3. What la the ideal relationship between the agricultural trade officer and the attache/counselor? Are both needed in a country or should there be only one or the other?

4. Should Fas conaider titling the agricultural trade officer by region in order to make him moat affective?

5. How can FAS insure that the finished products which we sell are given the same followup emphasis in terms of trade servicing and problem eolution th.it ia given to problems with the sale of bulk commodities?

6. How can FAS provide the appropriate guidance in terms of trade patterns, trade policies, credit support, and other factors which actually determine the effectiveness of the trade offices?

INTRODUCTION

On October 21, 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed into law Public Law 95-501, the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978. It had earlier been passed by the Senate on September 8, 1978.and by the House on October 15, 1978. The law instructed the Secretary of Agriculture to establish not less than six and no more than twenty-five United States Agricultural Trade Offices. By August of 1981, eleven ATO's had been established by the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) of the United States Department of Agriculture.

The three offices evaluated in this report included Manama, Bahrain, where ■the trade office was opened on November 13, 1979; Singapore where the trade office was opened on January 12, 1980; and Seoul, Korea, where the trade office was opened on January 21, 1980. By the time of this report each of these offices had been opened approximately 18 months. In those 18 months, these three offices, as well as the other eight which were also established, have established operations designed to lead toward expansion of agricultural exports. Before adding any additional offices, FAS felt there should be an evaluation made to determine their "effectiveness and contribution to the overall market development mission to expand agricultural exports."

Each of the three trade offices reviewed in this report had some common facets as well as some unique characteristics. The Bahrain office, opened in November 1979, had as its purpose "to serve as a focal point for export sales promotion and as a home base for U.S. exporters and representatives of states wishing to develop or expand their export efforts in the area." The geographical area included under the Bahrain trade office were the countries of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Syria, Jordan and Iraq. At the time the office opened,ithe United States was exporting approximately 5600 million worth of U.S. agricultural products annually to these countries.

The Singapore office opened on January 12, 1980 had as its purpose "to serve as a focal point for export trade promotion in Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand." At that time these combined countries also imported approximately S600 million of U.S. agricultural products annually. The press release announcing this office noted that it was designed to "help non-profit trade associations currently working in Southeast Asia under continuing agreements with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Service as Market Development Cooperators." It listed as Cooperators in the new Singapore trade office the American Soybean Association, the Poultry and Egg Institute of America, U.S. Wheat Associates, Inc., and the U.S. Feed Grains Council. The initial and present Director of the Singapore trade office is James Y. Iso.

The Korea office opened in Seoul, Korea on Janjary 21, 1980 also had as its focal point export sales promotion. In announcing the office, FAS noted that U.S. farm exports to Korea totaled nearly $1,4 billion of agricultural Change in Change in

Estimated Cost of

Shipments Shipments

"fin thousands)

Increases:

Cotton, upland (hale) +8 +$2,00n

Milled rice (cwt) -199 +10,5(1(1*

Vegetable oils (lb) +88,185 +20,400

Wheat and products (bu) +6,210 +21,2011

Blended food products (lb) +2,204 +3(10*

Unallocated Reserve (M.T.) +274 +52,500

Total increases xx +106,900

Oecreases:

Feed grains (bu) +630 -4,400*

Unfunded obligations xx -5,100

Initial payments xx -5,200

Total decreases xx -14,700

Net increases xx 92,200

* Change also includes increased unit prices.

(b) An increase of $20,800,000 in ocean transportation ($97,500,000 available in 1984). ThTs is due to "hi"g"her tonnage""reflectTng" 'commodity cHarigeV shown above, and an increase in the average rate per ton for the ocean freight differential on shipments required to be made on U.S.-flag vessels.

(c) An increase of 1)154,000,000 in financing costs due to lower receipts and prior year funds available to offset program costs"~(S470,000,000 available in f9"84)". This reflects a decrease" in projections of long "term credit repayments "which are based on scheduled amounts due, adjusted for nonpayment, rescheduling, and Title III forgiveness, combined with the continuing decline in foreign currency sales proceeds.

Program costs consist of the export value of commodities shipped and authorized ocean freight differential costs for shipments made in U.S.-flag vessels.

Following is a breakdown of expenses of shipments by commodity for the fiscal years 1983, 1984, and 1985. (N0TE--Credits (-) shown for initial payments to exporters are authorized by Sec. 103(k) of Title I. This initial payment is made directly to the exporters by the importers. The Corporation does not receive these

payments.):

The following table shows account receivable activity for amounts billed, repayments, and amounts owed by foreign governments and private trade entities for Title I long-term credit sales. Including the Title III, Food for Oevelopment Program, for fiscal years 19R3, 19R4, and 1985:

2) No net change in amounts for financing commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad (Title II).

Need for Change. There is no net change in the total requested for this activity.