The Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS) is the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) lead agency in international activities to develop foreign markets for U.S. agriculture. The FAS is primarily responsible for improving foreign market access for U.S. products by collecting and analyzing data on world agricultural production, policy, and trade competition. It also publishes information to U.S. farming and business interests on agricultural commodities in the global market. The FAS also administers USDA export credit guarantees and food aid programs.
The origins of the Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS) are rooted in the Foreign Agricultural Act of 1930, signed by President Herbert Hoover. The act called for sending overseas officials from the USDA to London, Buenos Aires, and Shanghai. These agricultural commissioners were granted diplomatic status and foreign attaché titles. After the passage of the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act in 1934, the President was required to consult with the Secretary of Agriculture when negotiating tariff reductions for agriculture commodities. This task of administering these tariff negotiations fell to the Foreign Agricultural Service Division and marked its role in international trade policy. In 1938, the division was made a direct subordinate to the Agriculture Secretary, but the following year, President Franklin Roosevelt ordered all diplomatic personnel transferred to the Department of State. The FAS was abolished and its staff headquarters renamed the Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations (OFAR). During the 1940s, OFAR began administering food aid and started analyzing food availability during World War II and technical assistance to other countries after the war.
In 1953, Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Benson abolished the OFAR and recreated the Foreign Agricultural Service. The FAS was tasked with technical assistance to the International Cooperation Administration and worked on foreign market development for U.S. agricultural commodities. In 1954, agricultural attachés were transferred back to the FAS from the State Department. That same year, Congress passed the Food for Peace Act that became the framework for food aid and development efforts of the FAS. The Market Development Cooperator Program in 1955 expanded foreign demand for U.S. agricultural products by creating cooperative agreements with groups representing American producers of certain commodities such as the National Cotton Council. In 1961, USDA’s Commodity Stabilization Service merged with the FAS, bringing the responsibilities of running export credit and food aid programs.
In 1980, following the Foreign Service Act, FSA agricultural attachés were given the option of becoming Foreign Service Officers. Since 1939, ten former agricultural attachés had been confirmed as American Ambassadors. In 1994, USDA’s Office of International Cooperation and Development merged with FAS and brining back technical assistance as one of the service's responsibilities.
The Foreign Agricultural Service has its beginnings with the Foreign Agricultural Act of 1930, signed by President Hoover. It consisted of overseas officials of the USDA located in London, Buenos Aires and Shanghai. These agricultural commissioners were granted diplomatic status and the title of attaché. In 1934, Congress passed the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act stipulating that the President must consult with the Secretary of Agriculture when negotiating tariff reductions for agriculture commodities. This task was delegated to the Foreign Agricultural Service Division and marked its role in international trade policy. In 1938, the division was made a direct subordinate to the Secretary, but the following year President Roosevelt ordered all diplomatic personnel transferred to the Department of State. The FAS was abolished and its staff headquarters renamed the Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations (OFAR). During the 1940’s, OFAR began handling food aid along with analyzing food availability during WW II and technical assistance to other countries after the war.
In 1953, Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Benson abolished the OFAR and recreated the Foreign Agricultural Service. It was given responsibility for technical assistance to the International Cooperation Administration and focused on foreign market development for U.S. agricultural commodities. In 1945, agricultural attachés transferred back from the State Department and Congress passed the Food for Peace Act that became the framework for FAS’s food aid and development efforts. The Market Development Cooperator Program started in 1955 to expand foreign demand by signing cooperative agreements with groups representing American producers of certain commodities such as the National Cotton Council. In 1961, USDA’s Commodity Stabilization Service merged into FAS, bringing export credit and food aid programs. The FAS was also included in the Foreign Service Act of 1980 and gave agricultural attachés the option of becoming Foreign Service Officers. Since 1939, ten former agricultural attachés had been confirmed as American Ambassadors. In 1994, USDA’s Office of International Cooperation and Development merged with FAS and brought back technical assistance to FAS’s responsibilities.
FAS Programs
The Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS) is responsible for opening new markets, and increasing U.S. agriculture competitiveness overseas. It supports three of the USDA’s Strategic Objectives: (1) expand and maintain international export opportunities; (2) support international economic development and trade capacity building; and (3) improve the global sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) system to facilitate agricultural trade. The FAS also supports economic development through its technical and development assistance.
The FAS is tasked with administering international aspects of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), a government corporation aimed at protecting farm income and prices. Through FAS Export Credit Guarantee Programs, payment guarantees are given for the commercial financing of U.S. agricultural exports. These programs promote U.S. exports to international buyers in countries where credit is necessary to maintain or increase U.S. sales, but where financing may not be available without CCC guarantees. The CCC provides guarantees to facilitate the financing of goods and services exported from the United States to improve or establish agriculture-related facilities in emerging markets by eliminating constraints such as capacity to handle increased demand of U.S. agricultural products. The FAS market development programs include:
The Market Access Program, which uses CCC funds to reimburse U.S. producers, exporters, private companies, and other trade organizations for a portion of the costs of carrying out overseas marketing and promotional activities, such as direct consumer promotions.
The Foreign Market Development Program, which uses CCC funds in partnership with U.S. producers and processors who are represented by non-profit trade or commodity associations called Cooperators to support overseas market development activities that are designed to remove long-term impediments to increased U.S. trade.
The Emerging Markets Program, which uses CCC funds to provide technical assistance that promote the export of U.S. agricultural products to emerging markets and remove long-term impediments to increase U.S. trade in all geographic areas consistent with U.S. foreign policy.
The Quality Samples Program, which uses CCC funding to assist private entities to furnish samples of U.S. agricultural products to foreign importers in order to overcome trade and marketing obstacles. The program provides foreign importers with a better understanding of the characteristics of U.S. agricultural products.
The Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) program, which assists U.S. organizations by providing funding for projects that address sanitary, phytosanitary, and technical barriers that prohibit or threaten the export of U.S. specialty crops. Grants may cover seminars and workshops, study tours, field surveys, pest and disease research, and pre-clearance programs.
FAS export programs include: Export Credit Guarantee Programs, which provide export credit guarantees for commercial financing of U.S. agricultural exports; the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP), which pays cash to U.S. dairy companies that export products that allow them to certain U.S. dairy products at prices lower than the exporter's costs of acquiring them; the Facility Guarantee Program that backs the financing of manufactured goods and services exported from the United States to improve or establish agriculture-related facilities in emerging markets; and the General Sales Manager Online System that enables U.S exporters and U.S. banks to submit required documentation online for CCC programs.
Import programs include Sugar Import programs, which put manufacturers of sugar-containing products on a level playing field in the world market, and the Dairy Import Program, which enforces the tariff-rate quota system for U.S. imports of international dairy products. The FAS also creates the U.S. Tariff Schedule, which lists the tariffs charged for all products imported into the United States.
Other FAS duties include administering foreign food assistance. Public Law 480 Title I allows for the sales of U.S. agriculture commodities on concessional credit terms to governments and private entities in developing countries, while the Food for Progress program authorizes U.S. agricultural commodities to be provided to developing countries and emerging democracies that have made commitments to introduce and expand free enterprise in their agricultural economies. The Food for Progress authorizing statute provides for the use of CCC funding for commodity procurement, transportation, and associated non-commodity costs for the program.
In pursuit of opportunity: FAS and foreign market development (by Ryan Swanson, AgExporter)
Fighting world hunger: U.S. food aid policy and the food for peace program (by Ryan Swanson, AgExporter)
From the Web Site of the Foreign Agricultural Service
Global Agriculture Information Network (GAIN)
Offices within Washington, D.C. Headquarters
FAS is responsible for opening new markets, and increasing U.S. agriculture competitiveness overseas. Operating on a global basis, FAS supports three of the USDA’s Strategic Objectives: (1) expand and maintain international export opportunities; (2) support international economic development and trade capacity building; and (3) improve the global sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) system to facilitate agricultural trade. FAS also supports economic development through its technical and development assistance
authorizes U.S. agricultural commodities to be provided to developing countries and emerging democracies that have made commitments to introduce and expand free enterprise in their agricultural economies. The Food for Progress authorizing statute provides for the use of CCC funding for commodity procurement, transportation, and associated non-commodity costs for the program.
Only a small portion ($2.25 million from FY 2002-2012) of the Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS) budget goes toward contracting. The majority of the agency’s spending is on grants, direct payments, and other aid. From 2002-2012 FAS distributed more than $1.2 billion in grants, according to a query of USAspending.gov.
Top recipients and their percent of all grant spending include:
1. Cotton Council Intl. $71,746,179 (5.74%)
2. U.S. Meat Export Federation $70,573,186 (5.65%)
3. U.S. Band Government SVC $65,085,944 (5.21%)
4. American Soybean Association $57,718,616 (4.62%)
5. U.S. Wheat Associates $53,381,027 (4.27%)
The FAS also spent nearly $1.2 billion from 2002-2012 on other spending. The top recipients include:
1. ADM ACTI Trade Resources $197,448,434 (15%)
2. CFSIT $161,759,443 (13%)
3. GTR $134,087,614 (10%)
4. GDC Trading $115,029,852 (9%)
5. Cargill Americas $107,969,869 (9%)
Direct payments by FAS to recipients also totaled more than $1.5 billion. Recipients include:
1. Cotton Council Intl. $58,683,884 (3.8%)
2. U.S. Meat Export Federation $53,719,682 (3.5%)
3. American Soybean Association $37,641,797 (2.4%)
4. U.S. Grains Council $34,666,902 (2%)
5. U.S. Wheat Associates $31,154,276 (2%)
Was NAFTA a good idea?
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in January 1, 1994, and was fully implemented on January 1, 2008. The agreement removed most barriers to trade and investment among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. NAFTA removed all non-tariff barriers to agriculture, and tariffs were eliminated immediately or phased out over periods of 5 to 15 years. The treaty also protects intellectual property rights and includes the removal of investment barriers. NAFTA is a trilateral agreement in all areas except agriculture, and is negotiated bilaterally between nations. The Mexico-Canada bilateral agreement outlines the removal of agricultural tariffs except in dairy, poultry, eggs, and sugar. It is the largest trade bloc in the world in terms of the members’ combined GDP.
In the years since NAFTA went into effect, policymakers and activists have debated the merits of the landmark agreement. Economists and proponents of large businesses generally hail NAFTA as a huge success, citing the significant increases in trade and economic growth in the participating nations. But labor unions, environmentalists, and others have decried NAFTA, citing various examples of how it has done more harm than good.
Statement on Full Implementation of the North America Free Trade Agreement (USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service)
North American Free Trade Agreement (Office of the United States Trade Representative)
Con (The Agreement Doesn’t Work for Everyone):
Organized labor and consumer-advocacy groups say NAFTA has had negative effects in Mexico and the United States. They say the treaty has resulted in outsourcing and lower wages in the U.S., which have only hurt the American economy overall.
Critics also argue that NAFTA has caused the U.S. to lose higher wage manufacturing and shipping jobs, while displacing Mexican agricultural workers into other sectors or forcing them to emigrate and illegally enter the United States.
Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group, claims that federal government data reveals that NAFTA has had a negative impact on the American work force through rising imports or sending jobs offshore. Nearly 2,500 companies in Texas alone have had workers or union affiliates who have filed petitions with the U.S. Department of Labor for training or temporary support under its Trade Adjustment Assistance program.
Finally, critics admit that NAFTA may have increased foreign investment and trade. But what it didn’t produce was good jobs and economic development.
Twenty Years Later, Nafta Remains a Source of Tension (by Julian Aguilar, Texas Tribune)
NAFTA Labor Accord Ineffective: Future Trade Pacts Must Avoid Pitfalls (Human Rights Watch)
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (Public Citizen)
The Broken Promise of NAFTA (Joseph E. Stiglitz, New York Times)
Mexican farmers protest NAFTA (by Hector Tobar, Los Angeles Times)
NAFTA & Globalization is Killing Mexico’s Farmers (by Brendan M. Case, Dallas Morning News)
Pro (It Works):
Many economists call NAFTA a resounding success, and credit it for fueling unprecedented trade and creating millions of jobs in the United States.
Supporters point to the growth in the nations’ GDPs as examples of the pact’s positive effects. They include the creation of a net 15 million jobs in the U.S. within the first five years and made the Texas ports of Laredo and El Paso as being among the United States’ busiest.
In addition, America’s farmers have benefitted greatly from NAFTA, because it’s meant more export opportunities, according to the U.S. government. Within a few years of NAFTA’s approval, U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico nearly doubled. In 2012, Mexico imported $18.9 billion of U.S. agricultural products, making it the United States’ third-largest agricultural market.
Also, American exports of agricultural and other products to Canada since implementation of NAFTA were up 191% by 2012, according to the U.S. Trade Representative. Canada is the second largest market for U.S. agricultural exports, with Canadians purchasing $20.6 billion worth of American food products in 2012, thanks in part to NAFTA.
U.S.-Canada Trade Facts (U.S. Trade Representative)
In Our Opinion: NAFTA's Success Shows Importance Of Free Trade (Deseret News)
Advantages of NAFTA (by Kimberly Amadeo, About.com)
Mexican President Defends NAFTA Despite Protests (by Mica Rosenberg, Reuters)
(by Mica Rosenberg, Reuters)
Was CAFTA-DR a good idea?
The Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) is a comprehensive trade agreement between Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the United States. The legislation (also called CAFTA) was signed by President George W. Bush on August 2, 2005; El Salvador on March 1, 2006; Honduras and Nicaragua on April 1, 2006; Guatemala on July 1, 2006; the Dominican Republic on March 1, 2007; and Costa Rica on October 7, 2007.
CAFTA created a free-trade zone by eliminating most tariffs and other trade barriers between the United States and Central America. President Bush and other CAFTA proponents said it would boost trade, help bring stability to Central America by creating jobs, and reduce the $2.3 billion U.S. trade deficit with the region.
But CAFTA opponents—consisting of U.S. consumer, labor, and agricultural groups—argued that the agreement would cost the United States jobs, impinge workers’ rights in the region, and do little to close the trade gap.
The Pros and Cons of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) on the Horticulture Sectors in the U.S. and Central American Countries. (University of Florida)
Q&A: The CAFTA Debate (by Lionel Beehner, New York Times)
Pro:
Supporters insist CAFTA was a good idea for the United States because it opened new markets and expanded opportunities for exports to Central America. They point to the fact that the six CAFTA partners of the U.S. have imported $15 billion annually in U.S. exports, including a quarter of all American textile exports.
Backers also claim the agreement is good for participants from Central America, including adding to the political and economic stability of the region. In addition, they say CAFTA has produced many positive elements since it went into effect, such as in Nicaragua, which implemented a 38.2% reduction in tariffs because of the agreement. Those tariffs resulted in increased trade and Nicaragua becoming more stable economically.
Four Reasons to Support CAFTA (Democratic Leadership Council)
NCC Producer Leaders Attend Pro-CAFTA Rally (by T. Cotton Nelson and Marjory Walker, National Cotton Council)
Con:
Some critics acknowledge that the intent of CAFTA was to create growth, economic strength, and jobs. Others contend its intent was to expand corporate rights and interests. In reality, the agreement has done little to reduce poverty and inequality, or create jobs. One key statistic: The region suffers from extreme poverty today (in 2012, about half the people were living below the poverty line of less than $4 a day), years after CAFTA went into effect. They further add that in the rural areas of Central America, two out of three individuals are still classified as poor.
Then, there is the U.S., where CAFTA has been little more than a continuation of the failed North American Free Trade Agreement that helped expand trade deficits and job losses for Americans. CAFTA follows a similar model that grants free access to the $12 trillion U.S. market for foreign companies to take advantage of low wages and low labor and environmental standards to undercut manufacturers in the United States. In return, U.S. manufacturers gain access to markets worth only a fraction of the U.S. market.
The Pros and Cons of CAFTA; CAFTA Continues Failed NAFTA Policy (American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition)
Will CAFTA be a boon to farmers and the food industry? (by Robert E. Scott, Economic Policy Institute)
Environmental Impacts of CAFTA (by Deborah James, Global Exchange)
Senate backs CAFTA sellout (Right Democrat)
DR-CAFTA Falls Short on Worker’s Rights (by Carol Pier, Human Rights Watch)
Costa Rica: Why We Reject CAFTA (by Eva Carazo Vargas, Americas Program, International Relations Center)
NAFTA
Problems with food aid and biotechnology
(PDF)
John Brewer, 2010–2011
John D. Brewer was selected to lead the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) after morale plummeted under the previous administrator. He took over as acting administrator on January 1, 2010, as administrator on January 27, and departed the agency in 2011. Although Brewer’s specialty had been security and threat assessment, it became his responsibility to get the FAS back on track and focused on its mission of promoting American farm goods throughout the world.
A native of Florence, South Carolina, Brewer attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, earning bachelor’s degrees in history and English (1989) before receiving his master’s in diplomatic history from the London School of Economics and Political Science in the United Kingdom.
Brewer’s career has spanned the public and private sectors. He worked for more than a decade in the federal government, serving in the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the Department of Defense’s Office of Counternarcotics, and the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. His areas of expertise included U.S. policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean, counter-narcotics policy, and anti-money laundering/counter-terrorist financing programs. His regional experience included Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East.
His work outside government included serving as American International Group’s (AIG) assistant editor for the Executive Briefing Book (EBB), a strategic analysis of global risk provided to CEOs and risk managers, and leading the working group that developed the company’s Threat Assessment Center, which handled information regarding a threat or incident involving any AIG facility worldwide. Brewer later became a senior analyst in AIG’s Office of Global Risk Assessments making him responsible for providing analysis on business risks and global threats that could impact the company’s businesses in Latin America, Eastern Europe, India, Africa, and the Middle East.
Before joining the FAS, he worked at the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, where he was an associate on the Global Security/Threat Finance Team. Brewer handled intelligence and finance-related projects for firm clients, including the departments of Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, and Treasury, as well as private-sector financial institutions such as Bank of America and Wachovia.
During the 2008 Democratic contest for president, Brewer worked on the short-lived campaign of Tom Vilsack, former governor of Iowa who later was tabbed by President Barack Obama to be his secretary of agriculture. Brewer joined the FAS in July 2009 as associate administrator, and the following month he also took on the role of general sales manager.
Michael V. Michener, 2009
Michael V. Michener, a native of New London, Iowa, was educated at the University of Maryland in Europe while serving with the U.S. Army. Michener had worked at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Kosovo, Montenegro, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, spending time overseas promoting post-conflict stability operations, economic development, and human rights.
From 2005 to 2007, he served as the lead Iraq policy officer for the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, managing nearly $400 million in assistance programs promoting democracy and human rights in that country. He later served as the Senior Democracy and Governance Advisor and Lead Planning Officer for the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization.
The same year he was appointed Administrator of FAS, Michener was reassigned by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to the position of special representative in the U.S. embassy to the United Nations food agencies in Rome. Michener was reportedly moved after an FAS personnel survey indicated morale was suffering under his watch. Both current and retired FAS officers had criticized Michener for paying too much attention to agricultural development projects in Afghanistan, while neglecting the agency’s traditional mission of analyzing foreign agricultural production and promoting the sale of U.S. agricultural products.
Vilsack Names Michener Foreign Agricultural Service Administrator
Head of Foreign Agricultural Service reassigned (by Jerry Hagstrom, Government Executive)
Suzanne K. Hale, 2009
Michael W. Yost, 2006–2009
A. Ellen Terpstra, 2002–2006
Mary T. Chambliss, 2001–2002
- Table of Contents
- Overview
- History
- What it Does
- Where Does the Money Go
- Controversies
- Suggested Reforms
- Comments
- Leave a comment
Comments