Heinen, Suzanne

English

Research Papers in Economics

   
Agricultural Outlook Forum 2003      Presented: Friday, February 21, 2003 
 
 
LESSONS LEARNED FROM U.S. GOVERNMENT TRADE CAPACITY BUILDING 
PROGRAMS 
 
Suzanne Heinen 
Deputy Administrator for international Cooperation and Development 
Foreign Agricultural Service 
 
 
As the U.S. Government has made clear on many occasions, we believe one of the best 
ways to re-ignite an era of global economic growth and reduce poverty is through a world 
trading system that is dramatically more open and free. We have learned from experience 
that countries that are part of the World Trade Organization and actively engage in trade 
show faster growth and economic prosperity.   No country in modern history has entered 
the fast track of development without first opening its economy to world markets.      
 
Developing countries stand to be among the world’s biggest beneficiaries from 
participating in global agricultural policy reform.  Potential gains include a 25-percent 
increase in developing country exports, a 20-percent increase in imports, a 12-percent 
increase in world commodity prices, a $21-billion gain in developing country economic 
welfare, and a 6-percent decline in food aid needs as domestic production expands in 
response to higher world prices. 
 
USDA’s Role in Trade Capacity Building 
 
USDA has for several years engaged in activities to help countries build their capacity to 
trade, and remains committed to this endeavor.  Specifically, as Administrator Terpstra 
mentioned, USDA is committed to the goals outlined in the Doha development agenda.  
It is not a purely unselfish undertaking, building countries’ capacity to trade not only 
benefits the country as it becomes more able to enter the global trading system, but 
benefits the U.S. also, as more and more countries obtain the income to purchase U.S. 
products.  We believe this effort will also contribute to another firm commitment – the 
commitment to reducing hunger by fifty percent by the year 2015, a goal the U.S. 
pledged to support at the World Food Summit.    
 
What We Have Learned 
 
Obviously, we cannot be all things to all countries.  We have limited time and resources, 
and we have to focus on the most pressing issues.  We also have to focus on what we do 
best.  In developing our TCB strategy, we will generally not pursue activities that require 
physical infrastructure upgrades.  USDA has neither the financial resources nor the 
personnel to tackle issues that require major physical improvements. This role is better 
left to organizations with greater resources - the multilateral development banks and the 
private sector.  Our focus needs to be on strengthening countries’ human capacity for    
trade—ensuring that their public and private sector officials have the tools to understand 
international agreements, prepare business plans, and develop and enforce regulations 
and strengthen institutions and systems.   
 
We have also learned that we cannot be effective working in all countries of the world 
simultaneously.  Thus, where possible, we will tackle regions where we think we may 
have the greatest impact.   Few single countries will emerge as top markets for the U.S., 
but as regions, they certainly can be.   Thus, it is in our interest to stimulate countries into 
thinking regionally, and work together to harmonize regulations and standards.    
  
We also believe our training, where possible, should involve: 
 
1)  A multi-phase series of related activities that help establish professional, collegial 
relationships critical for successful problem solving; 
 
2)  Have an increasingly complex progression of subject matter content and 
application;   
 
3)  Be tied to the solution of practical problems – there is better buy-in where there is 
a measurable export result; 
 
4)  Involve local experts in design and delivery of training; and    
 
5)  Involve a shared commitment of both parties.  
 
Types of Agriculture-Related Trade Capacity Building Activities 
 
USDA provides an array of programs that assist with trade capacity building in 
developing countries. We develop our programs in close collaboration with other U.S. 
Government agencies working on trade capacity building, such as USAID, the 
Department of State and USTR. 
 
Our activities fall into four basic categories: 
 
1.  Increasing Understanding of WTO Agriculture-Related Agreements; 
2.  Strengthening Public Sector Agriculture Trade-Related Regulatory Institutions 
and Frameworks;  
3.  Strengthening Science-Based, Market-Oriented Biotechnology Regulations and 
Policies; and   
4.  Enhancing Trade Competitiveness of Farms and Agricultural Firms.   
 
Let me give you some examples in each area. 
 
Increasing Understanding of WTO Agriculture-Related Agreements 
A familiar request from developing countries is for assistance in meeting the legal and 
technical requirements of WTO agriculture-related agreements.  To meet this need we    
have been working with the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture 
(IICA), in supporting attendance at WTO/SPS committee meetings by select 
representatives of trade and regulatory agencies of the 34 IICA member countries. All 34 
IICA member countries sent representatives to WTO/SPS meetings held in Geneva in 
November 2002 and the feedback was outstanding.  Having seen the workings of the 
committee, these representatives have a better understanding of what they have to gain by 
participation. USDA will support their participation in WTO meetings scheduled for 
April and June 2003.   
 
In another WTO-related activity, FAS conducted a series of seminars in conjunction with 
USAID throughout sub-Saharan Africa, covering issues such as the rights and obligations 
of the WTO Agricultural and SPS Agreements and the importance of developing 
countries’ participation in international standards-setting bodies such as Codex 
Alimentarius.  In both instances, we have focused on increasing awareness of agreements 
and regulations, and in doing so, have been able to establish relationships with 
developing countries that we may not have reached otherwise.  It was clear there remain 
many misunderstanding and these seminars helped these African countries to identify 
their gaps in knowledge and training.  
 
Strengthening Public Sector Agriculture Trade-Related Regulatory Institutions and 
Frameworks 
 
The program in Africa led directly to another critical area for USDA and one we feel we 
are particularly well qualified to work in  - that is the area of sanitary and phyto-sanitary 
and food safety issues.  These non-tariff trade issues are becoming the greatest obstacles 
to trade.  The establishment of such policies and regulatory systems that are science- and 
law-based, institutional, transparent and consistent with international standards will 
broaden market access and permit open markets in safe food products to function.  
Domestically they can also have a contributing role in overcoming some of the problems 
of hunger and malnutrition. 
 
Through our seminars, African countries identified and articulated where they needed 
assistance in strengthening their individual systems – risk analysis was identified as the 
top priority.  Training was provided, moving them a step closer to new export 
opportunities. 
  
As a third phase, USDA, collaborating with USAID’s Regional Center for Southern 
Africa, helped develop a Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary/Food Safety Annex to the Southern 
Africa Development Community (SADC) Trade Protocol.  Because of the success of this 
activity, USDA is on the verge of placing an advisor on a long- term basis in Gabarone, 
Botswana, to work closely with countries in the region to conduct pest risk assessments 
for agricultural plant products potentially destined for markets in the United States.  We 
hope to replicate this in the other Trade Hubs. 
 
We have found that many countries that are signatories to the SPS Agreement, do not 
have fully functioning SPS systems and our current efforts are focused on designing a    
series of interventions that might fill the gaps and leave countries with systems that pass 
the rigors of importing countries.   
 
Improving Global Understanding and Acceptance of Agricultural Biotechnology 
 
A third area of focus is biotechnology.  Through workshops and study visits, USDA helps 
facilitate a participatory process to develop and adopt appropriate biotechnology laws and 
regulations involving scientists, executive and legislative policymakers, producers and 
agribusinesses.  These workshops can involve researchers, policymakers, consumers, 
educators, parliamentarians, non-governmental organizations and journalists and are 
aimed to familiarize participants with issues related to the acceptance of biotechnology.  
A notable example of USDA biotechnology training is a biotechnology short course 
initiated in 2002 (and to be repeated periodically) that will help over 100 foreign leaders 
play informed and guiding roles regarding biotechnology in their home countries.  The 
course gives special attention to biotechnology’s relationship to market access and trade 
in agricultural products. 
   
Enhancing Trade Competitiveness of Farms and Agricultural Firms 
 
A final area of focus is in enhancing trade competitiveness of farmers and food and 
agriculture firms.  Countries need to improve their skills in competition.  Mr. Seward 
gave a detailed case study of one of the programs we have worked cooperatively with the 
private sector – our cold chain program.  This program assists U.S. exporters and 
importers, handlers and retailers of food products overseas.   
 
Our programs in transition countries have assisted farmers and agribusinesses in 
improving market information and business and financial decision-making.   
Other programs assist farmers and agribusinesses to respond to market forces.  This 
includes knowing what crops to grow, garnering information, and developing skills in 
marketing their products.   
 
Activities in Central America and Vietnam have involved techniques to improve market 
competitiveness and enhance sales in local retail stores through one-on-one training in the 
latest display, packaging, safe handling and promotional techniques, especially for value-
added and perishable products.  Improved retail efficiency is beneficial to sales of both 
imported U.S. and locally-produced foods. 
 
USDA Services 
 
In closing, I just want to say a word on how programs are developed and funded in 
USDA. 
 
FAS’ International Cooperation and Development (ICD) is the lead coordinating point 
for USDA international technical assistance – we draw on all agencies in USDA to get 
the job done. 
    
We have very limited direct funding for activities: 
 
-  The most widely known is the Cochran Fellowship program which has proved to be 
a highly popular and successful source for short-term targeted training.  In 2002, we 
trained nearly 1000 Fellows from over 75 countries. 
-  We also have limited ($1.2 million) funds for scientific exchanges and collaborative 
research. 
-  FAS has the Emerging Markets Funds, but ICD submits proposals just like everyone 
else to access these funds - thus we must target our efforts towards where we feel we 
have a unique advantage - projects that are governmental in nature or that are, 
perhaps, not quite ready for the private sector. 
  
We have also developed a long-term relationship with USAID whereby we: 
 
1) Provides technical experts to work with USAID; and 
 
2) Submit proposals for specific directed projects. 
 
As we focus on our strengths, we hope to move towards more projects where we, USDA , 
identify the needs and can tap new resources to support our projects.  In some cases, our 
Attaches overseas have identified projects with their agricultural contacts and found 
financial support from their colleagues in USAID or other agencies.  We hope to do more 
of this.  We can also work with other groups as partners in consortiums that have a 
component that is best served by a governmental representative. 
 
Conclusion 
 
If the United States agricultural community is to achieve success in the global trade 
negotiating process, our Government must engage the developing world in the creation of 
appropriate trading rules and guidelines and in the building of transparent, efficient, 
science–based food and agricultural product regulatory systems and efficient marketing 
systems. 
 
This will take time, but it will be worth the investment.  All countries must be able to 
benefit from the opening of agricultural markets.  These countries represent our future 
growth markets and we need to work with them. 
 

LESSONS LEARNED FROM U.S. GOVERNMENT TRADE CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAMS

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics