in both 

domestic and overseas offices regarding the staffing process and 

resource allocations. We also obtained and reviewed interagency 

memorandums as well as the minutes of TPCC’s meetings and met with TPCC 

officials and member agency representatives. To identify other factors 

affecting agencies’ resource allocations, we obtained and reviewed 

documents on congressional or administration directives, analyzed their 

impact on overseas staffing, and spoke with agency officials 

responsible for staffing about the impact of these initiatives on 

resource allocations. In addition, we analyzed the Departments of 

Commerce and Agriculture’s staffing patterns in the mature Group of six 

(G-6) markets and compared them with TPCC targeted big emerging 

markets.



To determine if the TPCC was evaluating member-agencies’ progress in 

implementing the broad priorities identified in the national export 

strategies, we obtained and analyzed member agency Government and 

Performance Results Act submissions, analyzed the performance sections 

of the national export strategies from fiscal years 1993 and 2002, and 

discussed with TPCC and various member agency officials the reasons 

that the TPCC did not evaluate agency performance.



To determine how the committee has coordinated the various agencies’ 

export promotion programs, we examined agency trade promotion events, 

obtained and analyzed TPCC interagency minutes and other 

correspondence, and discussed with TPCC officials and member agency 

representatives how issues raised within the committee were resolved. 

We conducted separate interviews on these matters with key officials 

from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and State; the U.S. 

Export-Import Bank; the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; the 

Small Business Administration; the U.S. Agency for International 

Development; the U.S. Trade and Development Agency; and the U.S. Trade 

Representative in Washington, D.C.



To determine how overseas agencies coordinated their efforts to 

implement the strategy, we selected five countries in Central and 

Eastern Europe identified in the TPCC’s 1997 strategy as a region 

targeted for growth. The locations represent markets at various stages 

of maturity. We visited Warsaw, Poland; and Ankara and Istanbul, 

Turkey--two of the designated big emerging markets; Zagreb, Croatia--a 

country in the early stages of making a transition to a market economy; 

and Prague, Czech Republic, a country in a more advanced transitional 

phase. To contrast the U.S. support provided exporters in a mature 

market, we also visited Berlin, Germany, a country with the world’s 

seventh largest industrial market economy and the United States’ third 

largest trading partner. We asked for copies of the strategy and 

discussed it with agency officials responsible for export promotion. We 

obtained documents from and interviewed officials representing the 

Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and State; the Overseas 

Private Investment Corporation; the U.S. Agency for International 

Development; and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency. The documents 

we obtained included mission and commercial strategic plans, 

correspondence between agencies, quarterly reports, e-mails, and 

computerized trade lead data showing interagency interactions.



To determine whether U.S. agencies are including small-and medium-sized 

businesses in their export promotion programs, we obtained documents 

from the Departments of Commerce, Defense, and State; the Small 

Business Administration, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; 

the U.S. Agency for International Development; the U.S. Trade and 

Development Agency, and the Eximbank. The documents we obtained 

included agency annual reports, reports to Congress, agency performance 

plans, and data provided by these agencies outlining the nature and 

degree of small-and medium-sized enterprises participation in their 

programs. We also obtained documents identifying the use of databases 

and programs by small-and medium-sized businesses. We did not verify 

the data. We also obtained and discussed with key officials of the U.S. 

Agency for International Development reports on small business 

participation in its Global Technology Network and EcoLinks programs. 

Because we focused primarily on export promotion programs related to 

commercial exports, we did not examine in detail small business 

participation in Agriculture programs. In addition, we interviewed key 

agency officials representing Commerce, the Eximbank, the Overseas 

Private Investment Corporation, and the U.S. Trade and Development 

Agency at headquarters and at posts in the five countries in Central 

and Eastern Europe about the participation in agency programs by small-

and medium-sized businesses.



We performed our work from September 2001 through May 2002 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.



[End of section]



Appendix II: U.S. Agencies’ Trade Promotion Services:



Each of the nine major trade promotion agencies offers specific 

services that, together with other agencies, provide the exporter with 

help throughout the export process. As shown in table 1, more than one 

agency may be active in providing these general types of export 

services. Federal agencies provide export training for potential new 

exporters; information on promising markets and export processes, as 

well as specific trade leads; opportunities to participate in trade 

events that match buyers and sellers; export finance and insurance for 

exports and investments in risky markets; and government-to-government 

advocacy on behalf of specific companies encountering trade barriers or 

bidding (as the sole U.S. bidder) on foreign government procurements. 

The Department of Commerce’s Foreign Commercial Service (FCS) offices 

serve as focal points for other export agencies operating overseas.



Table 1: Export Promotion Services and Federal Providers:



Export promotion services: Export training; Federal providers: DOC: X; 

Federal providers: USDA: [Empty]; Federal providers: State: [Empty]; 

Federal providers: SBA: X; Federal providers: EXIM: X; Federal 

providers: OPIC: X; Federal providers: TDA: [Empty]; Federal providers: 

USAID: [Empty]; Federal providers: USTR: [Empty].



Export promotion services: Developing market information; Federal 

providers: DOC: X; Federal providers: USDA: X; Federal providers: 

State: X; Federal providers: SBA: X; Federal providers: EXIM: [Empty]; 

Federal providers: OPIC: [Empty]; Federal providers: TDA: X; Federal 

providers: USAID: X; Federal providers: USTR: X.



Export promotion services: Trade events; Federal providers: DOC: X; 

Federal providers: USDA: X; Federal providers: State: [Empty]; Federal 

providers: SBA: X; Federal providers: EXIM: [Empty]; Federal providers: 

OPIC: [Empty]; Federal providers: TDA: X; Federal providers: USAID: 

[Empty]; Federal providers: USTR: [Empty].



Export promotion services: Trade finance; Federal providers: DOC: 

[Empty]; Federal providers: USDA: X; Federal providers: State: [Empty]; 

Federal providers: SBA: X; Federal providers: EXIM: X; Federal 

providers: OPIC: X; Federal providers: TDA: X; Federal providers: 

USAID: [Empty]; Federal providers: USTR: [Empty].



Export promotion services: Advocacy; Federal providers: DOC: X; Federal 

providers: USDA: X; Federal providers: State: X; Federal providers: 

SBA: X; Federal providers: EXIM: X; Federal providers: OPIC: X; Federal 

providers: TDA: X; Federal providers: USAID: X; Federal providers: 

USTR: X.



[End of table]



Export Training:



Both Commerce and SBA assist potential exporters with export training 

classes and one-on-one export counseling. Commerce and SBA staff at the 

19 U.S. Export Assistance Centers sponsor export training, often 

assisted by other agencies, like the Export-Import Bank (Eximbank), as 

well as state and private sector trade organizations. The training 

introduces potential exporters to general information about foreign 

markets, assists in the development of sound market plans, explains 

possible funding sources, and sometimes provides opportunities to 

participate in agency-led trade missions.[Footnote 21] The following 

example illustrates such training.



Developing Market Information:



The departments of Commerce and Agriculture, TDA, and USAID are the 

major providers of trade information and specific trade leads. Commerce 

provides industry analysis and policy support at headquarters, as well 

as support in foreign markets through its Foreign Commercial Service 

(FCS) and Trade Development unit. FCS staff routinely provide at no 

charge general research services, such as industry sector analyses and 

specific market insights to customers. They also provide a range of 

fee-for-service products, including customized (flexible) market 

research, international company profiles, and Commerce’s Gold Key 

service, which matches qualified buyers with U.S. firms. Trade 

Development staff provide market reports and seminars and regular one-

on-one market counseling, and they manage the Trade Information 

Center’s 1-800-USATRADE hotline and Web-based information service.



To illustrate:



* A small U.S. manufacturer of cooling and heating system parts used 

Commerce’s Gold Key service to meet with potential buyers in Poland. 

Following the initial sale, a U.S. Export Assistance Center continued 

to provide the firm additional trade leads generated through the market 

research produced by FCS staff in Poland. The firm went on to make 

additional sales in Poland.



Exporters can also find a broad range of trade-related information at 

the federal government’s Export.gov Web site in addition to two 

Commerce Web sites. Subscription-based STAT-USA provides a broad range 

of information, including trade leads, market information, as well as 

access to the National Trade Data Bank. The annual fee for this service 

is $175, with quarterly subscriptions also available. Commerce’s BUYUSA 

program matches U.S. sellers with foreign buyers and provides U.S. 

firms the option of publishing on the site the firm’s electronic 

catalog of available products. The basic service costs $400, with the 

enhanced catalog service ranging between $1,075 and $2,000. Currently, 

about 3,400 U.S. and 19,000 foreign firms are registered at BUYUSA. 

According to one Commerce official, BUYUSA permits small businesses to 

gain low-cost access to prescreened foreign buyers.



USAID funds two programs that seek to link U.S. small-and medium-sized 

exporters with business opportunities in USAID-specific sectors. The 

Global Technology Network (GTN) links U.S. agribusiness, environment 

and energy, health, and information technology firms with opportunities 

that support USAID development goals in Africa, Asia and the Near East, 

Central and Southeast Europe, and Latin America and the Caribbean.

GTN automatically notifies (at no charge) registered U.S. firms of 

qualified business opportunities. These business opportunities include 

direct purchases, agent/distributor agreements, joint ventures, and 

franchise agreements. According to USAID, the GTN program generated 44 

transactions totaling about $10 million in fiscal year 2001, and for 

the first 6 months in fiscal year 2002, 38 transactions valued at $30.1 

million.



USAID’s Eastern European Partnership for Environmentally Sustainable 

Economies (EcoLinks) program addresses environmental issues in the 

regions of Europe and Eurasia. The region is struggling to balance 

economic and environmental concerns. EcoLinks is a form of technical 

assistance that focuses on technology transfer by promoting 

partnerships between businesses, municipalities, and associations 

within the region and between the region and the United States. Its 

program focuses on three interrelated sets of activities: (1) 

partnership grants, (2) technology transfer and investment, and (3) an 

information technology initiative. EcoLinks program grants fund (1) 

initial matchmaking meetings between prospective partners and (2) 

project grants that test the viability of potential environmental 

projects. According to USAID data, EcoLinks generated four deals 

totaling $0.4 million in fiscal year 2001. An example of an EcoLinks 

grant follows.



* An EcoLinks grant helped rebuild a Croatian meat processing 

wastewater treatment plant destroyed by war. A small U.S. water 

management firm assisted plant managers in restoring the facility. The 

new plan will reduce water consumption by 30 percent and has already 

reduced the amount of waste produced in processing and cut the plant’s 

operating costs by 20 percent.



TDA also provides market information to U.S. exporters and investors. 

It provides TDA grants for feasibility studies, whose contractors are 

primarily small-and medium-sized U.S. businesses. TDA also sponsors 

conferences that familiarize foreign decision makers with U.S. goods 

and services, build business relationships, and encourage and assist 

U.S. firms in exporting to developing and middle-income countries. To 

illustrate:



* A TDA contractor organized a “Building Infrastructure for Tourism 

Development” conference in May 2002 in Istanbul, Turkey. The conference 

focused on the Eurasian region and, according to the meeting 

subcontractor, the conference drew approximately 300 people, including 

about 50 U.S. firms and 75 to 100 foreign firms.



Like Commerce, the Department of Agriculture provides full range of 

information and services to agricultural exporters, including market 

information, trade leads, and other help, including a Web-based 

training module, to agricultural exporters.[Footnote 22]



Trade Events:



Trade events bring buyers and sellers together or provide them with 

information (including but not limited to trade missions, trade fairs, 

catalog shows, reverse trade missions, and seminars). Two units in 

Commerce’s International Trade Administration--the U.S. and Foreign 

Commercial Service and Trade Development--share responsibility in 

coordinating trade events. Other federal agencies also organize trade 

events that focus on specific sectors. For example, Agriculture 

sponsors trade missions for agricultural products; Energy, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, and USAID have sponsored events 

related to energy and the environmental technology sectors; and the SBA 

organizes a few trade missions annually for small businesses. Trade 

events are also sponsored by other federal agencies, including 

Eximbank, TDA, the Departments of State and Transportation, and states. 

For all of these other entities, Commerce provides essential support in 

doing market research and arranging foreign business community contacts 

for the associated trade events. Based on a cursory review of world 

trade events data maintained by Commerce, we found that Commerce 

sponsors the large majority of all trade events.



Of the four Central and Eastern European countries in which we did 

field work (Croatia, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Turkey), Poland 

had the most trade events (23) during fiscal years 1996 through 2000. 

In contrast, Germany, a more mature European market, was the 

destination for 164 trade events during the same time period.



Trade Finance for Major Projects:



Major infrastructure projects require years of negotiation with foreign 

governments, are costly, and are risky because their returns are 

generated from revenues from operations that can be affected by 

economic or political turmoil. Three agencies, Eximbank, OPIC, and TDA, 

work on separate aspects of trade finance in markets where commercial 

funding is not readily available.



The Eximbank provides U.S. firms with financing and insurance for 

exports in markets where commercial financing is limited or unavailable 

due to risk. The Eximbank has an export working capital program that 

provides loans for and guarantees lenders financing of pre-export 

production of goods. It also provides project finance for exporters or 

project sponsors that need financing for exports to large foreign 

infrastructure projects, such as oil and gas refineries. Exporters’ 

goods must contain over 50 percent U.S. content.



OPIC is a self-sustaining agency that provides loans and guarantees to 

investors in overseas developing markets. OPIC’s political risk 

insurance and loans help U.S. businesses of all sizes invest and 

compete in developing nations worldwide. Specifically, OPIC insures 

investments overseas against a broad range of political risks, finances 

businesses overseas through loans and loan guaranties, finances private 

investment funds that provide equity to businesses overseas, and 

advocates in the interests of the American business community overseas.



TDA provides planning assistance for foreign development projects that 

might offer sales opportunities for U.S. exporters. TDA’s primary tool 

for such projects, feasibility studies, evaluates the technical, legal, 

economic, environmental, and financial aspects of a potential project. 

In developing markets, for example, TDA approaches foreign governments 

or municipalities considering privatizing national assets such as 

energy plants or constructing an airport terminal and offers to have a 

small U.S. firm study the feasibility of the project or to provide 

technical assistance such as air controller training. If the foreign 

government or municipality agrees to the project, it may use U.S. firms 

or equipment. If the market holds risk of repayment and commercial 

financing is scarce,[Footnote 23] OPIC may provide the U.S. firm with 

loans or insurance,[Footnote 24] while the Eximbank may provide loans 
or 

guarantees for the equipment used in the project. An example follows.



* In 1997, the U.S. government supported building the Baku-Ceyhan oil 

pipeline from Azerbaijan through Turkey to a Black Sea port and on to 

lucrative markets in Western Europe. In 1998, TDA provided grant money 

to assist the Turkish government with the legal and financial 

negotiations of the deal. FCS staff in Turkey have continued to 

advocate for U.S. companies bidding on the Turkish portion of the 

project, and the Eximbank is now considering a guarantee covering U.S. 

goods and services for part of the project.



Advocacy:



Operating since November 1993, Commerce’s Advocacy Center assists U.S. 

firms when they encounter difficulty in winning foreign government 

procurements. The center coordinates the actions of the relevant U.S. 

agencies in a specific procurement. Top-level U.S. government officials 

work with their foreign counterparts to ensure a level playing field 

during all phases of the procurement process, and the Advocacy Center 

coordinates the timing of the actions, which may be official contacts 

via letters, telephone calls, or personal visits by one or more high-

level U.S. official(s). Examples of problems that the center addresses 

include:



* foreign firms’ pursuit of contracts using assistance from their home 

governments to persuade foreign government officials to buy their 

equipment or services;



* unfair treatment by government decisionmakers, preventing firms from 

having a chance to compete; and:



* bidding offers that may be tied up in bureaucratic red tape, 

resulting in lost opportunities and providing an unfair advantage to a 

competitor.



In considering requests for assistance from a U.S. firm, the Advocacy 

Center confirms that the international transaction is in the national 

interest, that the U.S. content of the potential procurement is at 

least 50 percent, and that the firm is the only U.S. bidder. When more 

than one U.S. firm is bidding on the procurement, U.S. officials will 

advocate with the foreign government for U.S. participation but not for 

any one U.S. firm.



Advocacy Center officials advocate for both large and small U.S. 

businesses, and a Commerce publication states that when large U.S. 

firms win a procurement bid, their U.S. suppliers--often small-and 

medium-sized businesses--also benefit. For example, the Advocacy Center 

has worked with the Boeing Corporation in its successful efforts to win 

contracts in Cyprus, Morocco, and South Africa. According to Commerce, 

Boeing has in excess of 500 suppliers covering all 50 states.



According to Commerce, the center re-committed itself in July 2002 to 

expand its support of small and medium-sized businesses. The efforts of 

center managers with responsibility for these businesses will be 

coordinated by a Small Business Advocate and Advisor to the Director. 

The center has also launched a plan for extended outreach and will work 

to define the target market to which advocacy services can be 

realistically and effectively offered.



[End of section]



Appendix III: Budgets of Export Promotion Agencies in Constant 2001 

Dollars (in Millions, Fiscal Years 1996 through 2001):



Commerce:



Trade Development; FY 1996: $61; FY 1997: $62; FY 1998: $61; FY 1999: 

$61; FY 2000: $63; FY 2001: $64; FY 2002: $66.



Market Access and Compliance; FY 1996: 20; FY 1997: 18; FY 1998: 18; FY 

1999: 18; FY 2000: 20; FY 2001: 25; FY 2002: 27.



U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service HQ; FY 1996: 19; FY 1997: 19; FY 

1998: 17; FY 1999: 17; FY 2000: 20; FY 2001: 16; FY 2002: 16.



U.S. Commercial Service (Domestic); FY 1996: 36; FY 1997: 36; FY 1998: 

32; FY 1999: 31; FY 2000: 34; FY 2001: 34; FY 2002: 33.



Foreign Commercial Service (Overseas); FY 1996: 123; FY 1997: 121; FY 

1998: 136; FY 1999: 126; FY 2000: 131; FY 2001: 142; FY 2002: 140.



Administrative; FY 1996: No data; FY 1997: No data; FY 1998: 13; FY 

1999: 13; FY 2000: 12; FY 2001: 12; FY 2002: 13.



Commerce Export Promotion Activities[A]; FY 1996: 258; FY 1997: 258; FY 

1998: 277; FY 1999: 265; FY 2000: 281; FY 2001: 293; FY 2002: 294.



Agriculture:



Export Enhancement Program; FY 1996: 5; FY 1997: 0; FY 1998: 2; FY 

1999: 1; FY 2000: 2; FY 2001: 7; FY 2002: 467.



Dairy Export Incentive Program; FY 1996: 22; FY 1997: 130; FY 1998: 

116; FY 1999: 151; FY 2000: 80; FY 2001: 8; FY 2002: 60.



Market Access Program; FY 1996: 98; FY 1997: 97; FY 1998: 95; FY 1999: 

94; FY 2000: 92; FY 2001: 90; FY 2002: 88.



Foreign Market Development Program; FY 1996: 37; FY 1997: 36; FY 1998: 

36; FY 1999: 29; FY 2000: 29; FY 2001: 28; FY 2002: 27.



P.L. 480 Title I - Food Aid; FY 1996: 317; FY 1997: 217; FY 1998: 267; 

FY 1999: 867; FY 2000: 354; FY 2001: 214; FY 2002: 171.



CCC Export Credit Guarantees; FY 1996: 467; FY 1997: 4; FY 1998: 216; 

FY 1999: 195; FY 2000: 218; FY 2001: 198; FY 2002: 408.



Foreign Agricultural Service; FY 1996: 50; FY 1997: 57; FY 1998: 57; FY 

1999: 56; FY 2000: 55; FY 2001: 55; FY 2002: 54.



Agriculture Export Promotion Activities[A]; FY 1996: 998; FY 1997: 541; 

FY 1998: 789; FY 1999: 1,394; FY 2000: 830; FY 2001: 600; FY 2002: 

1,275.



Export Import Bank; FY 1996: 910; FY 1997: 828; FY 1998: 773; FY 1999: 

851; FY 2000: 833; FY 2001: 928; FY 2002: 748.



U.S. Trade and Development Agency; FY 1996: 65; FY 1997: 58; FY 1998: 

66; FY 1999: 64; FY 2000: 57; FY 2001: 64; FY 2002: 49.



Overseas Private Investment Corporation; FY 1996: (117); FY 1997: 

(126); FY 1998: (185); FY 1999: (183); FY 2000: (209); FY 2001: (206); 

FY 2002: (245).



Small Business Administration; FY 1996: 7; FY 1997: 10; FY 1998: 11; FY 

1999: 13; FY 2000: 13; FY 2001: 14; FY 2002: 12.



State Department; FY 1996: 98; FY 1997: 102; FY 1998: 105; FY 1999: 

127; FY 2000: 127; FY 2001: 129; FY 2002: 124.



U.S. Trade Representative; FY 1996: 23; FY 1997: 23; FY 1998: 24; FY 

1999: 27; FY 2000: 27; FY 2001: 30; FY 2002: 29.



U.S. Agency for International Development; FY 1996: 723; FY 1997: 579; 

FY 1998: 450; FY 1999: 0; FY 2000: 0; FY 2001: 0; FY 2002: 0.



Total Budget for Export Promotion Activities (excluding OPIC and USAID 

programs); FY 1996: $2,359; FY 1997: $1,819; FY 1998: $2,045; FY 1999: 

$2,741; FY 2000: $2,168; FY 2001: $2,058; FY 2002: $2,532.



[A] Totals may not add due to rounding.



Source: National Export Strategies and federal budget documents.



[End of section]



Appendix IV: FCS Overseas Staff by Country, Fiscal Years 1996 through 

2001:



Algeria; 1996: #Staff[A]: 1; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 1; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 1; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 1; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 1; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 1; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Argentina[B]; 1996: #Staff[A]: 10; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 17; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 21; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 22; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 23; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 24; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Armenia; 1996: #Staff[A]: 0; 1996: #Offices: 0;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 1; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 1; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 1; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 1; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 1; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Australia; 1996: #Staff[A]: 17; 1996: #Offices: 4;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 17; 1997: #Offices: 3;  1998: #Staff[A]: 18; 1998: 

#Offices: 3;  1999: #Staff[A]: 19; 1999: #Offices: 3;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 20; 2000: #Offices: 3;  2001: #Staff[A]: 20; 

2001: #Offices: 4.



Austria; 1996: #Staff[A]: 7; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 8; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 5; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 8; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 8; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 7; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Azerbaijan; 1996: #Staff[A]: 0; 1996: #Offices: 0;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 0; 1997: #Offices: 0;  1998: #Staff[A]: 3; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 3; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 3; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 3; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Barbados; 1996: #Staff[A]: 1; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 1; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 1; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 1; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 1; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 1; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Belarus; 1996: #Staff[A]: 1; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 1; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 1; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 1; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 1; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 1; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Belgium; 1996: #Staff[A]: 17; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 17; 1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff[A]: 16; 1998: 

#Offices: 2;  1999: #Staff[A]: 16; 1999: #Offices: 2;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 18; 2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff[A]: 23; 

2001: #Offices: 2.



Brazil[B]; 1996: #Staff[A]: 30; 1996: #Offices: 4;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 54; 1997: #Offices: 4;  1998: #Staff[A]: 56; 1998: 

#Offices: 4;  1999: #Staff[A]: 60; 1999: #Offices: 4;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 62; 2000: #Offices: 5;  2001: #Staff[A]: 69; 

2001: #Offices: 5.



Bulgaria; 1996: #Staff[A]: 3; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 9; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 7; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 7; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 7; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 6; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Canada; 1996: #Staff[A]: 24; 1996: #Offices: 6;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 31; 1997: #Offices: 7;  1998: #Staff[A]: 32; 1998: 

#Offices: 7;  1999: #Staff[A]: 29; 1999: #Offices: 7;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 29; 2000: #Offices: 7;  2001: #Staff[A]: 32; 

2001: #Offices: 7.



Chile; 1996: #Staff[A]: 10; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 14; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 14; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 14; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 14; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 15; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



China[B]; 1996: #Staff[A]: 50; 1996: #Offices: 5;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 63; 1997: #Offices: 5;  1998: #Staff[A]: 80; 1998: 

#Offices: 5;  1999: #Staff[A]: 86; 1999: #Offices: 5;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 81; 2000: #Offices: 5;  2001: #Staff[A]: 83; 

2001: #Offices: 5.



Colombia; 1996: #Staff[A]: 10; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 11; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 10; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 11; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 11; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 13; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Costa Rica; 1996: #Staff[A]: 3; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 6; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 5; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 6; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 6; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 5; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Cote d’Ivoire; 1996: #Staff[A]: 6; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 10; 1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff[A]: 11; 1998: 

#Offices: 2;  1999: #Staff[A]: 11; 1999: #Offices: 2;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 11; 2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff[A]: 11; 

2001: #Offices: 2.



Croatia; 1996: #Staff[A]: 1; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 4; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 4; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 3; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 3; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 4; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Czech Republic; 1996: #Staff[A]: 5; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 8; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 11; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 11; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 10; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 5; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Denmark; 1996: #Staff[A]: 6; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 6; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 6; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 6; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 6; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 4; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Dominican Republic; 1996: #Staff[A]: 5; 1996: #Offices: 1;  

1997: #Staff[A]: 9; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 13; 

1998: #Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 11; 1999: #Offices: 1; 

 2000: #Staff[A]: 12; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: 

#Staff[A]: 11; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Ecuador; 1996: #Staff[A]: 6; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 8; 1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff[A]: 8; 1998: 

#Offices: 2;  1999: #Staff[A]: 8; 1999: #Offices: 2;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 8; 2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff[A]: 8; 

2001: #Offices: 2.



Egypt; 1996: #Staff[A]: 12; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 15; 1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff[A]: 13; 1998: 

#Offices: 2;  1999: #Staff[A]: 14; 1999: #Offices: 2;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 12; 2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff[A]: 16; 

2001: #Offices: 2.



Finland; 1996: #Staff[A]: 4; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 4; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 4; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 4; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 4; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 4; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



France; 1996: #Staff[A]: 34; 1996: #Offices: 6;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 34; 1997: #Offices: 6;  1998: #Staff[A]: 36; 1998: 

#Offices: 6;  1999: #Staff[A]: 34; 1999: #Offices: 5;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 33; 2000: #Offices: 6;  2001: #Staff[A]: 32; 

2001: #Offices: 5.



Georgia; 1996: #Staff[A]: 0; 1996: #Offices: 0;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 1; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 1; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 1; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 1; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 1; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Germany; 1996: #Staff[A]: 47; 1996: #Offices: 7;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 49; 1997: #Offices: 7;  1998: #Staff[A]: 48; 1998: 

#Offices: 7;  1999: #Staff[A]: 48; 1999: #Offices: 6;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 49; 2000: #Offices: 6;  2001: #Staff[A]: 39; 

2001: #Offices: 6.



Ghana; 1996: #Staff[A]: 0; 1996: #Offices: 0;  1997: #Staff[A]: 

0; 1997: #Offices: 0;  1998: #Staff[A]: 0; 1998: #Offices: 0; 

 1999: #Staff[A]: 0; 1999: #Offices: 0;  2000: 

#Staff[A]: 1; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 1; 2001: 

#Offices: 1.



Greece; 1996: #Staff[A]: 9; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 10; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 9; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 9; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 12; 2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff[A]: 12; 

2001: #Offices: 2.



Guatemala; 1996: #Staff[A]: 4; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 5; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 9; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 7; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 7; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 7; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Haiti; 1996: #Staff[A]: 0; 1996: #Offices: 0;  1997: #Staff[A]: 

3; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 3; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff[A]: 4; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: 

#Staff[A]: 4; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 4; 2001: 

#Offices: 1.



Honduras; 1996: #Staff[A]: 2; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 4; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 5; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 5; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 4; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 4; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Hong Kong[B]; 1996: #Staff[A]: 14; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 23; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 22; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 21; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 22; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 19; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Hungary; 1996: #Staff[A]: 8; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 10; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 10; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 10; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 9; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 9; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



India[B]; 1996: #Staff[A]: 30; 1996: #Offices: 5;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 33; 1997: #Offices: 5;  1998: #Staff[A]: 48; 1998: 

#Offices: 7;  1999: #Staff[A]: 52; 1999: #Offices: 7;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 54; 2000: #Offices: 7;  2001: #Staff[A]: 58; 

2001: #Offices: 8.



Indonesia[B]; 1996: #Staff[A]: 17; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 25; 1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff[A]: 23; 1998: 

#Offices: 2;  1999: #Staff[A]: 28; 1999: #Offices: 2;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 43; 2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff[A]: 41; 

2001: #Offices: 2.



Ireland; 1996: #Staff[A]: 4; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 6; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 6; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 5; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 6; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 6; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Ireland, Northern; 1996: #Staff[A]: 0; 1996: #Offices: 0;  

1997: #Staff[A]: 0; 1997: #Offices: 0;  1998: #Staff[A]: 1; 

1998: #Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 1; 1999: #Offices: 1; 

 2000: #Staff[A]: 1; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: 

#Staff[A]: 3; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Israel; 1996: #Staff[A]: 14; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 15; 1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff[A]: 15; 1998: 

#Offices: 2;  1999: #Staff[A]: 15; 1999: #Offices: 2;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 16; 2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff[A]: 14; 

2001: #Offices: 2.



Italy; 1996: #Staff[A]: 25; 1996: #Offices: 5;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 24; 1997: #Offices: 5;  1998: #Staff[A]: 26; 1998: 

#Offices: 5;  1999: #Staff[A]: 26; 1999: #Offices: 5;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 26; 2000: #Offices: 5;  2001: #Staff[A]: 25; 

2001: #Offices: 5.



Jamaica; 1996: #Staff[A]: 0; 1996: #Offices: 0;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 2; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 2; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 2; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 2; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 2; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Japan; 1996: #Staff[A]: 57; 1996: #Offices: 5;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 59; 1997: #Offices: 5;  1998: #Staff[A]: 52; 1998: 

#Offices: 5;  1999: #Staff[A]: 51; 1999: #Offices: 5;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 53; 2000: #Offices: 5;  2001: #Staff[A]: 50; 

2001: #Offices: 5.



Jordan; 1996: #Staff[A]: 0; 1996: #Offices: 0;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 0; 1997: #Offices: 0;  1998: #Staff[A]: 0; 1998: 

#Offices: 0;  1999: #Staff[A]: 0; 1999: #Offices: 0;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 2; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 3; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Kazakstan; 1996: #Staff[A]: 6; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 12; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 11; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 11; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 10; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 9; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Kenya; 1996: #Staff[A]: 4; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff[A]: 

3; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 2; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff[A]: 4; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: 

#Staff[A]: 11; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 8; 2001: 

#Offices: 1.



Korea[B]; 1996: #Staff[A]: 23; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 28; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 27; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 24; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 27; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 24; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Kuwait; 1996: #Staff[A]: 6; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 9; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 7; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 7; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 10; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 6; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Latvia; 1996: #Staff[A]: 0; 1996: #Offices: 0;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 0; 1997: #Offices: 0;  1998: #Staff[A]: 0; 1998: 

#Offices: 0;  1999: #Staff[A]: 0; 1999: #Offices: 0;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 1; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 3; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Lebanon; 1996: #Staff[A]: 0; 1996: #Offices: 0;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 0; 1997: #Offices: 0;  1998: #Staff[A]: 0; 1998: 

#Offices: 0;  1999: #Staff[A]: 0; 1999: #Offices: 0;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 1; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 1; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Malaysia; 1996: #Staff[A]: 9; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 14; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 12; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 14; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 14; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 13; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Mexico[B]; 1996: #Staff[A]: 61; 1996: #Offices: 3;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 76; 1997: #Offices: 3;  1998: #Staff[A]: 73; 1998: 

#Offices: 3;  1999: #Staff[A]: 75; 1999: #Offices: 3;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 70; 2000: #Offices: 3;  2001: #Staff[A]: 66; 

2001: #Offices: 4.



Morocco; 1996: #Staff[A]: 3; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 5; 1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff[A]: 4; 1998: 

#Offices: 2;  1999: #Staff[A]: 4; 1999: #Offices: 2;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 6; 2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff[A]: 6; 

2001: #Offices: 2.



Netherlands; 1996: #Staff[A]: 11; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 10; 1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff[A]: 12; 1998: 

#Offices: 2;  1999: #Staff[A]: 12; 1999: #Offices: 2;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 11; 2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff[A]: 12; 

2001: #Offices: 2.



New Zealand; 1996: #Staff[A]: 4; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 5; 1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff[A]: 4; 1998: 

#Offices: 2;  1999: #Staff[A]: 3; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 6; 2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff[A]: 4; 

2001: #Offices: 2.



Nigeria; 1996: #Staff[A]: 7; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 10; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 9; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 9; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 9; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 11; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Norway; 1996: #Staff[A]: 3; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 6; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 6; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 5; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 6; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 6; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Pakistan; 1996: #Staff[A]: 8; 1996: #Offices: 3;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 10; 1997: #Offices: 3;  1998: #Staff[A]: 9; 1998: 

#Offices: 3;  1999: #Staff[A]: 9; 1999: #Offices: 3;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 10; 2000: #Offices: 3;  2001: #Staff[A]: 10; 

2001: #Offices: 3.



Panama; 1996: #Staff[A]: 4; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 6; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 6; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 6; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 6; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 6; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Peru; 1996: #Staff[A]: 4; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff[A]: 

8; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 8; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff[A]: 8; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: 

#Staff[A]: 8; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 8; 2001: 

#Offices: 1.



Philippines; 1996: #Staff[A]: 18; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 25; 1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff[A]: 20; 1998: 

#Offices: 2;  1999: #Staff[A]: 19; 1999: #Offices: 2;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 25; 2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff[A]: 22; 

2001: #Offices: 2.



Poland[A]; 1996: #Staff[A]: 9; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 18; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 18; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 18; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 16; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 14; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Portugal; 1996: #Staff[A]: 7; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 8; 1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff[A]: 10; 1998: 

#Offices: 2;  1999: #Staff[A]: 10; 1999: #Offices: 2;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 9; 2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff[A]: 10; 

2001: #Offices: 2.



Romania; 1996: #Staff[A]: 4; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 7; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 6; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 6; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 5; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 6; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Russia; 1996: #Staff[A]: 38; 1996: #Offices: 3;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 47; 1997: #Offices: 4;  1998: #Staff[A]: 43; 1998: 

#Offices: 4;  1999: #Staff[A]: 42; 1999: #Offices: 4;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 40; 2000: #Offices: 4;  2001: #Staff[A]: 40; 

2001: #Offices: 4.



Saudi Arabia; 1996: #Staff[A]: 24; 1996: #Offices: 3;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 35; 1997: #Offices: 3;  1998: #Staff[A]: 35; 1998: 

#Offices: 3;  1999: #Staff[A]: 37; 1999: #Offices: 3;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 38; 2000: #Offices: 3;  2001: #Staff[A]: 34; 

2001: #Offices: 3.



Singapore; 1996: #Staff[A]: 17; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 16; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 18; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 19; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 19; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 17; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Slovak Republic; 1996: #Staff[A]: 1; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 4; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 4; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 4; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 3; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 3; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



South Africa[B]; 1996: #Staff[A]: 11; 1996: #Offices: 3;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 19; 1997: #Offices: 3;  1998: #Staff[A]: 16; 1998: 

#Offices: 3;  1999: #Staff[A]: 21; 1999: #Offices: 3;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 24; 2000: #Offices: 3;  2001: #Staff[A]: 24; 

2001: #Offices: 3.



Spain; 1996: #Staff[A]: 15; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 17; 1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff[A]: 18; 1998: 

#Offices: 2;  1999: #Staff[A]: 18; 1999: #Offices: 2;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 17; 2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff[A]: 17; 

2001: #Offices: 2.



Sweden; 1996: #Staff[A]: 8; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 9; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 9; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 10; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 10; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 9; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Switzerland; 1996: #Staff[A]: 7; 1996: #Offices: 3;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 8; 1997: #Offices: 3;  1998: #Staff[A]: 8; 1998: 

#Offices: 3;  1999: #Staff[A]: 8; 1999: #Offices: 3;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 8; 2000: #Offices: 3;  2001: #Staff[A]: 9; 

2001: #Offices: 3.



Taiwan[B]; 1996: #Staff[A]: 25; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 28; 1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff[A]: 26; 1998: 

#Offices: 2;  1999: #Staff[A]: 26; 1999: #Offices: 2;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 28; 2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff[A]: 30; 

2001: #Offices: 2.



Thailand; 1996: #Staff[A]: 18; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 23; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 22; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 23; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 22; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 19; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Trinidad/

Tobago; 1996: #Staff[A]: 0; 1996: #Offices: 0;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 1; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 1; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 1; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 1; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 1; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Turkey[B]; 1996: #Staff[A]: 13; 1996: #Offices: 3;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 13; 1997: #Offices: 3;  1998: #Staff[A]: 14; 1998: 

#Offices: 3;  1999: #Staff[A]: 14; 1999: #Offices: 3;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 15; 2000: #Offices: 3;  2001: #Staff[A]: 13; 

2001: #Offices: 3.



UAE; 1996: #Staff[A]: 9; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: #Staff[A]: 

9; 1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff[A]: 10; 1998: #Offices: 2; 

 1999: #Staff[A]: 9; 1999: #Offices: 2;  2000: 

#Staff[A]: 11; 2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff[A]: 9; 2001: 

#Offices: 2.



Ukraine; 1996: #Staff[A]: 7; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 16; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 13; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 13; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 13; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 12; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



United Kingdom; 1996: #Staff[A]: 19; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 21; 1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff[A]: 25; 1998: 

#Offices: 2;  1999: #Staff[A]: 26; 1999: #Offices: 2;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 29; 2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff[A]: 31; 

2001: #Offices: 2.



Uruguay; 1996: #Staff[A]: 0; 1996: #Offices: 0;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 0; 1997: #Offices: 0;  1998: #Staff[A]: 0; 1998: 

#Offices: 0;  1999: #Staff[A]: 1; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 2; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 2; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Uzbekistan; 1996: #Staff[A]: 4; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 6; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 7; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 7; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 9; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 7; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Venezuela; 1996: #Staff[A]: 10; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 14; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 16; 1998: 

#Offices: 1;  1999: #Staff[A]: 15; 1999: #Offices: 1;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 18; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 20; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Vietnam; 1996: #Staff[A]: 1; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 4; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff[A]: 12; 1998: 

#Offices: 2;  1999: #Staff[A]: 12; 1999: #Offices: 2;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 20; 2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff[A]: 5; 

2001: #Offices: 2.



Yugoslavia; 1996: #Staff[A]: 0; 1996: #Offices: 0;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 0; 1997: #Offices: 0;  1998: #Staff[A]: 0; 1998: 

#Offices: 0;  1999: #Staff[A]: 0; 1999: #Offices: 0;  

2000: #Staff[A]: 1; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff[A]: 1; 

2001: #Offices: 1.



Total; 1996: #Staff[A]: 912; 1996: #Offices: 137;  1997: 

#Staff[A]: 1,168; 1997: #Offices: 143;  1998: #Staff[A]: 1,198; 

1998: #Offices: 148;  1999: #Staff[A]: 1,222; 1999: #Offices: 

146;  2000: #Staff[A]: 1,286; 2000: #Offices: 155;  

2001: #Staff[A]: 1,245; 2001: #Offices: 157.



[A] Staff includes Foreign Commercial Service officers, foreign service 

nationals, and personal service contractors.



[B] Countries in Big Emerging Markets as defined in TPCC’s 1994 

National Export Strategy.



Source: Department of Commerce.



[End of table]



[End of section]



Appendix V: FAS Overseas Staff by Country, Fiscal Years 1996 through 

2001:



Argentina[A]; 1996: #Staff: 5; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff: 5; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 5; 1998: #Offices: 

1;  1999: #Staff: 5; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 

5; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 5; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Australia; 1996: #Staff: 4; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 

4; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 4; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 4; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 4; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 4; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Austria; 1996: #Staff: 4; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 4; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 4; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 4; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 4; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 4; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Bangladesh; 1996: #Staff: 1; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 

1; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 1; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 1; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 1; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 1; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Belgium; 1996: #Staff: 8; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: #Staff: 7; 

1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff: 8; 1998: #Offices: 2; 

 1999: #Staff: 8; 1999: #Offices: 2;  2000: #Staff: 6; 

2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff: 6; 2001: #Offices: 2.



Brazil[A]; 1996: #Staff: 8; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: #Staff: 

8; 1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff: 8; 1998: #Offices: 2; 

 1999: #Staff: 7; 1999: #Offices: 2;  2000: #Staff: 8; 

2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff: 8; 2001: #Offices: 2.



Bulgaria; 1996: #Staff: 4; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 3; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 3; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 3; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 3; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 4; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Burma; 1996: #Staff: 1; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 0; 

1997: #Offices: 0;  1998: #Staff: 0; 1998: #Offices: 0; 

 1999: #Staff: 0; 1999: #Offices: 0;  2000: #Staff: 0; 

2000: #Offices: 0;  2001: #Staff: 0; 2001: #Offices: 0.



Canada; 1996: #Staff: 5; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 5; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 4; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 4; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 5; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 5; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Chile; 1996: #Staff: 3; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 3; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 3; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 3; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 3; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 3; 2001: #Offices: 1.



China[A]; 1996: #Staff: 6; 1996: #Offices: 3;  1997: #Staff: 6; 

1997: #Offices: 3;  1998: #Staff: 6; 1998: #Offices: 3; 

 1999: #Staff: 5; 1999: #Offices: 3;  2000: #Staff: 5; 

2000: #Offices: 3;  2001: #Staff: 7; 2001: #Offices: 3.



Colombia; 1996: #Staff: 3; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 4; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 4; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 4; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 4; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 4; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Costa Rica; 1996: #Staff: 3; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 

3; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 3; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 3; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 3; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 3; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Cote d’Ivoire; 1996: #Staff: 3; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff: 3; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 3; 1998: #Offices: 

1;  1999: #Staff: 3; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 

3; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 3; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Czech Republic; 1996: #Staff: 1; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff: 1; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 1; 1998: #Offices: 

1;  1999: #Staff: 1; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 

1; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 1; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Denmark; 1996: #Staff: 3; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 2; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 2; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 2; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 3; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 3; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Dominican Republic; 1996: #Staff: 3; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff: 2; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 2; 1998: #Offices: 

1;  1999: #Staff: 2; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 

2; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 2; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Ecuador; 1996: #Staff: 2; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 2; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 2; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 2; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 1; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 1; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Egypt; 1996: #Staff: 3; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 3; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 3; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 3; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 3; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 2; 2001: #Offices: 1.



France; 1996: #Staff: 8; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 7; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 7; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 7; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 6; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 6; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Germany; 1996: #Staff: 10; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: #Staff: 9; 

1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff: 10; 1998: #Offices: 2; 

 1999: #Staff: 8; 1999: #Offices: 2;  2000: #Staff: 8; 

2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff: 9; 2001: #Offices: 2.



Greece; 1996: #Staff: 3; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 2; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 2; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 2; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 2; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 2; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Guatemala; 1996: #Staff: 4; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 

2; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 2; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 2; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 2; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 2; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Hong Kong[A]; 1996: #Staff: 4; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff: 4; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 4; 1998: #Offices: 

1;  1999: #Staff: 4; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 

3; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 3; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Hungary; 1996: #Staff: 1; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 0; 

1997: #Offices: 0;  1998: #Staff: 0; 1998: #Offices: 0; 

 1999: #Staff: 0; 1999: #Offices: 0;  2000: #Staff: 0; 

2000: #Offices: 0;  2001: #Staff: 0; 2001: #Offices: 0.



India[A]; 1996: #Staff: 7; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 8; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 7; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 7; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 7; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 7; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Indonesia[A]; 1996: #Staff: 4; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff: 5; 1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff: 5; 1998: #Offices: 

2;  1999: #Staff: 5; 1999: #Offices: 2;  2000: #Staff: 

5; 2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff: 5; 2001: #Offices: 2.



Ireland; 1996: #Staff: 1; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 1; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 1; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 1; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 1; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 1; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Israel; 1996: #Staff: 1; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 1; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 1; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 1; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 1; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 1; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Italy; 1996: #Staff: 9; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: #Staff: 9; 

1997: #Offices: 3;  1998: #Staff: 9; 1998: #Offices: 3; 

 1999: #Staff: 9; 1999: #Offices: 3;  2000: #Staff: 7; 

2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff: 7; 2001: #Offices: 2.



Japan; 1996: #Staff: 19; 1996: #Offices: 3;  1997: #Staff: 21; 

1997: #Offices: 3;  1998: #Staff: 21; 1998: #Offices: 3; 

 1999: #Staff: 18; 1999: #Offices: 3;  2000: #Staff: 

20; 2000: #Offices: 3;  2001: #Staff: 20; 2001: #Offices: 3.



Kazakhstan; 1996: #Staff: 1; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 

1; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 1; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 1; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 1; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 1; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Kenya; 1996: #Staff: 1; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 1; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 1; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 1; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 1; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 1; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Korea[A]; 1996: #Staff: 8; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 9; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 9; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 9; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 9; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 9; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Latvia; 1996: #Staff: 1; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 1; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 1; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 1; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 1; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 1; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Malaysia; 1996: #Staff: 3; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 3; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 3; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 3; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 3; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 3; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Mexico[A]; 1996: #Staff: 11; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: #Staff: 

13; 1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff: 12; 1998: #Offices: 2; 

 1999: #Staff: 13; 1999: #Offices: 2;  2000: #Staff: 

13; 2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff: 14; 2001: #Offices: 3.



Morocco; 1996: #Staff: 2; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 2; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 2; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 2; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 2; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 2; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Netherlands; 1996: #Staff: 5; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 

4; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 5; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 4; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 6; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 6; 2001: #Offices: 1.



New Zealand; 1996: #Staff: 2; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 

2; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 2; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 2; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 2; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 2; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Nigeria; 1996: #Staff: 2; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 2; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 2; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 2; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 2; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 2; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Pakistan; 1996: #Staff: 3; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 3; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 3; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 3; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 3; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 3; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Peru; 1996: #Staff: 3; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 3; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 3; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 3; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 3; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 3; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Philippines; 1996: #Staff: 5; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 

5; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 5; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 4; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 5; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 4; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Poland[B]; 1996: #Staff: 4; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 

4; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 4; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 4; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 4; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 3; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Portugal; 1996: #Staff: 2; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 1; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 1; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 2; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 2; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 2; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Romania; 1996: #Staff: 1; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 1; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 1; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 1; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 1; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 1; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Russia; 1996: #Staff: 8; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 9; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 9; 1998: #Offices: 2; 

 1999: #Staff: 9; 1999: #Offices: 2;  2000: #Staff: 9; 

2000: #Offices: 2;  2001: #Staff: 8; 2001: #Offices: 2.



Saudia Arabia; 1996: #Staff: 3; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: 

#Staff: 3; 1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff: 3; 1998: #Offices: 

2;  1999: #Staff: 3; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 

2; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 2; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Serbia; 1996: #Staff: 1; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 1; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 1; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 1; 1999: #Offices: 0;  2000: #Staff: 0; 

2000: #Offices: 0;  2001: #Staff: 0; 2001: #Offices: 0.



Singapore; 1996: #Staff: 4; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 

3; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 3; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 3; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 2; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 2; 2001: #Offices: 1.



South Africa[A]; 1996: #Staff: 6; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff: 5; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 6; 1998: #Offices: 

1;  1999: #Staff: 6; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 

6; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 6; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Spain; 1996: #Staff: 6; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 6; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 6; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 6; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 6; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 6; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Sri Lanka; 1996: #Staff: 1; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 

0; 1997: #Offices: 0;  1998: #Staff: 0; 1998: #Offices: 0; 

 1999: #Staff: 0; 1999: #Offices: 0;  2000: #Staff: 0; 

2000: #Offices: 0;  2001: #Staff: 0; 2001: #Offices: 0.



Sweden; 1996: #Staff: 4; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 4; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 4; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 4; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 3; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 3; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Switzerland; 1996: #Staff: 3; 1996: #Offices: 2;  1997: #Staff: 

4; 1997: #Offices: 2;  1998: #Staff: 4; 1998: #Offices: 2; 

 1999: #Staff: 4; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 4; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 4; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Syria; 1996: #Staff: 1; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 1; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 1; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 1; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 1; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 1; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Thailand; 1996: #Staff: 5; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 5; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 5; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 5; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 5; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 5; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Tunisia; 1996: #Staff: 3; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 2; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 2; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 2; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 2; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 2; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Turkey[A]; 1996: #Staff: 4; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 

4; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 4; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 4; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 4; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 4; 2001: #Offices: 1.



UAE; 1996: #Staff: 4; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 4; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 4; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 4; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 4; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 4; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Ukraine; 1996: #Staff: 2; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 1; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 2; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 1; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 1; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 2; 2001: #Offices: 1.



United Kingdom; 1996: #Staff: 6; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: 

#Staff: 5; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 5; 1998: #Offices: 

1;  1999: #Staff: 4; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 

4; 2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 4; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Venezuela; 1996: #Staff: 5; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 

5; 1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 5; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 4; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 5; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 4; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Vietnam; 1996: #Staff: 1; 1996: #Offices: 1;  1997: #Staff: 1; 

1997: #Offices: 1;  1998: #Staff: 1; 1998: #Offices: 1; 

 1999: #Staff: 1; 1999: #Offices: 1;  2000: #Staff: 1; 

2000: #Offices: 1;  2001: #Staff: 1; 2001: #Offices: 1.



Total; 1996: #Staff: 262; 1996: #Offices: 76;  1997: #Staff: 

253; 1997: #Offices: 75;  1998: #Staff: 255; 1998: #Offices: 

76;  1999: #Staff: 245; 1999: #Offices: 73;  2000: 

#Staff: 243; 2000: #Offices: 72;  2001: #Staff: 244; 2001: 

#Offices: 73.



[A] Countries in Big Emerging Markets as defined in TPCC’s 1994 

National Export Strategy.



Source: Department of Agriculture.



[End of table]



[End of section]



Appendix VI: Comments from the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee:



United States of America: Department of Commerce:



TRADE PROMOTION COORDINATING COMMITTEE:



TPCC:



AUG 21 2002:



Loren Yager, Ph.D.



Director, International Affairs & Trade United States General 

Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548:



Dear Loren:



Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft GAO report Export 

Promotion: Mixed Progress in Achieving a Governmentwide Strateg y, GAO-

02-850. Per your transmittal letter of July 30, the Secretary has asked 

me to provide a TPCC response. The TPCC Secretariat distributed the 

draft report to the agencies, and this response incorporates their 

input. As a separate attachment, I have included some comments on 

behalf of the Commerce Department. To the extent that the draft report, 

including Appendix III, intends to accurately portray the scope of 

federal trade promotion services, we suggest additional language for 

the final report.



I would like to commend you and your team for a balanced and 

constructive study of the TPCC. While there are some limits to the 

TPCC’s ability to coordinate agency programs as noted by the report 

(e.g., to reallocate agency resources), I agree that the TPCC can and 

should do more to fulfill its mandate. The draft report has hit the 

mark in calling on the TPCC to provide clear and consistent strategic 

guidance from year-to-year, identify agency-specific goals and 

responsibilities, and regularly report on progress toward achieving 

recommendations. This Administration has already taken major steps 

towards addressing these concerns by using the TPCC as a management 

tool and by applying many of the principles set forth in the 

President’s Management Agenda. We have undertaken a benchmarking 

process that has set the tone and direction for the TPCC in the years 

to come.



Consistent Guidance:



A major observation of the draft report is that the TPCC’s strategic 

approach has shifted from year-to-year, noting that overriding foreign 

policy goals have sometimes been a factor. As a result, TPCC strategies 

have often lacked continuity which, in turn, has hindered the TPCC’s 

assessment of progress toward achieving broad goals.



Inspired by the President’s Management Agenda, the Secretary and other 

agency heads committed themselves early on in this Administration to 

citizen-centered change, focused on delivering results that matter to 

U.S. exporters and potential exporters. By conducting a survey of 3,000 

exporters and non-exporters, conducting focus groups, and interviewing 

100 other companies, the May 2002 National Export Strategy report was 

the first wholly committed to responding to customer needs.Regular 

direct input from exporters and potential exporters now provides 

continuity and consistency in the TPCC’s strategic approach. Changes in 

strategic approach will now be in response to the changing needs of 

exporters. Nobody knows better than U.S. companies themselves their 
needs 

for information, financing, and advocacy. Exporters should also be the 

starting point for developing strategies that respond to the global 

competitive environment and foreign government practices that threaten 

U.S. competitiveness.



One conclusion in the draft report we found misleading was that the 

TPCC did “not complete” its implementation of certain key 

recommendations because the May 2002 report includes some of the same 

general recommendations as early TPCC reports. For example, in the area 

of improving the dissemination of trade information, the TPCC has made 

tremendous progress with the establishment of interagency services such 

as the Trade Information Center and Export.gov. Nevertheless, we do not 

expect this work to ever be “completed.” Changes in the business 

environment and technology constantly call for new government 

approaches. Interagency training is another area where agencies are 

constantly striving to innovate and improve. For example, in the area 

of trade financing, Ex-Im Bank and OPIC frequently open their training 

programs to other agencies, and SBA participates in training programs 

for both domestic and overseas Commercial Service officers. The May 

2002 report seeks to institutionalize an even higher level of 

interagency training and exchanges. The TPCC’s readiness to revisit 

core issues of customer service and leveraging is an important mark of 

consistency rather than proof the TPCC has not followed through on 

previous recommendations.



We also felt that the attention given the “Big Emerging Markets” (BEMs) 

as an ongoing yardstick of the TPCC detracted from otherwise valid 

findings on consistency and follow-up. Beginning with the entrance 

conference in March 2001, the TPCC has advised the GAO against basing 

its analysis on a fixed set of countries first identified in 1994. The 

world economy, as well as the economies in these countries, have 

changed markedly since the TPCC’s 1994 report. The Asian financial 

crisis in 1998 negatively impacted most of the Asian BEMs. The European 

BEMs - Turkey and Poland - have stagnated or regressed as a result of a 

number of factors. As export opportunities have diminished in these 

areas, we have tried to respond to market growth and exporter interest 

elsewhere. Country-specific strategies will continue to be employed by 

the TPCC. For example, our May 2002 report targets China, Mexico, 

Russia, Brazil, and South Africa for the development of pilot early 

project development teams. However, such strategies will be in response 

to exporter needs in an ever-changing global economy.



Agency-Specific Goals and Measures of Progress:



Another major finding of the GAO is that past reports have not 

identified specific agencies’ goals and responsibilities or analyzed 

progress made in achieving recommendations from prior year reports.



As stated by the Secretary in presenting the 2002 National Export 

Strategy to Congress, the reenergized TPCC is committed to results. In 

viewing the TPCC as a management tool, agencies have committed to 

regular high level meetings to review each agency’s progress toward 

achieving the recommendations presented in the TPCC report. The TPCC 

has also committed to periodic progress reports to Congress on the 

implementation of recommendations. For each of the recommendations, 

we will identify specific agency goals and associated agency 

responsibilities. We are developing a matrix which specifies agency 

leads, current status, next steps, and progress measures. The first 

such progress report will be sent to the Senate Banking Committee and 

the House International Relations Committee in October.



TPCC’s Role in the Budget Process:



The draft report also examines the TPCC’s limited ability to affect the 

alignment of export promotion resources across agencies in support of 

TPCC strategic priorities. The draft report cites a number of factors, 

including the lack of authority to reallocate resources among agencies.



As recognized in the draft report, the TPCC has sought new ways to 

influence the alignment of resources in light of these limitations. In 

1999, Congress changed the annual release date of the TPCC report from 

September to March. This change enables the TPCC to play an active role 

with OMB in the development of the President’s Budget. In preparation 

of the March 2000 report, the TPCC pioneered several new methods of 

participating in the budget process, including transmittal to OMB of a 

prioritized list of TPCC budget initiatives and participation in 

agencies’ budget presentations to OMB. With regard to the FY 2004 

budget, the TPCC has begun to employ some of the same methods with 

regard to budget-related recommendations in the May 2002 report. The 

goal is to both improve resource coordination on the front end of the 

budget process and provide a strategic framework for promoting 

particular budget initiatives to Congress after the President’s budget 

is released.



Conclusions:



Motivated by the same issues identified by the draft report, the TPCC 

has embarked on a new beginning. The May 2002 presented 60 specific 

recommendations based on the direct input of customers. The next annual 

report due in March 2003 is dedicated to analyzing our progress toward 

implementing those recommendations. Between now and then, the TPCC will 

be actively coordinating agencies’ efforts and holding individual 

agencies accountable. Because this is a new approach, we welcome your 

continued interest as the process unfolds.



Please let me or Jeri Jensen-Moran know if we can be of further 

assistance.



Sincerely,



Grant D. Aldonas:



Signed by Grant D. Aldonas:



[End of section]



FOOTNOTES:



[1] Nine federal agencies play an important role in assisting U.S. 

firms to export or invest overseas: the Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, and State; the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; the 

U.S. Export-Import Bank; the Trade and Development Agency; the Overseas 

Private Investment Corporation; the Small Business Administration; and 

the Agency for International Development. These agencies provide a 

range of export services, including training potential exporters, 

identifying trade leads, conducting trade missions, offering trade 

finance and insurance, and providing government-to-government advocacy 

and policy support. Another 10 agencies that contribute to export 

promotion are also members of the Trade Promotion Coordinating 

Committee.



[2] Change in the national export strategy reporting date resulted in 

no 1999 strategy, and the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee did 

not prepare a 2001 strategy.



[3] The big emerging markets are Argentina, Brazil, the Chinese 

Economic Area (China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan), Indonesia, India, Mexico, 

Poland, South Africa, South Korea, and Turkey.



[4] USAID’s primary mission is development.



[5] Based on the provisions of the act, we considered the annual 

unified federal trade promotion budget as one that coordinates, 

consolidates, and prioritizes funding of all federal agency export 

promotion and financing programs and activities.



[6] This includes the Central European countries of Poland, Hungary, 

the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, 

Lituania, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Yugoslavia 

(Serbia and Montenegro) Albania, and Turkey.



[7] Movement of staff to overseas posts can take several years to 

complete.



[8] The G-6 countries are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and 

the United Kingdom.



[9] U.S. Department of Commerce, “US&FCS Poland: Effective Post Needs 

Attention to Certain Management Issues,” Inspection Report No. IPE-9288 

(Washington, DC: Apr. 22, 1997).



[10] U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Inspector General, 

“Semiannual Report to the Congress, April 1 to September 30, 2001.”



[11] The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (P.L. 103-465).



[12] SBA provides Export Working Capital loans for amounts below $1 

million; the Eximbank provides Export Working Capital Loans for amounts 

above $1 million.



[13] Our report, Export Promotion: Government Agencies Should Combine 

Small Business Export Training Programs, GAO-01-1023 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 21, 2001), recommended that the TPCC eliminate duplication of 

export training services and that the U.S. Export Assistance Centers 

follow up on new-to-export training participants to better identify the 

training needs of small businesses.



[14] Small-and medium-sized enterprises are those that employ fewer 

than 500 employees.



[15] This assistance can take the form of high-level official visits, 

letters to foreign decision makers, and coordinated action by U.S. 

government agencies for businesses of all types and sizes.



[16] Fiscal year 2001 and 2002 data are year to date due to the lag 

time for determining results of advocacy actions.



[17] The Advocacy Center counts as a success those procurement bids won 

by the U.S. firm.



[18] The SBA’s International Trade Program provides small businesses 

involved in exporting a guarantee up to $1.25 million for a combination 

of fixed asset financing and working capital.



[19] The Export Express Program provides export financing to small 

businesses whose borrowing needs are too small to be profitably met by 

lenders using the Export Working Capital and the International Trade 

loan programs.



[20] The Eximbank is required to provide not less than 10 percent of 

its aggregate loans, guarantees, and insurance to small businesses.



[21] For a more complete description of export training, see U.S. 

General Accounting Office report, Export Promotion: Government Agencies 

Should Combine Small Business Export Training Programs, GAO-01-1023 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2001).



[22] Our review of the Department of Agriculture’s export promotion 

activities was limited to interviews about the Department’s 

coordination with other TPCC agencies at the foreign posts we visited, 

its participation at TPCC meetings in Washington, D.C., and a cursory 

examination of its Web-based provision of market information.



[23] OPIC’s mandate is to help U.S. businesses invest in overseas 

markets while assisting in the development of emerging countries.



[24] OPIC’s loan requirements call for the firm to have 25 percent 

equity in the project.



GAO’s Mission:



The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 

exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 

of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 

of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 

analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 

informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 

good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.



Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:



The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains 

abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 

expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 

engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 

can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 

graphics.



Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 

Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 

files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 

released products” under the GAO Reports heading.



Order by Mail or Phone:



The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 

each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 

of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to:



U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548:



To order by Phone: 	Voice: 	(202) 512-6000 

TDD: 	(202) 512-2537

Fax: 	(202) 512-6061



To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:



Contact:



Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470



Public Affairs:



Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548: