136 



In contrast to developing the plan, there seems to be little em- 

 phasis within the USDA on measuring results. FAS sill has not de- 

 veloped uniform criteria for evaluation of programs and analyzing 

 program effectiveness. However, priorities on process rather than 

 results define the current orientation of FAS marketing programs. 



Our recommendation would be to develop a simple, but effective, 

 application process for promotion resources. This could ideally be 

 a computer-generated marketing grid which outlines the basic tar- 

 gets in each market like we use at USMEF. Establish strict inter- 

 nal deadlines for application review and approval. In addition, 

 allow the submission of multiyear plans, preferably 3 to 5 years. 



Annual reviews for budgeting purposes would consist of fine-tun- 

 ing multiyear plans according to shifting marketing conditions. 



Another point: FAS resource allocation and structure shows no 

 overall strategic focus. Although FAS maintains an enviable global 

 network of agricultural field offices, the location of these offices ex- 

 hibits questionable strategic positioning. 



FAS offices should constitute the frontline of the U.S. agricul- 

 tural sector overseas. Specifically, whereas individual private ex- 

 porting companies have relatively short-term horizons. Industry or- 

 ganizations — i.e., cooperators — have longer-term horizons. How- 

 ever, the interests of private industries are still constrained to a 

 relatively short — 3 to 4 years — timespan. 



This is where USDA/FAS has an advantage. FAS resources 

 should focus its activities in the strategic markets of the future, es- 

 pecially those where U.S. agricultural industries have a low level 

 of exposure and representation and long-term commercial potential. 



Organizational reform appears to be worsening. The red meat in- 

 dustry sees no benefits or further diluting the work of FAS by com- 

 bining it with OICD into the International Trade Service. In fact, 

 the ostensible missions of the two organizations appear to be at 

 cross purposes, with FAS promoting the exports of agricultural 

 products and OICD promoting the export of agricultural expertise. 

 Overseas, our customers will wonder why the word "agriculture" 

 was dropped from the agenc^s name. 



Our recommendation is that FAS, in concert with private indus- 

 try, should analyze its current foreign office structure to determine 

 how to maximize cooperative synergies and complementarity. 



Within Washington, FAS could better integrate and coordinate 

 its trade policy, marketing, and analysis functions. Resources and 

 personnel emphasis should be placed in those areas where FAS 

 holds an advantage over private industry, primarily trade policy 

 and analysis. Commodity and trade policy analysts should be 

 placed under one work cone. International marketing analysis 

 should be coordinated or combined with that conducted by the Eco- 

 nomic Research Service — ERS — and FAS should design a structure 

 whereby coordination with other USDA agencies such as APHIS, 

 FSIS, and FGIS is enhanced. 



The last point is a lack of overall vision creates misguided work 

 priorities. FAS has not clearly defined its mission and responsibil- 

 ities to its constituents and to its employees. For example, FAS's 

 international orientation still seems directed toward crop reporting. 

 Marketing development emphasis is still placed on disposing of sur- 

 plus bulk commodities on world markets with concessional pro- 



