Competitor Countries Outspend US on Agri-Food Export Promotion by $1.1 Billion

An analysis of competitor countries' market
development programs
Summary report
Prepared for:
Cooperator Organizations led by U.S. Wheat Associates
May 2013
Agralytica
333 North Fairfax Street, Suite 202
Alexandria, VA 22314 USA
Tel: (703) 739-9090
Fax: (703) 739-9098

Page left blank for double-sided printing

Competitor countries’ market development programs
and expenditures
Summary report
Prepared for
Cooperator Organizations led by U.S. Wheat Associates
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................I
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................1
Objectives and scope..................................................................... 1
Objectives ......................................................................... 1
Geographic coverage ............................................................ 2
Scope of issues.................................................................... 2
Methodology ............................................................................... 2
PART 1: COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF EXPORT PROMOTION EXPENDITURES 4
1.1. Estimated expenditures for agri-food export promotion ................... 4
1.1.1. Investing in export development promotion........................ 4
1.1.2. Comparison of agri-food export promotion expenditures ........ 6
1.1.3. Export promotion expenditure by sector ........................... 6
1.1.4. Trends in export promotion spending ............................... 7
1.2. Approach to export promotion ................................................. 9
1.2.1. Institutional frameworks for export development/promotion... 9
1.2.2. Export market development models................................10
1.2.3. Industry centralization of export development/promotion .....10
1.2.4. National branding .....................................................11
1.2.5. Target markets ........................................................11
1.2.6. Building capacity: support to individual companies..............12
1.2.7. Activities undertaken .................................................12
1.2.8. Assessing programs impact...........................................13
1.3. Conclusions.......................................................................13
1.4. The implications for export market development/promotion in the US 15
1.5. How the US compares...........................................................16
1.6. Looking forward .................................................................18
PART 2: COUNTRY SUMMARIES......................................................... 20

2.1. Europe ............................................................................20
2.1.1. The European Union (central funding) .............................20
2.1.2. France...................................................................21
2.1.3. Italy......................................................................22
2.1.4. The Netherlands .......................................................22
2.1.5. Spain ....................................................................23
2.1.6. Turkey...................................................................24
2.2. Americas..........................................................................24
2.2.1. Canada ..................................................................24
2.2.2. Brazil ....................................................................25
2.2.3. Chile.....................................................................26
2.3. Asia, Oceania and Africa .......................................................27
2.3.1. Australia ................................................................27
2.3.2. New Zealand ...........................................................28
2.3.3. China ....................................................................28
2.3.4. South Africa ............................................................29

COMPETITOR COUNTRIES' MARKET DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Executive summary
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Exports have become a primary growth vehicle for many agricultural sectors in the United States and are
of major strategic importance. However, the US is facing increasing competition. Traditional
competitors, as well as new international players, have been changing the trade playing field and gaining
market share. The US exporter community needs to understand how its competitors approach export
promotion to help develop its own effective strategies and programs. This study has been completed to
help fill this knowledge gap.
The study analyzed market development programs in a sample of 12 competitor countries: France, Italy,
Spain and the Netherlands in the EU, Canada, Brazil and Chile in the Americas, as well as Australia, New
Zealand, China, South Africa and Turkey. These countries represent about a third of world agricultural
trade.
1
In addition to the individual countries, the European Union’s central public funds available for
promotion were reviewed as well.
The analysis focused on competitors’ export enhancing activities, similar to USDA’s Market Access
Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development (FMD) program; it excluded other programs such as
export finance, tax policy or farm support programs.
Most reviewed countries report their expenditures in sufficient detail that combined with information
collected through interviewing government and industry executives allowed the calculation of robust
estimates of export promotion expenditures. However, China, Turkey and, to some extent, South Africa
had little or no published information. Desk research and interviews provided some information, but
could not fill all gaps. For these countries, the export promotion expenditures presented in the report
are best estimates based on the information gathered. Despite this lack of comprehensive information,
the estimates are believed to be within the right order of magnitude.
Key findings
 The competition is real and active. Collectively competitors outspend the United States to
promote their agri-food production internationally.
- As a whole, the sample of 12 countries, including four EU countries, plus the remaining
23 EU central fund allocation and required Member State and industry match, spent an
estimated US $0.7 billion in public funds and US $1.1 billion in industry funds for a total
of US$1.8 billion in 2011.
- The partial EU-27 estimate (excludes any investment above the required EU central fund
match of the 23 EU countries not included in the study) exceeded US$460 million in
public funds and nearly US$350 million in industry funds, totaling over US$800 million in
2011.
- The EU-27 central funds alone allocated an estimated US$360 million of public funds in
2011 to Member States for export promotion of agri-food products and wine.
- For comparison, in 2011, US public expenditure on export promotion was US$256 million
and industry expenditures were US $394 million, for a total of US$650 million.
 Relative to GDP or agricultural production, the US public spending for market development
is among the lowest of the countries examined.
1
Source: Food and Agriculture Organizations of the UN Statistics (FAO Stats)

Executive summary
ii
 Public spending on export promotion by the 12 countries reviewed increased by an estimated
103 percent since 2002, while total funding has risen 38 percent. Spain’s total expenditures
alone more than doubled and Canada’s quadrupled.
 Evidence suggests that investment in export development/promotion is likely to continue to
grow:
- EU promotion funds are projected to increase significantly in the 2014-2020 budget.
- EU funding for wine promotion alone was US$116 million in 2010 and US$155 million in
2011. The 2013 budget is almost double that, at close to $300 million.
- Canada recently announced three new federal programs to better address innovation,
competition and market development.
- Australia is considering initiating industry funded market development for wheat.
- Commodity export promotion groups are being established in Turkey with the sole
objective to promote exports suggesting that more focused investment in export
development and promotion could be expected in the coming years.
 Trade shows are universally recognized as effective and essential activities requiring
government support. National pavilions are typically supported by public funds and are
considered critical showcases that demand priority funding. Meanwhile, the US direct
government investment in trade shows and national pavilions is about a quarter of what it
was in the mid-1990s.
 Public support to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is a key objective of competitor
programs.
 Other key findings of competitor activities include:
- Trade missions, both outward and inward, are viewed as an effective tool and are
widely used by most.
- Focus on market access is growing. In general, monitoring trade policies and securing
market access are seen as essential components of market development.
- Most of the countries studied have invested in developing a national brand that projects
differentiated attributes of their products; however the concept is not universally
appropriate to all markets or products.
 The eligibility of different types of organizations to receive government support varied
considerably among the countries reviewed:
- Some countries follow a model similar to that in the US, industry organizations compete
for available government funds to support export promotion. Typically one
representative industry organization per sector receives funds (e.g. Canada and Brazil).
- Some allow more flexibility. Chile allows individual companies to form consortiums and
apply for government funding for generic export promotion. The various EU regulations
that provide funding for promotion allow for different types of industry organizations
and producer groups to apply for funding.
- Some EU regulations limit eligibility on the basis of product sectors and/or target
markets.

Executive summary
iii
- Some countries allow industry organizations to receive public funding for multi-year
export promotion programs (e.g. all Brazilian and EU funded programs, and some
Canadian cases).
 There is wide acceptance of the value of investment in export promotion; the US will
continue to face the full force of competitors’ promotional activities that seek to draw
consumers and users toward their products.
 The study suggests that the current US market development programs provide an effective
solution to many of the issues faced by competitors in developing export market
development programs. The US model:
- Provides government oversight without major strategic restrictions;
- Does not exclude sectors due to top down imposition of priorities;
- Provides clearly stated objectives and measures due to the Results-Oriented
Management framework;
- Provides encouragement and support to SMEs that are new to export;
- Through the State Regional Trade Groups, assists and coordinates the efforts of
individual States on export development; and
- Encourages export promotion groups to work together to capture opportunities that they
all seek or address situations that are best handled collaboratively.

Summary report
1
Competitor countries’ market development programs and expenditures
Summary report
INTRODUCTION
This is an abbreviated version of the full report which in its entirety consists of the following two
volumes:
1. An analysis of competitor countries’ market development programs
2. Detailed country reports
Objectives and scope
Several organizations, led by U.S. Wheat Associates, representing a range of agricultural commodities
commissioned Agralytica to research the export promotion programs and expenditures of 12 countries plus
the EU centralized promotional funds.
Objectives
The main objective of the project was to provide an understanding of the scope and content of some of
the key US competitor countries’ export development programs, the level of investment and policies.
The specific objectives were as follows:
 Catalogue each country’s current (2010 or 2011) export development programs that fund a
wide variety of trade promotion, market access, retail, foodservice, and technical assistance
activities as well as overseas representation and offices. These should be comparable but
not limited to programs like the US programs (e.g. MAP, FMD).
 Identify the sources of funding, the organizations involved, and the monetary investment
allocated to supporting trade show participation.
 Compare and illustrate changes between current organizations and programs and those in
2002-04 when another similar study was completed.
2
The study covers all food, feed and fiber products traded in unprocessed or processed forms, collectively
referred to as agri-food products. This includes the products of all conventionally classified agricultural
and horticultural products, aquatic products, forest products, and biomass products (based on grains,
oilseeds and other renewable raw materials). Finished non-food processed products such as textiles and
furniture were excluded.
2
A similar study titled ‘The Competition in 2002’ was published by the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service
(FAS) in 2004. That study covered more countries (29 vs. the current 12), but in less depth. Comparisons
are provided for the countries covered by both studies.

Summary report
2
Geographic coverage
Coverage for this study included the following 12 countries and EU centralized promotional efforts:
 In the EU:
- France;
- Italy;
- Spain;
- Netherlands; and
- EU 27 central funding;
 Australia;
 Brazil;
 Canada;
 Chile;
 China;
 New Zealand;
 South Africa; and
 Turkey.
These countries have been selected as a subsample of the countries covered in the FAS study published in
2004. The current sample of 12 countries accounts for about one-third of the world’s total agricultural
trade; there are many large agri-food exporters that are not included: Germany, the UK, Japan, South
Korea, and Mexico, to name a few.
Scope of issues
This study focused exclusively on measures to promote agri-food products internationally, whether
through market development activities or product promotion efforts. It did not include any other
measures that governments might take to directly or indirectly support exports such as funding of export
sales through subsidies, the provision of export credits, export credit guarantees, tax concessions, or
activities to improve the productivity of an agri-food sector (even if that was directed to improve export
performance).
Methodology
Agralytica conducted the research between June and December 2012. It involved desk research, 160 in-
person interviews with senior executives at government agencies and industry organizations, and
consultation with officers at the US Agricultural Trade Offices in the target countries and with US industry
organizations involved in export development.
For most countries, published information on promotional budgets for both government and/or sector
programs was obtained. In many cases the interviews provided at least some of the information missing
from published documents. However, a few countries did not publish expenditure information and the
interviews could not fill all gaps. This was the case for the following:
 In South Africa, information on budgets was sparse. For most key organizations, either the
industry match or the government contribution was assumed, based on the government’s
50/50 co-funding program, or agency budgets.
 In Turkey, no expenditure data were available. Consequently, trade show attendance data,
along with documented activities eligible for government support, were used to develop
expenditure estimates.
 In China, only information on national government support was available; provincial and
local support was not. Trade show participation and funding was estimated based on
information about China’s participation in international trade shows most of which appears
to be funded at the provincial level.

Summary report
3
Level of confidence in results
For most countries the methodology has resulted in high confidence that the overwhelming majority of
promotional programs and expenditures for agricultural exports have been captured. This confidence
stems from the quantity and quality of published materials as well as confirmation through interviews.
Data were scarcer for South Africa and even more so for Turkey; consequently, the confidence level is
lower. However, the estimates are believed to be within the right order of magnitude.
For China, support could be provided by the central government level as well as by provincial
governments and at various local levels. Not all of these sources have been captured. This compounded
with the lack of transparency, leads to relatively low level of confidence that the country’s export
development effort has been captured in its entirety. However, although the degree of confidence in the
China estimates is lower, even if the estimate was doubled, the differences would not significantly alter
the total combined competitor promotion budgets, as it is but one among many. Furthermore, China is
not noted for intensive export promotion, although its agriculture industry does participate in many trade
shows, sometimes with a large presence.

Summary report
4
PART 1: COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS OF EXPORT PROMOTION EXPENDITURES
1.1. Estimated expenditures for agri-food export promotion
1.1.1. Investing in export development promotion
Competition is real and active. Competitors recognize the importance of market development, consider
it effective, and spend significant funds to promote exports. Collectively, the 12 competitors in the
study, as well as the partially reviewed EU-27, outspend the United States.
 The 12 countries reviewed, including four EU countries, and the European central funds
allocated to the remaining 23 EU Member States and their required public and industry
match, totaled an estimated US$0.7 billion in public funds and US$1.1 billion in industry
funds, for a total expenditure of US$1.8 billion for export promotion of agricultural, food,
and fiber products in 2011.
 A partial EU-27 estimate has market development investment exceeding US$460 million in
public funds and nearly US$350 million in industry funds, totaling over US$800 million in
2011. The European Union presents a unique situation in that three funding sources are
utilized for export promotion and market development. These include EU central public
funds, individual Member State public funds and industry funds. The EU-27 estimate is
partial because it is based on total EU central funds and the member state government and
industry match, and all-source funding for the four EU countries covered in the study. For
the 23 EU countries not included in the study, only the minimum match required for EU
central funds is assumed for the Member States public and industry contribution
components.
 The EU central fund alone allocated an estimated total of US$360 million in 2011 to Member
States for export promotion of agri-food products and wine. The largest share was allocated
to wine promotion.
 For comparison, the US spent an estimated US$256 million in public funds and US$394million
in industry funds, for a total of US$650 million for export promotion in 2011.
3
 Of the 12 countries reviewed, public funding was the largest in France, Italy, Spain and
Canada. In the three European countries, a major share (over 50%) was derived from the EU
central fund, primarily for wine promotion.
 Public funds accounted for over 50 percent of the total estimated promotion expenditure in
all countries except the Netherlands, Australia, and New Zealand where the governments
have largely withdrawn from direct funding of generic export promotion. New Zealand had
the largest overall spending due to over $500 million in international marketing and
promotion spent by two for-profit farmer owned cooperative companies, Fonterra (dairy)
and Zespri (kiwifruit), which account for most of the country’s exports.
3
Source: US Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service

Summary report
5
Estimated EU-27 expenditure for agri-food export promotion, 2011
Country
Confidence
ratinga Public funds Industry funds Total Public funds Industry funds
---------- US $ million --------- ---------- share ---------
France b
High 74 45 119 62% 38%
Italy b
High 123 75 198 62% 38%
Netherlands b
High 5 39 44 12% 88%
Spain b
High 66 49 115 57% 43%
Remaining 23 EU States c
High 195 137 332 59% 41%
EU27 (partial) d
High 463 345 808 57% 43%
a/
High: high transparency, availability of public information and good industry response allowed for precise estimation.
b/
Public funds for the four countries researched in the study include EU central funds, the required individual government
match for EU funds and any additional public funding. The industry estimate includes the required EU match and any
additional industry funding.
c/
For the 23 EU countries not included in the study, public funds include the EU central funds and only the required
individual government match. The industry estimate includes only the required EU match. No funds beyond the required
match to receive EU central funds are included.
d/
The EU27 estimated expenditure is partial because only four of 27 countries were included in the study and researched in
detail.
Total estimated expenditure for agri-food export promotion, 2011
Country
Confidence
rating a
Public
funds
Industry
funds
Total
Public
funds
Industry
funds
---------- US $ million --------- ---------- share ---------
EU27 (partial) High 463 345 808 57% 43%
Australia High 35 68 103 34% 66%
Brazil High 31 17 48 64% 36%
Canada High 83 45 129 65% 35%
Chile High 18 13 31 57% 43%
New Zealand b
High 12 551 563 2% 98%
South Africa Medium 12 10 21 55% 45%
China Low 31 20 51 61% 39%
Turkey Low 19 19 38 50% 50%
Total estimated expenditure 703 1,089 1,791 39% 61%
a/
Confidence rating is defined as follows:
 High: high transparency, availability of public information and good industry response allowed for precise
estimation.
 Medium: some publicly available information and reasonable industry response; export promotion expenditures were
estimated on the basis of available information and some informed assumptions about fund availability and
allocations had to be made in order to fill the gaps.

Low: limited information available at various levels; export promotion expenditures were estimated on the basis of
informed assumptions about funds required to complete known activities (e.g trade show participation).
b/
New Zealand’s expenditures are higher than other countries because of two unique cases. Its dairy and kiwifruit industries
are each represented by a single farmer-owned cooperative company that accounts for over 90% of the country’s entire
output. These companies, Fonterra (dairy) and Zespri (kiwifruit), are for-profit entities that invest heavily in international
marketing. They are included in this review because they are the near exclusive exporters of their nation’s products and are
granted some government privileges, such as special antitrust legislation provisions.
Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding

Summary report
6
Estimated export promotion spending per
US$1,000 agricultural production, 2011
Source for GDP: International Monetary Fund Source for agricultural production: FAO Stat
Estimated export promotion spending
per US$1,000 GDP, 2011
Note: New Zealand’s expenditures are higher than other countries because of two unique cases. Two for-profit farmer-owned cooperative
companies, Fonterra (dairy) and Zespri (kiwifruit), are included in this review because they are the near exclusive exporters of their nation’s
products, invest heavily in export marketing of their products, and have special antitrust legislation provisions.
1.1.2. Comparison of agri-food export promotion expenditures
There are many ways to compare the level of agri-food export promotion of different countries. Two
comparisons are illustrated in the following figures. They show that the US spends relatively low amounts
of public funds for export promotion in relation to GDP and agricultural production.
In terms of public investment in export promotion as a share of GDP, the US was below nearly all of the
countries examined, including New Zealand, Chile, Italy, Spain, Canada, South Africa, France, Turkey and
Australia. In terms of investment in promotion as a share of value of agricultural production, again, the
US was among the lowest; below Italy, Chile, Canada, Spain, France, and New Zealand.
1.1.3. Export promotion expenditure by sector
The total expenditure for promoting dairy products and
horticultural products is skewed because of the high
export marketing investment of New Zealand’s Fonterra
and Zespri, US$469 million and US$67.5 million
respectively. As seen in the figure, with these excluded,
wine promotions accounted for by far the largest share of
promotional expenditure. All countries that produce
some wine also promote it generically in international
markets. Specifically:
 Three of the four reviewed European
countries are major wine producers and
exporters and the beneficiaries of
considerable EU funds. Wine accounts for
about 70% of the total promotional spending
in Italy and Spain, and almost 50% in France.
Total estimated export promotion expenditures by
sector, 2011
Note: Expenditures for dairy and horticultural products are
skewed because of the inclusion of New Zealand’s Fonterra and
Zespri.

Summary report
7
 Wine promotion is also important in the remaining wine producing countries included in the
study: Australia, New Zealand, Chile, and South Africa. However, their expenditures are
dwarfed by the EU countries.
The next most important recipient of promotional funds was horticulture. All reviewed countries
promoted horticultural products.
 It was the single largest sector in the Netherlands. Horticulture represented over 90% of the
total, although the expenditure on generic promotion was almost all from the private sector.
 Most of South Africa’s and Chile’s export promotion funds were allocated to horticulture,
over 55% and 30% respectively.
 Significant funds were spent on horticulture by France and Spain.
Proteins (animal products and genetics) were particularly important in Australia, Canada, New Zealand,
and Brazil. Red meat represented one third of the total promotional spending in Australia.
Processed food and beverage funding was significant in Brazil, Canada, and Chile. Italy, Spain and France
also spent significant funds for food and beverage promotions, primarily of products with geographic
indications, such as Parma ham, Parmigiano Reggiano cheese and many other products from EU countries
that are protected by their specific geographic origin or method of production.
Of the remaining product sectors:
 Australia was the only sampled country that invests in wool promotion, which accounted for
25% of its total promotional spending;
 Close to 40% of Canada’s promotional funds were spent on wood products. New Zealand,
France and Chile also invested in wood promotion, but less than US$1 million per year;
 Canada invested about 13% of its promotional funds on grains and oilseeds. The only other
country with documented spending on grain and oilseed promotion was France, but it
accounted for less than 3% of the country’s total spending. However there are indications
that more countries may get involved in grain promotion in the future:
- Turkey has recently set up a specific group focused on the export promotion of flour;
- Australia has not been promoting wheat overseas since the privatization of the statutory
commodity board. However, recent evidence suggests that the industry is considering
funding some export market development programs in the coming years; and
- In South Africa, there is an organization, Grain SA, which has an objective to work on
export development. Although not currently spending funds on planned export
promotion, it might do so in the future.
1.1.4. Trends in export promotion spending
This review enabled comparisons with the earlier study reporting 2002 export promotion expenditures. It
had broader geographic coverage (29 countries vs. the current 12) but focused primarily on the
expenditure, while the current study examines each country in more depth.
The changes that have occurred since 2002 for the twelve countries covered by both studies are shown in
the following table. It does not include the EU public funds for the additional 23 EU member states which
were not studied in detail.

Summary report
8
Comparison of estimated export promotion expenditure in 2002 and 2011
2002 2002 (real 2011 dollars) a
2011
Public
funding
Industry
funding
Total Public
funding
Industry
funding
Total Public
funding
Industry
funding
Total
------------------------------ US $ million ------------------------------
Australia $31 $18 $49 $38 $22 $61 $35 $68 $103
Brazil $50 $70 $120 $62 $86 $148 $31 $17 $48
Canada $13 $13 $25 $16 $16 $31 $83 $45 $129
Chile $13 $13 $27 $16 $16 $33 $18 $13 $31
China - - - - - - $31 $20 $51
France $43 $47 $90 $52 $58 $111 $74 $45 $119
Italy $11 $11 $22 $13 $13 $27 $123 $75 $198
Netherlands $7 $45 $52 $8 $55 $64 $5 $39 $44
New Zealandb
$1 $352 $353 $1 $434 $435 $12 $551 $563
South Africa $2 $57 $59 $2 $71 $73 $12 $10 $21
Spain $32 $21 $53 $39 $26 $65 $66 $49 $115
Turkey $1 $4 $6 $2 $5 $7 $19 $19 $38
Total (12 countries) $203 $652 $855 $250 $804 $1,054 $508 $952 $1,460
a/
The 2002 figures have been inflated to show their inflation adjusted value in 2011.
b/
Expenditures are skewed because of the inclusion of New Zealand’s Fonterra and Zespri.
Note: Numbers may not add up due to rounding
 Total estimated export promotion expenditure of the 12 countries reviewed in both studies
has increased by 38 percent. Public funds spent on export promotion have increased by 103
percent and industry funds, by 18 percent.
 Export promotion expenditures in France and Chile have remained almost unchanged.
 The largest increase is observed in Italy; this is accounted for almost exclusively by wine.
 Spain’s expenditure has more than doubled; again, this is attributed to the increased EU
funding for wine promotion.
 In Canada, export promotion expenditure has quadrupled due to a significant increase of
both public and industry funds.
 In Australia, public funding levels have not changed but industry spending has tripled.
 The increase in New Zealand is accounted for by the expenditures of Fonterra and Zespri.
 Public funding in the Netherlands has remained unchanged, but industry funding has
decreased as commodity sectors have turned their backs on compulsory levies (check-offs).
 The reduced expenditure in Brazil is surprising, but the suspected reason is some differences
in the products included, or the methodology of collecting data in the 2002 study. The
current methodology results in high confidence in the 2011 figure.
 Similarly, South Africa seems to be spending less now than 10 years ago. It is possible the
earlier study captured export promotion expenditures that have carried over from the pre-
deregulation period. Deregulation was followed by almost a decade of virtually no export
promotion, which has only begun to pick up in recent years.
 As a reference point, US export promotion expenditures have also increased during this
period, from US$330 million (or US$410 million when adjusted for inflation to reflect 2011

Summary report
9
All reviewed countries engage in generic export promotion and will continue to do so.
values) to US$650 million. This is a 59% percent increase, less than Canada, Italy, Spain,
Australia, and Turkey.
1.2. Approach to export promotion
1.2.1. Institutional frameworks for export development/promotion
In all countries under review, the government provides some support for export development.
Government co-funding of generic export promotion programs undertaken by not-for-profit industry
organizations is common in many countries. A few governments have mostly withdrawn from providing
direct monetary support to such efforts.
For some countries the institutional framework is the child of the country’s institutional history. For
example, France relies on producer groups and inter-professional organizations, Italy on the profusion of
regional and local organizations, and Spain on a prominent and powerful central agency.
In other countries, it is strongly influenced by recent political sentiment and the need to rein back the
commitment of public funds. For example, Australia, New Zealand, and the Netherlands have reduced
their direct funding of export promotion largely in response to broader political forces that have reduced
government participation in many sectors of the economy.
Canada and the European Union are in the process of realigning their export promotion policies. They will
continue to rely upon close public/private partnerships.
Those countries that had substantial experience of export market development programs have developed
a solid legislative framework. In some of the countries, it was less easy to identify a clear, unambiguous
legislative framework that defined the nature of partnerships or eligibility. This was particularly the case
in Turkey, China, and to some extent, South Africa. In Italy, the activities of a patchwork of regional and
local institutions obscure full understanding of its approach to export market development.
In Europe, the introduction of legislation on geographic indications (GI) in the European Union has
strengthened the position of products in higher value food markets without giving direct subsidies
(although some GI organizations could bid for EU promotional funds). This innovation sidesteps the
constraints introduced by internal EU market regulations that restrict generic Member State promotional
activities.

Summary report
10
Models of export market development/promotion
1.2.2. Export market development models
The following figure illustrates a model to
classify the character of export promotion by
the countries under review, excluding China.
The horizontal axis represents the extent of
government co-funding of export promotion and
the vertical axis represents adherence to
‘generic’ promotion.
The countries in the bottom left quadrant of
the matrix have the strongest public/private
relationship and the strictest generic approach.
The US has this approach as well.
France, Italy, and Spain appear once in the
bottom left quadrant of the matrix because the
EU rules for promoting in other Member States
using EU funds are very strict and do not allow
differentiating on the basis of country of origin against other EU origins. However, these countries also
appear in the top left quadrant of the matrix because, a large number of EU products are registered
under some geographical indication (GI) scheme that protects products from competition based on
location or method of production. Due to the limited number of producers in a GI consortium (e.g. Parma
ham) and restrictions on where/how the product should be produced, GI product promotions are closer to
branded than truly generic.
Australia and New Zealand appear in the top right quadrant because for some commodities they apply a
strong branded and industry funded approach.
The Netherlands is in the bottom right quadrant as the government is minimally involved in funding export
promotion programs, but some industry groups undertake programs that can be classified as generic.
South Africa is in the same quadrant as the Netherlands, although the government there is moving in the
opposite direction, from almost complete withdrawal of direct funding for export promotion after
deregulation in the 1990s to beginning to provide some support. South African industry organizations
undertake typical generic programs.
China is not represented in this matrix because the concepts and programs for export promotion are still
evolving. Industry organizations representing agricultural sectors are little developed and government
and provincial support is uncoordinated.
1.2.3. Industry centralization of export development/promotion
The term ‘industry centralization’ as used in this section refers to the number of industry organizations
per sector that are involved in export development and promotion. In most countries reviewed, the
generic export development effort is relatively centralized, typically with one industry organization per
sector involved (e.g. dairy, poultry, red meat, etc.). This is also the US approach. These organizations
either receive some public co-funding, or are solely industry funded; they can be umbrella organizations
unifying multiple industry associations, organizations with memberships comprising either producers,
processors, exporters, or all of these groups. Chile represents a variation of this approach; in addition to
industry organizations there is the option for several individual companies (at least five) to get together

Summary report
11
and apply for public funds to promote their common ‘generic’ brand. There are also some notable
exceptions. For example:
 In Spain, the management of export promotion programs is in the hands of ICEX, the national
trade development agency. Industry organizations pay contributions to ICEX to run the
programs.
 In Italy, all attempts for some unified approach seem to be failing. Most sectors are
represented by multiple layers of regional and industry organizations which are involved in
export promotion. Products with geographic indications feature prominently and offer some
focus to promotional efforts.
 Multiple EU regulations and programs for export promotion provide options for different
industry organizations and groups, sometimes promoting the same type of product, to
receive funding.
 Industry organizations do not currently play a significant role in export promotion in China.
The evolution of the Chinese model remains uncertain, although some anticipate a greater
role for industry organizations as the marketing system matures.
 In Turkey, several industry sector promotion groups have been set up with the sole purpose
to promote exports (poultry, seafood, fresh fruits & vegetables, citrus, hazelnuts,
pistachios, confectionery, and flour). However, exporters are organized in regional Exporter
Unions which engage in some promotional activities (trade shows, trade missions, etc.); thus
some product groups can be represented by several unions.
1.2.4. National branding
Most countries have put some effort into developing a national brand that projects the attributes which
differentiate their products (e.g. quality, flavor, sustainability, diversity, fair trade, etc.). Only the
Netherlands, Turkey, and China are not involved in national agri-food product branding.
However, branding is used selectively by some. For example, in Canada a national brand was developed
following research which showed positive consumer perceptions about Canada and concluded that the
Canadian image would sit comfortably with Canadian food and beverage promotions. But, not all export
groups use the Canada brand. Some reported the concept is not appropriate to all markets and some
noted that reputations can change (e.g. Canadian oil and greenhouse gas emissions have impacted
Canada’s ‘sustainability’ credentials). Clearly, the development of a national brand has to be carefully
researched and risks being blown off course by unexpected events.
Others, such as New Zealand and Australia have developed and used for some years a national brand for
promoting tourism. They now use it whenever appropriate to link the promotion of tourism to food and
agricultural products.
1.2.5. Target markets
It is difficult to generalize about the target markets because they depend very much on the specific
product category and targeted market segment. But, there are some common trends:
 China features prominently on every country’s radar for the full range of products promoted.
 Most consider the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) to be the new target
markets, but market access challenges in India have reduced its immediate attractiveness.

Summary report
12
 Mature markets such as the United States, the European Union, Japan, Taiwan, and South
Korea are also important but are more likely to be targeted by exporters of higher value
products within the countries reviewed.
 Latin America is seen as an opportunity.
 Geography, tradition, and/or cultural ties also play a role (e.g. Brazil gives priority to
Portuguese speaking markets).
1.2.6. Building capacity: support to individual companies
Most reviewed countries provide support to small and medium-sized enterprises with a focus on those that
are inexperienced in developing export markets. Support comes in a number of different forms such as
grants to reimburse some export promotion related expenditures, or technical assistance, and training.
Australia, Canada, Spain, Brazil, and South Africa have dedicated programs for small companies. France,
Italy, and the Netherlands were the only reviewed countries for which no specific programs to assist small
and medium size agri-food businesses were identified.
1.2.7. Activities undertaken
The specific strategies carried out by export development organizations depend on the type of product
promoted. However, these involve a similar toolbox of activities used by all competitor countries.
 Organizations representing higher value products are more involved in typical market
promotion activities such as retail and consumer promotions or public relations (PR).
 Bulk product promotion involves more market building activities like education and technical
assistance mainly with users rather than consumers. However, only a few of the reviewed
countries are involved in promoting bulk products and consequently few are involved in
market building strategies at this time.
- The Canadian model follows that of the United States with a major focus on market
education and development of close relationships with potential buyers.
- The promotion of Australian bulk products followed a similar path before privatization.
Today, there is evidence that some of these sectors seek to re-establish institutions that
will allow them to compete on equal terms in export markets with their competitors.
 Trade shows are universally recognized as effective and essential activities requiring support
from available government funding sources. National pavilions are typically supported by
public funds and are considered critical showcases that demand priority funding. Ironically,
the US direct investment in trade shows and national pavilions is only about a quarter of
what it was in the mid-1990s. It was not possible to fully identify all competitor investment
in trade shows.
 Trade missions are also viewed as very effective and were the next most utilized activity
after trade shows.
 There is increased attention by industry and governments to provide certification that will
enable access to higher value markets (e.g. organic, ‘responsibly managed’, non-GMO, etc.).
 Focus on market access is growing. In general, departments to monitor trade policies and
secure market access are seen as essential components of market development.

Summary report
13
1.2.8. Assessing programs impact
Irrespective of evaluation results that support investment in export promotion, all reviewed competitors
are convinced of its value. In very broad terms, several approaches to impact assessment and evaluation
were encountered. These ranged from the formal to the informal and included the following:
 Some countries required reviews of government policy initiatives undertaken by third parties
(consultants or academics). This was the case in the European Union and Canada.
 A few countries estimate cost-benefit ratios for promotional expenditure on export market
development. This has been undertaken by several Australian commodity organizations in
the past.
 Other countries measure pre-and post-promotion sales. For example, this was conducted by
some Brazilian organizations and was also applied in Canada, Australia, and in the reviewed
EU countries.
 Some countries undertake consumer or trade research to assess awareness. There was
evidence of this in several countries where consumer or trade promotions were used. It was
often difficult to assess whether or not this was to evaluate past work or as preparation for
upcoming market development programs.
 A few countries collect very informal and subjective assessments. These could be based on
sales or immediate feedback from activities such as seminars or workshops.
1.3. Conclusions
The rationale for engaging in export market development/promotion
Those organizations that have published evaluation results report positive returns on investment in export
promotion. In general, the US competitors that have been reviewed are convinced of its value. This
confidence exists even though few trace the causal links between programs and increased sales. Export
development programs exist because export growth is closely associated with economic stability.
Duration of funding
Several reviewed countries allow industry organizations to receive public funding for export promotion
based on multi-year contracts. The common sentiment is that this approach allows for better long-term
planning. The central EU funds allocated for export promotion programs typically extend for three years,
Brazil’s contracts fund industry organizations for two years, and Canada, in some but not all cases,
provides multi-year funding.
Eligibility
Countries such as Canada follow the US model in allowing open competition for available government
funds to support export market development and promotion. It was normal to fund only one
representative organization per industry sector. Any appropriate representative organization could apply
for funds. As in the US, some organizations had specific responsibilities for supporting small businesses
with their food export promotion activities.

Summary report
14
Some countries are more flexible. For example:
 In Chile, in addition to industry organizations, five or more individual companies can form
consortiums and apply jointly for government funding of their generic export promotion
plans.
 In some countries (e.g. New Zealand and Australia), industry organizations encourage
individual companies, regardless of their size, to participate in industry funded promotion.
Indeed, in these countries, larger companies are recognized as having greater capability of
developing markets, although it must be underlined that no public funds are involved.
 Under some EU regulations a wide range of organizations can benefit. For example, the
common organization of the wine sector allows ‘producer organizations’, private companies,
industry organizations, and other ‘public entities’ to apply for funds for third country export
promotion.
Other countries may limit eligibility. For example:
 The EU Regulation 3/2008 (the program that is the closest equivalent of the US MAP) limits
eligibility in two ways. First, the European Commission limits access to funds to product
sectors that it identifies. Unlike the US MAP, this means that some sectors with export
ambitions are not eligible to receive funds from this Regulation. Second, this Regulation
also limits funding to those applying for support focused on European Commission identified
target markets.
 In the same way, countries such as Brazil have provided government funded support to a
relatively narrow range of product groups. In Brazil, for example, funding is restricted to
twenty closely defined sectors, most of which are producing high value agri-food products.
Promotion as part of market or crisis management
There are several examples of export market promotion resulting from concerns about the state of the
domestic market. These concerns may relate to longer term structural problems or to short term crises.
 The EU, uniquely among the countries reviewed, provides funding for promotion as part of
some of its ‘common organization of markets’. In other words, it considers promotion as
one of the tools it can use to modify market forces to improve farmer incomes. These
measures apply specifically to fruit and vegetable and wine markets.
 In addition, the EU allocates funds for promotion to sectors that suffer a serious market
crisis. This applies to events such as animal disease outbreaks that have reduced consumer
confidence in products, although promotional funds also have been allocated to sectors that
have suffered more general market difficulties. Such funds were allocated for dairy and
fruit and vegetables promotion during the reviewed period.
 Canada has also provided similar assistance with funding for promotion (domestic and
export) being directed to the pork and beef sectors to help them recover from disease
issues.

Summary report
15
Allocation of public funds for export promotion
A variety of different methods is used to allocate public funds. Most are based on competitive bids
although few have sufficient transparency to make sound comparisons.
In general, it is very difficult to identify a fund allocation process based on an empirical approach. Those
countries that were willing to discuss the allocation methods suggested that proposals were evaluated by
exposing them to a panel of ‘experts’ who contributed their subjective response. Undoubtedly, in some
countries with a reasonably long history of supporting export market development and promotion, the
historical level of funding also played a role. In countries that were newer to export market
development, there was relatively little history to rely upon and consequently allocations were more
likely to be based upon the nature of plans. In Canada, the major market development program is
reviewed every five years which means that new criteria could be applied in the review of competing
programs, although there is little evidence to suggest that this results in a significant readjustment of
funding.
Measuring program impact
The questions on evaluation often revealed an awareness of the complexities in quantifying the linkage
between promotional expenditure and sales progress. Some interview respondents specified the
difficulties in quantifying the return on their investment by listing the many variables that impact sales of
agricultural products – unpredictable supply, changing exchange rates, changing competitors’ supply and
price, emergence of unexpected trade or quarantine restrictions, or changing government policy. Others
were quite happy to simply highlight a growth in export sales without fully understanding the true
contribution of their export promotion expenditure.
Nowhere was there a comprehensive approach to assessing whether progress had been achieved as a
result of export market development programs. The USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service Results-Oriented
Management (USDA/FAS R-OM) procedures are integrated into the annual review of funding of export
organizations programs and are used as evidence that the program is going in the right direction. In this
respect USDA/FAS is ahead of most other countries.
1.4. The implications for export market development/promotion in the US
 US exporters will continue to face the full force of competitors’ promotional activities that
seek to draw consumer and user behavior toward their products. The study underlines the
wide acceptance of the value of investment in export market development and promotion.
 The allocation of public funds for export market development brings a number of
responsibilities.
- Funding should be made available only to those organizations that have developed
prudent, realistic, and coherent plans.
- The continuing allocation of funds should be based upon clear evidence of progress or
appropriate change of direction.
- Access to funding should be available in a transparent manner.
- Funding should be allocated in a manner that is coordinated and avoids overlap between
different organizations.

Summary report
16
 There is no single model that shines through as being more attractive than another and the
US model stands up well in comparison. Clearly, there are many ways to arrange the
institutional framework for export promotion programs; each country has developed and
adapted its institutions to meet perceived needs.
 Some features of other countries’ approaches have merit.
- Multi-year programs adopted by several countries guarantee funding and assist the
planning of programs. Also, the considerable cost of preparing, assessing, scoring, and
approving annual plans is reduced.
- Formal evaluation is closely integrated into some programs in the EU and this
management function is strongly institutionalized (in some case closely linked to funding
commitments). While this study has not reviewed this feature in detail, it appears to
underline the importance of formal program evaluation procedures.
 There are also features of other countries’ approaches that are less attractive
- The very centralized approach seen in some EU Regulations is inappropriate to US
circumstances. Centrally determined strategies or priorities can result in considerable
inefficiencies. Individual industry sectors, not government agencies, are best positioned
to identify their own target markets and best export potential.
 And some strategies have merit for the US but need to be pursued with caution.
- A national brand must be very carefully developed with assurances that those who use it
are appropriately selected and supervised. The concept is not equally appropriate for
all countries, products, and/or markets. The evidence from this review would suggest
that national branding would not add much value to US agri-food export development
unless tied to a closely supervised product and service quality package. Also, a US
brand would not be equally well accepted in all markets. In many countries ‘Made in
USA’ will mean high quality and safety, but in some countries it might not be welcome
for one reason or another, including politics (e.g. in some Middle Eastern countries).
For regions with strongly differentiated attributes, regional approaches have shown to
elicit positive impact among key targets in some cases (e.g. promoting the attributes of
states such as Alaska, California, or Florida). On the other hand, promoting individual
states’ products can confuse foreign target audiences and dilute messaging of positive
characteristics that are usually national in nature (e.g. food safety).
1.5. How the US compares
It is not the objective of this study to directly compare the US export market development and promotion
system for agricultural and food exports with other systems. However, this review has stimulated a listing
of some broad strengths and weaknesses of the US system. In very broad terms, this review suggests that
the current institutional arrangements in the US provide, in some cases, an effective solution to many of
the issues faced by countries in developing export market development programs.
Some major strengths are listed below:
 The strategic approach of agri-food exporters co-funded by US public funds is largely
determined by the needs of the sector rather than by top-down imposition of priorities. It
offers oversight without major strategic restrictions. For example, all agri-food sectors can
seek funding from the USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Unlike the EU and several
other countries, no sector is specifically excluded from eligibility and USDA/FAS actively

Summary report
17
encourages new groups to apply for support. Also, each agri-food sector can decide priority
target markets without coercion from the funding agency. The main restrictions on
USDA/FAS funding relate to ensuring that groups do not stray outside the authority granted
by the legislation or overlap with activities undertaken by other government agencies (e.g.
the US Trade Representative).
 The UES procedures adopted by USDA/FAS, underpinned by adherence to Results-Oriented
Management, help to develop export programs funded by the government that contain
clearly stated objectives and performance measures.
 In administering the agri-food export development system, USDA/FAS have made an effort to
ensure that export market development is part of a wider strategic effort by the various
industry sectors participating.
 Within the US the various legislative initiatives helped foster a community of organizations
that can share their knowledge of export market development. This agriculture and food
exporting community meets regularly to discuss a range of common issues, new concepts,
and procedures.
 The US system is organized to provide encouragement to small and medium-sized companies
that are new to export. It does this primarily through regional organizations (SRTGs - State
Regional Trade Groups) that provide a specialized service to small and medium-sized
companies to increase their confidence in export markets.
 SRTGs serve as a mechanism to coordinate and focus the efforts of individual states on
export market development. While states may fund some of their own export promotional
activities, most operate with the SRTGs.
 The export market development activity is coordinated with action to promote market
access through the USDA/FAS.
 The USDA/FAS uses MAP-funded Global Broad-based Initiatives (GBI) to encourage export
groups to work together to capture opportunities or address situations that are best handled
collaboratively. However, there are examples of this in other countries (e.g. in the EU’s
export promotion regulation 3/2008).
On the other hand, there are some deficiencies:
 The US system is based upon annual budgets that are increasingly disrupted due to
authorization and apportionment delays, undermining planning and implementation. Annual
budgets do not offer the security of multi-year funding that some other countries provide to
their export oriented industry organizations. This inevitably focuses attention on shorter-
term ambitions.
 The annual procedure for applying for government funding is resource intensive and time-
consuming, both for the applicant and for the USDA/FAS. This may be particularly daunting
to smaller export market development organizations with limited staff. However, it is
important that public funding is carefully allocated and accounted and a balance must be
sought between supervision and effective and efficient delivery of export market
development programs.
 The importance and necessity of measuring progress are continually underlined, and given
more emphasis than in several of the other countries reviewed. However, the procedures to
both monitor and evaluate programs are relatively open ended allowing export groups to
adopt a wide range of approaches. While this provides a necessary degree of flexibility, it

Summary report
18
Investment in export development/promotion is likely to continue to grow in the future.
results in an uneven or irregular application of monitoring and evaluation procedures among
agri-food export groups.
1.6. Looking forward
While it is difficult to forecast exactly how export promotion spending will change in the future, there is
little doubt that countries will continue to invest public funds in foreign trade development maintaining
at least the current levels of spending.
 The EU has increased funds allocated to Member States for agri-food export promotion.
Furthermore, these funds are projected to increase significantly in the new 2014-2020
budget. Whether this growth is sustainable remains a key question as no consensus has been
reached on the new budget. Funding for export promotion is highly unlikely to be reduced.
 The development of geographic indications is a strong feature of the EU system. The growth
of the number of products with approved geographic indications will continue. The
influence will increase as more bilateral trade agreements facilitate international
acceptance of this concept and provide access of high value EU products to a wider range of
export markets.
 In Canada, a major review of agri-food export programs is being completed at the time of
writing. It covers the overall approach, major markets, and budget pressures. Some major
changes have occurred in the organization of the agricultural sector that have reduced the
longer term commitment of the Canadian government to key organizations. However, we
anticipate that the level of funding will probably be at least maintained if not increased,
albeit with a greater share falling on the shoulders of the industry sectors. The Canadian
Agricultural Minister has just announced (mid-December, 2012) three new federal
agriculture programs that will focus on innovation, competitiveness, and market
development. Within the latter, there is increased emphasis on the development of
Canada’s capability to respond to the growing need for certification of production practices.
 The Chinese export marketing system is relatively immature. There is a serious intention to
formalize its institutional framework for export marketing. However, the organization of
commodity sectors is poor, regional autonomy is significant, and there is considerable
reliance on individual entrepreneurial activity. Progress in developing a coherent
institutional framework is likely to be slow. While there is interest in the US model, the
prospect of this appears distant. Instead, and probably appropriately, China is likely to
continue to build its approach around providing opportunities for its food industry
entrepreneurs to reach out to potential customers through trade shows and other events
that put together potential buyers and Chinese exporters.
 Several new industry sector export promotion groups have been established in Turkey, with
the sole objective to promote exports. These associations are closely linked to the central
government and they benefit from assistance that lacks transparency. It is difficult to
forecast how they will develop, although it is reasonable to forecast more focused
investment in foreign trade growth.
 No significant changes are expected in Brazil or Chile. Brazil will continue to focus mainly
on high value sectors (primarily processed products) and Chile might facilitate broader direct

Summary report
19
funding of private companies’ initiatives. Existing programs are likely to continue and the
level of financing is likely to be maintained.
 Neither the Australian nor New Zealand governments are deeply involved in direct funding of
export promotion. The work of industry organizations reflects the wishes of their
stakeholders. The only new development observed in Australia is that there may be
renewed industry efforts to promote grain exports collectively.
 The South African government support for export promotion has been uneven and
inconsistent and the industry questions its commitment. An example was the withdrawal of
support to trade show participation and its subsequent reversal. The major government
focus in recent years has been on empowering black farmers and businesses. It is reasonable
to expect a more focused effort to support export trade development in the future.
 Trade show participation is a core activity in competitors’ market development investment.
As trade increases worldwide and new exporting countries emerge, they focus primarily on
trade shows. In particular, considerable investment is focused on National Pavilions.
However, the US government has decreased direct investment in trade shows, and in
particular USA Pavilions. This investment has fallen to US$0.7 million, about a quarter of
what it used to be in the mid-1990s. This may be short-sighted as the US is likely to face an
increasing competitive presence at trade shows worldwide.
As noted above, the current US institutional framework is well equipped to deal with this competition.
However, it should also be noted that the funding for the MAP and FMD programs has remained unchanged
(FMD since 2002 and MAP since 2006) at a time when competitors’ investment in export development has
been growing. Also, authorization and apportionment delays disrupt fund allocations and market
development planning and implementation processes.
It is clear that the efforts of other countries will grow despite the continuing financial crisis affecting
government budgets. The US needs to be able to respond.

Summary report
20
EU27: Estimated agri-food export promotion funding, 2010 & 2011
PART 2: COUNTRY SUMMARIES
2.1. Europe
2.1.1. The European Union (central funding)
 The EU allocated a total of US$260 million in 2010 and US$360 million in 2011 to Member States for
export promotion of agri-food products and wine. Based on estimates of required matching Member
State and industry funds for compliance, the total funding of these promotions was close to US$500
million and US$700 million respectively. These figures represent only EU central funding and
required Member State and industry matching funds. No funds beyond the required match are
included.
 The largest beneficiaries of EU funds were France, Italy, and Spain. These countries were also among
the countries with the most active export promotion programs. They are reviewed separately.
 Total promotional expenditures of the EU Member States would be larger because Member State and
industry sectors also may invest in export development/promotion programs on their own. For
example, in 2011, the four EU countries reviewed in detail, France, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands
spent over US$100 million in addition to those required to match EU funds. This additional funding
beyond the required match resulted in a partial EU 27 estimate of over US$800 million in 2011.
 The vast bulk of EU-funded promotional expenditure was through the Common Market Organization of
the wine sector (about US$135 million on average for 2010 and 2011); the allocation was specifically
for promoting in non-EU countries. This sum was budgeted to increase substantially. In 2013, the
budget is close to US$300 million.
 The funding for promotion through the Common Market Organization of the fruit and vegetable
market amounted to roughly US$48 million on average for 2008/2009 (more recent data are not
available; a similar level of funding is assumed for the subsequent years). This was allocated to
‘recognized’ fruit and vegetable producer organizations. Most of this was spent in the EU27 markets,
including in Member States domestic markets.
 Council Regulation 3/2008 funds export market development in the internal EU market and third
countries. Roughly US$74 million was allocated on average in 2010 and 2011; some intentions to
increase this have been expressed. Only generic promotion programs are funded. The regulations
forbid any promotional claim that compares attributes of one Member State against similar products
in other Member States.
 Measure 133 of the Rural Development Program supports producer groups with funds for promotion in
the EU27. Roughly US$40 million on average per annum has been allocated, of which more than 40%
has been directed to Italian organizations. Some of the promotion activities have been in the
Member State’s domestic markets.
 In addition, the EU co-finances promotions to help sectors recover from disease or other disasters. In
2010/2011, it approved US$15 million for international projects to promote fresh fruit and vegetables
in non-EU countries over three years to help it recover from the E-coli crisis and contributions of US$4

Summary report
21
France: Estimated agri-food export promotion expenditure, 2011
G & O = Grains and oilseeds
million over three years for international promotion projects to help the dairy sector as it was in a
‘difficult market situation’.
2.1.2. France
 France invested US$119 million in agri-food export promotion in 2010/11. Of that, approximately
US$74 million was public funds and US$45 million was industry funds.
 Close to 50% of the promotional funds were spent on wine market development. These promotions
were almost exclusively in non-EU countries and half of the funding came from EU resources.
 When promotional programs are co-funded by the EU, France must adhere to very strict rules of
generic promotion. However, the campaigns for products registered under geographic indication
schemes are similar to branded promotion because of the clear definition of the product’s origin and
limited number of producers. The EU Regulation for the geographical indications (GIs) can greatly
support market development efforts even though there are no specific financial transfers for export
promotion.
 Inter-professional organizations represent large segments of the agri-food business. These are
umbrella industry organizations that typically represent an entire sector, from the farmer to the
distribution trade. For example, Interfel represents all growers and distributors of all French fruit
and vegetables. Similarly, CNIEL is the national inter-professional organization for all milk and dairy
products. The export programs of their organizations are financed, at least in part, by parafiscal
levies (check-offs).
 France AgriMer, the national agency for agricultural and seafood products, had a budget of almost
US$10 million for 2011-2013 to promote French wine in 10 key markets, but at the same time the
wine regions promoted their own wine either alone or in a consortium with other products.
 Since 2008 all French agri-business promotions have been carried under the national branding logo
‘France Bon Appétit’.
 Typically the French presence at trade shows is organized and funded by the government (France
AgriMer). Indeed, a significant portion of the public funds allocated to export promotion is used for
international trade shows, usually for organizing the French pavilion. These activities are mainly run
by Ubifrance or Sopexa (the two main marketing agencies involved in managing export promotion
programs).
 Some regional organizations may be involved in trade show participation. The Sud de France
Développement (South of France Development Agency) is the most prominent of these.

Summary report
22
Italy: Estimated agri-food export promotion expenditure, 2011
The Netherlands: Estimated agri-food export promotion expenditure, 2011
2.1.3. Italy
 Italy’s export promotion effort is characterized by fragmentation at all levels - no government
strategy or consistent approach to export development and promotion, multiple regional agencies
following their own agenda, and multiple industry organizations within any sector.
 Italian agri-food promotion tends to focus on individual regions and products, and not on the country
as a whole.
 Most export promotion programs were funded on a matching basis by the EU. The EU provided up to
50% of the project cost with the rest being matched by the national/regional government and the
participating industry organizations.
 The budget of the Italian Ministry of Agriculture has been reduced by over 20% since 2009.
Agricultural promotion funds have been reduced from US$157 million in 2009 to US$75 million in
2011.
 Total agricultural export market development expenditures by all levels of government (EU, national,
regional) were estimated at US$141 million in 2009 and US$198 million in 2011. The increase is
mostly due to an increase in EU funding (primarily for wine promotion).
 Domestic funding sources have proven unstable over the years, with a substantial portion of planned
funding never materializing.
 EU funded projects often involve consortiums of organizations representing multiple products and
countries jointly promoting in both non-EU countries and EU member countries.
2.1.4. The Netherlands
 The Netherlands invested US$44 million in agri-food export promotion in 2011. Of that total, about
US$5 million were public funds, most from the EU, and the remainder was industry funds.
 The Netherlands has a small domestic market, and relies heavily on exports and their contributions to
the economy. Europe has traditionally been the main destination for Dutch agricultural products,
accounting for 80% of total exports. Germany is the largest market for exports.
 The government does not provide financial support for export promotions. It believes that businesses
should be responsible for their own promotion. The only exception has been funding for participation

Summary report
23
Spain: Estimated agri-food export promotion expenditure,
2011
in the Gulfood trade show in Dubai and occasional contributions required for compliance for EU co-
funded projects.
 Product boards (Productschappen) are in charge of promotional activities. Each product board
represents one industry, with no overlap.
 The Netherlands utilizes only very limited funds from the EU for generic export market promotion.
The fruit and vegetable sector is the only one that received any EU funding during the reviewed
period.
 Horticulture was the single largest sector with over 80% of the export promotion expenditures. Key
products included potatoes, onions, tomatoes, and cucumbers.
 The Holland Pavilion at international trade shows and events is operated by the Netherlands Council
for Trade Promotion (NCH). The Dutch government was not involved except for the support to
Gulfood, Dubai.
2.1.5. Spain
 Spain’s total funding for generic agri-food and beverage promotion in 2011 was estimated at US$115
million. Over two-thirds of this sum was spent on wine promotion.
 The EU allocated US$34 million in 2010 and US$53 million in 2011 to Spain for promotion of agri-food
products in EU Member States and non-EU countries. Most of this was for wine promotion in non-EU
countries.
 In Spain, unlike many other countries including the US, the government does not provide direct
funding to representative industry organizations or individual companies for export
development/promotion. ICEX, the national government organization responsible for international
trade initiatives (all sectors) is the key player involved in export promotion. It develops and
implements the export promotion strategies and programs in collaboration with industry groups and
organizations that contribute to the planning process.
 Very few industry bodies were independently involved in export development/promotion. Some
industry organizations that used to have activities of their own, no longer did so because of lack of
funds.
 The Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Food and the Environment (MAGRAMA) collaborates with ICEX for
some activities, primarily multi-sector activities and some trade shows. For these it bears some of
the costs. It is also the recipient of EU Common Market Organization (CMO) funding, part of which is
allocated to export promotion (wines and fruits and vegetables).
 Sixteen out of the 17 regional governments have their own export promotion department, funded
through their devolved regional budget. These departments collaborate with their local Chambers of
Commerce, ICEX, and industry organizations to develop their own regional export development plan.
Six have established a network of offices abroad to provide low cost services to companies wishing to
trade and invest in foreign markets.

Summary report
24
Canada: Estimated agri-food export promotion expenditure,
2011
G & O = Grains and oilseeds
2.1.6. Turkey
 Total generic agricultural export promotion funding in 2011 was estimated at US$38 million, of which
roughly half came from the government and half from the private sector.
 The government co-funds eligible export organization activities, usually with a 50/50 match.
 The government of Turkey does not publish its promotion expenditures; neither do the agri-food
sector promotion groups nor the regional Exporter Unions. Expenditures have been estimated based
on documented trade show participation, a sample of trade show specific attendance data, and a
compilation of promotional activities.
 Of the estimated US$19 million government expenditure, US$17 million were spent on trade shows,
national pavilions and subsidizing company participation. These were matched by an estimated
US$15 million spent by private companies to attend trade shows and US$2 million industry funds to
set up national pavilions.
 Export groups engaged in few other formally organized activities; these were estimated to total at
most US$4 million.
 Turkey’s Exporter Unions typically represent all exporters (not just agri-food) in their respective
regions. Membership is mandatory. They are funded through membership fees. These organizations
are involved in some export promotion activity.
 There are also a handful of industry sector promotion groups – for poultry, hazelnuts, fruit, and other
products – these typically are comprised of multiple Exporter Unions, one of which takes the lead in
coordinating sector promotion activities.
2.2. Americas
2.2.1. Canada
 Total generic agricultural export promotion funding in 2011 was US$128.5 million, of which US$83.2
million came from government sources, and US$45.3 million came from the private sector in the form
of matching funds.
 Generic export promotion and development in Canada is based on a public-private partnership with
the federal government co-funding many export promotion programs undertaken by industry
organizations. It also supports some small and medium size companies’ (SMEs) efforts. The recipient
of promotional funds in most cases must provide a full match.
 Many of Canada’s producer associations use levies as a source of funds; in several cases, however,
producers can request refunds of these levies. Where available, refunds are typically 5-8% of the
total collection.
 Some government fund allocations are made to sectors on a multi-year basis.

Summary report
25
Brazil: Estimated agri-food export promotion expenditure, 2011
 SME applications in 2010 requested funding for efforts in East Asia (24%), Southeast Asia (9%), West
Asia (8%), South-central Asia (4%), Europe (27%), Central America (9%), South America (9%), and
others. Companies are not eligible for matching funds for their efforts in the US; access to the US
market is considered straightforward for exporters.
 In addition to industry and individual company project support, Canada funds other initiatives such as
the national (Canada) branding effort and one time efforts to help a given industry sector recover
from some crises (e.g., assistance to the beef industry to recover from BSE and special help for the
pork industry).
 The sectors receiving the highest levels of public funding included forest products (US$34.7 million)
meat, poultry and seafood (US$16.2 million), grains and oilseeds (US$8.3 million), and processed food
(US$5.3 million).
 The US was the most important market for Canadian agricultural exports; other important markets
include China and growing markets in the Pacific Rim.
 Budgets for Canada’s agriculture department, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (AAFC), have been
dropping. However, funds for Trade and Market Development, a program within AAFC, are set to
grow slightly; also, the AgriMarketing program, one of the key sources for Canadian agriculture export
promotion, was reauthorized for a five-year stretch running to 2018. Thus, while budgets in general
are under pressure, funds for agricultural export promotion will persist in some form for the
foreseeable future.
2.2.2. Brazil
 Brazil spent an estimated US$48 million in 2011 to promote agri-food exports. Of this total,
approximately US$31 million came from public funds and US$17 million came from industry.
 Generic export promotion and development in Brazil is typically co-funded by the government. It
funds the export promotion programs of 20 industry organizations, each one representing a specific
agri-food sector.
 Each agri-food sector is represented by only one industry organization that collaborates with the
government and receives support for export promotion, usually on a 50/50 basis.
 The Brazilian Trade and Investment Promotion Agency (APEX-Brasil) is the primary government
agency in charge of supporting exports (all sectors) and promoting foreign direct investment in Brazil.
APEX directs just over US$15 million per year in matching funds to agricultural exporters. It spent an
estimated additional US$11.5 million per year on efforts of its own, especially trade shows, in 2010
and 2011.
 The Ministry of Agriculture (MAPA) also promotes agricultural exports, though to a lesser extent. Its
promotional budget was estimated at US$3.8 million in 2011.
 The government support focus is on high value sectors. Export support for the bulk products, even
for important commodities (e.g. oilseeds, grains, cotton, wood) is considered unnecessary because

Summary report
26
Chile: Estimated export promotion expenditure, 2011
trade in these products is dominated by major global companies that are expected to develop their
own markets and thereby expand sales of Brazilian origin.
 The export training function (carried out by the State Regional Trade Groups in the US) is conducted
by APEX and MAPA.
 There is no single national strategy regarding agricultural export development (although there is an
effort toward national branding). Each organization follows its own agenda.
 Typical target markets for Brazilian agri-food exports included the EU, Japan, China, the US, and
Russia, though Brazilian exporters sell to a very wide range of countries.
2.2.3. Chile
 Estimated total generic agricultural export promotion funding in 2011 was US$31 million, of which
US$18 million came from government agency ProChile, and US$13 million from industry matching
funds.
 Chile has negotiated more free trade agreements than any other country, leveraging them to become
the world’s 16th largest agricultural exporter.
 Export development in Chile is supported by the federal government which co-funds the generic
export promotion programs of industry organizations in 11 food sectors, and covers more than 20
sectors through matching funds provided to private companies and consortiums.
 Consortiums of five or more private companies can apply for government funding to jointly promote a
common brand.
 The government, through ProChile, has an established international infrastructure to support
agricultural exports, and through which it can sponsor activities at major events overseas.
 ProChile manages projects of its own and provides support to company and sector projects. Over the
past several years, it launched a ‘Flavors from Chile’ umbrella brand and provided support for sub-
branding (i.e., ‘Walnuts from Chile’).
 Sectors receiving the highest levels of public funding for export promotion were fresh fruit (US$4
million) and wine (US$2 million). Combined, fresh and dried fruit, wine, and seafood accounted for
almost 80% of the funds allocated to competitive promotional projects.
 Five target markets accounted for almost two-thirds of project funding: the US (23%), Canada (18%),
China (11%), the UK (7%), and Brazil (6%).

Summary report
27
Australia: Estimated agri-food export promotion expenditure, 2011
2.3. Asia, Oceania and Africa
2.3.1. Australia
 Australia invested about US$103 million in agri-food export promotion in 2010/11. Of that
approximately US$35 million was public funds and US$68 was industry funds. Over 80% of these funds
were invested by two industry organizations representing meat and livestock and wool.
 Prior to the 1990s, all major Australian agricultural producing sectors (except sugar) involved a
statutory body established under Australian Government legislation. In the 1990s the government
began to privatize these statutory bodies, establishing them under the same laws that govern
companies. The new industry organizations are financed by compulsory parafiscal levies (check-offs)
collected by the producers.
 The federal and state governments are not involved in generic export development. The government
can provide some matching funding for research and development (R&D) but does not fund export
development and promotion. All generic export development work is financed and implemented by
industry organizations representing the major agricultural producing sectors.
 The government provides some assistance to small and medium sized companies (all industries) to
develop export markets and to get the companies export capable. To access such government
grants, companies are required to produce strategic plans and annual operating plans and budgets.
Companies receiving grants must be independently reviewed every three to five years.
 Some industry organizations, Meat and Livestock Australia in particular, support company promotions
regardless of size; there is a presumption that large companies can make a bigger difference. No
public funds are involved in this support.
 Australia is a major wheat exporter and used to conduct market development activities for wheat.
However, since the privatization of the statutory commodity board it has not been promoting wheat
overseas. There is evidence that the industry is considering funding some export market
development programs in the coming years.
 Key markets for Australia include Asia and Europe.

Summary report
28
New Zealand: Estimated agri-food export promotion expenditure,
2011
2.3.2. New Zealand
 New Zealand’s estimated agri-food export promotion expenditure was about US$563 million in
2010/11. Of this, approximately US$12 million was public funds and the rest were industry funds.
 The New Zealand agri-food sector is highly dependent on exports as it has a relatively small
population. It exports in excess of 90% of its dairy production, 80% of its lamb production, and 70% of
its beef production.
 In the early 1980s, the government of New Zealand withdrew direct support to the agriculture sector.
It now focuses on providing policy support and ensuring market access rather than offering monetary
support for export promotion.
 Currently five industry organizations representing beef and lamb, wine, deer (venison and antler
velvet), avocadoes, and wood products engage in export development promotions.
 The two cooperative companies, Fonterra (dairy) and Zespri (kiwifruit), are owned by the majority of
the country’s producers. Ownership is restricted to farmers and former farmers. They have been
constituted under legislation granting them special antitrust provisions. These companies account for
almost the entire dairy and kiwifruit exports and both invest significant funds in international
marketing.
 Fonterra and Zespri accounted for over 95% of the estimated total industry expenditure for agri-food
export development/promotion. However a portion of this expenditure promoted their production in
other countries.
 Key markets for New Zealand are Australia, the US, Japan, China, the UK, South Korea, Indonesia,
Germany, Hong Kong, and Malaysia.
2.3.3. China
 China’s lack of transparency and multiple sources for potential funding of export promotion (state,
provincial and local government agencies) constrained the precise assessment of its export promotion
expenditure.
 Government support for export development has been mostly inward oriented focusing on raising
domestic standards to help products produced in exportable supplies gain access to overseas markets,
nurturing processing and trading enterprises, disseminating technology, and achieving safety and
quality certifications. While China has many domestic programs, this study focuses only on export
promotion programs; these are evolving.
 A conservative estimate is that the total expenditure for generic export promotion in 2010 and 2011
was just over US$50 million per year. Of this, US$30 million were public funds and the remainder was
private funds, primarily for companies’ participation in trade shows.

Summary report
29
 The Ministries of Commerce and Agriculture are responsible for agricultural promotion and
international trade development. The Ministry of Agriculture has recently taken some initiatives and
is assuming the lead on these plans. Provincial governments also provide modest support but limited
information was available for their involvement.
 The largest public investment was in supporting the participation of Chinese companies in
international trade shows. China actively participates in most major international shows, often with
multiple pavilions that appear to be mainly funded at the provincial level.
2.3.4. South Africa
 Trade is an important part of South Africa’s economy: exports in 2011 were US$81 billion out of
US$408 billion in GDP. Agricultural exports were estimated at US$8 billion.
 Total agricultural export promotion spending in South Africa was estimated at US$21 million for 2011;
of this total, an estimated US$11.5 million came from government and US$9.5 million from industry.
 South Africa provides matching funds for agricultural export promotion through Trade and Investment
South Africa (TISA), part of the Department of Trade and Industry (Dti). Funds are provided for
activities ranging from trade shows, to trade missions and a variety of other promotion initiatives.
 Opening up new markets in East and Southern Africa is an important objective for TISA. It is also
pushing preferential trade agreements between the Southern African Customs Union and India; export
groups are carefully tracking developments on this front.
 There are two key types of export promotion groups in South Africa, both of which are eligible for
50/50 matching government funds for export promotion activities:
- The first is Export Councils, which are industry associations funded by membership fees;
four of South Africa’s 20 Export Councils are agriculture-related (fresh produce, flowers,
wines, and canned fruits and vegetables).
- The other type is known as Section 21 companies. These are nonprofit producer groups
funded by levies. Of South Africa’s 13 Section 21 companies, four engage in export
promotion: deciduous fruit, wine, table grapes, and citrus.
 The most important export sectors in terms of agricultural export promotion are horticulture (US$12
million in total funds) and wine (US$5 million).
 Prominent industry groups coordinate member/sector attendance at major trade shows; however,
individual company attendance is not subsidized.
 Traditional target export markets for South Africa have been the UK and other EU markets; however,
most export-oriented organizations are now targeting markets in Asia (China, Southeast Asia, and
Japan).
South Africa: Estimated agri-food export promotion expenditure, 2011

Competitor Countries Outspend US on Agri-Food Export Promotion by $1.1 Billion

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Competitor Countries Outspend US on Agri-Food Export Promotion by $1.1 Billion

Similar to Competitor Countries Outspend US on Agri-Food Export Promotion by $1.1 Billion (20)

More from SOS Interim Management

More from SOS Interim Management (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Competitor Countries Outspend US on Agri-Food Export Promotion by $1.1 Billion