a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2002 EXPORT 

PROMOTION

Mixed Progress in 

Achieving a 

Governmentwide 

Strategy

GAO-02-850
Page i GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

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

Specific Goals or Use of Resources 7

TPCC Has Had Modest Success in Coordinating Agency

Programs 15

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

Export Participation 19

Conclusions 21

Recommendations for Executive Action 21

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 21

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 24

Appendix II: U.S. Agencies’ Trade Promotion Services 27

Export Training 27

Developing Market Information 28

Trade Events 30

Trade Finance for Major Projects 31

Advocacy 32

Appendix III: Budgets of Export Promotion Agencies in Constant 2001 

Dollars (in Millions, Fiscal Years 1996 through 2001) 34

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

2001 35

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

2001 38

Appendix VI: Comments from the Trade Promotion Coordinating 

Committee 40

Table Table 1: Export Promotion Services and Federal Providers 27

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

Promotion Activities, Fiscal Years 1996 and 2002 5

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 11
Contents

Page ii GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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 12

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
Page 1 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

September 4, 2002 Letr

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.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 

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.
Page 2 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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.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”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 

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. 
Page 3 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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 smalland 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 mediumsized 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 
Page 4 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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, 
Page 5 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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)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

4

USAID’s primary mission is development.

12% • Commerce

50% • Agriculture

•30%

Export-Import 

Bank

•

Other

Other includes: Trade and Development Agency - 2%; 

Small Business Administration - 0%; State - 5%; 

U.S. Trade Representative 1%

11% • Commerce

42% • Agriculture 39%

•

Export-Import 

Bank

•

Other

8% 8%

Other includes: Trade and Development Agency - 3%; 

Small Business Administration - 0%; State - 4%; 

U.S. Trade Representative 1%

FY 1996 FY 2002
Page 6 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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,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.

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.
Page 7 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion 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.
Page 8 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion 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 Europe6

 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.

6

This includes the Central European countries of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, 

Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lituania, Slovenia, Croatia, BosniaHerzegovina, Macedonia, Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) Albania, and Turkey.
Page 9 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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.
Page 10 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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.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).8

 In fiscal 

year 2001, the distribution changed to 37 percent in the BEMs and 17 

percent in G-6 countries. (See fig. 2.)

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.
Page 11 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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

Source: Department of Commerce.

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.)

G-6

Countries

206

Other

Countries

413

BEM

Countries

293

G-6

Countries

209

Other

Countries

571

BEM

Countries

465

FY 1996 total staff - 912 FY 2001 total staff - 1,245

46%

17%

37%

45%

23%

32%
Page 12 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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

Source: Department of Agriculture.

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

G-6

Countries

57

Other

Countries

138

BEM

Countries

67

52%

22%

26%

FY 1996 total staff - 262 FY 2001 total staff - 244

G-6

Countries

51

Other

Countries

122

BEM

Countries

71

50%

21%

29%
Page 13 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

a priority.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.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,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 subSaharan 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 

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).

10U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Inspector General, “Semiannual Report to the 

Congress, April 1 to September 30, 2001.” 

11The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (P.L. 103-465).
Page 14 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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.
Page 15 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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.
Page 16 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

• 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.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 

12SBA provides Export Working Capital loans for amounts below $1 million; the Eximbank 

provides Export Working Capital Loans for amounts above $1 million.
Page 17 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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-toexport firms. Our 2001 report13 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.

13Our 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.
Page 18 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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 
Page 19 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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).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.15 From 

November 1993 through fiscal year 2002,16 the Advocacy Center reported 

685 successes,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,18 and the Export Express

14Small- and medium-sized enterprises are those that employ fewer than 500 employees.

15This 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. 

16Fiscal year 2001 and 2002 data are year to date due to the lag time for determining results 

of advocacy actions.

17The Advocacy Center counts as a success those procurement bids won by the U.S. firm.

18The 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.
Page 20 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

Program.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.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.)

19The 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.

20The Eximbank is required to provide not less than 10 percent of its aggregate loans, 

guarantees, and insurance to small businesses.
Page 21 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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-toexport 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 agencyspecific 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 
Page 22 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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 
Page 23 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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
Page 24 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

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 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 25 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 26 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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.
Page 27 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

Appendix II

U.S. Agencies’ Trade Promotion Services ApendxiI

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 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,

Federal providers

Export promotion services DOC USDA State SBA EXIM OPIC TDA USAID USTR

Export training X X X X

Developing market information X X X X X X X

Trade events X X X X

Trade finance X X X X X

Advocacy X X X X X X X X X
Appendix II

U.S. Agencies’ Trade Promotion Services

Page 28 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

and sometimes provides opportunities to participate in agency-led trade 

missions.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 Webbased 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 

21For 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).
Appendix II

U.S. Agencies’ Trade Promotion Services

Page 29 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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 
Appendix II

U.S. Agencies’ Trade Promotion Services

Page 30 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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.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 

22Our 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. 
Appendix II

U.S. Agencies’ Trade Promotion Services

Page 31 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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
Appendix II

U.S. Agencies’ Trade Promotion Services

Page 32 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

of repayment and commercial financing is scarce,23 OPIC may provide the 

U.S. firm with loans or insurance,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 

23OPIC’s mandate is to help U.S. businesses invest in overseas markets while assisting in the 

development of emerging countries. 

24OPIC’s loan requirements call for the firm to have 25 percent equity in the project. 
Appendix II

U.S. Agencies’ Trade Promotion Services

Page 33 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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 mediumsized 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.
Page 34 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

Appendix III

Budgets of Export Promotion Agencies in 

Constant 2001 Dollars (in Millions, Fiscal 

Years 1996 through 2001) ApendxiI

a

Totals may not add due to rounding.

Source: National Export Strategies and federal budget documents.

FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

Commerce

Trade Development $61 $62 $61 $61 $63 $64 $66

Market Access and Compliance 20 18 18 18 20 25 27

U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service HQ 19 19 17 17 20 16 16

U.S. Commercial Service (Domestic) 36 36 32 31 34 34 33

Foreign Commercial Service (Overseas) 123 121 136 126 131 142 140

Administrative No data No data 13 13 12 12 13

Commerce Export Promotion Activitiesa 258 258 277 265 281 293 294

Agriculture

Export Enhancement Program 5 0 2 1 2 7 467

Dairy Export Incentive Program 22 130 116 151 80 8 60

Market Access Program 98 97 95 94 92 90 88

Foreign Market Development Program 37 36 36 29 29 28 27

P.L. 480 Title I - Food Aid 317 217 267 867 354 214 171

CCC Export Credit Guarantees 467 4 216 195 218 198 408

Foreign Agricultural Service 50 57 57 56 55 55 54

Agriculture Export Promotion Activitiesa 998 541 789 1,394 830 600 1,275

Export Import Bank 910 828 773 851 833 928 748

U.S. Trade and Development Agency 65 58 66 64 57 64 49

Overseas Private Investment Corporation (117) (126) (185) (183) (209) (206) (245)

Small Business Administration 7 10 11 13 13 14 12

State Department 98 102 105 127 127 129 124

U.S. Trade Representative 23 23 24 27 27 30 29

U.S. Agency for International Development 723 579 450 0 0 0 0

Total Budget for Export Promotion Activities 

(excluding OPIC and USAID programs) $2,359 $1,819 $2,045 $2,741 $2,168 $2,058 $2,532
Page 35 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

Appendix IV

FCS Overseas Staff by Country, Fiscal Years 

1996 through 2001 ApendxiIV

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

#Staffa #Offices #Staffa #Offices #Staffa #Offices #Staffa #Offices #Staffa #Offices #Staffa #Offices

Algeria 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Argentinab 10 1 17 1 21 1 22 1 23 1 24 1

Armenia 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Australia 17 4 17 3 18 3 19 3 20 3 20 4

Austria 7 1 8 1 5 1 8 1 8 1 7 1

Azerbaijan 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1

Barbados 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Belarus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Belgium 17 2 17 2 16 2 16 2 18 2 23 2

Brazilb 30 4 54 4 56 4 60 4 62 5 69 5

Bulgaria 3 1 9 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 6 1

Canada 24 6 31 7 32 7 29 7 29 7 32 7

Chile 10 1 14 1 14 1 14 1 14 1 15 1

Chinab 50 5 63 5 80 5 86 5 81 5 83 5

Colombia 10 1 11 1 10 1 11 1 11 1 13 1

Costa Rica 3 1 6 1 5 1 6 1 6 1 5 1

Cote 

d’Ivoire 6 2 10 2 11 2 11 2 11 2 11 2

Croatia 1 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 4 1

Czech 

Republic 5 1 8 1 11 1 11 1 10 1 5 1

Denmark 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 4 1

Dominican 

Republic 5 1 9 1 13 1 11 1 12 1 11 1

Ecuador 6 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2

Egypt 12 2 15 2 13 2 14 2 12 2 16 2

Finland 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1

France 34 6 34 6 36 6 34 5 33 6 32 5

Georgia 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Germany 47 7 49 7 48 7 48 6 49 6 39 6

Ghana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

Greece 9 1 10 1 9 1 9 1 12 2 12 2

Guatemala 4 1 5 1 9 1 7 1 7 1 7 1

Haiti 0 0 3 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 4 1

Honduras 2 1 4 1 5 1 5 1 4 1 4 1
Appendix IV

FCS Overseas Staff by Country, Fiscal Years 

1996 through 2001

Page 36 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

Hong Kongb 14 1 23 1 22 1 21 1 22 1 19 1

Hungary 8 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 9 1 9 1

Indiab 30 5 33 5 48 7 52 7 54 7 58 8

Indonesiab 17 2 25 2 23 2 28 2 43 2 41 2

Ireland 4 1 6 1 6 1 5 1 6 1 6 1

Ireland, 

Northern 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1

Israel 14 2 15 2 15 2 15 2 16 2 14 2

Italy 25 5 24 5 26 5 26 5 26 5 25 5

Jamaica 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1

Japan 57 5 59 5 52 5 51 5 53 5 50 5

Jordan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1

Kazakstan 6 1 12 1 11 1 11 1 10 1 9 1

Kenya 4 1 3 1 2 1 4 1 11 1 8 1

Koreab 23 1 28 1 27 1 24 1 27 1 24 1

Kuwait 6 1 9 1 7 1 7 1 10 1 6 1

Latvia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 1

Lebanon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

Malaysia 9 1 14 1 12 1 14 1 14 1 13 1

Mexicob 61 3 76 3 73 3 75 3 70 3 66 4

Morocco 3 2 5 2 4 2 4 2 6 2 6 2

Netherlands 11 2 10 2 12 2 12 2 11 2 12 2

New 

Zealand 4 2 5 2 4 2 3 1 6 2 4 2

Nigeria 7 1 10 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 11 1

Norway 3 1 6 1 6 1 5 1 6 1 6 1

Pakistan 8 3 10 3 9 3 9 3 10 3 10 3

Panama 4 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1

Peru 4 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 1

Philippines 18 2 25 2 20 2 19 2 25 2 22 2

Polanda 9 1 18 1 18 1 18 1 16 1 14 1

Portugal 7 2 8 2 10 2 10 2 9 2 10 2

Romania 4 1 7 1 6 1 6 1 5 1 6 1

Russia 38 3 47 4 43 4 42 4 40 4 40 4

Saudi 

Arabia 24 3 35 3 35 3 37 3 38 3 34 3

Singapore 17 1 16 1 18 1 19 1 19 1 17 1

(Continued From Previous Page)

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

#Staffa #Offices #Staffa #Offices #Staffa #Offices #Staffa #Offices #Staffa #Offices #Staffa #Offices
Appendix IV

FCS Overseas Staff by Country, Fiscal Years 

1996 through 2001

Page 37 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

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.

Slovak 

Republic 1 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3 1

South 

Africab 11 3 19 3 16 3 21 3 24 3 24 3

Spain 15 2 17 2 18 2 18 2 17 2 17 2

Sweden 8 1 9 1 9 1 10 1 10 1 9 1

Switzerland 7 3 8 3 8 3 8 3 8 3 9 3

Taiwanb 25 2 28 2 26 2 26 2 28 2 30 2

Thailand 18 1 23 1 22 1 23 1 22 1 19 1

Trinidad/

Tobago 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Turkeyb 13 3 13 3 14 3 14 3 15 3 13 3

UAE 9 2 9 2 10 2 9 2 11 2 9 2

Ukraine 7 1 16 1 13 1 13 1 13 1 12 1

United 

Kingdom 19 2 21 2 25 2 26 2 29 2 31 2

Uruguay 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 2 1

Uzbekistan 4 1 6 1 7 1 7 1 9 1 7 1

Venezuela 10 1 14 1 16 1 15 1 18 1 20 1

Vietnam 1 1 4 1 12 2 12 2 20 2 5 2

Yugoslavia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

Total 912 137 1,168 143 1,198 148 1,222 146 1,286 155 1,245 157

(Continued From Previous Page)

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

#Staffa #Offices #Staffa #Offices #Staffa #Offices #Staffa #Offices #Staffa #Offices #Staffa #Offices
Page 38 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

Appendix V

FAS Overseas Staff by Country, Fiscal Years 

1996 through 2001 ApendxiV

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

#Staff #Offices #Staff #Offices #Staff #Offices #Staff #Offices #Staff #Offices #Staff #Offices

Argentinaa 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 15 15 1

Australia 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1

Austria 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1

Bangladesh 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Belgium 8 2 7 2 8 2 8 2 6 2 6 2

Brazila 8 2 8 2 8 2 7 28 28 2

Bulgaria 4 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1

Burma 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Canada 5 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 5 1 5 1

Chile 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1

Chinaa 6 3 6 3 6 3 5 35 37 3

Colombia 3 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1

Costa Rica 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1

Cote d’Ivoire 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1

Czech Republic 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Denmark 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 1

Dominican 

Republic 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1

Ecuador 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

Egypt 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 2 1

France 8 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 6 1 6 1

Germany 10 2 9 2 10 2 8 2 8 2 9 2

Greece 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1

Guatemala 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1

Hong Konga 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 13 13 1

Hungary 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Indiaa 7 1 8 1 7 1 7 17 17 1

Indonesiaa 4 1 5 2 5 2 5 25 25 2

Ireland 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Israel 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Italy 9 2 9 3 9 3 9 3 7 2 7 2

Japan 19 3 21 3 21 3 18 3 20 3 20 3

Kazakhstan 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Kenya 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Appendix V

FAS Overseas Staff by Country, Fiscal Years 

1996 through 2001

Page 39 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

a

Countries in Big Emerging Markets as defined in TPCC’s 1994 National Export Strategy.

Source: Department of Agriculture.

Koreaa 8 1 9 1 9 1 9 19 19 1

Latvia 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Malaysia 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1

Mexicoa 11 2 13 2 12 2 13 2 13 2 14 3

Morocco 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1

Netherlands 5 1 4 1 5 1 4 1 6 1 6 1

New Zealand 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1

Nigeria 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1

Pakistan 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1

Peru 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1

Philippines 5 1 5 1 5 1 4 1 5 1 4 1

Polandb 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 14 13 1

Portugal 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1

Romania 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Russia 8 1 9 1 9 2 9 2 9 2 8 2

Saudia Arabia 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 2 1 2 1

Serbia 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Singapore 4 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 1

South Africaa 6 1 5 1 6 1 6 16 16 1

Spain 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1

Sri Lanka 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sweden 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3 1

Switzerland 3 2 4 2 4 2 4 1 4 1 4 1

Syria 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Thailand 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1

Tunisia 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1

Turkeya 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 14 14 1

UAE 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1

Ukraine 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

United 

Kingdom 6 1 5 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 4 1

Venezuela 5 1 5 1 5 1 4 1 5 1 4 1

Vietnam 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total 262 76 253 75 255 76 245 73 243 72 244 73

(Continued From Previous Page)

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

#Staff #Offices #Staff #Offices #Staff #Offices #Staff #Offices #Staff #Offices #Staff #Offices
Page 40 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

Appendix VI

Comments from the Trade Promotion 

Coordinating Committee ApendxiVI
Appendix VI

Comments from the Trade Promotion 

Coordinating Committee

Page 41 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy
Page 42 GAO-02-850 Export Promotion Strategy

Appendix VI

(320082)
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 fulltext 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
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00