WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/899 
2 February 2009 
 (09-0448) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
 
EVALUATION OF THE STANDARDS AND TRADE  
DEVELOPMENT FACILITY (STDF) 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
 
1. An independent evaluation of the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) was 
completed on 14 November 2008.  The evaluator was Dr Stuart Slorach, formerly of the Swedish 
National Food Administration, and former chair of the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission 
and the European Food Safety Authority's Management Board. 
2. Dr Slorach's final evaluation report is circul ated to the SPS Committee for information and 
can also be downloaded on the WTO SPS gateway .  A first evaluation of the STDF was completed in 
December 2005.  
 
 
_______________ 
 
                                                      
 1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO.   
   G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 3 
 
 
  STDF 248 - Final Report 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
REPORT OF A REVIEW OF THE STANDARDS AND 
TRADE DEVELOPMENT FACILITY (STDF) 
 
  
by 
 
Stuart A. Slorach 
 
 
 
 14 November 2008 
 
 
       
 
Dr Stuart A. Slorach, Stubbängsväg en 9A, SE-125 53 Älvsjö, Sweden 
 
 
This document has been prepared under the author’s own responsibility and is without prejudice to the 
positions of the STDF partners, donors , secretariat, beneficiaries or others. G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 4  
 
   
 
Acknowledgements  
 
The author  wishes to express his thanks to Mr Michael R oberts, Secretary of the STDF, and the other 
members of the STDF Secretariat for their rapid response to all his requests for documents and other 
information and for arranging the programmes for hi s visits to the World Trade Organization and the 
interviews with the STDF stakeholders.  In additi on, he would like to thank all those who responded 
to the questionnaires and supplied inform ation for the review in other ways.  G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Table of Contents 
Glossary of  Acronyms........................................................................................................... .................6  
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. .....7 
Evaluation..................................................................................................................... ..........................7  
Recommendations................................................................................................................ ..................9  
I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 1 
Objective of the evaluation.................................................................................................... ..............11  
Independence of the evaluator.................................................................................................. ..........11  
II. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................12  
III. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................................12  
Performance of the STDF Secretariat............................................................................................ ....12  
Overall performance of the Secretariat ................................................................................................13  
Coordination ............................................................................................................................... ..........14  
Project development and implementation ............................................................................................15  
Funding of the STDF ...........................................................................................................................17  
Facility operation ............................................................................................................................... ...17 
Performance of the STDF partners, donors,  observers and representatives of developing 
countries...................................................................................................................... .............18  
Partners ............................................................................................................................... ..................19  
Observers ............................................................................................................................... ................20  
Representatives of developing countries ..............................................................................................20  
Donors and funding ..............................................................................................................................2 0 
Coordination activities of th e STDF and th eir impact .....................................................................21  
Project development and implementati on activities and their impact............................................23  
Operational Plan 2008-2009 a nd Medium-term Strategy ................................................................27  
IV. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... .28 
V. RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................31  
Appendix 1:  Terms of reference for the review of the STDF for the review of the STDF ...........34  
Appendix  2:  List of persons responding to questionnaires and interviewed ................................38  
Appendix 3:  List of documents ................................................................................................. .........40  
Table 1:  Responses from 19 developing countries to the  questionnaire on the 
performance of the STDF secretariat....................................................................................45  
Table 2:  Seven donors’ responses to the quest ionnaire on the performance of the STDF 
secretariat .................................................................................................................... ............46  
Table 3:  Responses of FAO, OIE, WB, WHO, ITC & UNCTAD to the questionnaire on 
the performance of th e STDF secretariat .............................................................................47  
Table 4 :  STDF-funded Project Preparation Grants (PPGs) and projects by area......................48  
Table 5. Contributions received by the STDF by September 2008 (CHF) .....................................49  G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 6  
 
   
Glossary of Acronyms 
 
CAC  Codex Alimentarius Commission 
CRS  Creditor Reporting System (OECD) 
DFID  Department for International Development (UK) 
DTIS  Diagnostic Trade Integration Studies (IF) EIF  Enhanced Integrated Framework FAO  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations IICA  International Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture  
IF  Integrated Framework for Trade-Relate d Assistance to Least Developed Countries 
IFIF  International Feed Industry Federation IPPC  International Plant Protection Convention ITC  International Trade Centre LDCs  Least Developed Countries 
OECD  Organization for Economic  Cooperation and Development 
OIE  World Organisation for Animal Health OLIEs  Other Low Income Economies PPG  Project Preparation Grant PVS  OIE-PVS Tool for the Evaluation of Performance of Veterinary Services SADC  South African Development Community 
Sida  Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency 
SPC  Secretariat of the Pacific Community SPS  Sanitary and Phytosanitary STDF  Standards and Trade Development Facility TCBDB Trade Capacity Building Database 
TSPN  Trade Standards Practitioners Network 
UEMOA West African Economic and Monetary Union UNCTAD United Nations Conferen ce on Trade and Development 
UNIDO  United Nations Industria l Development Organization 
WHO  World Health Organization  WTO  World Trade Organization  G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 7 
 
 
  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
1. The objective of this evaluation was to review  the performance of the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility (STDF).  This is the second exte rnal review of the STDF; the first review was 
completed in December 2005.  Performance was to be  measured against the aims established for the 
Facility.  The evaluation was carried out as a "desk study" supplemented by survey questionnaires and 
interviews with the STDF Secretariat and stakehol ders, including partner a nd observer organizations, 
donors and developing country representatives. 
Evaluation 
2. The overall performance of the STDF is judged to  be good and in many important areas very 
good.  It carries out an important role that no othe r single body would be able to accomplish and the 
participation of the five partner organizations, the donors and the obser ver organizations means that it 
has ready access to expertise in a large number of SPS- and development-related areas. 
3. The performance of the Secretariat is highly rated, except by the OIE and WHO, two of the 
five partners.  The Secretariat’s resources were earlie r inadequate to perform the wide range of tasks it 
was given and the situation was not sustainable.  The current increased staffing level is considered 
adequate for its current needs.  The STDF makes efficient and effective use of its resources by 
arranging many of its activities back-to-back with or together with meeti ngs organised by other 
organizations. 
4. The Secretariat’s contacts with broader coopera tion programmes, in particular the Enhanced 
Integrated Framework (EIF) and Aid for Trade,  have improved and the Aid for Trade regional 
workshops are judged to be very useful.  The three regional reviews in Central America, East Africa 
and a sub-group of ASEAN countries have been successful in identifying  SPS-related needs and 
raising the profile of the STDF.  The STDF’s work  on the overview of the SPS needs and assistance 
to eight LDCs is still ongoing, but the reports pr esented so far show that it is doing a good job. 
5. There is a need for the Secretariat to improve its information to donors on its contacts with the 
EIF and Aid for Trade and to improve coordination with organizations working specifically in the 
SPS area.  The STDF is working closely with a large number of organizations to promote a 
coordinated response to the spread and control of various fruit fly species of economic importance in 
West Africa and this may well lead to one of th e biggest coordinated actions so far involving the 
STDF.  The STDF recognises the importance of involvi ng both public and private sectors in work to 
help developing countries to meet SPS-related standards, but it needs to establish closer contacts with 
the Trade Standards Practitioners Network (TSPN), so  that duplication of effort can be avoided and 
synergies between the STDF and the TSPN explored. 
6. The Secretariat’s contacts with most of th e STDF partners, observers, donor members and 
beneficiary representatives is good or very good, but ther e is an urgent need to improve relations with 
the OIE, WHO and UNCTAD. 
7. There is still considerable room for improveme nt in the Secretariat’s reporting on technical 
cooperation activities of bilateral and multilateral donors and developi ng countries.  Its dissemination 
of information on the STDF and its projects via the SPS Committee, the website and the STDF Newsletter is generally good.  However, there is c onsiderable room for improvement of the website to 
make it more comprehensive, up-to-date and user-frie ndly.  There is also a need to make the STDF’s 
existence and activities more widely known and to raise its profile.  Responsibility for doing this 
should be shared by the Secretariat and the pa rtners, donors, observers and recipient countries. G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 8  
 
  8. The Secretariat’s identification and dissemina tion of good practices in the request, provision 
and receipt of SPS-related technical cooperation has improved and the recent workshop provided a 
very useful summary of its work in this area.  Th e three regional workshops have been very useful in 
enhancing collaboration between donors active in these regions and the organization of further such 
workshops should be a priority, since they can pl ay an important role in stimulating cooperation 
between countries in a region with similar SPS-related needs. 
9. The Secretariat’s assistance in helping to identify possible projects and in preparing 
applications for Project Preparation Grants ( PPGs) is highly rated and much appreciated by 
developing countries lacking in technical and other e xpertise needed to develop such proposals.  Since 
the beginning of 2006, the STDF has been successful in  attracting a large number of project (80) and 
PPG (31) applications and it has laid down a set of criteria for evaluating their eligibility for STDF 
funding.  It now has a rich portfolio of projects a nd PPGs covering a wide ra nge of SPS-related issues, 
from broad basic projects aimed at stimulating awareness at the national level of the importance of being able to meet SPS-related requirements to na rrower, more technical projects aimed at finding 
solutions to specific problems preventing acces s of a product to international markets. 
10. The Secretariat’s review of applications for STD F funding is judged to be good, except by the 
OIE, WHO and UNCTAD.  Which projects should be f unded is currently the subject of considerable 
debate within the Working Group and it is important that this issue be dealt with by the Policy 
Committee as soon as possible.  Among the issues th at need discussion are the current Operational 
Rules on funding of projects proposed by countri es other than LDCs/OLIEs, funding of projects 
proposed by STDF partners or impl ementing organizations and prioriti sation when there is a shortage 
of funds.  There is currently and imbalance betw een the number of projects/PPGs being funded by the 
STDF in different areas, with considerably fewer an imal health projects being funded than projects in 
the other areas.  This is due in part to the fact that  fewer applications have been received in this area.  
It is up to the Policy Committee to decide if this im balance should be allowed to  continue and, if not, 
what action should be taken to remedy it. 
11. The Secretariat’s project administration and fo llow-up is generally good but there is a need 
for better information to stakeholders, including donors, on the results of such follow-up.  The 
Secretariat’s contacts with agencies implementing and/or overseeing the implementation of STDF-funded projects are generally good but there is a need for better information flow between the 
Secretariat and some implementing agencies. 
12. The STDF is currently facing serious funding constr aints and is unable to fund all the projects 
it approves, at least not at the time it approves them and in some cases not at all.  More effort should 
be made to broaden the donor base and to tr y to get longer-term commitments from donors.  
13. The documentation, preparation for and servicing of Working Group and Policy Committee 
meetings is generally regarded as good and the financ ial administration gives rise to no concerns.  At 
Working Group meetings information items on the ag enda are discussed before those on decisions on 
project/PPG funding.  In the opinion of this  reviewer this order should be reversed. 
14. The impact of the six STDF projects that have been the subject of an ex post  evaluation was 
reviewed.  The first resulted in the development and testing of a tool to evaluate national veterinary 
services, which has subsequently been used in ma ny developing countries.  The second, an OIE 
Training for Trainers project, was run successfully and largely met its objectives.  The third, aimed at assisting developing countries in the implementa tion of an IPPC standard on regulating wood 
packaging material in international trade, was very successful and achieved the overall STDF goals.  
Two other projects on the development of tools fo r plant pest risk analysis were completed 
successfully.  The sixth project, aimed at capac ity building for implementation of the Codex 
Alimentarius Code of Good Practice for Animal F eeding, was only partly successful.  The lessons  G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 9 
 
 
  learnt from the ex post evaluations have led to improved STDF project proposal review and project 
cycle management.  
15. Although the STDF is just less than halfway throu gh the current biennium, it seems to be well 
on track to complete the activities shown in the Operational Plan 2008-2009, providing the funding 
situation can be improved to at least meet the fu nding target of 5 million US$ per year.  Apart from 
the recommendations given below, this reviewer sees little reason to change the Medium Term 
Strategy of the STDF (2007-2011). 
Recommendations 
16. The following recommendations are made with the aim of further improving the performance 
of the STDF: 
• As soon as possible, and preferably at its meeting in December 2008, the Policy Committee 
should review the current Operational Rules re garding the funding of projects involving the 
partners.  In addition, it should review and cl arify its policy regarding the funding of projects 
in countries other than LDCs and OLIEs, and at different stages of development, in particular 
the issue of prioritisation when funds are insu fficient.  There is currently an imbalance 
between the number of projects/PPGs being funded by the STDF in different areas, with 
considerably fewer animal health projects being funded than projects in the other areas (SPS 
in general, plant health and food safety).  The Policy Committee should decide whether this 
situation should be allowed to continue and, if  not, what action should be taken to remedy it.  
In addition the Committee should decide whethe r or not improving public health should be 
regarded as a separate area or regarded as an indirect effect of improvements in the other areas, in particular food safety.  
 
• The Secretariat should renew and intensify its efforts to expand the current donor base and to 
obtain longer-term funding commitments from donors.  If increased funding cannot be obtained, the Policy Committee should discuss whether to assign a greater proportion of funding to PPGs and coordination activities. 
 
• The STDF Working Group members and observers and their organizations should renew their 
efforts to supply the Secretariat with the na mes of suitably qualified persons to carry out ex 
post evaluations of completed STDF-funded projects. 
 
• All participants should provide brief informa tion on their on-going and planned SPS-related 
activities to the Secretariat in advance of Working Group meetings and this information 
should be included in the working documents for the meeting.  Any Working Group 
participant having doubts about technical issues in  project/PPG applications should inform the 
Secretariat of this in advance, so that such issues can be resolved before the meeting, if 
possible.  Agenda items requiring decisions s hould be dealt with during the early part of 
meetings, rather than towards the end. 
 
• All the partners, and in particular the WTO,  and the STDF donors and observers should make 
a greater effort to increase the visibility of and to promote the STDF.  The WTO should 
approach the OIE and WHO with a view to  concluding agreements for implementation 
oversight services in support of the STDF, as h as already been done with FAO, the ITC and 
the World Bank. 
 
• In choosing organisations to im plement or oversee the implementation of its projects, the 
STDF should give preference to those with rele vant qualifications and experience in the area G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 10  
 
  covered by the project and a proven track record in such work.  Furthermore, it would be an 
advantage to use organizations that have al ready good contacts with the relevant national 
bodies.  In addition, the STDF should seek ways to broaden its current base of implementing 
organizations. 
 
• As a matter of priority, the Secretariat s hould update, expand a nd improve its website, 
including the introduction of a search tool, taking into account the comments in paragraph 26 of the present report.  The newly started Newsle tter should be evaluated after a period of 2-3 
years.  The STDF Secretariat should introduce an on-line system to enable it to better manage 
the various activities for which it has responsib ility, in particular tracking progress in the 
various projects from the initial application to the receipt of the final report.  This should 
include a system to automatically alert the S ecretariat to upcoming deadlines for contracting 
and interim and final project reports.  Fu rthermore, it should improve its document 
identification and handling system and ensure, am ongst other things, that the cover page of 
each STDF document shows the date on which it was finalised/adopted and the author(s).  
The Secretariat should examine ways to ensu re close cooperation between itself and the 
newly established EIF Secretariat.  It should also  expand its information to stakeholders on its 
contacts with the broader cooperation programmes, in particular the EIF and Aid for Trade.  
Furthermore, it should expedite its production of a compendium of SPS-related assistance 
providers.  The Secretariat should establish cl oser contacts with the TSPN and provide STDF 
stakeholders with information on TSPN activities, so that duplication of effort can be avoided 
and synergies between the STDF and the TSPN explored.  
 
• The Secretariat should develop plans for furt her regional workshops, similar to the three 
already held, in other regions, including West and Southern Africa.  It s hould also ensure that 
the results of the recent workshop on good prac tices in the request, provision and receipt of 
SPS-related technical assistance are disseminated to all relevant stakeholders.  The Secretariat should improve its information to stakeholde rs, in particular donors, on its follow-up of 
ongoing projects.  G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 11 
 
 
  I. INTRODUCTION 
Objective of the evaluation 
1. The objective of this evaluation is to review  the performance of the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility (STDF) in accordance with paragraph 92 of the STDF Operational Rules 
(STDF 139 rev.1), which stipulates that the Facility sha ll be evaluated every four years by an external 
reviewer appointed by the World Trade Organi zation (WTO) after consultation with the STDF 
Working Group.  This is the second independent re view of the STDF; the first review (STDF 76 
add.1) was completed in December 2005. 
2. Performance shall be measured against the ai ms established for the Facility, which are: 
• to assist developing countries enhance their expertise and capacity to analyze and to 
implement international sanitary and phytosan itary (SPS) standards, so improving their 
human, animal and plant health situation, and th us ability to gain and maintain market access; 
and 
• to act as a vehicle for co-ordination among tec hnical co-operation providers, the mobilization 
of funds, the exchange of experience and the di ssemination of good practice in relation to the 
provision and receipt of SPS-related technical co-operation. 
 
3. In judging the performance of the STDF agains t its stated objectives, the following factors, 
inter alia , shall be considered: a) conclusions raising from the 2006 evaluation of the STDF; b) impact 
of project and project preparation activities; c) impa ct of coordination activities; d) performance of the 
Secretariat and e) performance within the STDF of the STDF partners, observers, donors and 
representatives of developing countries, notably in r espect of their tasks a nd responsibilities as agreed 
in the Operational Rules.  
4. In drawing conclusions on the performance of th e STDF, the reviewer was invited to provide 
comments on the activities established in the Medium Term Strategy for the STDF (2007-11) and any 
changes which the reviewer considers appropriate to meet the stated objectives of the Facility.  
5. The full terms of reference for this review are attached as Appendix 1.  
Independence of the evaluator  
6. I submitted my Curriculum  vitae  (CV) to the STDF Secretariat and it was circulated to 
members of the STDF Working Group prior to my appointment by the WTO as the evaluator.  Since retiring from the Swedish National Food Administration at the end of 2005 after more than 30 years service, I have worked as an independent consultant.  I have never been employed by or carried out 
work for the WTO, the World Bank, the Internati onal Trade Centre (ITC), the International Plant 
Protection Convention (IPPC), the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) or 
the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).  My earlier occasional work as a short-term consultant or temporary adviser to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the 
United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Orga nization (WHO) is shown in my CV.  I was 
Chairperson of the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) from 2003-2005 and I carried out an evaluation of the FAO/WHO Project and Trust Fund for Enhanced Participation in 
Codex ("Codex Trust Fund") under contract to the Swedish Internationa l Development Cooperation 
Agency (Sida) in 2007.  I have never been employed by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), but have been a member of its Animal  Production Food Safety Working Group since 2004 and 
its Chair since 2005. G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 12  
 
  II. METHODOLOGY  
7. The evaluation was carried out as a "desk study"  supplemented by survey questionnaires and 
interviews with the STDF Secretariat in Geneva  and stakeholders, including partner and observer 
organizations, donors and developi ng country representatives.  The evaluation has been organised 
around the criteria of relevance, effectiveness, effici ency, impact, sustainability and lessons learned.  
A large number of documents, including the Medi um Term Strategy (STD F 154), the Operational 
Rules, Operating Plans 2007 and 2008-2009 (STDF 163 and 198), Funding Strategy (STDF 186), Annual Report 2007 (STDF 208), First Evaluation Re port, minutes of STDF Policy Committee and 
Working Group meetings and documentation on projects (including ex post evaluations and status 
reports) and Project Preparation Grants (PPGs), agreements between the WTO and 
implementing/oversight organizati ons and other issues were provided by the STDF Secretariat.  
8. I visited the WTO in Geneva on 8-10 Septembe r and obtained further information from the 
STDF Secretariat and the WTO staff involved in the STDF.  During the period 6-10 October 2008, I visited the WTO and took part in the Workshop on Good Practice held on 6 October, had brief 
interviews with STDF stakeholders, including repr esentatives of beneficiaries, donors, partners and 
implementing/oversight organizati ons on 7-9 October and took part  in the meeting of the STDF 
Working Group held on 10 October.  I also met re presentatives of WHO at the WHO headquarters in 
Geneva on 9 October.  At the invitation and expe nse of OIE, I had discussions with the Director-
General of the OIE and OIE staff at the OIE headquarters in Paris on 16 October.  
9. Views on the performance of the STDF Secretariat and of the STDF in general were also 
collected via questionnaires sent out by the STD F Secretariat at my request by e-mail on 23 
September 2008 to a large number of stakeholders a nd also given or sent by me directly to certain 
stakeholders later.  
10. Further information was collected via telephone  interviews with stakeholders and the 
Secretariat.  A list of persons who provided info rmation, including those who responded to the 
questionnaires, is given in Appendix 2 and a lis t of documents is given in Appendix 3.  
11. A draft report was circulated to the STDF pa rtners, observers, donors and representatives of 
developing countries for comment on 24 October.  Comments were received from several donors (Denmark, Germany, UK and USA), the STDF Secretariat and the OIE.  Comments were received after the deadline from the European Commission and w ill be circulated separately by the Secretariat.  
The final version of the report was submitted to  the STDF Secretariat on 14 November 2008.  
III. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 
Performance of the STDF Secretariat 12. The tasks of the STDF Secretariat are defined in paragraph 18 of the Operational Rules of the 
STDF.  Details of its tasks in grant allocation are given in paragraph 65 of the same Rules.  The WTO 
appoints the Secretary from its staff to head the Secretariat, and appoints or contracts other staff for 
the Secretariat as necessary, funded directly by the Facility.  The Secretariat is bound by the legal and 
fiduciary rules of the WTO and the Trust Fund which supports the Facility's activities.  
13. The success of the STDF is dependent on the active participation a nd cooperation of many 
different stakeholders, including the partners, donors, observers, beneficiaries and implementing 
organizations, but a key factor in achieving its stated  goals is an effective and efficient Secretariat.  
For this reason the performance of the Secret ariat is evaluated first in this report.  G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 13 
 
 
  14. One of the conclusions of the first external  review of the STDF in 2005 was that the 
Secretariat was understaffed, considering the wide range  of tasks it had been allotted.  Since then the 
staff has been gradually increased and now comprises the Secretary of the STDF (financed by the WTO) and three full-time professionals, one half-time professional and a full-time secretary.  The half-time professional shares his time equally between the STDF and the WTO Trade and 
Development Division, working primarily on the Enhanced Integrated Framework (EIF). 
15. The present evaluation of the Secretariat’s perfo rmance is based mainly on the information 
gathered from stakeholders via a questionnaire a nd interviews, interviews with members of the 
Secretariat and examination of the documents pr ovided.  The responses to the questionnaire on the 
Secretariat’s performance are summarised in three tables.  Table 1 shows the responses received from 
19 developing countries and developing country orga nizations.  Table 2 shows the responses received 
from seven of the donors and Table 3 shows the responses received from the STDF partners (except 
the WTO, which only supplied oral comments), the ITC and the UNCTAD.  Only responses giving an opinion on the question posed are shown.  Comments made on the issues raised in the questionnaires are not included in the tables, but many of them ar e taken up below.  In the following analysis, the 
evaluation of the Secretariat’s performance has been divided into the following areas: overall 
performance, coordination, project development and implementation, funding and facility operation.  
16. Some of the STDF documents provided by the Secretariat were undated and the authorship 
was not always clear from the cover page.  The c over of the document with the latest version of 
Operational Rules does not show when they were adopted and many of the project progress reports 
are undated.  This information is available from th e Secretariat, but would be better included on the 
cover page of the documents themselves. 
17. At present the STDF Secretariat does not have an on-line system to facilitate its management 
of the large number of activities for which it has r esponsibility, in particular document management 
and tracking progress in STDF projects, from the initial application to the receipt of the final report and the ex post  evaluation.  Since the number of projects a nd documents to be ma naged is constantly 
increasing, the introduction of such a system would help  to increase the efficiency of the Secretariat.  
It should include a means to automatically al ert the Secretariat to upcoming deadlines for inter alia  
contracting and interim and final project reports. 
Overall performance of the Secretariat 
18. All but one of those responding to the questi on on the overall performance of the Secretariat
 
judged it to be good or very good and the other deem ed it to be satisfactory.  This high rating was 
confirmed in interviews with many stakeholders who stated that the Secretariat was performing well 
and responded rapidly and professionally to ques tions put to it.  One of the donors (Denmark) 
commented that the fact that the people involve d are professional, dedicated and motivated makes a 
huge difference.  Another donor (Germany) commente d that the secretariat is composed of very 
dedicated natural networkers.  A lthough the overall performance of the Secretariat is highly rated, 
there is room for improvement in some areas, as discussed in more detail below. 
19. WHO commented that the activities of the Secretar iat are too much trade-orientated and there 
is a need to pay more attention to public hea lth considerations.  This comment reflects WHO’s 
dissatisfaction with the fact that it considers that no public health projects have been approved by the 
STDF so far.  It may also explain why it has hither to played a less active role in the STDF than some 
of the other partners.  However, trade and public health considerations do not necessary conflict with 
each other.  Increased access to  international markets through improvements in food safety in 
developing countries can benefit public health in both the exporting and importing countries.  
Furthermore, increased access to international markets for other products from developing countries 
may bring public health benefits in such countri es as a result of more rapid economic development.  G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 14  
 
  An analysis of the project areas which have  been funded by the STDF is given below (see 
paragraph 76).  
Coordination 
20. An overview of the STDF participation in the Ai d for Trade initiative to date is provided in 
document STDF 253.  The Secretariat’s performance  as regards contacts with broader cooperation 
programmes, in particular the Enhanced Integrat ed Framework (EIF) and Aid for Trade initiatives 
was deemed to be good or very good by all but one respondent, who considered it to be satisfactory.  
Such contacts are very important for the future of  the STDF, in particular for identifying SPS-related 
needs of developing countries and helping them to ar ticulate these needs in the form of applications 
for "bankable" projects, i.e. projects that can be funded by the STDF itself or funding arranged 
through the STDF’s contacts with bilate ral or multilateral funding organizations.  
21. One donor (Sweden) commented that the STDF shoul d ensure that EIF reports can be used in 
formulating relevant SPS-related projects.  Another donor (USA) commented that, although it is clear 
that the STDF does interact with broader programmes,  more information on this  would be welcome.  
A third donor (UK) commented that contacts had improved a lot since September 2007 and the Aid 
for Trade regional workshops.  A fourth donor (European Commission) commented that at the 
Geneva level work in this respect appears to be progressing.  For real impact, improved efforts need to 
take place at the country level with the governmen t/donor coordination mechanisms already in place 
on trade-related assistance/private sector development.   In order to comply with aid effectiveness 
principles projects/preparation grants should be discu ssed first in these fora.  Another donor (Canada) 
commented that the Secretariat clearly has contact  with these higher level programmes, given this 
work is also largely housed in  the WTO.  However, coordination with organizations working 
specifically in the area of SPS is of greater importance and could be improved 
22. The Secretariat’s performance as regards cont acts with the STDF partners, observers, donor 
members and beneficiary representatives  was judged by most, but not all, respondents to be good or 
very good: five regarding it as only satisfactory and one  of the partners (OIE) considered it to be poor 
(see next paragraph).  One donor (European Commission) commented that there was still room for 
improvement, but this is ongoing and it is normal that  this takes time.  Anot her (Canada) commented 
that e-mail updates are timely and useful, in partic ular in preparing for meetings.  Another (Germany) 
commented that the Secretariat has actively s ought opportunities for exchange of views and 
possibilities for exploiting synergies through  cooperation in deve loping countries.  
23. The OIE considers that the Secretariat has been unduly influenced by certain donors that have 
pushed the STDF towards a narrowly focussed "ideology"  that is not consistent  with the aims of the 
STDF as set out in the Operational Rules.  The OIE c onsiders that this directio n has been particularly 
evident in recent times and refers specifically to  discussions within and decisions taken by the 
Working Group in 2007 and 2008, and in particular to  the handling of two project applications (STDF 
219 "Improving the capacity of veterinary services to carry out essential functions" and STDF 265 
"Compartmentalisation in Brazil"). 
24. The Secretariat’s reporting on technical coope ration activities of bilateral and multilateral 
donors and developing countries was considered to be good or very good by most respondents but 
again six deemed it to be only satisfactory and one considered it to be poor.  One donor (USA) 
commented that the STDF provides as much informa tion as it receives and it is more the lack of 
information sharing from donors that is inhibiting the STDF’s greater sharing of information.  A 
similar comment was made by two other donors (UK and European Commission).  Another donor 
(Germany) commented that reporting takes place, but is too fragmented.  Activities need more 
targeted presentation, e.g. in thematic sessions (t he private standards event was a good approach).  A 
developing country representative commented that there was a need for improved information to  G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 15 
 
 
  countries.  Another donor (Canada) questioned whet her this is (or should be) the Secretariat’s 
responsibility. 
25. The Secretariat’s dissemination of information on the STDF and STDF projects via the SPS 
Committee was judged to be good or very good by all but one of the respondents, who considered it to 
be satisfactory.  One donor (UK) commented that the dissemination appears to be good, bearing in 
mind the limited scope for innovation within the WTO protocol. 
26. The Secretariat’s dissemination of information on the STDF and STDF projects via the 
website and the STDF Newsletter was considered to be good or very  good by all but four of the 
respondents, who considered it to be satisfactory.  One donor (USA) commented that the restricted STDF website had been up and running for only a shor t time.  Information on the site for the past 
three Working Group meetings has been very good and it would be helpful if the STDF could post 
older documents that are useful to donors.  A s econd donor (UK) commented that Newsletters could 
perhaps be more regular.  A third donor (European  Commission) commented that the website lacked 
some easy-to-use tools, e.g. a search tool.  Another donor (Germany) commented that some information is not available on the website and ne ither has it been made available on request (e.g. 
report STDF 20).  Information is generally very bul ky.  Fact sheets summarising the main elements 
and findings would be helpful.  A developing coun try representative commented that the work of the 
STDF is not well known in the South African Development Community (SADC) region.  The ITC commented that web pages dedicated to the STDF proj ects could be added to the website and that that 
information about ongoing/upcoming SPS assistance rele vant to the SPS project/sector is useful.  One 
of the beneficiaries (Sri Lanka) suggested that  relevant documents s hould be uploaded onto the 
website to enable various stake holders to download them from the Internet.  In order to keep 
stakeholders informed, an e-alert system could be  activated.  The Newsletter should also be made 
available not only on the website, but also as a printed copy to all stakeholders. 
27. The Secretariat’s performance as regards identification and dissemination of good practices in 
the request, provision and receipt of SPS-related technical cooperation  was judged to be good or very 
good by 19 respondents, satisfactory by three a nd poor by one (UNCTAD).  One donor (European 
Commission) commented that this was work in progress, is ongoing and is a very good initiative, 
meeting a genuine need.  Further efforts should be ma de in order to take this forward with findings 
disseminated at the level of those who design and implement technical assistance – at the level of governments/donors. 
28. The Secretariat’s performance in organising re gional workshops and c onsultations aimed at 
improving coordination between STDF stakeholders was considered to be good or very good by 21 
respondents, satisfactory by six, poor by two and very poor by one.  One donor (USA) commented 
that the three regional workshops have been very  useful for its collaboration with other donors on 
projects.  Another donor (European Commission) commented that the teething trouble stage has 
clearly passed now and this activity is core to the STDF coordination work.  Trans-boundary 
issues/lessons learned which can be transferred to  neighbouring countries are key elements to focus 
on.  A donor (Canada) commented that the works hops had been well organi sed and wondered whether 
their impact had been adequately assessed.  The ITC co mmented that official invitations to observers 
should be sent out two months before the meeti ngs.  A donor (Germany) commented that regional 
workshops were useful as a awar eness-building exercise and that it was a good approach to organise 
joint efforts in tackling common problems, e.g. fruit fly, in a region. 
Project development and implementation 
29. The Secretariat’s performance as regards identification of possibl e projects in the area of food 
safety, animal and plant health for funding was judged to be good or very good by 14 respondents, 
satisfactory by 9 , poor by two and very poor by one (UNCTAD).  As pointed out by one of the G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 16  
 
  respondents, the question should more correctly have been "Help in
 identifying possible projects in 
the area of food safety, animal and plant health for funding", the task given to the Secretariat in the 
Operational Rules.  The evaluator apologises for th is error.  One donor (USA) commented that the 
STDF review of capacity needs in the three regions  (Central America, East Africa and South East 
Asia) and its funding of PPGs provide donors with  solid projects to implement with recipient 
countries.  Another donor (European Commission) co mmented that there was room for improvement 
on the basis of clearer selection criteria.  They should be more clearly based on demand/discussions locally (e.g. positive recent result in this respect in Cambodia where consultations took place locally) 
and on issues where the STDF has real value added as compared with standard technical assistance 
projects.  Another donor (Germany) commented th at partner organizations are still over-represented, 
only a minority of projects is really innovative an d ownership of developing countries needs to be 
enhanced.  A developing country representative comment ed that there was a need for more input from 
FAO, OIE and WHO in this work.  FAO commented th at the aim of this area is very important and 
STDF is following the matter effectively.  One of the donors (Canada) commented that STDF is intended to be responsive to requests from deve loping countries.  The East African Community 
commented that involvement of experts to do needs analysis is very good, since most would-be 
recipients of support may feel the need but are not equipped to properly and technically elaborate on the exact need. 
30. The Secretariat’s performance as regards assist ance to LDCs and others in preparing 
applications for Project Preparation Grants (PPGs) was judged by 11 of the developing country 
respondents to be good or very good, whereas two cons idered it to be satisfactory and one poor.  Four 
donors judged the performance to be good or very  good and one rated it as satisfactory.  The 
responses from the partners, the ITC and the UNCTAD were spread evenly over the range from very 
good to poor.  One donor (USA) commented that the PPGs and STDF technical guidance appear to be 
useful mechanisms to assist LDCs overcome their la ck of expertise in devel oping proposals.  Another 
donor (European Commission) commented that they welcome the circulation of the evaluation reports 
of the STDF for both PPGs and funding applications.  In respect of PPGs it would encourage the 
STDF evaluators to take up direct contact with key local actors so as to better judge whether PPGs 
should proceed or not.  Another donor (UK) co mmented that the Secretariat provides significant 
levels of support and this  had increased since more staff had come onboard.  The ITC commented that 
it was interested in getting more information so that  it, as an observer, can promote this specific STDF 
assistance.  Sri Lanka commented that further traini ng should be given to ensure proper completion of 
grant applications. 
31. During the period 2006-October 2008 the Secretar iat has reviewed 111 applications for STDF 
funding  (80 projects and 31 PPGs).  This work was rated as good or very good by 10 of 12 responding 
developing countries, all seven donors and FAO, the World Bank and the ITC.  However, it was rated 
poor by WHO and OIE and very poor by UNCTAD.  WHO commented that there was a need to pay 
more attention to consumer health and food saf ety issues.  The OIE has commented that the 
Secretariat is not consistent in dealing with some applications from partner organizations and 
applications to repeat successful IPPC and OIE workshops in other countries are treated 
inconsistently.  
32. One donor (USA) commented that STDF reviews have consistently identified good elements 
of the proposals and the concerns, inconsistencies and lack of information needed to evaluate the 
merits of the proposals.  Another donor (Eur opean Commission) commented that the process has 
improved significantly and welcomed the circulation of the evaluation reports of STDF.  An analysis 
of projects in terms of their compliance with ai d effectiveness/Paris Declaration obligations should 
also be conducted.  This should include inform ation as to whether the projects were suggested 
locally/proposed by the implementation agency , numbers of projects implemented by Govt 
themselves rather than using TA, use of local TA etc, etc.  Another donor (Canada) commented that 
the Secretariat’s comments on proposals are comprehensive and useful.  Another (Germany)  G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 17 
 
 
  commented that screening of applications through the Secretariat is very useful.  Paying more 
attention to meaningful indicators would make the review even better. 
33. The Secretariat’s performance as regards project administration and follow-up  was considered 
to be good or very good by 15 of 20 respondents, sa tisfactory by four and poor by one developing 
country.  One donor (Canada) commented that they we re uncertain to what extent projects are being 
monitored after approval and would appreciate furt her reporting that provides insight into follow-up 
activities as well as success of projects (besides evaluation reports). 
34. The Secretariat’s contacts with agencies im plementing and/or overseeing the implementation 
of STDF-funded projects  was rated as good or very good by 14 respondents, satisfactory by 7 and 
poor by one.  One developing country organisation (Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC)) 
commented that they were having difficulty with IPPC due to staff problems at the IPPC.  FAO 
commented that more flexibility was needed and implementing agencies need  to be involved in 
planning of project components.  Furthermore, ther e is a need to have a system for implementing 
professionals, at the individual level, to be able to  revise the programme even after the approval of the 
project.  One donor (Canada) commented that oversight of executing agencies should be balanced to 
ensure that potential for slippage of projects is minimized and budget is being effectively disbursed. 
Funding of the STDF 
35. The Secretariat’s contacts with current donors to the STDF Fund  were considered to be good 
or very good by all seven donors and by most of  the other respondents.  One donor (USA) commented 
that it was completely satisfied with the flow of information and quick response by the STDF on 
projects. 
36. The Secretariat’s performance on identification of other potential donors to the STDF Fund  
was judged to be good or very good by most respondent s, but a few rated it as only satisfactory.  One 
donor (Sweden) commented that there is an urgent need for more work to widen the donor base.  
Another (European Commission) commented that work in progress on the DVD can meet these PR 
concerns.  A third donor (UK) commented that STDF had been proactive in contacting new donors 
and visiting them. 
Facility operation 
37. The Secretariat’s documentation for the Wo rking Group and Policy Committee meetings  was 
rated as good or very good by all respondents excep t two, one donor (Swede n) and one developing 
country who both rated it satisfactory.  Anothe r donor (USA) commented that the website for 
Working Group members has been a great help in ensuring donors have all the documents.  Another 
donor (European Commission) commented that the doc umentation for meetings was very detailed, 
perhaps too detailed.  Another donor (Canada) co mmented that the documen ts were provided in a 
timely manner and are useful.  Howeve r, some areas could be improved. 
38. The Secretariat’s preparation for and servicing of Working Group and Policy Committee 
meetings  was considered to be good or very good by all the responding STDF partners, ITC, 
UNCTAD, four of six donors and 11 of 12 develo ping countries.  One donor (Sweden) commented 
that the Secretariat’s ambition to provide the latest available information collides with the need to give 
meeting participants adequate time to consider  issues prior to meetings.  Another donor (USA) 
commented that STDF provides professional service fo r the meetings.  The agenda is clearly set, 
documents are shared with members, the meetings are well run and the follow up is timely.  The USA 
supports early and firm deadlines for the submissi on of documents for upcoming meetings, followed 
by STDF distribution of documents with adequate  lead times for review.  Another donor (European 
Commission) commented that documents (understandably ) come rather late and there is always a rush G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 18  
 
  to get all stakeholders consulted.   Another donor (UK) commented th at the preparations had improved 
and were now timely.  Another (G ermany) commented that  the restricted area on the website is a good 
idea, but there are still lots of documents sent by e- mail, which requires cross-checking.  Information 
comes in a more timely manner now than in the past. 
39. The Secretariat’s performance in the area of financial administration
 was rated as good or 
very good by almost all the respondents, the other rating it as satisfactory.  
40. The Secretariat’s financial reporting  was considered to be good or very good by four of six 
responding donors, the other two rating it as satisfactor y.  Almost all of the other respondents rated it 
as good or very good with just two of 15 rating it as only satisfactory.  However, it would be more 
transparent if the amount of funds committed, but no t disbursed, at the end of each financial year was 
shown in the annual report.  The practice of maintaining each donor’s funds in a separate account and 
each year showing the amount still unspent causes some problems for some donor country representatives seeking to obtain further funds at th e national level and is otherwise of little value. 
Performance of the STDF partners, donors, observers and representatives of developing 
countries 
41. The tasks of the partners, donors, observers and representatives of developing countries are 
given in paragraph 18 of the Operational Rules.  
42. The partners, donors, observers and representa tives of developing countries have supported 
the STDF by providing their time to prepare for, attend and follow-up STDF meetings.  The costs of 
the developing country representatives are covered by the STDF, but the others cover their own costs.  
They are all involved in reviewing project and PPG  applications and progress in the implementation 
of approved projects/PPGs.  Furthermore, they share information on their ongoing and planned STDF-
related activities.  This information sharing coul d be improved if information was provided to the 
Secretariat in advance of Working Group meetings and included in the working documents: additional 
information could then be provided on request at the meeting itself. 
43. In order to ensure effectiv e use of the limited time in Working Group meetings, any 
participant having doubts about technical issues in project/PPG applications should inform the 
Secretariat of this in advance, so that such issues can be resolved befo re the meeting, if possible.  The 
agendas of Working Group meetings include both in formation and decision items, including decisions 
on funding of PPGs and projects.  In this reviewer ’s experience, it is better to deal with items 
requiring decisions during the early part of meetings , to enable as full participation as possible in the 
discussions prior to making the decisions, rather th an towards the end of the meeting, which is the 
current practice at STDF Working Group meetings. 
44. The success of the STDF depends to a large exte nt on the active participation and cooperation 
of all
 the partners, donors, observers and representatives of developing countries in its work, including 
the discussions at Working Group meetings.  Accordi ng to paragraph 15 of the Operational Rules, all 
decisions of the Working Group should be taken by c onsensus.  It is important that this rule is 
followed and that controversial issues are resolved  in the Working Group in a satisfactory manner and 
that all parties understand the reasons for and accept the decisions made there.  In cases where the 
current Operational Rules are considered to be unclear  or in need of revision in the light of experience 
or new developments, the matter should be referred to the Policy Committee. 
45. The STDF is a relatively young organization a nd still unknown to many people working in 
the areas of animal and plant health and food saf ety and in the development community.  Although 
information about the STDF is disseminated vi a the SPS Committee and the Facility has its own 
website and now a Newsletter, there is a need to make its existence and activities more widely known  G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 19 
 
 
  and to raise its profile.  Responsib ility for doing this should be shared by the STDF Secretariat and the 
partners, donors, observers and recipient countries. 
Partners 
46. FAO’s responsibilities and expertise cover a wide  range of areas, including animal and plant 
health and food safety, and it has supporte d the STDF by implementing or overseeing the 
implementation of 13 STDF projects and two PPGs .  It has also developed proposals for STDF 
projects. 
47. With its focus on animal health and zoono ses, OIE has supported the STDF by implementing 
or overseeing the implementation of three project s and one PPG and by developing proposals for 
STDF projects.  It also provides opportunities for th e STDF to inform OIE memb ers of its activities.  
(In the STDF context, the OIE has a special situatio n compared to the other partners insofar as it is 
both an STDF partner and an SPS-rela ted standard setting organization.) 
48. The World Bank has been involved in the implementation of an STDF project and in 
discussions about the funding of projects, including the ongoing discussions on how best to tackle the fruit fly problem in West Africa.  
49. WHO, with its focus on food safety and public  health, has been involved in implementing a 
PPG and in developing proposals for STDF projects.  
50. The WTO has provided support to the STDF by implementing or overseeing the 
implementation of 8 STDF projects and 16 PPGs.  The WTO also provides its members with updates on the operation of the STDF and related matters  at SPS Committee meetings.  It also provides 
information via workshops, etc. to its member s on their rights and obligations under the WTO 
Agreements, including the SPS Agreement.  
51. Among the partners, the WTO has particular responsibilities vis-a-vis  the STDF, since it 
houses the Secretariat, appoints and finances the STDF Secretary and appoints or contracts other staff.  It is also largely responsible for the financial administration of the STDF.  The WTO charges the 
STDF an overhead of 13% for the services it provides (CHF 470,168 in 2007).  These services include 
office and meeting room facilities, IT, telephone, human resources (HR), accounting, translation, 
interpreting and printing services.  The WTO staff d ealing with the STDF accounts claim that the total 
cost of the services provided exceeds the overhead th at the WTO receives.  This reviewer has not 
examined this claim in detail, but it appears that  the WTO is providing adequate support to the STDF 
for the funds it receives.  If any of the donors or part ners is of a different opinion, they can, of course, 
request more detailed accounts of the costs of the services the WTO supplies to the STDF. 
52. The WTO has developed a Trade Capacity Building Database (TCBDB) which includes, 
amongst other things, information on SPS-related technical assistance and is now giving high priority 
to efforts to improve reporting on such assistance and its sub-categories food safety, animal health and 
plant health.  OECD has a reporting role through th e Creditor Reporting System for Aid for Trade.  
Both these activities are dependent on input from a large number of donors and others involved in 
SPS-related technical assistance to try to make the information as complete and up-to-date as possible.  
The TCBDB is potentially of great use to the STDF in  its coordination activities, but this potential has 
yet to be realised.  One reason for this may be a lack of compatibility between the TCBDB approach 
and donors’ reporting systems. G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 20  
 
  Observers 
53. The three international standard setting bodies specifically recognised by the SPS Agreement, 
the Codex Alimentarius Commission ("Codex"), the I PPC and the OIE, have also provided support to 
the STDF.  The Codex Secretariat has arranged for the STDF Secretariat to pr ovide information about 
the STDF and its activities in connection with meet ings of the Codex Regional Committees.  The 
IPPC has implemented two STDF projects and is involved in the planning and implementation of 
others.  Regarding the OIE, see paragraph 47. 
54. The UNCTAD has supported the STDF by implem enting or overseeing the implementation of 
two projects and two PPGs and the ITC has supe rvised the implementation of one STDF project . 
Representatives of developing countries 
55. The representatives of the developing countries play  an important role in providing input into 
the Working Group and Policy Committee and thereby tr ying to ensure that the prioritisation and 
overall direction of the STDF work programme is in  line with developing country priorities, rather 
than being partner- or donor-driven - no easy task. 
Donors and funding 
56. As can be seen from Table 5, the World Bank provided funding for the STDF in 2003 and 
2004 and the WTO provided funds during the period 2003-2006.  However, since 2006 the STDF has been entirely dependent on contributions from ot her donors for its work.  Several donors (Denmark, 
The Netherlands, Sweden and the UK) have give n multi-annual contributions, others (Canada, 
Germany, Italy and the USA) have hitherto cont ributed twice and others (Australia, European 
Commission, Finland, France, Ireland, Norway and Switzerland) have hitherto made a single 
contribution.  In addition to contributing to the STDF Fund, some donors have agreed to fund projects 
that the STDF has approved but been unable to fu nd at the time.  For example, the ComMark Trust, 
with funding from the UK Department for Intern ational Development (DFID), funded STDF project 
66 on improved SPS compliance for Mozambique horticu lture exporters in regional and international 
markets.  It should also be borne in mind that, in  addition to the above fi nancial contributions from 
donors, STDF projects are partly financed (10%-30% depending on whether the recipient is an 
LDC/OLIE or not) by contributions from the recipient countries and by in kind contributions from other sources, e.g. Canada contri buted to STDF projects 37 and 120. 
57. During the period 2006 to the present (November 2008), STDF funding has been requested 
for a total of 80 projects and 31 PPGs, in all amounting to over 35 million US$.  Approval was granted for 29 projects and 18 PPGs to a total cost of just over 8 million US$. 
58. The STDF has as a goal that at least 40% of its funding for projects/PPGs shall go to LDCs or 
OLIEs.  This figure has been cl early exceeded, with 58% of the project funding (45% of the number 
of projects) and 73% of the total number of PPGs going to such countries during the period 2006-2008. 
59. Breakdown of the approved projects and PPGs by geographical region shows that 71% of the 
PPGs and 39% of the projects have gone to Sub-Sa haran Africa, 10% of the PPGs and 19% of the 
projects to South and Central America and the Caribbean, 10% of the PPGs and 11% of the projects to East Asia and smaller percentages to other regions.  In addition, 25% of the projects can be classified 
as global.  There are, however, a number of LDCs wh ich, for various reasons, have not yet been able 
to become beneficiaries of STDF project funding.  G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 21 
 
 
  60. The STDF is currently facing serious funding cons traints, with insufficient resources to fund 
all currently approved projects.  Th ere is an immedi ate funding shortfall of CHF 2.97 million.  In mid-
October 2008 it had approximately CHF 1.67 million av ailable in resources against approximately 
CHF 3.93 million in approved outstanding commitments , excluding funding of the Secretariat staff 
(an additional CHF 0.72 million per annum).  The ST DF has set a target of 5 million US$ for annual 
contributions and this was achieved in 2005 and 20 07, but contributions in 2006 totalled only ca. CHF 
2.7 and  only ca. CHF 1.2 million have been  received so far in 2008 (see Table 5). 
61. The STDF is in some ways a victim of its own success.  As it has become better known, it has 
attracted larger numbers of good quality appli cations for funding of projects and PPGs and has 
approved increasing numbers of them.  However, it is  unable to fund all the projects it approves, at 
least not at the time it approves them and in so me cases not at all.  This leads to delays in 
implementing approved projects, resulting in frustra tion and other problems in countries which have 
invested resources in making the applications and preparing to implement projects.  Having already 
invested resources in developing a well-functioning process to assist developing countries to elaborate sound project applications, it would be a pity if fina ncial constraints meant that the potential could not 
be realised.  It would be especially valuable for th e functioning of the STDF, in particular in planning 
its future activities and avoiding delays in the implementation of projects, if donors could commit 
themselves to make multi-annual contributions and the S ecretariat is trying its best to encourage this.  
The donor base is presently quite narrow, being concen trated mainly to Europe (especially Northern 
Europe) and North America and it would be a great adva ntage if it could be widened.  However, even 
if the STDF achieves its target of CHF 5 million in annual contributions to the Fund, the mobilisation 
of project funds from sources other than the STDF Fund, including multilateral, bilateral and regional 
sources, is probably going to play an increasing role in funding projects approved by the STDF in the future. 
Coordination activities of the STDF and their impact 
62. The coordination role of the STDF covers several areas, including the development and 
dissemination of tools to assess SPS-related need s and national capacities, the development of 
methods to be used to prioritise activities when resources are inadequate (which is always the 
situation in developing countries) and assistance to developing countries in assessing their needs and 
capacities.  It also covers mobilising funding fo r projects and other activities to assist developing 
countries to comply with SPS-related standard s, thereby gaining and maintaining access to 
international markets.  This work is carried out  through collaboration between the Secretariat, 
partners, donors, observers and recipient countries. 
63. The STDF also helps to identify and dissemina te good practices in the request, provision and 
receipt of SPS-related technical assistance and an SPS/STDF/OECD workshop on this subject was held at the WTO on 6 October 2008 back-to-back  with an SPS Committ ee meeting (see docs. 
G/SPS/GEN/871, 872, 874).  The STDF plans to prepare a short publication to disseminate the 
findings of the good practice research and the workshop more widely. 
64. On 31 March 2008 STDF organised a workshop on  SPS-related capacity evaluation tools (see 
docs. G/SPS/R/48 and G/SPS/GEN/821) back-to-back with an SPS Committee meeting.  The workshop focussed on tools that have been develo ped by international or ganizations, including a 
Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation (PCE) tool, the OI E Tool for the Evaluation of Veterinary Services 
(OIE PVS Tool) and FAO Guidelines to Assess Capa city-Building Needs for National Food Control 
Systems.  Other more generic approaches were also discussed, including the FAO Biosecurity 
Toolkit, the World Bank’s report on "Food Safety a nd Agricultural Health Standards, Challenges and 
Opportunities for Developing Country Exports" and II CA’s Performance, Vision, Strategy approach., 
the UNIDO work on "Conformity Assurance Infrast ructure", WHO’s work on developing a diagnostic 
tool for analysis and assessment of trade and h ealth and Convention on Biodiversity work on a G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 22  
 
  national capacity self assessment tool.  The works hop was also informed about the STDF project on 
"Cost-benefit analysis and SPS-rela ted investment" being piloted by Peru and Uganda (STDF project 
no. 20).  The Workshop recommended, among other things, a) improved c oordination to reduce 
duplication in capacity evaluation and follow-up activ ities, b) making the findings of completed and 
planned capacity evaluations more widely available a nd, c) greater efforts to identify ways to monitor 
the impact of capacity evaluations in generating results. 
65. A first phase overview of the SPS needs and assist ance of eight LDCs (Benin, Cambodia, Lao 
PDR, Lesotho, Mozambique, Rwanda, Senegal and Ye men) has been produced by the Secretariat at 
UNIDO’s request (see document STDF 270) and presen ted at a preparatory Expert Working Group 
meeting on 8-9 September 2008 in Ki gali, Rwanda.  The overview had three objectives: a) to identify 
SPS-related needs and constraints faced by the coun tries surveyed, b) to identify ongoing and planned 
SPS technical cooperation initiatives of multilateral and bilateral donors and, c) to identify areas 
where future cooperation activities might be focu ssed and examine actions to mobilise further 
support.  The report is based on a review of existi ng needs assessments, notably the Diagnostic Trade 
Integration Studies (DTIS) prepared by the Integr ated Framework (IF), the STDF’s own Aid for Trade 
research and other reports.  A final report will be pr esented at the LDC Ministerial Conference to be 
held on 19-20 November 2008 in Ca mbodia.  This work is still in progress, but the draft overview 
already produced shows that the STDF work on identifying SPS-related needs and assistance is 
progressing well. 
66. Under the umbrella of Aid for Trade, the STDF is working closely with the World Bank, the 
European Commission, the International Institute  for Tropical Agriculture, the Economic Commission 
of West African States, the West African Economic  and Monetary Union, the Pesticides Initiative 
Programme and other stakeholders to promote a c oordinated response to the spread and control of 
various fruit fly species of economic importance in West Africa.  This is a good example of an issue which affects many countries in Africa, with severe effects on trade in fruit and in some cases on food 
security.  Many donors are involved and it may well lead  to one of the biggest coordinated actions so 
far involving the STDF.  An STDF meeting is pla nned for early 2009 to consider positive experiences 
from elsewhere in the world in fruit fly contro l, mobilise development partners around a common 
regional control plan and examine implementation modalities for a concerted regional action for the 
management of fruit flies in West Africa. 
67. Although the STDF can assist developing countries to assess their SPS-related needs, it is the 
countries themselves that should decide on the priority to be given to work to meet these needs as part 
of their overall development plans and "own the process" .  From the point of view of sustainability, it 
is an advantage if projects and other work designed to meet SPS-related needs can be integrated into 
comprehensive national programmes aimed at improvi ng animal and plant health and food safety, 
rather than being isolated, stand-alone projects. 
68. Since the production of and international trade in  animals and plants and products thereof and 
foodstuffs is largely in the hands of private operato rs and legislation and control is the responsibility 
of the public sector, it is important that both public  and private sectors are involved in work to meet 
SPS-related standards in order to gain and mainta in access to international markets.  This is 
recognised by the STDF in its work and it encourag es participation of both sectors in its projects and 
other activities. 
69. Private standards have come to play an incr easing role in international trade in some 
commodities.  Developing countries able to comply  with SPS-related (i.e. Codex, IPPC and OIE) 
standards may still find difficulty in accessing some international markets if they cannot meet the 
additional requirements set by private organizations, for example the large 
importers/wholesalers/retailers who dominate parts of the food trade in some countries.  The 
advantages and disadvantages of private standards ha ve been the subject of much discussion in recent  G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 23 
 
 
  years in many international fora, including the SPS Committee, which has been discussing the issue 
since June 2005 and held a workshop on it in June 2008. 
70. Although one of the main aims of the STDF ( see paragraph 2 in the present report) is to 
"assist developing countries enhance their exper tise and capacity to analyze and to implement 
international sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standa rds" i.e. Codex, IPPC and OIE standards, it has 
been recognised that ability to meet private standa rds can be an important factor in gaining access to 
international markets.  According to the STDF Operat ional Rules, projects which are in part aimed at 
assisting developing countries to meet private sta ndards are eligible for STDF funding, subject to 
certain conditions. 
71. The Trade Standards Practitioners Network (TSPN ) is a network of organisations which has 
as its mission to improve the effectiveness of initiatives that support developing country capacity 
building and participation in the implementati on of trade-related social, environment and 
sanitary/phytosanitary standards (including both pub lic and private standards)  and related measures 
through information sharing, policy research and capac ity building.  Several or ganizations involved in 
the TSPN (e.g. FAO, UNIDO, World Bank a nd Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische  
Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)) are also involved in STDF ac tivities.  Since the aims  of the STDF and the 
TSPN in some areas are similar, there is obviously a risk for overlap and duplication of effort.  
Therefore it is important that the STDF Secretaria t establishes and maintains close contact with the 
TSPN secretariat and provides STDF stakeholders w ith information on ongoing and planned TSPN 
activities so that duplication of effort can be a voided.  Synergies between the STDF and the TSPN 
should be actively sought for the benefit of devel oping countries and the effective use of the available 
resources. 
72. The overall conclusion from the present review of the STDF coordination activities is that 
they are developing well and are already having an impact in some areas.  These include a) the 
activities to identify, develop and disseminate tools to assess SPS-related needs and evaluate national 
capacities, b) the regional workshops and consultati ons, organised in Central America, East Africa 
and the Mekong Delta, which have been very useful  in enhancing collaboration between donors in the 
regions, and, c) the workshop on good practices in  the request, provision and receipt of SPS-related 
technical assistance.  The STDF h as also been successful in coordinating with donors to help fund 
some STDF-approved projects that it has been unable to fund itself.  In addition, although still at an 
early stage, the work on assessi ng the needs and assistance in eight LDCs and on promoting a 
coordinated response to the fruit fly problem in West Africa is progressing well and shows promise 
for the future.  Coordination is one of the two principal aims of the STDF and it is primarily in this 
area, rather than acting simply as a project funder, that its future probably lies, since here it has a comparative advantage and can play a unique role  in assisting developing countries in the future. 
Project development and implementa tion activities and their impact 
73. Since the beginning of 2006, the STDF has been  successful in attracting a large number of 
project (80) and PPG (31) applications from different  sources and, in its Operational Rules, it has laid 
down a set of criteria for evaluating their eligibility for STDF funding. 
74. The STDF has approved a rich portfolio of projects and PPGs covering a wide range of SPS-
related issues, from broad projects aimed at inter alia  stimulating awareness at the national level of 
the importance of being able to meet SPS-related re quirements in order to gain and maintain access to 
international markets to narrower, more technical  projects aimed at finding solutions to specific 
problems preventing access of a product to interna tional markets, e.g. STDF project 114 on an 
aflatoxin management system in Brazil nut production. G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 24  
 
  75. Over the years since its inception, the focu s in the STDF has changed from funding projects 
initiated mainly by the partners to funding pr ojects and PPGs initiated mainly by beneficiary 
countries.  In 2003, 5 projects submitted by partners  were approved for funding, 4 were approved in 
2004 and 2 in 2005, but none have been approved since 2006.  Furthermore, the STDF is now 
facilitating, often by means of PPGs, the developm ent of good "bankable" projects that it cannot fund 
itself (due to budgetary constraints) but can help to  fund by mobilising funds from multi- or bilateral 
donors. 
76. The projects and PPGs can be broadly divided in to the following areas: SPS in general, plant 
health, animal health and food safety.  Table 4 shows such a division of the projects and PPGs approved so far.  As can be seen from the table, the total number of projects and PPGs for the areas 
SPS in general, plant health and food safety are similar (about 20), whereas the number related to 
animal health is less than half that number.  Accordi ng to the Secretariat, this is due to the fact that 
relatively few applications have been received for animal health projects, but the approval rate for 
such applications is as high, or even higher, than that for applications for projects in other areas.  
WHO has complained that no public health projects have been approved by the STDF.  However, a 
large number of projects and PPGs related to food safety have been approved and there is an obvious 
connection between food safety and public health.  It  is up to the Policy Committee to decide whether 
the STDF should strive to obtain a different balance between the above areas and, if so, how this can 
be achieved.  Furthermore, the Committee should decide whether or not improvements in public 
health should be regarded as a separate area or regard ed as an indirect effect of improved food safety.  
In this connection it should be emphasised that the STDF focuses on SPS-related issues
 and not on 
human, animal or plant health in general. 
77. Initially the STDF suffered from delays in th e implementation of projects, sometimes 
extending over six months or more  and, although the situation has improved, there are still some 
delays.  There are several reasons for this, includi ng lack of funding at the time the project is 
approved, delays in deciding on the organization to implement and/or oversee the implementation of 
the project, slow internal processes in those orga nizations and practical problems at the recipient 
country level.  It is desirable to reduce these dela ys, but this is dependent on obtaining increased and 
timely funding, more rapid decision making in the Working Group and accelerat ed internal processes 
at the implementing organization and recipient country level. 
78. Following the previous external evaluation of the STDF in 2005, better rules were introduced 
in 2006 to steer the work of the STDF and the cr iteria for funding of projects and PPGs have been 
tightened.  The present evaluator considers that th e current Operational Rules (doc. STDF 139 rev.1) 
provide a good general basis for operation of the Fac ility.  However, in view of the dissatisfaction 
recently expressed by two of the five partners (OIE and WHO) there is reason for the Policy Committee to revisit some of the details concerni ng the rules for project funding to clarify some 
issues, including the support to be given to countri es at different stages of development and funding of 
projects involving the partners. 
79. It has been suggested by one of the donors (Sweden) that decisions on approval of PPGs 
could be delegated by the Policy Committee to the S ecretariat, since this could speed up the process 
and the funds involved are relatively small (20-30,0 00 US$ per PPG).  The Secretariat could review 
the applications for PPGs and check that they comp lied with all the criteria laid down by the Policy 
Committee in the Operational Rules (as it already does), approve the PPG and inform the Working 
Group as soon as it had done so.  An alternative would be for the Secretariat to circulate proposals for 
approving PPGs electronically to members of the Wo rking Group for their approval.  However, this 
reviewer is doubtful whether the Working Group an d Policy Committee are prep ared to accept this 
transfer of responsibilities at the present time.  G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 25 
 
 
  80. Hitherto, much of the STDF Working Group’s discussions on projects and PPGs has centred 
around reviewing and approving applications a nd initiating project implementation and only 12 
projects have been completed so far and six have been the subject of an ex post  evaluation.  During 
the next few years more and more projects will be  completed and therefore the Working Group will 
need to devote more of its time to the monito ring and evaluation aspects of projects and ways to 
measure their impact.  
81. Several of the projects initiated earlier were proposed by STDF partners and were global in 
nature.  In contrast, most of the newer projects have been initiated by developing countries and are 
aimed at tackling more specific SPS-related problems affecting a single country (e.g. Project 48 on shea and cashew nuts in Benin, Project 69 on seafood products in Yemen and Project 114 on aflatoxin 
management in Brazil nut production) or a region (e.g. Project 171 on establishing an East African 
Phytosanitary Centre and Project 255 on the regiona l initiative on the fight against fruit flies in West 
Africa).  The STDF has been successful in assis ting developing countries to prepare sound project 
proposals through the use of PPGs.  To date 15 STDF approved projects have been developed in this 
way (project numbers 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 113, 116, 126, 127, 145, 146, 155, 170 and 171 – please 
note that the project numbers are in most, but not all, cases the same as the PPG number).  These 
developments are consistent with the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. 
82. The WTO has already concluded agreements w ith FAO, ITC and the World Bank, but not 
OIE or WHO, for oversight services in support of  the STDF.  Since OIE and WHO can also be 
involved in the oversight of the implementation of STDF projects, it is desirable that they too have 
similar agreements with WTO. 
83. Assessment of the impact of STDF-funded proj ects/PPGs is difficult for a number of reasons.  
Firstly, only a few projects have so far been subject to an ex post  evaluation.  To date, 12 STDF-
funded projects have been completed (STDF nos. 5, 9,  10, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 37, 56, 89 and 120), but 
only 6 have been the subject of an ex post  evaluation (nos.14, 15, 37, 56, 89 and 120).  Secondly, few 
data are available to evaluate if there has been  any impact on market access, international trade 
volumes, public health or poverty alleviation.  Thir dly, where improvements have been achieved it is 
usually the result of the work of many actors and it is difficult to separate the impact of STDF 
activities from those of others.  Having said that, the fo llowing is an attempt to evaluate the impact of 
some of the STDF projects and other activities. 
84. Project STDF 14: Development of the OIE-PVS Capacity Evaluation Tool: Performance of 
Veterinary Services  supported OIE in the development and institutionalisation of a tool for the 
evaluation of national veterinary services.  The STD F funding of this project constituted only a small 
proportion of the total costs.  According to the ex  post evaluation, the project’s immediate objectives 
were achieved.  STDF funding is intended to suppor t, among other things, the implementation of pilot 
projects that are innovative, can be replicated in other countries and/or have a regional component.  
The subsequent use of the PVS tool in many other developing countries through funds donated by the 
World Bank and other donors can be regarded as proof of the impact of the original seed funding by 
the STDF.  Information about the PVS tool for eval uation of national veterinary services, which play 
a key role in improving animal health and the safet y of foods of animal origin, was one of the tools 
discussed and recommended at the STDF workshop on SPS-related capacity evaluation tools held in 
March 2008 (see paragraph 63). 
85. According to the ex post  evaluation, Project STDF 15: OIE Training for trainers , was run 
successfully and largely met its objectives.  The training provided was the right answer to both 
beneficiary needs and the institutional context at th e time.  The project’s activities and outputs were 
delivered as planned, on time and within budget, while important cost and other synergies were 
created by the combination of ongoing WTO traini ng with the project’s activities.  The training 
appears to have made a real difference to the awar eness levels and day-to-day work of participants.  G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 26  
 
  The benefits of the project were found to continue after the end of the training, both at the individual 
participant level and at the institu tional level.  The evaluator concluded that the main lessons to be 
drawn from this project were the need for a sustaine d training effort towards the achievement of long-
term results and the need to pursue in parallel other critical success factors, such as good governance 
and capacity improvements.  On the basis of th e findings, it was recommended to the STDF and the 
wider donor community to inter alia  continue funding training activities, to further focus the content 
of future training and to explore possible synerg ies between training activities on a project-by-project 
basis.  A further proposal for such training was submitted to the STDF (STDF 219), but this was not 
approved, since it was considered that such traini ng is the responsibility of the OIE and OIE should 
use its own resources to fund it or seek funding el sewhere.  OIE disagrees with this conclusion and 
considers that the STDF has been inconsistent in  dealing with proposals on training in the areas of 
animal health and plant health. 
86. According to the ex post  evaluation, the objectives of STDF Project 37: Assistance to 
developing countries in the implementation of Inte rnational Standard for Phytosanitary Measures 
(ISPM) 15 (Guidelines for regulating wood packag ing material in international trade),  a standard 
adopted by the IPPC in March 2002, were achie ved and the increase in implementation of the 
standard could, at least partly, be attributed to  the workshop and the training materials.  Thus the 
project achieved the overall STDF goals, in particul ar measurable effect on market access, improved 
domestic, and where applicable regional, SPS situa tion and poverty reduction were achieved.  The 
evaluation pointed out that providing opportunities for information exchange and interactive learning 
was a highly effective and sustainable means to achie ve capacity building.  However, more attention 
needed to be paid to dissemination of training materi als, which in this case had not reached part of the 
target group. 
87. STDF Project 56: Capacity Building for Implemen tation of the Codex Alimentarius Code of 
Good Practice for Animal Feeding  supported the International Feed Industry Federation (IFIF), in 
collaboration with FAO, in preparing a detailed Feed  Manual for the industry (to be translated into 
five languages) to support the uniform implementa tion of the Codex Alimentarius Code of Good 
Practice for Animal Feeding, and in offering work shops and training to feed producers and industries 
in developing countries.  The ex post  evaluation concluded that the intended outputs were only partly 
achieved, as various elements in the project had not  materialised.  In particular, the Feed Manual was 
(and still is!) under development, despite the fact that  the project has been terminated.  At a joint 
IFIF/FAO meeting in Rome in October 2007 both orga nizations agreed to establish a work plan to 
finalise the manual expeditiously, but this work has s till not been completed.  Here there is a need for 
the STDF Secretariat to follow up this matter and ensu re that the Feed Manual is finalised as soon as 
possible and distributed to relevant stakeholders.  Although this project did not achieve all of its 
objectives, benefits were obtained through the wo rkshops which increased awareness of the feed 
industry to the Guidelines and also helped the industr y in some developing countries to better organise 
itself to implement the guidelines. 
88. The lessons learnt from the ex post evaluations of STDF-funded projects nos. 14, 37 and 56 
and the associated recommendations of the Secret ariat are summarised in STDF document 205.  The 
recommendations have been or ar e being implemented by the STDF and this has led to improved 
project proposal review and project cycle management.  The present evaluator agrees with the conclusions drawn in STDF 205 and the recommendations. 
89. Project 89
 supported the FAO/IPPC International Plant Health Risk Analysis Workshop , held 
in Niagara Falls, Canada on 24-28 October 2005 and Project 120  supported the Plant Health Risk 
Analysis Regional Workshop , held in Chennai, India, 5-9 March 2007.  The ex post evaluations of 
these two STDF Projects were carried out together as they both had, as a core component, the development of a package of training material for pest risk analysis under the IPPC.  The same  G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 27 
 
 
  consultant also carried out a preliminary evaluatio n of the IPPC "Training material on pest risk 
analysis based on IPPC standards". 
90. The evaluation of Project 89 concluded that the workshop had been very successful and that 
the participants (73, over 50%, of them from deve loping countries) were hugely satisfied with it.  The 
majority of the aims of the workshop were achieved and responses to a follow-up questionnaire 
indicated that the participants had disseminated the information they had received and used it in their 
work when they returned to their home countries.  The evaluation of Project 120 also indicated that 
the workshop in India had been successful and achieve d most of its aims.  The IPPC training material 
on pest risk analysis based on IPPC standards includ es a package of material for a five-day training 
course, consisting of three manuals (one each fo r participants, group exercises and instructors), 
Powerpoint presentations and speakers notes.  The training package provides a comprehensive 
introductory course to plant health risk analysis, but need to be further developed so that they may be 
tailored to different audiences. 
91. The evaluator’s overall conclusion was that th e projects had been successfully delivered on 
time and, as far as could be assessed, within budget an d recommended that the further development of 
IPPC pest risk analysis training should be supported. 
92. In addition to the above ex post evaluations  of STDF projects which provide documented 
evidence of the impact, some general informati on about the positive effects of ongoing STDF projects 
has been obtained from brief interviews several developing country representatives during 6-8 
October 2008.  Several of the interv iewees have reported that a positive side-effect of the initiation of 
STDF-funded projects has been much better coordina tion at the national level between the different 
government departments and agencies concerned with SPS issues.  In some ca ses this has led to the 
creation of national coordination committees involving  both the public and private sector.  In others 
increased awareness at the political level of the im portance of complying with SPS-related standards 
in order to gain access to foreign markets has led to activities to modernise legislation and to the 
allocation of greater resources to strength national infrastructure for the control of animal and plant 
health and food safety. 
93. It is considered to be outside the terms of  reference of the present review to carry out ex post  
evaluations of all the other completed STDF projects.   Such evaluations are planned and provision for 
such evaluations must now be made part of a ll approved STDF projects.  However, evaluation of 
completed projects is currently being delayed du e to the lack of appropriately qualified and 
independent consultants to carry out the work.  The STDF Secretariat is attempting to solve this 
problem, but needs more input from the Working Group members and observers and their 
organisations. 
Operational Plan 2008-2009 and Medium-term Strategy 
94. The Medium Term Strategy of the STDF (2007-2011) is presented in document STDF 154 
and the Operating Plan 2008-2009 in STDF 198 rev.2. 
95. Although the STDF is just less than halfway thro ugh the its current biennium, it seems to be 
well on track to complete the activities shown in the Operational Plan 2008-2009, providing the 
funding situation can be improved to at least meet the funding target of 5 million US$ per year.  Apart from the recommendations given below, this review er sees little reason to change the Medium Term 
Strategy of the STDF (2007-2011). G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 28  
 
  IV. CONCLUSIONS 
96. The overall performance of the STDF is judged by  almost all stakeholders to be good and in 
many important areas very good.  It carries out an  important role that no other single body would be 
able to accomplish.  The participation of the five  partner organizations, the donors and the observer 
organizations means that it has access to expertise in a large number of SPS- and development-related 
areas, including the secretariats of three standard setting bodies (Codex, the IPPC and the OIE) 
specifically recognised by the SPS Agreement. 
97. The performance of the Secretariat is highly rate d by virtually all stakeholders (except the 
OIE and WHO, two of the five partners) and by this  reviewer.  It works as a team with good internal 
communication and networking abilities, has estab lished a reputation for responding rapidly and 
professionally to questions addressed to it and is pe rceived as hard-working, dedicated and motivated.  
These characteristics are important for the Secretariat of an organisation trying to coordinate with a 
large number of different stakeholde rs with different fields of interest and priorities.  Although it has 
hitherto worked both effectively and efficiently, th e Secretariat’s resources were earlier inadequate to 
perform the wide range of tasks it was given under the Operational Rules and the situation was not 
sustainable.  The current increased staffing level is considered adequate for its current needs. 
98. One way in which the STDF makes efficient and effective use of its resources is by arranging 
many of its activities back-to-back with or together with meetings organised by organizations such as 
the WTO (SPS Committee), Codex, the OIE and the I PPC, thus saving consider able expenditure on 
travel and at the same time reaching large numbe rs of people who might otherwise be difficult to 
reach.  However, the STDF could liaise more with  donors and participate more often in their 
meetings. 
99. The Secretariat’s contacts with broader coopera tion programmes, in particular the EIF and 
Aid for Trade, have improved since last year a nd the Aid for Trade regional workshops and are now 
judged to be very useful.  The three regional review s in Central America, East Africa and a sub-group 
of ASEAN countries have been successful in identif ying SPS-related needs and raising the profile of 
the STDF.  The STDF’s work with the overview of th e SPS needs and assistance to eight LDCs is still 
ongoing, but the reports presented so far show that it is doing a good job.  
100. There is a need for the Secretariat to improve its information to donors on its contacts with 
EIF and Aid for Trade and to improve coordination with organizations working specifically in the 
SPS area.  Up to now, there has b een close contact between the STDF  Secretariat and the EIF since a 
member of its staff has worked 50% of his time for the STDF and the remainder for the EIF.  
However, this situation has recently changed with the creation of a separate EIF Secretariat, albeit 
administratively housed in WTO, and it is importa nt that the close cooperation between STDF and 
EIF be maintained. 
101. The STDF is working closely with a large numbe r of organizations to promote a coordinated 
response to the spread and control of various fruit fl y species of economic importance in West Africa.  
This is a good example of an issue which affects many countries in Africa, with severe effects on 
trade.  Many donors and developing countries are involved and it may well lead to one of the biggest coordinated actions so far involving the STDF.  
102. The STDF recognises the importance of involving bo th public and private sectors in work to 
help developing countries to meet SPS-related st andards in order to gain and maintain access to 
international markets and it encourages participa tion of both sectors in its activities.  However, it 
needs to establish close contacts with the TSPN and provide STDF stakeholders with information on 
TSPN activities, so that duplication of effort can be avoided and s ynergies between the STDF and the 
TSPN can be explored.  G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 29 
 
 
  103. The Secretariat’s contacts with most of th e STDF partners, observers, donor members and 
beneficiary representatives is good or very good, but ther e is an urgent need to improve relations with 
OIE, WHO and UNCTAD. 
104. The Secretariat’s reporting on technical coope ration activities of bilateral and multilateral 
donors and developing countries has improved, but ther e is still considerable room for improvement.  
The Secretariat has promised to produce a compendium of SPS-related assistance providers, but this 
work has hitherto received low priority and the compendium has not yet been produced.  
105. The Secretariat’s dissemination of information on the STDF and STDF projects via the SPS 
Committee has generally been good.  It is important  that the Secretariat ma kes good use of the fact 
that SPS Committee meetings attract representatives  of a large number of countries and provide a 
golden opportunity for the STDF to spread information about its work and projects.  
106. The Secretariat’s dissemination of information on the STDF and STDF projects via the 
website and the STDF Newsletter is generally good, bearing in mind that the website has been 
running for a relatively short time and the Newslette r was only started in 2008.  However, there is 
considerable room for improvement of the website to make it more comprehensive, up-to-date and 
user-friendly, particularly for French and Span ish speakers.  In addition to documents on STDF 
projects and other STDF activities, the website coul d also contain information about the work of 
bilateral and multilateral donors in SPS-related areas, e.g. the compendium, when it is produced.  The 
Secretariat should give priority to improving th e website, since it is a very important source of 
information for stakeholders and can be even more  important if improved.  A comprehensive, up-to-
date and user-friendly website could take some of the information supply load off the shoulders of the 
Secretariat.  Stakeholders want to be able dow nload as many STDF documents, both current and those 
produced earlier, as possible from the website. 
107. The Newsletter is new for 2008 and is much a ppreciated by stakeholders, especially for the 
information it contains about ongoi ng and planned SPS-related activities of the STDF and its partners.  
It provides a useful way of spreading information not only to those already involved in the STDF, but 
also to a wide range of organizations, including pot ential donors, that the STDF should interest in its 
work. 
108. The STDF was established relatively recently a nd still unknown to many people working in 
the areas of animal and plant health and food safety and in the development donor community.  
Although information about the STDF is disseminate d via the SPS Committee and the Facility has its 
own website and now a Newsletter, there is a need to make its existence and activities more widely 
known and to raise its profile. 
109. The Secretariat’s identification and dissemina tion of good practices in the request, provision 
and receipt of SPS-related technical cooperation h as improved in recent years and the workshop held 
at WTO on 6 October 2008 on Good Practices in SPS-related Technical Assistance provided a very 
useful summary of its work in this area.  It is important that the conclusions from the workshop are 
widely disseminated, especially to those respons ible for planning and implementing technical 
assistance.  However, the identification of good  practices is an area that needs much more 
development and is dependent on input from many sources outside of the Secretariat.  
110. The Secretariat’s performance in organising re gional workshops and c onsultations aimed at 
improving coordination between STDF stakeholde rs is good.  The three regional workshops, 
organised in Central America, East Africa and the Mekong Delta, have been very useful in enhancing 
collaboration between donors active in these regions.   The organization of further such workshops 
should be a priority for the STDF and several benefi ciary countries in other regions, e.g. West Africa 
and Sothern Africa, would certainly welcome such  workshops.  Such workshops have also an G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 30  
 
  important role to play in stimulating coopera tion between countries in a region with similar SPS-
related needs.  
111. The Secretariat’s work in helping to identify possible projects in the area of food safety, 
animal and plant health for STDF funding is appreciat ed by many developing countries.  However, in 
line with importance of development country owne rship of technical assistance projects emphasised 
in the Paris Declaration, it is important that the S ecretariat’s role is, through discussion at the national 
level, to help
 developing countries to identify projects in areas which they have given priority, rather 
than to promote projects that it considers should be gi ven priority (either of its own conception or that 
of partner organizations).  
112. The Secretariat’s assistance to LDCs and othe rs in preparing applications for Project 
Preparation Grants (PPGs) is highly rated and mu ch appreciated by developing countries lacking in 
technical and other expertise needed to develop such proposals.  
113. Since the beginning of 2006, the STDF has been  successful in attracting a large number of 
project (80) and PPG (31) applications and it has la id down a set of strict criteria for evaluating their 
eligibility for STDF funding in its Operational Rules.  The STDF has now a rich portfolio of projects 
and PPGs covering a wide range of SPS-related issues , from broad basic projects aimed at stimulating 
awareness at the national level of the importance of  being able to meet SPS-related requirements to 
narrower, more technical projects aimed at finding solutions to specific problems preventing access of 
a product to international markets. 
114. The Secretariat’s review of applications for STD F funding is judged to be good by almost all 
stakeholders (except OIE, WHO and UNCTAD) a nd by the present evaluator.  The Secretariat 
reviews each project and PPG application to check that it is complete and fulfils the criteria laid down 
by the Policy Committee.  The results of the revi ew are presented in deta il in working documents 
provided to participants in each Working Group mee ting as a basis for the discussions and decisions 
on the funding of projects/PPGs.  In addition to pr esenting the results of its review of the funding 
applications, the Secretariat also proposes that the Working Group should approv e certain applications 
and discuss or reject others.  However, it is important to note that it is the  Working Group and not the 
Secretariat that makes final decisions on funding .  Which projects should be funded is currently the 
subject of considerable debate within the Work ing Group, which may have negative effects on the 
working of the STDF as a whole, and it is therefore important that the issue be dealt with by the 
Policy Committee as soon as possible.  Among the issues that need discussion are the current 
Operational Rules on funding of projects proposed by countries other than LDCs/OLIEs, funding of 
projects proposed by STDF partners or implementing organizations and prioritisation when there is a 
shortage of funds. 
115. There is currently and imbala nce between the number of projects/PPGs being funded by the 
STDF in different areas, with considerably fewer an imal health projects being funded than projects in 
the other areas (SPS in general, plant health and food safety).  According to the Secretariat, this is due 
in part to the fact that fewer app lications in the animal health area ha ve been submitted.  It is up to the 
Policy Committee to decide if this imbalance should be allowed to continue and, if not, what action 
should be taken to remedy it. 
116. The Secretariat’s project administration and fo llow-up is generally good but there is a need 
for better information to stakeholders, including donors, on the results of such follow-up.  The 
Secretariat’s contacts with agencies implementing and/or overseeing the implementation of STDF-
funded projects are generally good but there is a need for better information flow between the 
Secretariat and some implementing agencies on issues such as the revision of projects after they have 
been approved by the Working Group.  G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 31 
 
 
  117. The STDF is currently facing serious funding constr aints and is unable to fund all the projects 
it approves, at least not at the time it approves them and in some cases not at all.  This causes delays 
in implementation and frustration among those wh o have produced good project proposals.  More 
work needs to be done to broaden the donor base a nd also to try to get longer-term commitments from 
donors.  The Secretariat is making considerable ef forts to obtain further contributions from current 
donors and also working intensively to identify other potential donors to the Fund.  The DVD now 
under development may help in this respect, when it is finalised.  
118. The documentation for Working Group and Policy Committee meetings is generally regarded 
as good, but the Secretariat should consult with the participants of these meetings to see if there are ways of making it even better.  The Secretariat’ s preparation for and servicing of Working Group and 
Policy Committee meetings has impr oved and is now good.  However, in some cases the documents 
arrive rather late, which makes it difficult for some participants to prepare adequately for meetings.  
One way to address this issue may be to push back  the final date for submission of applications 
beyond the current 45 day deadline – perhaps to 60  days.  Working Group meetings include both 
information and decision agenda items and the inform ation items are discussed before decision items.  
In the opinion of this reviewer  this order should be reversed 
119. The financial administration is carried out jo intly by the STDF and in-house WTO financial 
services and according to WTO financial rules and gi ves rise to no concerns. The financial reporting 
is considered by most stakeholders to be good.  However, it would be more transparent if the amount 
of funds committed, but not disbursed, at the end of each financial year was shown in the annual 
report.  The practice of maintaining each donor’s fu nds in a separate account and each year showing 
the amount still unspent causes some problems for some donor country representatives seeking to 
obtain further funds at the national le vel and is otherwise of little value. 
120. The six STDF projects that have been the subject of an ex post  evaluation were reviewed.  
One of them (STDF 14) resulted in the developmen t and testing of a tool to evaluate national 
veterinary services and this has subsequently been u sed in many developing countries.  STDF project 
15 (OIE Training for Trainers) was run successfully and largely met its objectives.  A project (STDF 
37), aimed at assisting developing countries in the implementation of an IPPC standard on regulating 
packaging material in international trade, was very successful and achieved the overall STDF goals.  
Two other projects (STDF 89 and 120) on the development of tools for plant pest risk analysis were 
successfully completed.  The fifth project (STDF 56) aimed at capacity building for implementation 
of the Codex Alimentarius Code of Good Practice for Animal Feeding, was only partly successful.  
The lessons learnt from the ex post evaluations have led to improve d STDF project proposal review 
and project cycle management.  
121. Although the STDF is just less than halfway throu gh the current biennium, it seems to be well 
on track to complete the activities shown in the Operational Plan 2008-2009, providing the funding 
situation can be improved to at least meet the f unding target of CHF 5 million per year.  Apart from 
the recommendations given below, this reviewer sees little reason to change the Medium Term 
Strategy of the STDF (2007-2011). 
V. RECOMMENDATIONS 
122. It is recommended that
 the Policy Committee as soon as possible, and preferably already at its 
meeting in December 2008, reviews the current Operational Rules regarding the funding of projects involving the partners.  In addition, it should revi ew and clarify its policy regarding the funding of 
projects in countries other than LDCs and OLIEs, and at different stages of development, in particular 
the issue of prioritisation when funds are insufficient.  G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 32  
 
  123. There is currently and imbala nce between the number of projects/PPGs being funded by the 
STDF in different areas, with considerably fewer an imal health projects being funded than projects in 
the other areas (SPS in general, plant health and food safety).  It is recommended 
that the Policy 
Committee decide whether this situation should be allo wed to continue and, if not, what action should 
be taken to remedy it.  In addition the Committe e should decide whether or not improving public 
health should be regarded as a separ ate area or that improvements in public health should be regarded 
as an indirect effect of improvements in the other areas, in particular food safety. 
124. It is recommended that  the Secretariat renew and intensify its efforts to expand the current 
donor base and to obtain longer-term funding comm itments from donors.  If increased funding cannot 
be obtained, the Policy Committee should discuss whet her to assign a greater proportion of funding to 
PPGs and coordination activities.  
125. Ex post evaluation of completed STDF-funded project s is an important part of the assessment 
of the results and impact of STDF’s work, but is cu rrently being delayed due to the lack of suitably 
qualified independent consultants to carry out the task.  Therefore it is recommended that the STDF 
Working Group members and observers and their or ganizations renew their efforts to supply the 
Secretariat with the names of suitably qualifie d persons to carry out such evaluations.  
126. In order to improve information exchange and to make more efficient use of the time at 
Working Group meetings, it is recommended that  a) all STDF partners, donor s and observers provide 
brief information on their on-going and planned SPS-rela ted activities to the Secretariat in advance of 
Working Group meetings and this information be included in the working documents for the meeting; 
b) any Working Group participant having doubts abou t technical issues in project/PPG applications 
should inform the Secretariat of th is in advance, so that such i ssues can be resolved before the 
meeting, if possible and, c) age nda items requiring decisions should be  dealt with during the early part 
of meetings, rather than towards the end of  meetings, which is the current practice. 
127. It is recommended that  all the partners, and in particular the WTO, and the STDF donors and 
observers make a greater effort to increase th e visibility of and to promote the STDF.  
128. It is recommended that  WTO approaches OIE and WHO with a view to concluding 
agreements for implementation oversight services in  support of the STDF, as has already been done 
with FAO, the ITC and the World Bank.  
129. It is recommended that , in choosing organisations to implement or oversee the 
implementation of its projects, the STDF gives prefer ence to those with relevant qualifications and 
experience in the area covered by the project and a pr oven track record in such work.  Furthermore, it 
would be an advantage to use organizations that ha ve already good contacts with the relevant national 
bodies, which should facilitate both project implementa tion and institutional follow-up.  In addition, it 
is recommended that  the STDF seek ways to broaden its cu rrent base of implementing organizations. 
130. It is recommended that , as a matter of priority, the Secret ariat update, expand and improve its 
website, including the introduction of a search tool , and taking into account the comments in 
paragraph 26 of the present report.  The newly starte d Newsletter should be evaluated after a period of 
2-3 years. 
131. It is recommended that  the STDF Secretariat should introduce an on-line system to enable it 
to better manage the various activities for which it has responsibility, in particular tracking progress in 
the various projects from the initial application to the receipt of the final report.  This should include a 
system to automatically alert the Secretariat to  upcoming deadlines for contracting and interim and 
final project reports.  Furthermore, it should impr ove its document identifica tion and handling system 
and ensure, amongst other things, that the cover page of each STDF document shows the date on  G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 33 
 
 
  which it was finalised /adopted and the author(s ).  The system currently used for SPS Committee 
documents could be used as a mode l.  Draft documents should be clear ly identified as such and copies 
of important e-mails should be included in the documentation system. 
132. It is recommended that  the Secretariat examine ways to ensure close cooperation between 
itself and the newly established EIF Secretariat.  It  should also expand its information to stakeholders 
on its contacts with the broader cooperation programme s, in particular the EIF and Aid for Trade.  
Furthermore, it should expedite its production of  a compendium of SPS-related assistance providers. 
133. It is recommended that  the Secretariat should establish closer contacts with the TSPN and 
provide STDF stakeholders with in formation on TSPN activities, so that duplication of effort can be 
avoided and synergies between the STDF and the TSPN explored. 
134. Regional workshops should be a core activ ity of the STDF and it is recommended that  the 
Secretariat develop plans for further regional works hops similar to the three already held, in other 
regions, including West and Southern Africa.  It should also ensure that the results of the recent workshop on good practices in the request, provision and receipt of SPS-related technical assistance 
be disseminated to all relevant stakeholders. 
135. It is recommended that
 the Secretariat improve its informa tion to stakeholders, in particular 
donors, on its follow-up of ongoing projects. G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 34  
 
  Appendix 1:  Terms of reference for the review of the STDF for the review of the STDF 
Objective 
 
1. The objective of the evaluation is to review the performance of the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility (STDF) in accord ance with the STDF Operating Rules.
2 
Background 
 
2. The STDF was formally established in August 20 02 as a partnership and a Trust Fund by the 
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na tions (FAO), the World Organization for Animal 
Health (OIE), the World Bank, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Trade 
Organization (WTO).  In 2005, membership was e xpanded to include donors contributing funds to the 
STDF as well as representatives of developing coun try beneficiaries.  In 2007, observer status was 
granted to the International Trade Centre (IT C), the United Nations Conference on Trade and 
Development (UNCTAD) and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). 
3. The STDF is funded through voluntary contribut ions to the Trust Fund established under the 
financial regulations and rules of the WTO.  The STDF Secretariat is locat ed at the WTO and bound 
by its legal and fiduciary rules.  The STDF Po licy Committee decides on policy and strategy.  The 
STDF Working Group is responsible for preparing and approving work programmes, approval of 
grants, oversight of the Secretariat, etc.   
4. A first independent evaluation of the ope ration of the Facility was completed in 
December 2005.  The evaluation concluded that: 
• the STDF had proven successful in attracting resources and approving projects, but faced 
challenges in securing sustained donor financing; 
• it had actively exploited synergies with ot her programmes (notably the Integrated 
Framework); 
• it had exceeded the target to devote 40 per cent of Facility resources to projects in LDCs or 
OLIEs;  and 
• the STDF Secretariat needed to be strengthened given the very wide range of roles undertaken 
and to reconsider its proj ect management functions. 
5. To respond to conclusions of the evaluati on, in December 2006 the Policy Committee 
adopted a Medium Term Strategy (2007-11) for the STDF accompanied by a revised set of 
Operational Rules.  To implement the Strategy, operating plans were developed and adopted for 2007 
and 2008-09, respectively, and an annual target level of funding was established at US$5 million.   
Evaluation criteria 
 
6. Performance shall be measured against the aims established for the Facility.  The aims of the 
STDF are: 
• to assist developing countries enhance their expertise and capacity to analyze and to 
implement international sanitary and phytosan itary (SPS) standards, so improving their 
                                                      
 2 Paragraph 92 of the Operational Rules (document STDF  139, as amended) stipulates that the Facility 
shall be evaluated every four years by an external reviewer appointed by the WTO after consultation of the 
STDF Working Group.  G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 35 
 
 
  human, animal and plant health situation, and th us ability to gain and maintain market access; 
and 
• to act as a vehicle for co-ordination among tec hnical co-operation providers, the mobilization 
of funds, the exchange of experience and the di ssemination of good practice in relation to the 
provision and receipt of SPS-related technical co-operation. 
7. In judging the performance of the STDF agains t its stated objectives, the following factors, 
inter alia , shall be considered: 
Conclusions raising from the 2006 evaluation of the STDF; 
 
• Impact of project and project preparation activ ities.  Impact should be judged on the following 
criteria, inter alia : 
o Ex post evaluations of completed projects;  
o Status reports of on-going projects; and 
o Success in securing funding for projects developed from project preparation grant 
activities. 
 
• Impact of co-ordination activities.  Impact should be judged on the following criteria, inter 
alia: 
o Ability of STDF Aid for Trade activities to identify SPS needs, co-ordinate actions of 
donors and mobilize additional resources; and 
o Development of the STDF into a forum for the exchange of experience and the 
dissemination of good practice in relation to  the provision and receipt of SPS-related 
technical co-operation. 
 
• Performance of the Secretariat, inter alia :   
o Implementation of the Medium Term Strate gy (2007-11) and related Operating Plans 
(2007, 2008-09); 
o Ability to attract resources for the Facility; 
o Administration of the Facility; 
o Servicing meetings of the Working Group and Policy Committee; and 
o Strengthening linkages established with rela ted programmes, notably the Integrated 
Framework and the Aid for Trade Initiative; 
 
• Performance within the STDF of the STDF pa rtners, observers, donor s and representatives of 
developing countries, notably in respect of their tasks and responsibilities as agreed in the Operational Rules. 
8. In drawing conclusions on the performance of the STDF, the consultant will be invited to 
provide comments on the activities established in th e Medium Term Strategy for the STDF (2007-11) 
and any changes which the consultant considers a ppropriate to meet the stated objectives of the 
Facility.  
Methodology  
 
9. The evaluation shall be conducted as a "desk st udy" supplemented by survey questionnaires 
and (telephone) interviews with the STDF team in Geneva, partner and observer organizations, donors G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 36  
 
  contributing funds to the STDF, as well as developi ng country representatives.  In particular, the 
consultant will be invited to attend the STDF Work ing Group meetings in the week 6 October.  The 
consultant shall also formally present the report to the meeting of the Policy Committee in the week of 
15 December.  Project beneficiaries and implemen ting organizations should also be contacted.   
10. Where applicable, the evaluation shall be or ganized around standard evaluation criteria of 
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, imp act, sustainability, and lessons learned. 
11. Relevant documentation shall be  made available to the evaluator by the STDF Secretariat 
upon request.  This includes inter alia  the following documents: 
• Medium Term Strategy (STDF 154) 
• Operational Rules (STDF 139, as amended) 
• Operating Plans 2007 and 2008-09 (STDF 163 and 198) 
• Funding Strategy (STDF 186)  
• Annual report 2007 (STDF 208) 
• First evaluation report (December 2005) 
• Minutes of STDF Policy Committee and Working Group meetings 
• Documentation on projects, including ex pos t evaluations, on-going status reports, 
agreements, exchanges of letters, etc.   
• Any other documentation as may be required  
 
Reporting 
 
12. The evaluation report shall be in English and no longer than 30 pages.  Additional 
information shall be confined to annexes.  The report shall have the following outline: 
• Executive summary (max .3 pages)  
¾ Overview of the report, highlighting th e main conclusions and recommendations 
 
• Introduction (max. 1 page) 
¾ Objective of the evaluation 
¾ Indication of independence of the evalua tor from the STDF, partner and observer 
organizations,  donors contributing fu nds to the STDF, developing country 
representatives, and project beneficiaries 
 
• Methodology (max. 1 page) 
¾ Explanation of the methodology used and description of sources of information and 
stakeholders consulted 
 
• Findings and analysis (max. 20 pages) 
¾ Findings and analysis for each of the evaluation criteria 
¾
 Overall judgement covering relevance, effectiv eness, efficiency, impact and sustainability 
of the STDF programme  
 
• Conclusions and recommendations (max. 5 pages)    
¾ Main conclusions following from the findings and analysis 
¾ Recommendations, i.e. actionable proposals for the future development of the STDF  G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 37 
 
 
  Timing and dissemination 
 
13. The evaluator shall circulate a draft report for comment to the STDF Working Group by no 
later than Friday 24 October 2008.  On the basis of comments received, a final draft shall be delivered 
to the WTO Secretariat by Friday 7 November.  The final evaluation repor t shall be submitted and 
presented to the STDF Policy Committee meeting to be held in the week of 15 December 2008.   
14. Following endorsement by the Policy Committee,  the report shall be ma de publicly available 
through circulation to the WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS 
Committee), the STDF website, and other fora, as appropriate.  G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 38  
 
  Appendix  2:  List of persons responding to questionnaires and interviewed 
Name Organization/Country 
Questionnaire responders  
Takeuchi Masami FAO (Partner) 
Sarah Kahn OIE (Partner) 
John E. Lamb World Bank (Partner) 
Awa Aidara-Kane WHO (Partner) 
Katie Kavanagh Canada (Donor) 
Sofie Hermann Flensborg Denmark (Donor) 
Hans Joostens European Commission (Donor) 
Vera Dienemann Germany (Donor) 
Margareta Davidson-Abdelli Sweden (Donor) 
Tim Leyland UK (Donor) 
Joe Hain USA (Donor) 
Carlos Correa Messuti Uruguay. Represen tative of the developing countries 
Larry  R. Lacson Philippines. Representative of the developing countries 
Jennifer Rathebe Commark. Representative of the developing countries 
Ludovica Ghizzoni International Trade Centre (ITC)(Observer)(STDF 69) 
Djidiak Faye UNCTAD (Observer) (STDF 65) 
Sidney Suma Secretariat of the Pacific Community 
Henry Moriya Bertoni Paraguay (STDF 19) 
Khadijah Kassachoon Common Market for Eastern & Southern Africa(COMESA) 
Peter Muvara Rwanda (STDF 145) 
Jean Martin Etoundi Cameroon (STDF 255) 
Lilakshini de Mel Sri Lanka  
Shree Ram Ghimire Nepal (STDF 170) 
Bakoué Jean Paul Karama Burkina Faso (STDF 255) 
Jorge Mario Gómez Castillo Guatemala 
Medhat El-Helepi East African Community (EAC) 
H.K. Catherine Hounwanou Benin 
Alhoussynou Moctar Hanne Senegal (STDF 255) 
Shasi Sareen Food Safety Asia 
Woan-Ru Lee Chinese Taipei 
Mohamed Sidibé Mali 
Magda González Arroyo Costa Rica 
Other persons supplying 
information  
Harsha V. Singh WTO (Partner) 
Anabel Gonzalez WTO (Partner) 
Valentine Rugwabiza WTO (Partner) 
Gretchen Stanton WTO (Partner) 
Bernard Vallat OIE (Partner) 
Gaston Funes OIE (Partner)  G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 39 
 
 
  Name Organization/Country 
Jörgen Schlundt WHO (Partner) 
Kazuaki Miyagishima Secretary of the Codex Alimentarius Commission 
Jeffrey Jones IPPC Secretariat (STDF 255) 
Kees Van Der Meer World Bank (Consultant) 
Spenser Henson University of Guelph (Consultant) 
Jean Baptiste Bahama InterAfrican Bu reau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR) 
Bruce Mukunda Common Market for Eastern & Southern Africa(COMESA) 
Sothoeun Suon Cambodia (Aid for Trade Asia) 
Souklatsamy Vongsack Lao PDR (Aid for Trade Asia) 
Bui Thi Cuc Viet Nam (Aid for Trade Asia) 
Daniel Orellana USDA (Aid for Trade Central America) 
Ricardo Molins International Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture(IICA) 
Edmundo Toro  Vallecillo Honduras (Aid for Trade Central America) 
Samuel  Moreno Peralta Panama (Aid for Trade Central America) 
Bernard Nizigiyimana Burundi (STDF 113) 
Dieudonné Simbakira Burundi (STDF 113) 
Ousmane Bah Guinea (STDF 65) 
Zalhata Dahalane Comoros (STDF 242) 
Aboubakar Diarra Mali (STDF 146+ 255) 
Mohamed Sidibé Mali (STDF 146+ 255) 
Amnath Bipin Menon India (STDF 120) 
Chanchal Chand Sarkar India (STDF 120) 
Henry Moriya Fujikatsu Paraguay (STDF 19) 
Claudia Luz Solano Ore Peru (STDF 20) 
Ibrahim Samie Sierra Leone (STDF 191+ 255) 
Daniel Eklu ECOWAS (STDF 255) 
Jean-René Cuzon West African Economic and Monetary Union (STDF 255) 
Kolado Bocoum West African Economic and Monetary Union (STDF 255) 
Aichatou Mamadou Niger (STDF 255) 
Anut Visetrojana Thailand 
Yawo Sefe Gogovor Togo (STDF 255) 
Ali Mohamed al Habshi Yemen (STDF 69) 
Monica Olsen Sweden (STDF 114) 
Steinar Svanemyr Norway (Donor) 
  G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 40  
 
  Appendix 3:  List of documents 
Document reference and title 
STDF Documents 
STDF Working Group Meeting Report, 14 May 2003 
STDF 25 Working Group Meeting Report, 12-13 November 2003 
STDF 32 Summary Report of the STDF Working Group Meeting, 10-11 March 2004 
STDF 42 Summary Report of the STDF Working Group and Policy Committee Meeting, 9 and 
10 September 2004 
STDF 43 Summary Report of the STDF Donor Roundtable Meeting, 10 September 2004 
STDF 60 Summary Report of the STDF Working Group Meeting, 9 March 2005 
STDF 112 Summary Report of the STDF Working Group Meeting, 6-7 September 2005 
STDF 76 add.1 Review of the STDF - Trip le Line Consulting – 1 December 2005 
STDF 128 Summary Report of the STDF Working Group Meeting, 3 February 2006 
STDF 131 Overview of STDF Accounts and Activities at Year End 2005 
STDF 139 Rev.1 Operational Rules of the St andards and Trade Development Facility – 
December 2006 
STDF 150 Summary Report of the STDF Working Group Meeting, 8-9 June 2006 
STDF 154 Medium Term Strategy  (2007-2011) - December 2006 
STDF 162 Summary Report of the STDF Working Group Meeting, 16-17 October 2006 
STDF 163 Standards and Trade Developm ent Facility Operating Plan 2007 
STDF 167 Summary Report of the STDF Polic y Committee Meeting, 18 December 2006 
STDF 175 (Aid for Trade) 
STDF 183 Summary Report of the STDF Working Group Meeting, 2 March 2007 
STDF 184 Overview of STDF Accounts and Activities at Year End 2006 
STDF 186 STDF Funding  Strategy. Background Note 
STDF  196 Summary Report of the STDF Working Group Meeting, 29 June 2007 
STDF 198 rev.2 Operating Plan 2008-2009 
STDF 199 Overview of PPG and project grant appli cations for consideration at the STDF Working 
Group 
STDF 199 add.1 Overview of PPG and project grant applications accepted for consideration at the 
STDF Working Group 
STDF 205 Evaluation of STDF Projects – Lessons Learnt 
STDF 207 Overview of implementation status of ongoing projects and PPGs, October 2007) 
STDF 208. Standards and Trade Deve lopment Facility, Annual Report 2007 
STDF  212 Summary Report of the STDF Working Group Meeting, 7-8 November 2007 
STDF  213 Summary Report of the STDF Policy Committee Meeting, 9 November 2007 
STDF  229 Summary Report of the STDF Working Group Meeting, 4 April 2008 
STDF 247 Overview of PPG and project grant appli cations for consideration at the STDF Working 
Group 
STDF 247 add.1 Overview of PPG and project grant applications not accepted for consideration at 
the STDF Working Group 
STDF 248 Terms of reference. Review of the STDF 
STDF 249 STDF Working Group meeting 26 June 2008. Annotated agenda 
STDF 252 Summary Report of the STDF Working Group Meeting, 26 June and 27 June 2008  G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 41 
 
 
  Document reference and title 
STDF 253 STDF and the Aid for Trade 2008-09. Discussion document 
STDF 269 final STDF Working Group. Friday 10 October 2008. Agenda 
STDF  270 Overview of SPS needs and assistance in eight Least Developed Countries 
STDF 271 Overview of PPG and project grant appli cations for consideration at the STDF Working 
Group 
STDF 272 Overview of PPG and project grant applications not accepted for consideration at the 
STDF Working Group 
STDF 273 Overview of the status of implementation STDF projects and PPGs 
STDF 274 Draft agenda for STDF Policy Committee meeting on 16 December 2008 
STDF 275 STDF Working Group. Friday 10 October 2008. Annotated agenda 
STDF 277 Summary Report of the STDF Working Group Meeting, 10 October 2008 
STDF Newsletter 
STDF Newsletter Vol. 1, Issue 1 - March 2008 
STDF Newsletter Vol. 1, Issue 2 - June 2008 
STDF Newsletter Vol. 1, Issue 3 - October 2008 
Projects 
STDF 005 Project Documentation (STDF Database) 
STDF 009 Project Documentation (Asia Pacific) 
STDF 010 Project Documentation (Turkey and Uganda) 
STDF 013 Project Documentation (Mali, Ethiopia and Djibouti) 
STDF 014 Project Documentation (Latin America & Caribbean) 
STDF 015 Project Documentation (Mali, Thailand, Egypt, CIS, Latin America) 
STDF 019 Project Documentation (Sri Lanka and Paraguay) 
STDF 020 Project Documentation (Peru and Uganda) 
STDF 037 Project Documentation (Global) 
STDF 048 Project Documentation (Benin) 
STDF 056 Project Documentation (Global) 
STDF 062 Project Documentation (Cameroon) 
STDF 065 Project Documentation (Guinea) 
STDF 069 Project Documentation (Yemen) 
STDF 079 Project Documentation  
STDF 089 Project Documentation (Global) 
STDF 100 Project Documentation (Cape Verde) 
STDF 108 Project Documentation (Latin America and Caribbean) 
STDF 113 Project Documentation (Burundi) 
STDF 114 Project Documentation (Brazil) 
STDF 120 Project Documentation (India) 
STDF 126 Project Documentation (Tanzania) 
STDF 127 Project Documentation (Benin) 
STDF 133 Project Documentation (Pacific) 
STDF 134 Project Documentation (Benin, Mauritani a, Senegal, Sierra Leone and The Gambia) 
STDF 145 Project Documentation (Rwanda) 
STDF 146 Project Documentation (Mali) G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 42  
 
  Document reference and title 
STDF 170 Project Documentation (Nepal) 
STDF 171 Project Documentation (Kenya and East Africa) 
STDF 173 Project Documentation (APEC Countries) 
STDF 230 Project Documentation (Mozambique) 
STDF  238 Project Documentation (Guatemala) 
Project/PPG applications 
STDF 116. Grant application form. Development and implementation of a traceability system in the 
livestock sector in Costa Rica 
STDF 155 Grant application form. Market-oriented training service on standards application (MOTSSA) - Nicaragua 
STDF 172 Grant application form. Expanding Nigeri a’s SPS capacity for seame  seeds and shea nuts 
STDF 219 Grant application form. Enhancing governance of veterinary services through improving their 
capacity to carry out essential functions 
STDF 254 Grant application form. Mycotoxin prevention and control measures in Turkey for dried figs, hazlenuts and chilli peppar 
STDF 255 Grant application form. Regional initiative on the fight against fruit flies in West Africa. 
STDF 256 Grant applica tion form. Capacity building for implementation of  SPS compliant hygienic meat 
practices - Pakistan 
STDF 257 Grant application form. Fish smoking installation - Surinmae 
STDF 258 Grant (PPG) application form. ASEAN seminar-workshop on Codes of Practice for good animal feeding 
STDF 259 Grant application form. Improve safety and quality for fresh vegetables through the value chain approach in Viet Nam  
STDF 260 Grant application form. Estimating the Global Burden of Foodborne Diseases - WHO 
STDF 261 Grant (PPG) application form. Lao PDR – establishment of a reference laboratory for enteric diseases 
STDF 262 Grant (PPG) application form. Renforcement du controle des maladies animals et preparation à l’accès des viands sahéliennes aux marchés des pays de l’Afrique du Nord 
STDF 263 Grant application form. Up-grading kakuuto ostrich mixed farm - Uganda 
STDF 264 Grant application form. Feasibility study of establishing the FICC Codex Cell for Indian food processing SMEs 
STDF 265 Grant application form. Brazil compartmentalization 
STDF 266 Grant applicatio n form. Model program for SPS standa rds application and WTO-related 
negotiations - Brazil 
STDF 267 Grant application form. Devising a national GAP programme and a commercial GAP standard in the Philippines. 
STDF 268 Grant (PPG) application fo rm. Strengthening the institutional framework  for SPS management 
systems in Tanzania  G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 43 
 
 
   
WTO Documents Date 
G/SPS/GEN/371 The Standards and Trade Deve lopment Facility 18 February 2003 
G/SPS/GEN/423 Operation of the Standards and Trade Developm ent Facility 26 August 2003 
G/SPS/GEN/486 Operation of the Standard s and Trade Devel opment Facility 
(STDF) and Work Plan for 2004 21 April 2004 
G/SPS/GEN/523 Adoption of the Standard s and Trade Development Facility 
Business Plan, Call for Proposals and 2005 Workplan 21 Octocber 2004 
G/SPS/GEN/545 Review of St andards Related Issues  Identified in the 
Integrated Framework Diagnostic Trade Integration Studies 28 February 2005 
G/SPS/GEN/572 Update on the Operatio n of the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility 22 June 2005 
G/SPS/GEN/595 Update on the Operatio n of the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility 7 October 2005 
G/SPS/GEN/648 Update on the Operatio n of the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility 24 March 2006 
G/SPS/GEN/718 Update on the Operatio n of the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility 31 July 2006 
G/SPS/GEN/726 Overview of SPS-Related Technical Assistance Reported to 
the WTO/OECD Trade Capacity Building Database 4 October 2006 
G/SPS/GEN/748 Update on the Operatio n of the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility 6 February 2007 
G/SPS/GEN/774 Update on the Operatio n of the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility 8 May 2007 
WT/AFT/W/26. WTO Work Programme on Aid-For -Trade 29 May 2007 
G/SPS/GEN/812 Background Document  from the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility for the Global Review of Aid for Trade 22 November 2007 
G/SPS/GEN/816 Request for Informati on on Good Practi ce in SPS-Related 
Technical Cooperation 18 January 2008 
G/SPS/GEN/821 Overview of SPS Capacity Eval uation Tools 15 February 2008 
G/SPS/GEN/829 Update on the Operatio n of the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility 25 March 2008 
G/SPS/R/48 Report of the STDF Work shop on SPS-Related Capacity 
Evaluation Tools, 31 March 2008 6 May 2008 
G/SPS/GEN/847 Update on the Operatio n of the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility 17 June 2008 
WT/COMTD/AFT/W/7, G/SPS/GEN/864 Mobilising Aid for Trade for SPS-
Related Technical Cooperation – Conclusions from Pilot Activities of the 
Standards and Trade Development Facility 10/14 July 2008 
WT/COMT/AFT/W/8 WTO Work Programme on Aid for Trade. Symposium 
on Monitoring and Evaluation Identifying Indicators for Monitoring Aid for 
Trade 2 September 2008 
G/SPS/GEN/871 SPS/STDF/OECD Workshop  on good practices in SPS-
related technical cooperation. Good practice in SPS-related technical 
cooperation. East Africa Region Report 10 September 2008 
G/SPS/GEN/872 SPS/STDF/OECD Workshop  on good practices in SPS-
related technical cooperation. Good practice in SPS-related technical 
cooperation. Greater Mekong Sub-region: Cambodia, Lao PDR and Viet Nam 10 September 2008 G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 44  
 
  WTO Documents Date 
G/SPS/GEN/874 SPS/STDF/OECD Workshop  on good practices in SPS-
related technical cooperation. Good practice in SPS-related technical 
cooperation. Central America Sub -region: Costa Rica, El Salvador, 
Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama 26 September 2008 
G/SPS/GEN/875 Good practice in SPS-re lated technical assistance. An 
overview and synthesis of the findings of STDF/OECD research 24 September 2008 
G/SPS/GEN/877 Update on the Operatio n of the Standards and Trade 
Development Facility 26 September 2008 
Framework agreement on the STDF between the WTO and FAO  
Interagency letter of agreement be tween the World Trade Organization 
(WTO) and the Internatio nal Trade Centre (ITC)  
Framework agreement for oversight se rvices in support of the STDF. 
(Agreement with International Bank for Reconstruction (IBRD) and the 
International Development Association (IDA), collectively referred to as the Bank.)  
Other documents  
Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness  
Aid for Trade at a Glance. 1st Global review  
  G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 45 
 
 
  Table 1:  Responses from 19 developing countries to th e  questionnaire on the performance of 
the STDF secretariat  
 Very 
good Good Satisfactory Poor Very 
poor 
Overall performance of the STDF Secretariat 7 6    
      
Coordination      
Contacts with broader cooperation programmes, in particular the Enhanced Integrated Framework and 
Aid for Trade Initiatives 5 6 1   
Contacts with the STDF partners, observers, donor 
members and beneficiary representatives 3 8 3   
Reporting on technical cooperation activities of 
bilateral and multilateral donors and developing 
countries 4 7 3   
Dissemination of information on the STDF and 
STDF projects via the SPS Committee 9 6    
Dissemination of information on the STDF and 
STDF projects via the STDF website and newsletter 9 6 3   
Identification and dissemination of good practices in 
the request, provision and receipt of SPS-related 
technical cooperation 3 10    
Organization of regional workshops and 
consultations aimed at improving coordination 
between STDF stakeholders 6 7 3 2 1 
Project development and implementation      
Identification of  possible projects in the area of food 
safety, animal and plant health for funding 4 5 6   
Assistance to LDCs and others in preparing 
applications for Project Pr eparation Grants (PPGs) 
and project funding 6 5 2 1  
Review of applications for STDF funding 6 4 2   
Project administration and follow-up 4 2 2 1  
Contacts with agencies implementing and/or 
overseeing the implementation of STDF-funded 
projects 4 4 3 1  
Funding of the STDF      
Contacts with current donors to the STDF Fund 4 6 2   
Identification of other potential donors to the STDF 
Fund 3 3 4   
      
Facility operation      
Documentation for the Working Group and Policy 
Committee meetings 6 7 1   
Preparation for and servicing of Working Group and 
Policy Committee meetings 5 6 1   
Financial administration  5 3 1   
Financial reporting 4 5 1   
 
 G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 46  
 
  Table 2:  Seven donors’ responses to the qu estionnaire on the performance of the STDF 
secretariat 
 Very 
good Good Satisfactory Poor Very 
poor 
Overall performance of the STDF Secretariat 4 2    
      
Coordination      
Contacts with broader cooperation programmes, 
in particular the Enhanced Integrated Framework 
and Aid for Trade Initiatives 2 5    
Contacts with the STDF partners, observers, 
donor members and beneficiary representatives 4 2 1   
Reporting on technical cooperation activities of 
bilateral and multilateral donors and developing 
countries 1 2 2 1  
Dissemination of information on the STDF and 
STDF projects via the SPS Committee 3 2 1   
Dissemination of information on the STDF and 
STDF projects via the STDF website and 
newsletter 2 3 1 1  
Identification and dissemination of good practices 
in the request, provi sion and receipt of SPS-
related technical cooperation 1 4 1   
 Organization of regional workshops and 
consultations aimed at improving coordination 
between STDF stakeholders 1 5    
Project development and implementation      
Identification of  possible projects in the area of 
food safety, animal and plant health for funding 1 2 3   
Assistance to LDCs and others in preparing 
applications for Project Pr eparation Grants (PPGs) 
and project funding 2 2 1   
Review of applications for STDF funding 4 3    
Project administration and follow-up 2 4 1   
Contacts with agencies implementing and/or 
overseeing the implementation of STDF-funded 
projects 2 2 2   
Funding of the STDF      
Contacts with current donors to the STDF Fund 4 3    
Identification of other potential donors to the 
STDF Fund 2 3 2   
      
Facility operation      
Documentation for the Working Group and Policy 
Committee meetings 4 2 1   
Preparation for and servicing of Working Group 
and Policy Committee meetings 3 1 3   
Financial administration  4 1 1   
Financial reporting 4  2    G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 47 
 
 
   
Table 3:  Responses of FAO, OIE, WB, WHO,  ITC & UNCTAD to the questionnaire on the 
performance of the STDF secretariat 
 Very 
good Good Satisfactory Poor Very 
poor 
Overall performance of the STDF Secretariat 2 1 1   
      
Coordination      
Contacts with broader cooperation programmes, in 
particular the Enhanced Integrated Framework and 
Aid for Trade Initiatives  3    
Contacts with the STDF partners, observers, donor 
members and beneficiary representatives 3 1 1 1  
Reporting on technical cooperation activities of 
bilateral and multilateral donors and developing 
countries 1 3 1 1  
Dissemination of information on the STDF and 
STDF projects via the SPS Committee  5    
Dissemination of information on the STDF and 
STDF projects via the STDF website and newsletter 2 4    
Identification and dissemination of good practices in 
the request, provision an d receipt of SPS-related 
technical cooperation  2 2 1  
Organization of regional workshops and 
consultations aimed at improving coordination 
between STDF stakeholders 1 2 3   
Project development and implementation      
Identification of  possible pr ojects in the area of food 
safety, animal and plant health for funding 1 2  2 1 
Assistance to LDCs and others in preparing 
applications for Project Preparation Grants (PPGs) 
and project funding 1 1 1 1  
Review of applications for STDF funding 2 1  2 1 
Project administration and follow-up 1 2 1   
Contacts with agencies implementing and/or 
overseeing the implementation of STDF-funded 
projects 1 1 2   
Funding of the STDF      
Contacts with current donors to the STDF Fund 3  1   
Identification of other potential donors to the STDF 
Fund 2     
      
Facility operation      
Documentation for the Working Group and Policy 
Committee meetings 2 4    
Preparation for and servicing of Working Group and 
Policy Committee meetings 1 5    
Financial administration  2 1 1   
Financial reporting 2 2 1   
 G/SPS/GEN/899 
Page 48  
 
   
Table 4 :  STDF-funded Project Preparation Grants (PPGs) and projects by area 
Area PPG nos. Total 
PPGs Project nos. Total 
Projects Total Projects 
and PPGs 
SPS in general 61,65,(68),88, 
127,191,234, 242 7(8) 5,10,19,20,56,65, 
79,108,120,127, 170,238,246 13 20(21) 
Plant health 66,102,103,126, 
155,165,171, 221,232,268 10 37,89,126,133, 
145,146,155,171, 230,255 10 20 
Animal health 64,105,116, 265 4 13,14,15,(64),116  4(5) 8(9) 
Food safety 38,46,52,62,63, 
69,100,101, 113,172,223 11 9,48,62,69, 
114,134,(172),173, 238 8(9) 19(20) 
Total  32(33)  35(37) 67(70) 
 
Please note: 
 
1. Projects/PPGs which have been approved by the STDF Working Group but not yet contracted 
are included in the table. 
2. In some cases the Projects/PPGs cover more than one area and only the main area is shown in 
the table.  
3. Many PPGs have resulted in applications for pr ojects that have been funded by the STDF (the 
STDF-number of the project is often, but not al ways, the same as the project number). Some 
projects developed from PPGs have be en funded outside the STDF are not  included in the 
above list of projects(e.g. STDF 66, 100 and 113).Some completed PPGs have resulted in 
applications for projects which have not  been approved or funded by the STDF (PPGs 38, 46, 
61, 100, 101 and 265).  
4. Project 64 was approved by the Working Gr oup in September 2005 but approval was 
withdrawn in March 2007 and the applicant was invited to resubmit the project for funding.  
A final decision on whether or not to approve project STDF 172 is pending. Due to a delay of 
over two years in implementation,  the Wo rking Group withdrew approval for PPG 68 in 
2007.    G/SPS/GEN/899 
 Page 49 
 
 
   
Table 5.  Contributions received by the STDF by September 2008 (CHF) 
 
STDF - Contributions Received (CHF)  
Years 
Donors 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total 
Australia     192,380       192,380
Canada     392,464   415,000   807,464
Denmark     1,066,285 743,050 758,026   2,567,361
Germany       238,500 247,350   485,850
European Commission            342,550 342,550
Finland           163,300 163,300
France   234,246         234,246
Ireland         334,200   334,200
Italy     312,000   328,700   640,700
Netherlands   459,900 468,000 466,500     1,394,400
Norway         205,910   205,910
Sweden     656,840 660,400 1,399,220   2,716,460
Switzerland           200,000 200,000
United Kingdom     1,903,065 225,400 1,187,500 485,925 3,801,890
United States       129,038 302,000   431,038
World Bank 417,000 720,000         1,137,000
WTO 100,000 100,000 150,000 225,000     575,000
Total 517,000 1,514,146 5,141,034 2,687,888 5,177,906 1,191,775 16,229,749
 
__________