Agricultural Trade: USDA Is Monitoring Market Development Programs as Required but Could Improve Analysis of Impact
Published: 2013-07-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: USDA administers five programs to assist U.S. agricultural industry efforts to build, maintain, and expand overseas markets. However, members of Congress continue to debate the level of funding for this assistance and its impact on agricultural exports. USDA provides about $250 million annually for the five market development programs. MAP and FMD received about 90 percent of this funding in fiscal year 2012, with allocations of $200 million and $34.5 million, respectively.
GAO was asked to review USDA's market development programs. This report (1) describes participation and expenditures in these market development programs, particularly MAP and FMD; (2) examines FAS's management and monitoring of its market development programs; and (3) assesses FAS's cost-benefit analysis of MAP's and FMD's impact on the U.S. economy. GAO analyzed USDA expenditure data from 2002 through 2011 and reviewed key agency and program participant documents. GAO also assessed a sample of participants' annual progress reports and assessed economic cost-benefit analyses of MAP and FMD commissioned by USDA.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Market development program participants use program funds to support a variety of activities intended to raise awareness or acceptance of U.S. agricultural products in overseas markets. Common activities include, among others, market research, consumer and retail promotion, and participation in international trade shows. GAO's analysis of expenditure data from 2007 through 2011 shows that participants in the Market Access Program (MAP) and the Foreign Market Development Program (FMD)--the largest of the five market development programs--remained generally consistent during that period. The program participants with the largest shares of funding and the countries where the largest shares of funds were spent also remained relatively consistent. Expenditure data for 2011 show that MAP and FMD participants met or exceeded FAS contribution requirements that they match minimum percentages of the program funding they receive. Unlike funding for the other programs, a portion of MAP funds is used for promotion of branded products. In 2011, MAP participants spent about 85 percent of program funding on overseas promotion of generic commodities. More than 600 small companies and seven agricultural cooperatives spent the remaining 15 percent of MAP funding to promote branded products.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) uses several management and monitoring processes to reduce the risk of duplication among the five programs. FAS uses an integrated system to process funding applications for multiple programs and to monitor expenditures, which reduces the risk of duplication. According to FAS officials, FAS also monitors participants' expenses for all programs through its compliance review process. In addition, FAS guidance requires program participants to submit annual progress reports on the results of their market development activities. GAO found that performance measures in a sample of progress reports generally reflected selected FAS guidance and key attributes of successful performance measures that GAO had identified. However, the sampled reports did not always outline the methodologies used to assess activity results as required by FAS guidelines. In these cases, it would be difficult for FAS to determine the reliability of the reported results and the impact of market development activities.
A 2007 cost-benefit analysis of MAP and FMD, commissioned by FAS, found that the programs increased U.S. agricultural exports and benefited the U.S. economy, but methodological limitations may affect the magnitude of the estimated benefits. Overall, the analysis asserted that the government's expenditures for the two programs resulted in greater increases in U.S. agricultural exports and greater benefit to the U.S. economy than would have occurred without the expenditures. However, an economic model used to estimate the programs' impact on U.S. market share omitted important variables, such as commodity prices. Also, the study did not include sensitivity analyses of certain key assumptions underlying its estimates of impacts on U.S. exports. For example, analyses of the possible effects of varying levels of program funding would provide a clearer picture of the potential impact of increased or decreased funding on U.S. exports and the economy. FAS officials reported that they plan to commission a new cost-benefit analysis in 2014 but have not yet identified the methodologies that the new analysis will use.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that USDA (1) emphasize that market development program participants' annual progress reports should identify the methodologies used to assess results and (2) ensure that any economic models used in future cost-benefit analyses of the programs include industry-specific variables and sensitivity analyses of key assumptions. USDA concurred with GAO's recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides about $250 million  annually for five market development programs intended to help U.S.  agricultural producers increase their exports by building, maintaining, and  expanding their overseas markets. In 2010, the administration  highlighted the importance of increasing exports, including agricultural  exports, when it launched the National Export Initiative with the goal of  doubling the dollar value of U.S. exports by 2015. However, members of  Congress have debated the level of funding for market development  assistance and the impact it has on agricultural exports. The two largest  of USDA’s five market development programs—the Market Access  Program (MAP) and the Foreign Market Development Program (FMD)— received authorizations of, respectively, $200 million and $34.5 million of  USDA’s annual market development program funding in fiscal year 2012.  The three remaining programs’ authorizations ranged from $2 million to  $10 million in fiscal year 2012. USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)  administers the five programs. We last reported on MAP in 1999, when  we found that USDA’s estimate of the program’s impact on the U.S.  economy may have been overstated and that evidence of the program’s  impact from available market-level studies was inconclusive. More  recently, USDA commissioned a cost-benefit analysis of MAP’s and  FMD’s economic impact, which was completed in 2007 and updated in  2010.
You asked us to review several aspects of FAS’s five market  development programs. This report (1) describes participation and  expenditures in the programs, particularly MAP and FMD; (2) examines  FAS’s management and monitoring of its market development programs;  and (3) assesses FAS’s cost-benefit analysis of MAP’s and FMD’s impact  on the U.S. economy. Because MAP and FMD receive most of USDA’s  market development funding—about 90 percent in 2012—we focused our  review primarily on participation in these two programs. Appendix III  provides participant expenditure data on the three smaller programs—the  Emerging Markets Program (EMP), the Quality Samples Program (QSP),  and the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program (TASC).
We analyzed USDA’s market development program expenditure data for  participants in each of the five programs for 2002 through 2011. We also  reviewed key agency and program participant documents, including  program regulations and guidelines and selected participant applications  and strategies. We interviewed FAS officials in Washington, D.C., and at  Agricultural Trade Offices in Japan and Mexico. We also met with several  program participants in their domestic headquarters and with their  overseas representatives in Japan and Mexico, where we observed some  market promotion and maintenance activities. We assessed a random but  nongeneralizeable sample of participants’ annual progress reports, using  FAS and GAO criteria for performance measures. In addition, we used  FAS expenditure data to develop the sample of progress reports from 20  participants and a specific country where they were active in 2008, 2009,  and 2010, for a total of 60 country progress reports. On the basis of  electronic and manual data testing and interviews with knowledgeable  USDA staff members, we determined that the data were sufficiently  reliable for our purposes. Further, we analyzed FAS’s cost-benefit  analyses of MAP and FMD evaluating the impact of these programs on  the U.S. economy, and we interviewed agency officials, consultants, and  academics involved in these analyses. Finally, we reviewed relevant  research about the economic impacts of FAS’s market development  programs, reviewed Office of Management and Budget guidance for  conducting cost-benefit analyses, and reviewed GAO’s cost estimation  guide. (For a full description of our scope and methodology, see app. I.)
We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 to July 2013 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: FAS administers USDA’s five market development programs on behalf of  the Commodity Credit Corporation, which is owned and operated by the  U.S. government. The programs provide matching funds to support U.S.  industry efforts to build, maintain, and expand commercial overseas  markets for U.S. agricultural products, with the overarching goal of  increasing agricultural exports. Congress authorizes a maximum level of  the corporation’s funds to be used for USDA’s market development  programs, with the exception of QSP, through 5-year farm bills. (Table 1  shows authorizations for the five programs for fiscal years 2002 through  2012.) Many other countries also provide government funding to promote  agricultural exports that compete with U.S exports in the world market.  The World Trade Organization does not consider such expenditures to be  trade distorting and therefore does not restrict these expenditures,  according to USDA officials.
Participants in these programs include nonprofit agricultural trade  associations; agricultural cooperatives that promote their own brand  name; and state regional trade groups. The majority of market  development funds are used for promotion of generic U.S. commodities,  with no emphasis on a particular brand; however a portion of MAP funds  may be used for promotion of branded products. When considering  applications for funding, FAS gives priority to applicants with the broadest  producer representation and affiliated industry participation of the  commodity being promoted. Appendix II shows participants in the five  market development programs in fiscal year 2012 and their award  amounts. These organizations may participate in more than one of the  five market development programs.
After approving an application for participation in a market development  program, FAS sets the participant’s funding level and signs a program  agreement with the participant. FAS provides a program approval letter,  which outlines approved activities and their budget levels, and program  funds are expended through reimbursement of the participant’s expense  claims for approved activities. The five programs have different  requirements related to participants’ matching contributions, which FAS  refers to as “cost-sharing”; these requirements ensure that program funds  are supplemental. MAP requires participants that receive funding for  promotion of generic products to make contributions to the program that  are worth at least 10 percent of the funding they receive, although FAS  encourages participants to commit in their program applications to  contributing more than the minimum required. Eligible contributions  include cash; the cost of acquiring materials; and in-kind contributions,  such as professional staff time spent on design and execution of  activities. The MAP branded products program and FMD require  participants to make a minimum contribution of 50 percent. EMP, TASC,  and QSP do not require minimum or maximum contributions, but  applicants are expected to propose the amount they will contribute. For all  five programs, the contribution levels that participants commit to is an  important factor FAS considers in approving applications for funding,  according to FAS officials. In addition, MAP and FMD participants must  certify that program funds supplement, and do not supplant, any private  funds, while applications for the other three programs must state why the  applicants could not achieve their objectives without government funds.
In addition to having different contribution requirements, the five market  development programs have different funding levels, objectives, and  criteria for approving applications for funding.
Market Access Program. MAP is the largest of the five programs,  with a current annual authorization of $200 million—about 80 percent  of USDA’s total annual market development funding. In fiscal year  2012, 66 program participants received MAP awards, which ranged  from about $17,000 to almost $20 million (see app. II). MAP was  established in 1985 to aid in the development, expansion, and  maintenance of foreign markets for U.S. agricultural commodities and  products by sharing the costs of overseas marketing and promotional  activities. A portion of MAP funds is used for promotion of brand- name products by cooperatives or by small, for-profit businesses that  apply through state regional trade groups or other MAP participants.  In addition, unlike participants in the MAP generic products program,  small businesses promoting branded products are subject to a  “graduation requirement,” which limits them to no more than 5 years  of promotions in a given country. The MAP regulations for market  development for generic and branded products identify eligible  expenditures and criteria that FAS is to consider in approving  applications and determining funding levels. Eligible expenditures  include, among others, advertising, point-of-sale materials, in-store  and food service promotions and product demonstrations, seminars  and educational training, participation in trade shows, market  research, and independent evaluations and audits. The process for  approving applications for MAP funding involves applying a variety of  qualitative criteria, including the adequacy of the applicant’s plan for  addressing market constraints and opportunities, prior export  promotion experience, past program results, and the suitability of the  applicant’s plan for performance measurement. The MAP regulations  also list quantitative criteria for determining award amounts for  qualified applicants, including the size of the budget request relative to  the projected value of exports of the commodity being promoted, the  size of the budget request relative to the actual value of exports of the  commodity in prior years, and the applicant’s proposed contribution  level.
Foreign Market Development Program. FMD, which was  established in 1954, provides $34.5 million per year to nonprofit  agricultural associations representing U.S. agricultural producers and  processors, to create, expand, and maintain long-term export markets  primarily for generic bulk commodities. In fiscal year 2012, 24 FMD  participants received award amounts ranging from about $16,000 to  more than $5 million (see app. II). FMD allows many of the same  expenditures as MAP, such as market research and product  demonstrations; however, unlike MAP, FMD funds may not be used  for activities targeted directly at consumers. The qualitative criteria for  approving applications for participation in FMD and the quantitative  factors for determining award amounts are also similar to those for  MAP. Examples of these quantitative factors include the applicant’s  contribution level and the value of exports being promoted.
Emerging Markets Program. EMP, which was established in 1990,  provides up to $10 million annually to U.S private-sector, university,  or government entities for technical assistance activities intended to  promote exports of U.S. agricultural commodities and products in  emerging markets by improving their food and business systems and  reducing potential trade barriers. In 2012, FAS awarded EMP funds  to 35 entities, some of which received funding for more than one EMP  project, with total awards per participant ranging from $14,000 to  about $500,000 (see app. II). Types of projects funded may include  feasibility studies, market research, sector assessments, orientation  visits, specialized training, business workshops, and similar  undertakings. EMP is not intended for projects targeted at end-user  consumers. Ineligible expenses include branded product promotions  (e.g., in-store promotions, restaurant advertising, labeling);  advertising, administrative, and operational expenses for trade shows;  website development; equipment purchases; and the preparation and  printing of brochures, flyers, and posters. The EMP regulations list the  criteria FAS is to consider in reviewing applications for funding.  Among these criteria are the applicant’s willingness to contribute  resources; the degree to which the proposed project is likely to  contribute to the development, maintenance, or expansion of U.S.  agricultural exports to emerging markets; and a demonstration of how  the proposed project will benefit a particular industry as a whole.  Individual projects are unlikely to be approved at levels above  $500,000, and funding for continuing and substantially similar projects  is generally limited to 3 years.
Quality Samples Program. QSP, which was established in 1999,  currently provides $2 million annually to assist U.S. organizations in  supplying commodity samples to potential foreign importers.  Projects focus on industry and manufacturing, rather than on end-use  consumers, and are intended to promote U.S. food and fiber products.  In fiscal year 2012, 12 program participants received QSP funding, in  most cases for multiple projects, with total awards per participant  ranging from $5,000 to $460,000 (see app. II). QSP funding for  individual projects is limited to $75,000, and the projects should be  completed within a year of approval by FAS. Eligible expenditures  include the sample purchase price and the cost of transporting the  samples domestically to the port of export and from there to the  foreign port or point-of-entry. Samples provided in a QSP project may  not be directly used as part of a retail promotion or supplied directly to  consumers. The annual QSP Notice of Funds Availability spells out  the criteria that FAS is to use for approving applications for QSP  funding. These criteria include, among others, the potential for  expanding commercial sales in the proposed market; the importer’s  contribution in terms of handling and processing the sample; the  amount of funding requested and the applicant’s willingness to  contribute resources; and how well the proposal’s technical  assistance will demonstrate the intended end-use benefit.
Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program. TASC, which  was established in 2002, is currently authorized under the 2008 farm  bill, as extended by the American Tax Payer Relief Act of 2012, to  provide a maximum of $9 million to U.S. entities, for projects that  address sanitary, phytosanitary, and technical barriers that prohibit or  limit U.S. specialty crop exports.  Any U.S. organization may receive  TASC funding, including, but not limited to, U.S. government and state  government agencies, nonprofit trade associations, universities,  agricultural cooperatives, and private businesses. In 2012, FAS  awarded funds to 24 participants, some of whom received funding for  multiple projects, and total funding awarded to each participant  ranged from about $1.3 million to $14,000 (see app. II). FAS will not  consider proposals for TASC funding that exceed $500,000 in a given  year. Examples of eligible expenditures include seminars and  workshops, study tours, field surveys, development of pest lists, and  pest and disease research. Certain types of expenses are not eligible  for reimbursement, such as the costs of market research, advertising,  and other promotional expenses. The TASC regulations list a variety  of criteria that FAS is to consider in evaluating applications for  funding, including, among others, the viability and completeness of  the proposal, the potential trade impact of the project on issues such  as market retention, and the cost and level of contributions from the  applicant.
section_title: Participants in MAP and FMD Have Remained Relatively Consistent in Recent Years
paragraphs: Participants in USDA’s market development programs use program funds  to support a variety of activities intended to raise awareness or  acceptance of U.S. agricultural products in overseas markets. MAP and  FMD participants, their share of program expenditures, and the countries  where they spent the majority of program funds remained relatively  consistent from 2007 through 2011. Unlike funds for the other programs,  a portion of MAP funds is used for promotion of branded products. In  2011, MAP participants spent about 85 percent of program funding on  overseas promotion of generic commodities; more than 600 small  companies and seven agricultural cooperatives spent the remaining 15  percent of MAP funding to promote branded products. MAP and FMD  participants met or exceeded those programs’ requirements for minimum  matching contributions. Appendix III shows EMP, QSP, and TASC  participant expenditures in 2011.
subsections: section_title: Program Participants Have Conducted a Variety of Activities to Promote Their Products Overseas
paragraphs: Market development program participants have used program funds to  conduct a variety of activities intended to raise awareness or acceptance  of U.S. agricultural products in overseas markets. Participants have also  used program funds to address technical barriers that prohibit or limit  specialty crop exports. Many program participants receive funding from  more than one of the five market development programs. For instance, in  fiscal year 2012, 22 of the 66 MAP participants received funds from FMD,  and 22 of the 24 FMD participants received funds from MAP. In addition,  all 12 QSP participants, 6 of the 24 TASC participants, and 18 of the 35  EMP participants received funds from at least one other program (see  app. II for additional details). The following paragraphs present examples  of five participants’ use of 2011 program funds for market development  efforts in Japan and Mexico. Common activities undertaken included,  among others, market research, consumer and retail promotion,  participation in international trade shows, and reverse trade missions, in  which foreign buyers visit U.S. agricultural producers.
The American Hardwood Export Council used more than $1.7 million in  2011 MAP and FMD funds for multiple generic product promotional efforts  in Japan. According to a council representative, consumers in Japan  value wood products from trees that are harvested legally and  sustainably, which provides a marketing advantage for American  hardwood compared with woods from tropical competitors. We visited  furniture stores in Japan displaying the American Hardwood Export  Council’s informational handouts, which highlight the sustainability and  legality of American hardwoods used in the furniture. The council’s efforts  in Japan also include educating designers and architects about the  environmental advantage—that is, the smaller carbon “footprint”—of  sustainable wood products compared with synthetic material. The council  also conducts educational efforts aimed at explaining to Japanese  furniture and flooring manufacturers, designers, and architects that  discoloration and curving grains are wood characteristics rather than  imperfections, because, according to a council representative, straight  wood grain has traditionally been favored in Japan.
California Table Grape Commission used about $271,000 in 2011 MAP  funds for generic product promotional activities in Mexico. Commission  representatives informed us that in-store promotional activities are the  most effective means of reaching the customer. Promotional activities  include in-store grape display competitions as well as promotions with  other U.S. fruit groups, such as apples and pears. The commission also  used MAP funding to conduct in-store grape sampling demonstrations at  major retail chains throughout Mexico to demonstrate the quality of  California grapes. In 2010 and 2011, FAS authorized the commission to  use TASC funds for activities to remove, resolve, or mitigate sanitary,  phytosanitary, and related barriers that prohibit or threaten the export of  U.S. specialty crops in multiple countries. In 2011, the commission  received an allocation of more than $363,000 for a multiyear TASC  project to conduct research and provide the ancillary staffing and supplies  needed to identify postharvest treatment protocols to eliminate invasive  pests in U.S. grape exports.
Cotton Council International used more than $2.7 million in MAP and  FMD funds in 2011 for generic product promotion activities in Japan.  These activities—such as educating Japanese consumers about the  benefits and unique characteristics of cotton versus other fibers and  conducting advertising, public relations, and promotions—were intended  to increase consumer preference for cotton and retailer demand for  fabrics made from U.S. cotton. According to representatives from Cotton  Council International, increasing demand for clothing made with U.S.  cotton in a large consumer market, such as Japan, also increases exports  of cotton fiber to other countries that manufacture cotton garments for  sale to retail buyers in Japan.
The Western United States Agricultural Trade Association (WUSATA)  provided a total of about $926,000 in MAP funds for market development  activities in Japan and Mexico in 2011. WUSATA, which is one of four  state regional trade groups with responsibility for supporting MAP  branded product promotion for small businesses, directed more than half  of this funding to 34 small businesses to support their branded product  promotions in Japan and Mexico. WUSATA allocates the majority of its  annual MAP funds to more than 200 small businesses and cooperatives  based in 13 western states, according to WUSATA officials. WUSATA  also uses some of its MAP funds for generic product promotion, primarily  for participation in numerous international trade shows and for inbound  and outbound trade missions. In addition, WUSATA devotes some MAP  funding for generic product promotion and outreach efforts to small  businesses to encourage them to consider exporting their products and  use assistance from the MAP program. WUSATA officials noted that  many businesses are unaware of their products’ overseas market  potential.
The Wine Institute used more than $106,000 in 2011 MAP funds for  generic product promotional activities in Mexico. In Mexico, we observed  a Wine Institute-sponsored promotional event in Mexico City to facilitate  trade contacts between California wine label representatives and Mexican  wine importers. The event was intended to generate publicity for  California wines and increase consumer awareness. In Japan, where  consumers are most familiar with European wines, the Wine Institute  worked with restaurants to promote California wines, according to a Wine  Institute representative. The Wine Institute uses some of its MAP funding  to support branded product promotion by small businesses. In 2011, the  Wine Institute also received a $500,000 TASC allocation for a 5-year  project to prepare and file petitions to the Japanese government to allow  the sale of U.S. wines containing certain additives that are commonly  used by U.S. producers.
section_title: MAP and FMD Program Participants and Expenditures Remained Generally Consistent in Program Years 2007 through 2011
paragraphs: MAP and FMD participants and their share of market development  program expenditures remained relatively consistent from 2007 through  2011, with many of the same participants receiving the majority of funding  each year. Expenditures by the 10 participants that spent the largest  amounts of funding from the two programs in 2011 represented 54 to 57  percent of those programs’ total expenditures in 2007 through 2011 (see  table 2). According to FAS officials, these 10 participants also reflect the  top 10 U.S. exports of agricultural products in 2011, although not in the  same rank order. An FAS official noted that MAP and FMD typically  provide ongoing support for program participants that seek not only to  open new overseas markets but also to maintain export market share.  These participants typically receive funding every year. According to FAS  officials, although a variety of both qualitative and quantitative factors  affect the level of funding provided to participants each year, FAS seeks  to provide a stable level of funding to support participants’ multiyear  market development strategies.
Our analysis of expenditure data from 2002 through 2011 shows that  MAP and FMD participants spent market development funds throughout  the world, consistently spending more than half of the funds in the same  10 countries. (Table 3 shows MAP and FMD expenditures in these  countries in 2011.) The expenditures in these 10 countries accounted  for 66 percent, on average, of total MAP and FMD expenditures from  2002 through 2011. According to an FAS official, participants are  encouraged to direct program funds to markets where they will have the  greatest impact on increasing exports. This official noted that, although  participants use MAP and FMD funds in a variety of export markets, the  majority of their funds are expended in countries with the largest export  markets for U.S. agricultural products.
In 2011, about 15 percent of total MAP expenditures were used to  promote branded products. The four state regional trade groups and five  of the agricultural trade associations in the MAP program allocated a  portion of their MAP funding to small businesses to promote branded  products in foreign markets. Specifically, these groups allocated a total of  more than $22.8 million in MAP funds for branded product promotions in  2011 to 644 small businesses. These small businesses’ average  expenditure in 2011 was about $25,000 and their median expenditure  was $33,000. Small businesses use MAP funding for a variety of  activities, including participation in trade shows, buying missions,  advertising, and in-store demonstrations and promotions. In addition,  seven agricultural cooperatives—Sunkist Growers, Inc.; Blue Diamond  Growers; Sunsweet Growers, Inc.; Sun-Maid Growers of California;  Welch Foods, Inc.; Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.; and Cal-Pure  Pistachios, Inc.—spent about $6.4 million in 2011 to promote their own  brands. According to FAS officials, cooperatives’ activities to promote  their products using a brand name are often similar to the activities of  trade associations promoting generic commodities. Table 4 shows the 16  organizations that participated in the MAP branded products program in  2011, the portions of their total MAP expenditures that were used for  promotions of branded products, and the numbers of small businesses  that the participants’ MAP branded products program expenditures  supported.
From 2002 through 2011, a total of 2,131 unique small businesses  received funding for promotional activities through the MAP branded  products program. Many of the small businesses participated in the MAP  branded products program for multiple years. Of the 2,131 businesses, 41  percent were involved in the branded products program for 1 year, and 59  percent were involved for more than a year. In 2011, 153 small  businesses expended MAP branded program funds for the first time. The  MAP branded products program had, on average, about 638 unique small  businesses per year and supported activities throughout the world. The  largest expenditures of program funding for MAP branded products were  directed to 8 of the 10 countries with the largest expenditures of total  MAP and FMD funding, shown in table 3.
From 2002 through 2011, small businesses in the MAP branded products  program reached the 5-year limit for promoting a product in a given  country—known as the program’s “graduation requirement”—in 1,121  instances. These instances involved 569 businesses in about 80  countries. During this period, 64 businesses used MAP branded products  program funding for more than 5 years in a given country in 82 instances.  According to FAS, participation in certain international trade shows is  exempt from the graduation requirement for the MAP branded products  program.
section_title: Matching Contributions for MAP and FMD Met or Exceeded Minimum Contribution Requirements in 2011
paragraphs: In 2011, all MAP and FMD participants met or exceeded the programs’  required minimum matching contribution levels. The average  contribution level for MAP participants was about 191 percent of MAP  expenditures in 2011, and the median contribution level was about 134  percent.The majority of these participants contributed more than 100  percent of their total expenditures. The average contribution level for all  FMD participants in 2011 was 316 percent, and the median was 232  percent. Nearly all FMD participants provided matching cash and in-kind  contributions of more than 100 percent of total expenditures.
Since 2002, MAP participants’ total contributions have ranged from 138  percent to 198 percent of their total MAP expenditures, and FMD  participants’ total contributions have ranged from 123 percent to 192  percent of their total FMD expenditures. Table 5 compares MAP and FMD  participants’ contributions and expenditures in 2002 through 2011.
section_title: FAS Uses Management Processes to Reduce Duplication Risks, but Some Participants’ Annual Progress Reports Have Not Identified Assessment Methodologies
paragraphs: FAS has established processes to reduce risks of duplication among the  five market development programs, to monitor participant expenditures,  and to assess program results. FAS’s integrated approach includes a  unified database and application process to help mitigate risks of  duplication. In addition, FAS works with participants in the MAP branded  products program to ensure that the small businesses they support are  not receiving funds for similar activities from more than one source; our  review of 2011 data found no small businesses receiving funds from  multiple sources. FAS also conducts regular compliance reviews to verify  participants’ program expenditures and contributions. FAS guidelines  require program participants to submit annual progress reports assessing  results for each country where they conduct market development  activities. In the progress reports that we reviewed, program participants’  performance measures generally reflected requirements in FAS  guidelines as well as key attributes of successful performance  measurement that we identified in previous GAO reports. However, 149  of the 373 performance measures in the reports that we reviewed did not  clearly identify, as the FAS guidelines require, the methodologies used to  assess results for each performance measure, making it difficult to verify  the reported results. FAS guidelines also require MAP and FMD  participants to conduct comprehensive evaluations of their program- funded market development activities when appropriate.
subsections: section_title: FAS Established Integrated Management Processes to Reduce Risks of Duplication among Market Development Programs
paragraphs: FAS integrates its management processes to reduce the risk of  duplication among the market development programs, given that many  participants receive funding from more than one program. Because MAP  and FMD support many of the same goals and allowable expenses and  most FMD participants also participate in MAP, the greatest risk of  duplication is between these two programs. To reduce this risk, FAS uses  an integrated online system, known as the Unified Export Strategy (UES)  system, which participants typically use to apply for funding for any of the  five market development programs. For example, a participant seeking  funding for both FMD and MAP submits a single application through the  UES system, explaining how it intends to use both programs to support its  foreign market development objectives. FAS’s review of these funding  applications allows it to prevent duplicative programming, according to  FAS officials. FAS officials also noted that only expenses for pre- approved activities may be reimbursed and that the UES system  associates each approved activity with the particular program for which it  was approved. In addition, FAS agricultural attachés based in overseas  posts review and comment on the portions of participants’ applications  that apply to their countries and regions. This provides an additional layer  of review that helps prevent duplicative programming, according to FAS  officials.
FAS also takes steps to ensure that small businesses participating in the  MAP branded program do not obtain funding from more than one  source—such as two state regional trade groups—for promotion in the  same country. To prevent such duplicative funding, FAS requires that the  four state regional trade groups provide the names of all businesses and  products participating in their branded promotion programs each year.   According to an FAS official, FAS also participates in regular conference  calls with the four state regional trade groups, during which they compare  lists of small businesses applying for branded products program funding.  In addition, FAS circulates a memo annually to the four groups, stating  that businesses that promote certain product types should seek funding  from specific commodity groups before applying for funds from the state  regional trade groups. For example, FAS’s memo in 2012 stated that  small businesses promoting dairy, livestock, meat, poultry, seafood, and  egg products should be referred first to the applicable commodity groups  before applying for funding from a state regional trade group. In reviewing  expenditure data for MAP branded product promotions for the 2011  program year, we found no instances in which small businesses obtained  funding from multiple sources to promote the same products in the same  countries.
section_title: FAS Monitors Participants’ Expenses for All Programs through Its Compliance Review Process
paragraphs: FAS performs financial and compliance reviews to verify that participants  claimed reimbursement for expenses appropriately, and it holds  participants accountable for maintaining proper documentation of all of  their reimbursement claims. According to an FAS official, FAS’s  independent Compliance Review Branch has a staff of eight officers,  including the branch chief, who periodically visit participant sites to verify  that all expenses submitted for reimbursement are authorized,  reasonable, and documented. These compliance reviews cover all market  development programs in which the participant was involved, enabling the  compliance officers to verify that all reimbursement claims were paid for  pre-approved expenses for each program. The reviews also verify that  participants’ reported contributions are properly documented, are based  on allowable expenses, and match the amounts that the participants  committed to in their market development program applications. In  addition, the compliance officers verify that participants that spent  $500,000 or more of federal funds from one or more sources in a single  year have been audited in accordance with Office of Management and  Budget Circular A-133. Our review of FAS documentation for five program  participants showed that FAS conducted compliance reviews of these  participants between May 2011 and March 2012.
According to the Compliance Review Branch Chief, compliance officers  typically conduct these reviews every 3 years for the smaller participants  and verify 100 percent of those participants’ expenses. Compliance  officers conduct reviews more frequently for the larger participants  because of the volume of reimbursement claims involved, and they may  review only a sample of those participants’ expenses. Participants must  return to FAS any reimbursements for claims found not to be allowable.  The Compliance Review Branch Chief stated that, although participants  have the right to a hearing to contest compliance review results, they  generally repay the rejected claims under an agreed timeframe. The Chief  also noted that, because participants typically apply for future funding  from the programs, they have an incentive to comply with FAS  requirements.
section_title: Selected MAP and FMD Progress Reports Generally Reflected FAS Requirements and Key Attributes of Successful Performance Measurement, but Some Reports Did Not Identify Assessment Methodology as Required
paragraphs: The performance measures in the progress reports that we reviewed  generally met criteria based on FAS guidance for progress reports and  key attributes of successful performance measures that we previously  identified. However, some participants’ annual progress reports did not  identify the approaches and information sources used to assess activity  results for each performance measure, as FAS guidelines require. FAS  guidelines require MAP and FMD participants to submit, within 6 months  after the program year ends, annual country progress reports identifying  market challenges, describing activities over the past year, and stating  measureable goals and results of their performance. These reports  enable the participants and FAS to assess the participants’ progress in  achieving their stated goals each year. In addition, FAS considers  participants’ progress reports when reviewing their MAP and FMD funding  applications for subsequent years.
FAS guidelines require, among other things, that MAP and FMD  participants’ annual progress reports contain the following elements to  demonstrate how their market development activities are relevant and  their impact is measured. The reports should identify “constraints”—that  is, obstacles to achieving stated objectives—and “opportunities,” which  participants can utilize to achieve their objectives in the markets where  they operate. The reports should also provide the performance measures  that will be used to assess each activity’s impact on these constraints and  opportunities. (See the text box for an example, from FAS guidelines, of a  constraint and its related performance measures.) Further, the reports  should show, for each performance measure, an associated baseline  measure, a stated goal for the given year, and a result. Finally, the  reports should identify the methodology that will be used to assess  progress toward the goal associated with each performance measure.
FAS Example of a Constraint and Associated Performance Measures  for a Hypothetical Seafood Group  Constraint:  new products for , and their  availability and characteristics…are not known by the three major retailers.  Also,  are not aware of their potential consumer interest in  these species and how they can increase their profits by introducing them.
Performance measures associated with the constraint:
Number of retailers carrying targeted regional U.S. products on a
Number of new products sampled by targeted retailers
Number of products carried on a regular basis by targeted retailers  FAS staff in Washington, D.C., and at applicable overseas posts review  participants’ annual progress reports as part of the annual application  review, according to FAS officials and participant representatives. FAS  staff provide feedback to participants about their reports both informally,  through e-mail and telephone, and formally, through feedback letters. For  example, one feedback letter from FAS that we reviewed instructed the  participant to express its objectives more concisely and to develop  performance measures that track the desired outcome rather than the  participant’s activities. FAS officials noted that their reviews of funding  applications consider whether participants adjusted their market  development strategies on the basis of results they reported for the  previous year. Two Agricultural Trade Officers told us that, in addition to  reviewing the reports, they have provided participants support and  feedback regarding the identification of constraints and opportunities and  development of performance measures.
FAS also provides training to help participants identify constraints and  opportunities and develop performance measures that meet FAS’s  requirements. According to FAS officials, biannual conferences of  program participants generally include workshops on program evaluation,  which in the past have emphasized developing meaningful performance  measures. One of the Agricultural Trade Officers whom we interviewed  reported having conducted a workshop that reviewed the UES process  and discussed key definitions and criteria for identifying constraints and  opportunities and for developing performance measures.
The country progress reports that we reviewed generally complied with  criteria based on selected FAS guidelines for preparing progress reports  and key attributes of successful performance measurement that we had  previously identified. In general, the 56 reports by MAP and FMD  participants that we reviewed met five of six criteria we used for our  analysis. However, 149 of the 373 performance measures in the  sampled reports (40 percent) did not identify the methodologies used to  assess results, as FAS guidelines require. Following are details of our  analysis of the performance measures in the progress reports we  reviewed, using these six criteria.  1.  Constraint or opportunity has at least one outcome measure. For  each constraint or opportunity shown in a progress report, FAS  guidelines require that at least one performance measure be outcome  oriented rather than output oriented. FAS describes an outcome as  showing changed behavior, with an emphasis on what was achieved  and how participant activities have affected attitudes and consumer  habits in the targeted market. In contrast, FAS defines an output as  showing what was done at the activity level (e.g., two seminars  conducted, newsletter sent to 1,000 addressees). The progress  reports that we reviewed used both outcome and output measures to  determine the impact of activities and to address the identified  constraints and opportunities. At least one outcome measure was  associated with 105 of the 115 constraints and opportunities in the  sample (91 percent), and outcome measures constituted 260 of the  378 performance measures (69 percent).   2.  Performance measure is clear. We assessed the clarity of the  performance measures. Specifically, we assessed whether the  measure’s name and definition were clearly stated and consistent with  the numerical goal used to calculate it—a key attribute for successful  performance measures that we previously identified. We found that  356 of the 378 performance measures (94 percent) in the progress  reports that we reviewed met this criterion.   3.  Performance measure is aligned with related constraint or  opportunity. To ensure alignment of performance measures with the  constraints or opportunities they address, FAS guidelines state that  each measure must directly affect the related constraint or  opportunity, must reflect the scope of activity and progress in the  market, and must be within the ability of the participants to influence.  In the progress reports that we reviewed, 330 of the 378 performance  measures (87 percent) were aligned with the related constraint or  opportunity, and 110 of the 118 constraints and opportunities had at  least one aligned performance measure associated with it. However,  58 (13 percent) of the performance measures were not aligned with a  constraint or opportunity, indicating a risk that those participants might  measure incorrectly, or fail to measure, the impact of their activities.   4.  Performance measure is quantifiable. FAS guidelines require that  each performance measure be quantifiable. All 378 (100 percent) of  the measures in the sample of progress reports we reviewed were  quantifiable, with numerical values. When a goal is measurable, FAS  is better able to assess whether the participant’s performance is  meeting expectations.  5.  Performance measure has associated baselines. FAS guidelines  state that each performance measure should have an associated  baseline. We found that 359 of the 375 measures in our sample (96  percent) had associated baselines, indicating that they were based on  an initial market review and that the performance measures were  consistent from year to year. However, we also found that the  baselines did not appear to inform the goals for subsequent years. For  example, one participant had a baseline of 105 buyer/seller  introductions but set a goal of 35 for the following year. The result for  that year—164—not only exceeded the baseline but also exceeded  the goal by more than 468 percent, calling into question whether the  baseline was appropriate for the performance measure.   6.  Performance measure has an identified methodology. FAS  guidelines for reviewing country progress reports state that the reports  must identify the methodologies used to assess results for each  performance measure. The reports that we reviewed identified a  methodology—that is, an information source, an approach for  assessing results, or both—for 224 of the 373 performance measures  (60 percent). For example, one progress report identified “esults  gathered from consumer surveys during in-store promotions” as the  information source and the approach used to assess results of  activities intended to increase consumer awareness. Another report  identified the information source and the approach as “2009 results  based on 334 informal customer surveys conducted throughout the  year” and explained how certain results were averaged to provide  aggregated numbers. For the 149 performance measures with no  identified methodology (40 percent), it would be difficult for FAS to  determine the reliability of the reported results.
Table 6 summarizes the results of our analysis of the sample of country  progress reports that we reviewed.
In addition, a comparison of participants’ measurable goals and reported  results in the progress reports that we reviewed showed that those  participants met or exceeded a combined total of 222 of 357 (62 percent)  of their goals. However, the extent to which participants met the goals  varied widely; some participants exceeded a goal by more than 1,000  percent, while others attained less than 10 percent of the goal. FAS  guidance requires that participants monitor their progress relative to their  stated goals but has not established requirements for whether, when, or  how participants should meet their goals. According to FAS officials,  narratives in the progress reports should address whether and why actual  results did or did not meet goals and what changes are needed to  address any disparities. FAS officials noted that if an FAS marketing  specialist reviewing a funding application notices wide discrepancies  between the participant’s goals and results for the previous year, the  specialist will collaborate with the participant to identify lessons that can  be learned and will look for corresponding changes in the participant’s  strategy for the coming year.
section_title: FAS Requires MAP and FMD Participants to Conduct Comprehensive Evaluations When Appropriate
paragraphs: FAS requires that program participants conduct evaluations of their  program activities when appropriate or required by FAS. Current MAP  regulation defines a program evaluation as a review of the participant’s  entire program or an appropriate portion of the program as agreed to by  the participant and FAS. These reviews can range from external, third- party evaluations, such as cost-benefit analyses, to participants’ internal  reevaluations of their approaches to market development activities. FAS  officials reported that they received a combined total of 71 third-party  program evaluations from 43 participants in 2010 and 2011.  Additionally, eight of 10 U.S. agricultural export promotion groups  surveyed by an industry contractor reported that they conducted country,  regional, or global evaluations during the last 3 years.
Because the program evaluations are conducted on a case-by-case basis  and may cover only a portion of a participant’s market development  activities (e.g., market development efforts in 1 of 20 countries where a  participant conducts its activities), it is difficult to determine what portion  of all market development efforts are assessed through these  evaluations. One FAS contractor who had previously conducted third- party evaluations for MAP and FMD participants told us that factors such  as the size of the participants and the value the participant places on  monitoring and evaluation affected the frequency, depth, and usefulness  of evaluations that his firm had conducted.
section_title: FAS Cost-Benefit Analysis Asserts That MAP and FMD Benefit U.S. Economy, but Methodological Limitations May Affect the Magnitude of Estimated Benefits
paragraphs: A 2007 cost-benefit analysis of MAP and FMD, commissioned by FAS,  found that the programs increased U.S. agricultural exports and  benefitted the U.S. economy. Overall, the study asserted that the  government’s expenditures for the two programs had resulted in greater  increases in U.S. agricultural exports and greater benefit to the U.S.  economy than would have occurred without the expenditures. However,  the study’s two econometric models estimating the programs’ benefits  have methodological limitations that may affect the accuracy of the  estimates. First, the model used to estimate changes in market share  omitted important variables, and, second, a sensitivity analysis of key  assumptions was not conducted for that and another model that the study  used. FAS officials reported that they plan to commission a new cost- benefit analysis in 2014 but indicated that they have not yet identified the  methodologies that the new analysis will use.
subsections: section_title: FAS-Commissioned Cost- Benefit Analysis Asserted Benefits of Market Development Programs
paragraphs: The 2007 cost-benefit analysis, conducted by Global Insight, Inc., found  that MAP and FMD had positive effects on agricultural export activities.  The study also asserted that without public-sector funding, the private  sector would under invest in agricultural market development, negatively  affecting the U.S. economy—an outcome known as market failure. The  study used data from fiscal years 2002 through 2006 to estimate the  economic effects of FAS’s program expenditures under the 2002 farm bill  and of FAS’s possible expenditures under a hypothetical 2007 farm bill.  Following are key estimates from the 2007 study.
The study estimated that the increased market promotion and  development funding authorized for MAP and FMD in the 2002 farm  bill—almost doubling from roughly $125 million in fiscal year 2001,  before the bill’s enactment, to approximately $234 million in fiscal year  2006—raised the U.S. share of global agricultural exports from 18  percent to 19 percent, equivalent to a $3.8 billion increase in trade.  The study estimated that as a result, economic welfare increased by  $828 million.
The study estimated that if annual MAP and FMD spending under the  hypothetical 2007 farm bill in fiscal years 2007 through 2015 were  equivalent to spending under the 2002 farm bill in fiscal year 2006, the  U.S. share of global agricultural exports would rise from 19 percent in  2007 to 20.9 percent in 2015—equal to $84 billion in U.S. exports in  2015. If spending under the hypothetical 2007 farm bill increased by  50 percent over the 2006 level, U.S. exports would increase to $86.4  billion in 2015 and economic welfare would increase by $740 million.  On the other hand, the study suggested that if the hypothetical bill did  not authorize funding for the two programs, U.S. exports would grow  to $75.5 billion by 2015 and economic welfare would decrease by  $1.1 billion.
The study found that market development promotions for certain U.S.  high-value commodities have a positive effect—known as a spillover  effect—on exports of other U.S. high-value commodities.
The study estimated that every dollar spent for agricultural market  development under the 2002 farm bill increased economic welfare by  $5.20; under the hypothetical 2007 bill, every dollar would increase  economic welfare by $4.10. In contrast, eliminating the funding would  reduce economic welfare by $4.30 per eliminated dollar, resulting in a  $1.1 billion loss to the U.S. economy.
section_title: Economic Models Used to Estimate MAP’s and FMD’s Benefits Have Limitations That May Affect Estimates’ Accuracy
paragraphs: Two models that Global Insight used to estimate the effects of MAP and  FMD on the U.S. economy have methodological limitations that may  affect the models’ ability to accurately estimate the programs’ benefits to  the U.S. economy. As with any study using economic models, the lack of  data forces researchers to make certain assumptions, and the resulting  estimates are affected by the methodologies chosen and the assumptions  used. In general, the 2007 study assumes that FAS program  expenditures lead to an increase in private-sector expenditures. To  estimate the economic effects of the program assistance, the 2007 study  employed two economic models commonly used in cost-benefit analysis:  (1) A market share model to estimate the effect of expenditures under the  2002 farm bill and the hypothetical 2007 farm bill on the U.S. agricultural  market share of global markets and (2) a spillover effect model to  estimate increases in U.S. agricultural exports due to promotions of other  U.S. exported commodities. However, these models have limitations  that may affect their ability to accurately estimate the economic benefits  of MAP and FMD. FAS officials reported that they plan to commission a  new cost-benefit analysis in fiscal year 2014, but they indicated that they  have not yet identified the methodologies that the new study will use.
To examine the effect of the 2002 farm bill and the potential effect of the  hypothetical 2007 farm bill,  the 2007 study used a U.S. market share  model to simulate the market share for U.S. high-value and bulk  commodities in global markets from 1975 through 2004. However, the  model has limitations related to its exclusion of important variables and its  lack of a sensitivity analysis of key assumptions.
The 2007 study’s use of the market share model controlled for four  variables across each year: (1) the U.S. market share in the previous  year, (2) the currency exchange rate, (3) combined FAS program  expenditures and participants’ contributions over time, and (4) a time  trend to account for any omitted variables. However, the model excludes  some variables that could be important for determining the U.S. market  share—in particular, industry-specific variables such as commodity  prices, production volumes, and number of export competitors. Although  the study states that a linear trend variable is included as a proxy for  missing variables in the model, this variable cannot be expected to  capture the full effects of such industry-specific variables. By limiting the  model to the four variables, the study may bias the effect of these  variables by incorrectly identifying the magnitude of these variables and  the statistical significance of their effect on U.S. market shares.
The 2007 study used the market share model to examine the possible  effects of the hypothetical 2007 farm bill under three scenarios.   1.  The first scenario assumed that FAS program expenditures and  participant contributions would remain constant. On the basis of these  assumptions, the study predicted that U.S. exports would increase  from $65 billion in 2006 to $84 billion in 2015.   2.  The second scenario assumed that FAS would increase program  expenditures and that participants would increase their contributions  gradually, spending 50 percent more by 2012 than in 2007. On the  basis of these assumptions, the study predicted that U.S. exports  would increase from $65 billion in 2006 to about $86 billion in 2015.   3.  The third scenario assumed that FAS would immediately eliminate  program expenditures in 2008 and that, as a result, participants would  spend less of their own resources on market development, gradually  decreasing their spending by 50 percent by 2012 compared with  2007. On the basis of these assumptions, the study predicted that  U.S. exports would increase from $65 billion in 2006 to $75.5 billion in  2015.
Following Office of Management and Budget guidelines for conducting a  cost-benefit analysis, the study included a sensitivity analysis of the  market share model’s predictions, assessing the level of confidence in the  predictions with a 95 percent confidence interval. However, the study  did not include a sensitivity analysis of the third scenario’s assumption  regarding participants’ response to the elimination of FAS funding. In  particular, the study did not examine the effects that a range of  participants’ responses to the elimination of FAS funding would have on  the U.S. market share. That is, the study did not consider whether  participants’ market development spending would remain constant, would  decrease at lower rates than the 50 percent that the study assumed, or  would increase to the level of the eliminated FAS expenditures. Best  practices for cost estimation dictate the inclusion of a sensitivity analysis  to ascertain the effect of the assumption on the results. For a sensitivity  analysis to reveal the effect of a changed assumption on a cost estimate,  the analysis must examine the effect of changing one assumption while  holding all other assumptions and variables constant. In addition, the  study did not provide any insight or data to support the assumption that  participants would reduce their spending if FAS program funding were  eliminated.
The 2007 study used a spillover effect model to test the assumption that  increasing the market promotion of one U.S. commodity has a positive  effect on exports of other U.S. commodities. The study found that the  effects of the relationships between commodity promotions and exports  ranged from positive to negative and varied in magnitude but that, overall,  the positive effects outweighed the negative effects. The model examined  the relationship between U.S. market promotions and exports for four  high-value products—almonds, apples, grapes, and wine—for the period  1985 through 2004.  For example, increased U.S. promotion of almonds  led to increased U.S. exports of grapes but to decreased exports of wine  and had no effect on apple exports. Conversely, increased U.S.  promotion of grapes led to decreased U.S. exports of almonds but to  increased exports of apples and wine.
Although the study estimated the size of the spillover effect, it did not  include a sensitivity analysis of a key assumption used for this estimate.  The study assumed that some type of market development as a result of  U.S. market promotions occurs in 64 percent of all markets for U.S.  exports.  To estimate the spillover effect of FAS market promotions, the  model used this assumption, unsupported by data or industry evidence,  as well as the estimated effects of promotions of one commodity on the  exported quantities of other commodities. According to the study, the  spillover effect of FAS market promotions ranges from 24 percent to 54  percent of the total growth in overall market development. However, the  study did not include a sensitivity analysis of the effect of changing the  assumption that development occurs in 64 percent of markets as a result  of U.S. market promotions. That is, the study did not examine the extent  to which assuming a higher or lower percentage of market development  would change the magnitude of the estimated spillover effect.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: For many years, MAP and FMD—the two programs that receive most of  USDA’s market development funding—have provided continuing  assistance to an established pool of agricultural trade associations,  primarily to promote generic commodities overseas. FAS has developed  a performance monitoring framework in which FMD and MAP participants  are expected to develop measurable objectives—that is, constraints and  opportunities—linked to performance measures that allow them to  annually compare their results with established baselines and goals.  Participants generally followed this framework successfully; however,  many of the participants’ annual country progress reports that we  reviewed did not identify, as FAS guidelines require, the methodologies  used to assess results for each performance measure. These gaps limit  FAS’s ability to determine the reliability of program results reported by  participants and to accurately assess participants’ progress and success  in achieving program objectives.
The 2007 cost-benefit analysis that FAS commissioned asserted that  MAP and FMD have increased U.S. exports and benefited the U.S.  economy. However, one econometric model that the study used to  estimate the programs’ effects excluded variables that have significant  impact on U.S. market shares. As a result, the model may bias the  estimates of the variables that it included. In addition, because another  model that the study used did not include a sensitivity analysis of certain  assumptions, it is not possible to determine the degree to which those  assumptions would affect the model’s results. For example, one scenario  assumed that if FAS suddenly eliminated all MAP and FMD expenditures,  participants would reduce their own spending on market development by  50 percent. However, the study does not examine the effects of  participants’ other possible responses to the elimination of FAS  expenditures, such as maintaining their spending or increasing it to  compensate for the eliminated FAS funds. Accurate cost benefit analyses  help decision makers determine how best to allocate program funding  and provide a better picture of the potential effect on U.S. exports and the  economy if funding is increased or decreased.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct FAS to take the  following three actions:  To improve MAP and FMD participants’ annual reporting of the results of  their market development activities, use appropriate means to emphasize the importance of  participants’ identifying the methodologies used to assess results  for each performance measure in their annual country progress  reports.
To improve the accuracy of future cost-benefit analyses of FAS’s market  development programs, ensure that any econometric model used for the cost-benefit  analysis, such as the market share model, includes industry- specific variables that could have a significant role in determining  the U.S. market share—for example, commodity prices,  production volumes, and number of export competitors; and  conduct a sensitivity analysis, in accordance with best practices  for cost estimates, of the key assumptions that are applied in any  economic models used in the cost-benefit analysis, such as the  market share model and spillover effect model.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: USDA provided written comments about a draft version of this report,  concurring with our findings and recommendations (see app. VI for a copy  of these comments). USDA also provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, we plan no further distribution until 30 days  from the report date. At that time, we will send a copy to USDA. In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-4802 or evansl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made significant contributions to this  report are listed in appendix VII.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: We were asked to review several aspects of the U.S. Department of  Agriculture’s (USDA) five market development programs, which USDA’s  Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS) administers. This report (1) describes  participation and expenditures in these market development programs,  particularly the Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market  Development Program (FMD); (2) examines FAS’s management and  monitoring of its market development programs; and (3) assesses FAS’s  cost-benefit analysis of  MAP’s and FMD’s impact on the U.S. economy.  Because MAP and FMD receive most of USDA’s market development  funding, we focused our review primarily on program participation in those  two programs.
For our first and second objectives, we selected five program participants  as case studies: the American Hardwood Export Council, the California  Table Grape Commission, the Wine Institute, Cotton Council  International, and the Western United States Agricultural Trade  Association. To select the four commodity group participants, we  examined market development program expenditure data for 2002  through 2011. We chose participants that used more than one market  development program and had spent a significant amount of their market  development funds in the two countries—Japan and Mexico—that we  selected for our review. The four groups consisted of at least one bulk  commodity group, one nonfood commodity group, and one high-value  commodity group, and one horticultural group. All four were MAP  participants, and two were also FMD participants. In addition, we included  one of four state regional trade groups in our sample, because these  groups allocate the majority of MAP funds to small businesses for  branded product promotion. We reviewed additional documents, including  agreement letters, strategic plans, country progress reports, program  evaluations, and other information provided by FAS and the participants.  We also interviewed U.S.-based headquarters staff from each of the five  organizations. Additionally, we conducted fieldwork in Japan and Mexico,  interviewing FAS staff in the Agricultural Trade Offices in Tokyo, Osaka,  and Mexico City, as well as representatives of program participants in  each country. We also observed several trade promotion activities and  visited retailers where U.S. products were sold. We selected Japan and  Mexico because they are in different geographic regions and are among  the countries where program participants have spent the largest shares of  USDA market development funds. In addition, for all of three of our  objectives, we interviewed FAS staff in headquarters, contractors that  FAS uses for aspects of its market promotion programs, and subject  matter experts in the field of trade economics. We also reviewed relevant  laws, regulations, and FAS guidelines.
To describe agricultural groups’ participation in FAS’s five market  development programs and the programs’ expenditures from 2002  through 2011—our first objective—we reviewed program participants’  applications, country progress reports, and program evaluations to  identify examples of the activities that participants undertook with market  development funding. We also analyzed expenditure data for the five  programs from 2002 through 2011 to understand the nature of program  participation and to identify program participants with the largest  expenditures as well as changes in participants’ expenditures. We  reviewed MAP and FMD expenditure data by country to determine where  participants spent the largest amounts of program funding. Further, we  compared participants’ matching contributions with their expenditure  levels to determine whether participants were meeting program cost- sharing requirements. In addition, we reviewed expenditure data for the  MAP branded products program for 2002 through 2011 to determine the  scope of the branded products program, including the number of small  businesses participating and the number affected by the 5-year  graduation requirement. To assess the reliability of market development  program expenditure and contribution data that FAS provided, we  conducted electronic and manual data testing and held interviews with  knowledgeable USDA staff members. On the basis of our assessment of  the data and our interviews with the staff members, the data appear to be  reliable for the purposes of this report.
To examine FAS’s management and monitoring of the market  development programs—part of our second objective—we discussed  management practices and the use of the Unified Export Strategy (UES)  system, which participants use to apply for multiple programs to reduce  risks of overlap and duplication among the five programs with FAS  officials. We also met with FAS’s Compliance Review Branch to review  FAS’s process for verifying participants’ expenditures and contributions  for all programs in which they participated. In addition, to verify that small  businesses participating in the MAP branded products program did not  receive MAP funds from more than one MAP participant for promotion in  the same country, we reviewed expenditure data for the MAP branded  products program for 2011.  We examined all businesses that had spent  MAP funds, the countries where they spent the funds, and the MAP  participants that allocated these funds to the businesses through the  branded products program. We identified, and reviewed with FAS, any  instances in which a business may have spent in a single country funds  received from two MAP participants.
To determine whether MAP and FMD participants were assessing results  in accordance with FAS performance monitoring guidelines—also part of  our second objective—we developed an assessment tool to analyze a  sample of participants’ annual country progress reports. We selected a  random but nongeneralizable sample of 20 participants in MAP and FMD,  and we identified countries where these participants spent more than  $5,000 in 3 consecutive fiscal years, 2008 through 2010. We requested  the country progress reports for all 20 participants for each of the 3  years—a total of 60 progress reports. After requesting the 60 reports, we  removed four groups on being informed that those groups use other  forms of reporting; we also removed two state regional trade groups. After  we requested additional randomly selected progress reports, our final  sample totaled 56 reports. Where progress reports covered a region  rather than a specific country, we used regional data and country-specific  data as available. We selected criteria, based on FAS guidelines for  developing the progress reports and key attributes of successful  performance measurement that we previously identified, to assess  constraints and performance measures in the reports that we reviewed.  These criteria are as follows: (1) each constraint has at least one  outcome measure; (2) the performance measure is clear; (3) the  performance measure is aligned with the related constraint or opportunity;  (4) the performance measure is quantifiable; (5) the performance  measure has an associated baseline; and (6) the performance measure  has an identified methodology. We also compared the goals and results  reported for each performance measure to determine the extent to which  the goals were met and the results were reported. We recorded each  constraint and performance measure from the country progress reports  we reviewed, and two reviewers coded separate analyses for each  criterion. The two analyses were then reconciled to produce a final result.  In addition, we requested from FAS all third-party program evaluations  associated with our random sample of participants and countries in the 3- year timeframe. FAS informed us that the evaluations were too difficult to  identify using these parameters and provided a list of 71 evaluations that  43 participants, including 13 of those in our sample, submitted in 2010  and 2011. We did not assess the quality of the evaluations, because such  an assessment was beyond the scope of this engagement.
To assess FAS’s cost-benefit analysis of MAP’s and FMD’s impact on the  U.S. economy—our third objective—we analyzed studies of MAP and  FMD commissioned by FAS and published in 2007 and 2010,  respectively, by Global Insight, Inc. We conducted structured interviews  with the studies’ authors, agency officials, and academics involved in the  studies. We also reviewed relevant research on market development  programs. In addition, we reviewed Office of Management and Budget  guidelines for conducting cost-benefit analyses and interviewed office  officials. We evaluated the studies on the basis of GAO’s cost estimation  guide, prior related GAO work, and internal expertise.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 to July 2013 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: USDA Market Development Program Recipients and Award Amounts in Fiscal Year 2012
paragraphs: Many organizations participate in more than one of the five U.S.  Department of Agriculture (USDA) market development programs. FAS  allocates the majority of USDA’s market development funding for the  Market Access Program (MAP), which has the largest number of  participants. Table 7 shows the 103 program participants and their award  amounts in fiscal year 2012, in descending order of total award amounts.  The table does not show small businesses that received a share of MAP  funding indirectly for branded product promotion.
section_title: Appendix III: Expenditures in 2011 for the Emerging Markets Program, Quality Samples Program, and Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program
paragraphs: Tables 8 through 10 show USDA market development program  participants that spent the largest amounts of funds provided by the  Emerging Markets Program (EMP), Quality Samples Program (QSP), and  Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program (TASC) funds in 2011.  Table 11 shows the countries where the largest amounts of funding for  the three programs were spent in 2011.
section_title: Appendix IV: Cost-Benefit Analyses Assert That Several Market Failures Justify FAS Programs
paragraphs: The 2007 study and 2010 update contended that three market failures  lead private firms to underinvest in export promotion compared with the  socially optimal level. According to the study, these failures therefore  justify U.S. government intervention through the U.S. Department of  Agriculture market development programs.
Uncertain funding. Because of uncertainty about annual U.S.  government allocations of market development funding, private-sector  participants tend to develop short-term (i.e., 1 year) plans that do not  take into account the long-term effects of market development. For  example, market development expenditures for high-value and bulk  commodities have a lagged impact of 7 and 3 years, respectively, so  that expenditures in a single year accrue benefits over several years.  As a result, private-sector participants tend to underfund market  development activities relative to the socially optimal level.
Spillover effect. Market development for one commodity may also  increase demand for other commodities—a result known as a  spillover effect. For example, almond promotions increase grape  exports (but not vice versa). Unless such commodities are “co- branded” and marketed together, exporters do not see the spillover  effect as a promotion incentive and thus tend to underpromote their  own products compared with socially optimal levels.
Indirect effect. Related to the first two sources of market failure, less  than optimal amounts of promotion, and therefore of exports, will  lead—in what is known as the indirect effect—to less than socially  optimal operating levels in other segments of the farm economy and  the general economy. To the extent that exports benefit other sectors  of the general economy, such as by increasing growers’ prices and  government tax revenues, there is a compelling public interest in  helping firms to develop new export markets for U.S. agricultural  commodities.
section_title: Appendix V: Computable General Equilibrium Model
paragraphs: The 2007 cost-benefit analysis that the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)  commissioned used a computable general equilibrium model, in addition  to a market share model and a spillover effect model, to examine the  economic impacts of FAS’s Market Access Program and the Foreign  Market Development Program. A computable general equilibrium model  is a mathematical expression where all economic relationships are  modeled simultaneously. For example, the price of a good depends on  the price of all other input goods, profits, and wages, and vice versa,  assuming full employment in the economy. Compared with the market  share or spillover effect model, the computable general equilibrium model  includes a more comprehensive list of relevant variables while allowing  more parameters to vary.
Using this model, the 2007 study found the following key results:
The FAS program and participant promotion expenditures under  the 2002 farm bill present an economic-welfare-to-government- expense ratio of 10.3:1 and an economic-welfare-to-total-expense  ratio of 5.2:1. This result translates into an increase in farm cash  receipts of $2.2 billion.
The FAS program and participant promotion expenditures under a  hypothetical 2007 farm bill presented a potential economic- welfare-to-government-expense ratio of 8.2:1 and an economic- welfare-to-total-expense ratio of 4.1:1, with a total economic  benefit of $740 million. In addition, for the period 2008-2012, farm  revenues would equal $256 billion under the hypothetical 2007  farm bill and would change by $2.4 billion and -$4.2 billion under  the increasing and eliminating scenarios, respectively.
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
section_title: Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Christine Broderick (Assistant  Director), Pedro Almoguera, Mason Thorpe Calhoun, Howard Cott,  Kathryn Crosby, Martin De Alteriis, Justin Fisher, Reid Lowe, Grace Lui,  and Vanessa Taylor made significant contributions to this report.