WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
13 July 2010 
 (10-3826) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Aid for Trade Original:   English 
 
 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE ORGANISATION FOR  
ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT 
 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 7 July 2010, received from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developmen t (OECD), is being circulated to  delegations for information. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
AID–FOR-TRADE FLOWS IN 2008 
  
  WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
Page 2  
 
   
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. .....3
 
AN OVERVIEW OF THE 2008 AID-FOR-TRADE FLOWS ..........................................................4  
1. Introduction................................................................................................................... ............4  
2. The Global Flows ............................................................................................................... .......5  
3. Distribution of Aid-for-Trade Commitments and Disbursements .......................................8  
4. Who are the Main Providers?................................................................................................12  
5. Other Official Flows ........................................................................................................... ....14  
6. Conclusions.................................................................................................................... ..........18  
ANNEX 1 ........................................................................................................................ ......................19  
GLOBAL FLOWS ............................................................................................................................... .......19  
ANNEX 2 ........................................................................................................................ ......................21  
GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................... ...............21  
ANNEX 3 ........................................................................................................................ ......................24  
ANNEX 4 ........................................................................................................................ ......................25  
TOTAL AID FOR TRADE BY RECIPIENT ...................................................................................................25  
 
Figures 
Figure 1. Long term trends in ODA and Aid for Trade ...........................................................................4  
Figure 2. Global Trends by Category............................................................................................ ...........5  
Figure 3. Share of Aid-for-Trade Increase at the Sectoral Level (2008) .................................................6  
Figure 4. Share of Economic Infrastructure and Pr oductive Capacity in  Aid for Trade (2008).............7  
Figure 5.  Aid-for-Trade Disbursements......................................................................................... .........7  
Figure 6. Aid-for-Tra de Flows by Region ........................................................................................ .......9  
Figure 7. Regional Distribution in 2008 ........................................................................................ ..........9  
Figure 8. Aid-for-Trade by Income Group ........................................................................................ ....10  
Figure 9. Top 20 Aid-for-Trade Recipients in 2008 (Commitments)....................................................11  
Figure 10. Top 20 Aid-for-Trade  Recipients in 2008 ............................................................................1 1 
Figure 11. Aid-for-Trade flows to Africa, South and North of Sahara..................................................12  
Figure 12. Commitments from the main Aid-for-Trade donors ............................................................13  
Figure 13. Disbursements from the main Aid-for-Trade donors ...........................................................14  
Figure 14. Other Official Fl ows Commitments in 2008 ........................................................................14  
Figure 15. Top Providers of OOF in 2008........................................................................................ .....15  
Figure 16. OOF Commitments across Regions .....................................................................................1 5 
Figure 17. Top Recipients of OOF in 2008 ....................................................................................... ....16  
 
Box 
Box 1.  Imputed Multilateral ODA ............................................................................................... .........17  
  WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
 Page 3 
 
 
  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1 
 
Aid for Trade reached new 
heights in 2008…  
 The international community has continued to mobilise new Aid-for-
Trade resources. In 2008 commitments totaled US$41.7 billion, a 35% increase in real terms from 2007, and an increase of 62% from 
the 2002-05 baseline. The scale of the rise was such that Aid for 
Trade now reaches 37% of sector allocable ODA, up from 32% in 2007. 
…evenly shared in terms of 
geographical coverage and 
sectoral distribution, …   
 Asia and Africa continue to dominat e the Aid-for-Trade flows. Asia 
now receives 44% of total flows, Africa 35%, Europe 9%, Americas 
5% and Oceania 1%. In 2008, Aid for Trade to Asia increased by 
40% on the 2007 figures, while the rise for Africa was 23%. All areas of the agenda received growing su pport; trade policy and regulation 
increased by 37% and now stands  at US$1.3billion; economic 
infrastructure rose by 43% and now stands at US$23 billion, while 
the resources for building productive capacity increasing 24% to 
US$17 billion. 
 
Aid-for-Trade Commitments by Region and by Type, 2002-08
 
 
Source  : OECD / DAC Creditor Reporting System (CRS)  
 
…with most donors scaling 
up their support.   
  
In addition to the 54% growth from bilateral donors, support from 
multilateral donors increased by 6%, while Other Official Flows 
(OOF) stood at US$ 25.7 billion. Japan was the largest Aid-for-Trade donor in 2008 (US$ 8.7 billion), followed by the United States (US$6.4 billion), European Union (US$5.9 billion), the World Bank Group (US$ 5.2 billion) and Germany (US$2.9 billion).  
 
 
                                                     
 
1 For comments and questions on this paper please contact William Hynes – Email: 
William.hynes@oecd.org WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
Page 4  
 
  AN OVERVIEW OF THE 2008 AID-FOR-TRADE FLOWS 
1. Introduction 
1. The highest dollar figure in Official Developmen t Assistance (ODA) in history was recorded 
in 2008. Aid flows increased as donors pledged to r each ambitious targets set at the Gleneagles G8 
and UN Millennium+5 summits. Sector Allocable ODA
2 has been growing strongly since the late 
1990s (Figure 1). Aid directed to economic sectors as captured by Aid for Trade has also seen an 
increase in terms of volume but failed to keep pa ce with the increasing resources devoted to social 
sectors, such as health and education. However sin ce the start of the Aid-for-Trade Initiative there has 
been a noticeable rise in support for the trade a nd economic growth agenda. The rise was additional 
and did not come at the expense of other sectors. In 2007 the share of Aid for Trade in total sector 
allocable aid stood at 32% and grew to 37% in  2008 despite the large overall increase in sector 
allocable aid in total ODA. 
Figure 1. Long term trends in ODA and Aid for Trade3 
Commitments US$ million (2008 Constant)  
 
 
Source  : OECD / DAC Creditor Reporting System (CRS) 
 
2. This paper analyses the 2008 Aid-for-Trade flows, trends, distribution and outlook. While the 
aggregate picture is positive, the outlook is nuan ced by an economic environment which is less 
promising, potentially limiting the av ailability of further new resources. Aid-for-trade flows increase 
in most sectors for most regions but the distributio n shows the limits of global monitoring and raises 
some questions about priorities and the predictability of  financing. The rest of the paper is structured 
as follows. Section 2 provides details of the global pa ttern and sectoral distribution of Aid for Trade. 
Section 3 looks at the main recipients, while se ction 4 outlines donor’s success in scaling up Aid for 
Trade. Section 5 examines Other Official Flows. Section 6 concludes. 
                                                      
2 Sector Allocable ODA is total ODA less humanitarian aid, debt relief, budget support, food aid, 
administrative costs, support to NG Os, Refugees in Donor Countries. 
3 This figure and all others show amounts in 2008 Constant US$. All numbers quoted in this paper are 
in this form.  WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
 Page 5 
 
 
  2. The Global Flows 
Strong real growth in Aid for Trade…  
 
3. Aid-for-trade flows have been increasing str ongly in real terms since the launch of the 
Aid-for-Trade Initiative at the Hong Kong WTO Ministerial in 2005. At the 2009 Global Aid for 
Trade Review, the OECD reported on a 21% increase in real terms for 2007 compared to the 2002-05 
baseline. In 2008 Aid for Trade grew by another 35% . This brings the total increase to 62% compared 
to the baseline period. It shows that donors are scaling up their Aid-for-Trade programming with increasing momentum. The total amount of Aid for Trade provided attained US$41.7 billion in 2008; 
an US$11 billion increase.  
…with increase in all categories…  
 
4. All aid-for-Trade categories received increased donor support. Economic infrastructure 
recorded the largest increase with 44%, and reached US$23 billion, while building productive 
capacity grew by 24% to US$17 billion. Trade policy and regulation grew by 37%, to US$1.36 
billion. Finally trade-related adjustment rose si gnificantly albeit from a low base and still remains 
small relative to the other categories (Figure 2). 
Figure 2. Global Trends by Category
 
Commitments US$ millions (2008 Constant)  
 
Source  : OECD/CRS 
 
 WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
Page 6  
 
  …but concentrated in a few sectors… 
 
5. Increases in Aid for Trade flows in 
2008 were widely shared among the different categories. Only two sectors 
received less support, communications fell 
by 33% and tourism by 16%. The additional resources were concentrated in three sectors which together accounted for almost 80% of the US$11 billion increase 
(Figure 3). Transport and storage captured 
58% of the additional flows and grew 75% to US$14.6 billion (now 35% of total Aid for Trade). Road transport receives 53%, rail 25%, sea transport 6% and air transport 
4%. Of the US$6.3 billion additional 
resources to transport in 2008, US$3.1 billion goes to road transport and US$2.2 billion to rail. Banking and finance, and energy both increased by a US$1 billion, with banking and finance capturing 11% of 
the additional resources and energy  9% 
(Figure 3). Likely as a response to the food crisis, donors also continued to scale up aid to the agriculture sector, up 7% in 2008 compared to 2007 and 55% with the 
baseline. Figure 3. Share of Aid-for-Trade Increase at the 
Sectoral Level (2008)  
 
Source: OECD / CRS 
 
6. Agriculture is the largest subsector of pr oductive capacity building although both banking and 
financial services and business and other services re corded significant growth rates in 2007 and again 
in 2008 (Figure 4). In fact, donor support to banki ng has doubled since the baseline, while business 
support increased by 59% during the same period. Tr ade development as an objective for productive 
capacity building rose to US$4.1 billion, with US $1.9 billion as the principal objective and US$2.3 
billion as a major objective. This represents a 58% in crease compared to 2007. This shows that trade 
development was an important objective in the major ity of productive capacity building. Furthermore, 
more donors are reporting their trade development ac tivities (20 bilateral donors and 5 multilaterals).   WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Figure 4. Share of Economic Infrastructure and Productive Capacity in  Aid for Trade (2008)  
Source :  OECD / CRS 
 
…with a high share of loans financing 
 7. A significant proportion of Aid for Trade to eco nomic infrastructure is in the form of 
concessional loans. For instance, the proportion of lo ans in support of transport and storage increased 
to 65% in 2008. This implies that an increasing share of support to this sector has been in the form of 
loans. Loans to energy projects correspond to 56% of the flows, down from 58% in 2007. Loans 
generally represent a smaller share in other categor ies, for example in 2008 loans were only 32% of 
flows to agriculture, forestry and fishing.  
8. Overall, loans make up 50% of Aid-for-Trade flows in 2008. Grants increased by 21% from 
2007 whereas the increase for concessional loans was 43% . For the global numbers the proportions of 
loans have increased as Aid for Tr ade has been scaled up. For economic  infrastructure, there has been 
an increase from 53% in 2006 to 61% in 2008. For bu ilding productive capacity there has been less of 
a change, 35% to 39%. For Africa though the proportion of loans in productive capacity has been 
falling and in infrastructure fell in 2008 to under 50%. Africa receives a higher proportion of Aid for 
Trade in grant form than the global average.   
Increased commitments of the past years a re resulting in higher disbursements 
 
9. Aid-for-trade disbursements have been 
growing steadily, reaching US$26.8 billion a 
15% increase or US$3.8 billion on 2007 (Figure 5). Disbursements show financial payments and are the realisation of donor’s intentions and the implementation of their 
policies. Rising disbursements demonstrate that 
the increasing commitments made in 2006 and 2007 are being realised. 
 Figure 5.  Aid-for-Trade Disbursements
 
US$ Million (2008 Constant) 
 
Source : OECD / CRS 
 WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
Page 8  
 
  3. Distribution of Aid-for-Trade Commitments and Disbursements 
Large increases in Aid-for-Trade flows to … 
 
10. Asia remains the largest recipient of Aid for Trade with India, Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan 
being among the major individual recipients. Asia obt ains an additional US$5.3 billion compared to 
2007 and reached US$18.5 billion. Most of the growth took place in support to economic 
infrastructure projects which received an additi onal US$4.5 billion. In addition, donors supported 
productive capacity building with an additional US $465 million and trade polic y and regulation with 
US$221 million.  WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
 Page 9 
 
 
   
11. Flows to Africa  remained stable 
between the 2002-05 baseline and 2006. In 2007 there was a large increase and this progress has continued through 2008 when 
Aid for Trade reached US$13 billion up from 
just over US$10 billion in 2007. The majority of the increase went to productive capacity building (up US$1.3 billion or 52%), followed by economic infrastructure (up 
US$1 billion or 44%).  
12. The large increase in Europe  of 
US$2.5 billion goes mostly to economic infrastructure (up 67%). This change is largely explained by one project in Turkey 
which is discussed below. 
13. There was a 20% increase in Aid for 
Trade to Oceania  (now at US$377 million) 
while support to the Americas  declined by 
16% to just under US$2 billion. Figure 6. Aid-for-Trade Flows by Region
 
Commitments, US$ Million (2008 Constant) 
 
Source  : OECD / CRS 
 
14. In 2008, Asia received 44% of total Aid for Trade, 35% went to Africa, commitments to 
Europe stood at 10% and those to  the Americas under 5% (Figure 7). 
15. These shares represent significant 
changes from 2007 and reflect the large increases in 2008 to Asia (up 40%), Africa (up 
27%) and in particular to Europe. Support to the 
Americas declined from 7.6% of total Aid for Trade in 2007 to just 4.6% in 2008. Oceania obtained slightly more in 2008 but had a declining share of total Aid for Trade which is now under 1%. Nevertheless Aid for Trade has 
grown significantly to all regions since the 
baseline including a 76% increase to Africa, 47% increase to Asia, and 12.5% to the Americas. Figure 7. Regional Distribution in 2008
 
 
Source : OECD / CRS 
 
Flows to all Income Groups are increasing… 
 
16. All income groups received additional support in  2008 (Figure 8). In 2007 a large increase 
was recorded in flows to the Least Developed Co untries (LDCs) and Other Lower Income Countries 
(OLICs), which combined, received most support. WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
Page 10  
 
   
17. However, in 2008 the most 
significant growth occurred in Lower Middle Income Countries (LMICs). This is perhaps not surprising given the 
increased support to economic 
infrastructure in 2008.  
18. LDCs received US$10.5 billion 
or 25% of the total flows, while OLICs were supported with US$5.3 billion, or 
12% of the total. LMICs obtained US$16 
billion, or a share of 40% of the total Aid for Trade flows (up from 31% in 2007). Upper Middle Income Countries (UMIC) also benefited from a significant rise of 
US$2.4 billion and now stand at US$4.1 
billion, i.e. 10% of the total.  Figure 8. Aid-for-Trade by Income Group
 
Commitment US$ million (2008 Constant) 
 
Source : OECD / CRS 
 
... with 20 countries accounting for over 70% of the flows 
 
19. At the country level, the top 20 recipients obt ained over 70% of the allocated flows (Figure 
9). Countries from all income groups are represented,  with ten from Asia, nine from Africa and one 
from Europe. There are six LDCs (Afghanistan, Et hiopia, Mali, Tanzania, Mozambique, Bangladesh), 
six Other Low Income Countries (Ghana, India, Mongolia, Nigeria, Viet Nam, Pakistan), seven Low Middle Income Countries (China, Egypt, Indonesia, Morocco, Thailand, Tunisia, Iraq) and one Upper Middle Income Country (Turkey).  
20. The top 20 list shows stability in donor flows with  16 of the 20 top recipients in 2007 also in 
the top 20 list in 2008. New to the list are Turkey  (increased flows largely because of US$1 billion 
from the European Investment Bank for the Istanbul Urban Transport project), Tunisia (US$400 million increase in energy, mostly wind energy fr om Spain), Thailand (Ba ngkok mass transit [purple 
line] – US$600 million loan from Japan) and Mongo lia (US rail and Japan airport investments). Of 
those who dropped out of the top 20, Kenya is perhaps the most dramatic case, declining from over US$900 million to just US$90 million, presumably linked to election violence and political instability. 
Other cases highlight the decline in flows to the Amer icas (Bolivia, El Salvador received much less in 
2008 compared to 2007). Aid for Trade to Uganda ha lves but there were large economic infrastructure 
investments in 2007. These examples show how one or two large projects can dramatically increase Aid-for-Trade commitments. 
21. As in 2007, India is the largest recipient in  terms of volume with US$3.2 billion up from 
US$2.3 billion in 2007. Iraq was the main beneficiary in both the baseline period and in 2006 but fell 
back in 2007 before rebounding in 2008 with US$2.8 billi on. Turkey, surprising ly received the third 
highest flows, the US$2.4 billion represents a 950%  increase on 2007. Viet Na m remains in the top 
five but flows have declined slightly since 2007. Mo rocco is another case of an extreme rise in Aid for 
Trade (500%). This is largely because of ODA funde d economic infrastructure investments in energy 
and rail transport.  WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
 Page 11 
 
 
   
Figure 9. Top 20 Aid-for-Trade Recipients in 2008 (Commitments)  
Commitments US$ million (2008 Constant) 
 
Source : OECD / CRS 
22. Disbursements to the top 20 recipients are mostly increasing in response to the higher 
commitments (Figure 10). Iraq is an exception where disbursements have fallen sharply from the high 
point of 2006. There have been steady incr eases annually to India, Afghanistan, Tanzania, 
Bangladesh, China and Ethiopia. 
Figure 10. Top 20 Aid-for-Trade Recipients in 2008  
Disbursements US$ million  (2008 Constant) 
 
Source : OECD / CRS 
 
There are more global, regional and multi-country programmes… 
 
23. Global, regional and multi-country progra mmes (including country unallocated) are 
continuing to play a growing role. Such flows doubled from the baseline period to 2007 to reach 
US$4.1 billion. In 2008 there was a further increase  of almost US$900 million. Regional flows to 
Africa grew by US$600 million to US$1.6 billion, indicating that donors are responding to trade WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
Page 12  
 
  related challenges which are regional in nature. Not surprisingly, a significant share of Aid for Trade 
to Oceania is regional, with US$172 million being provided in 2008. US$300 m illion in total went to 
the Americas, US$400 million to Asia , and US$100 million to Europe. 
…but a mixed picture in Africa 
 
24. As the previous sections have noted, Aid for Tr ade to Africa has risen steadily. As Figure 11 
shows, in 2007 there was a sharp increase to South of  Sahara and that increase has been sustained in 
2008. However, the major rise in Africa in 2008 w as down to North of Sahara which had 3 countries 
in the top 20 Aid-for-Trade recipients; i.e. Morocco, Egypt and Tunisia. The growth was mostly in 
economic infrastructure (energy, mostly renewable – wind in Tunisia, solar in Egypt and rail and road 
transport in Morocco). This contrasts with South of Sahara which saw a decline in aid financed 
investment in economic infrastructure, although this was offset by increases in both productive capacity building and technical assistance for tr ade policy and regulations. While the North 
represented most of the growth to Africa, it corres ponds to 28% of the total flows to Africa, up from 
12% in 2007. 
Figure 11. Aid-for-Trade flows to Africa, South and North of Sahara
 
Commitments US$ millions (2008 Constant)  
 
 
Source : OECD / CRS 
 
4. Who are the Main Providers? 
25. Donors are scaling up their Aid-for-Trade res ources with the top 5 donors accounting for 70% 
of total flows. Japan was the largest Aid-for-Trade  donor (US$8.7 billion) in 2008, followed by the 
United States (US$6.4 billion), European Uni on (US$5.9 billion), the World Bank Group (US$5.2 
billion) and Germany (US$2.9 billion). These donors provide over 70% of total Aid for Trade.  
26. Japan  provided an increase of US$3.8 billion to US$8.7 billion in 2008 and now offers 20% 
of total Aid for Trade. This represents a 79% rise of Japanese aid-for-trade flows. Japan boosted its 
share of Aid for Trade in sector allocable ODA fr om 49% in 2007 to 69% in 2008. Most of the 
additional flows (almost US$3 billion) went to transpor t and storage, while ther e were also large rises 
for industry (up US$454 million) and mine ral resources/mining (up US$479 million). 
27. The United States  channels almost 80% of its Aid for Tr ade to three sectors; energy (25.8%), 
transport and storage (28.4%) and agriculture (23.3%). This distribution was almost the same as 2007 
but with US flows increasing by US$1.5 billion to US$6.4 billion (15% of total Aid for Trade), all 
three sectors obtained growing support.  WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
 Page 13 
 
 
  28. The EU augmented its Aid for Trade 
by US$2.7 billion to US$5.9 billion, US$2.3 billion of this for transport and storage. The share of Aid for Trade in sector allocable aid increased from 30.7% to 45%. The World 
Bank Group doubled its support to trade policy 
and regulation, but flows to energy and transport and storage declined by 40% and 18% respectively. Overall flows from the World Bank Group declined by 15% but the 
share of Aid for Trade in sector allocable ODA 
increased slightly to 48.8%. 
29. Germany  increased its Aid for Trade 
by US$1.2 billion or 65% to reach US$2.9 billion. Germany allocates a growing share of 
its Aid for Trade to energy (43.4% in 2008 
compared to 31% in 2007). It rose by US$727 million to 1.3 billion in 2008. In addition, Germany channels a large share of its Aid for Trade through multilateral agencies (See Box 1).  Figure 12. Commitments from the main Aid-for-
Trade donors  
US$ Million (2008 Constant) 
 
Source : OECD / CRS  
 
Bilateral donors increase Aid-for-Trade flows by 54% 
 
30. Bilateral donors increased their Aid-for-Trade fl ows by 54% to a total of US$28 billion, while 
Aid for Trade from the multilateral donors increased by  6% and reached US$13 billion. The share of 
Aid for Trade in sector allocable ODA grew fro m 28% to 34% for bilateral donors and from 43% to 
47% for multilaterals.  
31. France offered US$1 billion more to reach US$2. 5 billion with most of the growth going to 
transport and storage which received 57% of Aid fo r Trade. The United Kingdom provides half of its 
Aid for Trade to the support for the banking and fi nance sector. In 2008, half of the US$1.3 billion 
additional resources was allocated to this sector. It also provided an additional US$300 million to 
agriculture. Spain (up 28% to US$897 million) and Norway (up 71% to US$755 million) also 
increased their Aid-for-Trade support, increasing the Aid-for-Trade share of sector allocable aid to 
29% for Spain (up from 24% in 2007) and 28% for Norway (up from 20% in 2007 and 19% in the 2002-05 baseline). The Netherlands decreased its Ai d for Trade by 12% to US$672 million with a 
share in sector allocable aid declining from 25% in 2007 to 17%. WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
Page 14  
 
  Disbursements are also increasing steadily 
 
32. Donors are scaling up their 
disbursements steadily (Figure 13). This is consistent with the growing commitments 
reported in previous years. In 2008 Japan had 
the largest disbursements (US$5.3 billion), an increase of 21% on 2007, followed by the World Bank Group (US$4.3 billion), European Union (US$3.6 billion) and the 
United States (US$3.6 billion). Figure 13. Disbursements from the main Aid-for-
Trade donors  
US$ Million (2008 Constant)  
 
Source : OECD / CRS 
 
5. Other Official Flows  
33. Other Official Flows (OOF) are transactions by the official sector with countries on the DAC 
List of Aid Recipients which do not meet the conditions for eligibility as Official Development Assistance or Official Aid, either because they ar e not primarily aimed at development, or because 
they have a grant element of less than 25%. As noted by the 2009 Aid for Trade at a Glance Report , 
these flows play a crucial role in financing trade -related activities but they are not Aid for Trade.  
Other Official Flows decline by 15%... 
 34. OOF decreased 15% to US$25.7 
billion in 2008. US$13 billion goes to economic infrastructure, US$12 billion to building productive capacity and US$0.5 
billion to trade policy and regulations. 
There were significant changes in flows from the main donors.  Figure 14. Other Official Flows Commitments in 2008
 
US$ Million (2008 Constant)  
 
Source : OECD / CRS 
  WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
 Page 15 
 
 
  …with significant variations among donors 
 
35. The World Bank Group through the 
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) provided 44% of total 
OOF, or US$11.6 billion, up 69% on 2007. 
The Asian Development Bank offered an additional US$1.4 billion on 2007 to reach almost US$5 billion. South Korea supplied almost US$2 billion, a similar amount to 
that provided in 2007. The EU had a 
dramatic fall in OOF, and gave just over US$1 billion, down US$7.5 billion on 2007. Flows from Germany, the Inter-American Development Bank and Japan also declined 
by differing amounts. Figure 15. Top Providers of OOF in 2008
 
US$ Million (2008 Constant)  
 
Source : OECD / CRS 
 
…and directed mainly to Middle Income Count ries in Asia, the Americas and Europe 
 
36. OOFs mostly go to Asia, South 
America and Europe. Flows to 
sub-Saharan Africa are extremely small and declined sharply in 2008. Flows to most regions decreased in 2008 with the exceptions of South and Central Asia and 
North and Central America. This is 
explained by the fact that OOFs are more likely to be allocated to middle income countries. This can be clearly seen in the list of the top ten recipients (Figure 16). 
 Figure 16. OOF Commitments across Regions
 
US$ Million (2008 Constant)  
 
Source : OECD / CRS 
 WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
Page 16  
 
   
37. The main recipients of OOF are 
predominantly middle income countries. China is the largest recipient (US$3.6 billion) followed by India (US$2.6 
billion) and Turkey (US$2.3 billion). The 
top 10 obtained 67% of the total flows. India, Pakistan and Viet Nam are the only Low Income Recipien ts in the Top 10. 
China, Azerbaijan, Brazil and Indonesia 
are Lower Middle Income Countries 
while Argentina, Mexico and Turkey are Upper Middle Income Countries. In keeping with the overall decline in OOF in 2008, flows to the top 3 recipients 
China, India, Turkey as well as Argentina 
and Indonesia decreased. However, there were significant increases in flows to Viet Nam, Azerbaijan, Pakistan and Mexico. Figure 17. Top Recipients of OOF in 2008
 
US$ Million (2008 Constant)  
 
Source : OECD / CRS 
  WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
 Page 17 
 
 
   
 
Box 1.  Imputed Multilateral ODA  
The OECD’s calculation 
 1) The percentage of each multilateral agency’s total annua l gross disbursements that each  recipient country receives 
is calculated. This calculation is carried out only in resp ect of agencies’ disbursements of grants or concessional 
(ODA) loans from core resources. 
 2) The recipient percentages derived in step 1) are multipli ed by a donor's contribution in the same year to the core 
resources of the agency concerned to arrive at the imputed fl ow from that donor to each recipient.  (Example:  In a 
given year, WFP provides 10% of its disbursements from core resources to Sudan.  Donor A contributes US$50 
million to WFP core resources in the same year.  Dono r A’s imputed multilateral ODA to Sudan through WFP is 
0.1*50million = US$5 million).  This calculation is repeated for each multilateral agency. 
 3) The results from step 2) for a ll agencies are summed to ob tain the total imputed mu ltilateral aid from each donor 
to each recipient country.   
 In practice, imputed multilateral percentages are calculated for about 20 agencies per year.  These account for about 
90% of donors’ multilateral ODA.  Core contributions to the remaining agencies, for wh ich the OECD does not have 
outflow data, are NOT  imputed back to donors, so that imputed multilateral ODA remains slightly lower than donors’ 
total contributions to multilaterals.  Total imputed multilat eral flows are not published on their own; they are shown 
in combination with bilateral ODA, in order to provide the most complete picture possible of the total ODA effort the 
donor makes in respect of indi vidual recipient countries. 
 At present, there is no regular imputation of multilateral ODA flows by sector or other aid parameters, though this 
has been done occasionally in th e context of sectoral studies ( e.g. on aid to the water sector, to basic social services, 
or in support of HIV/AIDS control).   
Imputed Multilateral AFT ODA – US$ million 2008 constant   
 2002-05 ave. 2006 2007 2008 
Australia 44.7 178.2 75.7 92.1 
Austria 91.8 102.6 154.8 162.8 
Belgium 154.1 133.6 343.0 172.7 
Canada 117.9 107.3 153.0 185.4 
Denmark 115.0 116.8 125.8 152.6 
Finland 72.1 89.3 89.3 89.2 
France 835.1 846.5 1849.3 727.5 
Germany 940.7 935.6 1226.4 1429.4 
Greece 41.2 40.3 82.5 74.0 Ireland 30.3 37.2 108.3 67.1 
Italy 607.4 837.3 466.9 512.9 
Japan 295.3 412.9 1367.4 184.8 
Korea 49.4 17.7 48.4 49.2 
Luxembourg 13.2 16.5 19.3 19.5 
Netherlands 15.8 46.9 257.0 505.7 
New Zealand 4.7 4.4 5.0 5.1 
Norway 104.3 87.5 86.5 73.0 
Portugal 48.7 40.1 65.3 60.8 
Spain 252.4 309.6 442.9 425.9 
Sweden 114.7 249.9 244.7 229.7 
Switzerland 119.4 83.8 247.4 34.2 
United Kingdom 544.1 565.2 1051.4 1037.5 
United States 561.0 464.7 459.7 576.6 
Grand Total 5173.3 5723.8 8969.6 6867.6 
 
Germany and the United Kingdom have the highest amounts of inputed Aid for Trade in 2008, followed by France, 
US, Italy and the Netherlands. Overall the amount of inpu ted multilateral Aid for Trade fell over US$2 billion to 
US$6.8 billion in 2008.  WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
Page 18  
 
  6. Conclusions 
38. The Aid-for-Trade Initiative has succeeded in pa rt. It has mobilised more Aid for Trade. The 
62% increase on the baseline took place in a relativ ely positive period for ODA flows. Yet the growth 
in Aid for Trade in 2008 was larger than the in crease in sector allocable ODA raising the question of 
additionality of these flows. We are now entering a period of uncertainty when a growing envelope 
can no longer be assumed. While ODA flows in 2009 were stable, the outlook for 2010 and 2011 is 
less promising. The aim of the Initiative now should be  to stabilise flows, rather than generating new 
and further commitments. The economic crisis and decline in trade that followed risks undermining 
support for trade reform and liberalisation in the developing world. The awareness-raising that the 
Initiative has promoted must continue. 
39. The developments in 2008 only increase the need  to demonstrate that Aid for Trade works 
and this will be the theme of the next Aid for Trade at a Glance Report . The OECD in collaboration 
with the WTO and other international agencies is developing work on how to improve performance 
assessment of Aid for Trade; both in terms of improving evaluation practice and establishing benchmarks and indicators against which to measu re progress. More analytical work on binding 
constraints and designing effective Aid-for-Trade inte rventions is also needed. It is hoped that by 
2011 the OECD as well as others will be in a pos ition to present a range of studies and evidence on 
what has worked, what has not and why. 
40. The positive picture presented in this paper must also be balanced against the issues it raises. 
Firstly there is question over whether all economi c infrastructure and productive capacity should be 
counted as Aid for Trade. Many examples of costly  projects (especially in economic infrastructure) 
highlighted in this paper might not  be considered trade-related, e.g. urban transport projects in 
Istanbul and Bangkok. The broad defi nition is not an issue the Aid-for-Trade community wants to 
revisit but the aggregate numbers should not be in terpreted solely as being caused by the success of 
the Aid-for-Trade Initiative. Above all this shows th e limits of measuring Aid for Trade at the global 
level. To really understand what is happening, a local perspective is n eeded. The WTO Task Force 
defined Aid for Trade as whatever a partner country considers trade-related. To capture this, the Aid-
for-Trade Initiative has to go to the local level. 
41. A second issue is an accounting question, about  the balance between loans and grants. The 
large growth in the 2008 flows is partially explai ned by increasing loans to economic infrastructure.  
42. A third issue is predictability of ODA financi ng. Commitments show particular variance from 
year to year giving an impression that funding is not predictable creating difficulty for partner 
countries in their development planning. This is pa rtially a product of the nature of Aid for Trade 
which can be for one-off, costly infrastructure programmes. Disbursements show less volatility, 
possibly undermining the seriousness of the predictability issue.  
43. The fourth issue is the future of Aid-for-Trade  flows – the large growth from 2006 to 2008 of 
Aid for Trade has raised expectations – but this do es not mean that failure to grow in the years to 
come can just be interpreted as failure. Given that  overall ODA is not projected to grow, maintaining 
the current level of Aid-for-Trade flows will be important.  
44. A final issue is that the flows are not everythi ng – while the Initiative is partly about more 
resources – the focus should be on improving the qua lity of aid, responding to partner country plans 
and priorities, and advocating and building evidence to support trade as a development tool.  WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
 Page 19 
 
 
  ANNEX 1 
 
Global flows  
  Projects and programmes are part of Aid for Trade if these activities have been identified as 
trade-related development priorities in the partne r country’s national development strategies. The 
WTO Task Force concluded that Aid for Tr ade comprises the following categories: i) technical 
assistance for trade policy and regulations: for exampl e, helping countries to develop trade strategies, 
negotiate trade agreements, and implement their outcomes; ii) trade-related infrastructure: for 
example, building roads, ports, and telecommunicati ons networks to connect domestic markets to the 
global economy; iii) productive capacity building (including trade development): for example, 
supporting the private sector to exploit their comp arative advantages and diversify their exports; 
iv) trade-related adjustment: helping developing countries with the costs associated with trade 
liberalisation, such as tariff reductions, preference erosion, or declining terms of trade; and, v) other 
trade-related needs: if identified as trade-related development priorities in partner countries’ national 
development strategies. 
  The Creditor Reporting System (CRS) – a da tabase covering around 90% of all ODA – was 
recognised as the best available data source for tracking global Aid-for-Trade flows. The CRS aid 
activity database was established in 1967 and collects information on official development assistance 
(ODA) and other official flows to developing countri es. It is the internationally recognised source of 
data on aid activities (geographical and sectoral br eakdowns) and is widely used by governments, 
organisations and researchers active in the field of development. For the OECD, the CRS serves as a tool for monitoring specific policy issues, including  Aid for Trade. The policy and guidelines for CRS 
reporting are approved by DAC members as repr esented on the DAC Working Party on Statistics 
(WP-STAT). The OECD collects, collates and verifies  the consistency of the data, and maintains the 
database.  
  The CRS enables the tracking of aid commitments and disbursements, and provides comparable data over time and across countries. Th e use of an existing database led to significant 
savings of time and resources to effectively track Aid-for-Trade flows. The use of the CRS entailed 
some loss of detailed information about trade-re lated technical assistance and trade development, 
formerly collected in the joint OECD/WTO trade- related technical assistance and capacity building 
database (TCB). However, several modifications have  been made to the CRS to adapt it to Aid-for-
Trade needs.   It should be kept in mind that the CRS does not  provide data that match exactly all of the 
above Aid-for-Trade categories. In fact, the CRS provides proxies under five headings: 
 
(i) Technical assistance for trade policy and regulations. In the CRS, five 
purpose codes are used to cover trade policy and regulations activities, in contrast to the 20 TCB codes. These five sub-categories are: a) trade policy and administrative management; b) trade facilitation; c) regional trade 
agreements; d) multilateral trade negotiati ons; and e) trade education/training. 
(ii) Economic Infrastructure. Aid commitments for trade-related infrastructure 
are proxied in the CRS by data under the heading “Economic Infrastructure” This heading covers data on aid for communications, energy and transport. 
To know how accurate the CRS proxies are ( e.g. how much of the 
hypothetical energy project relates to trade), the CRS data must be compared 
with donors’ knowledge of the specific features of their infrastructure aid. So far, only two donors (the United States and the World Bank) are able to WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
Page 20  
 
  provide more refined data concerni ng the trade component of Economic 
Infrastructure projects. 
(iii) Productive capacity building (i ncluding trade development) . Data on 
commitments of aid for productive capacity building exist under the CRS category “building productive capacity”. Since the first monitoring exercise, 
the CRS allows components of a productive capacity building project ( i.e. the 
trade development policy marker) to be marked as relevant to trade 
development. It identifies trade development activities within the broader Aid-for-Trade category of building productive capacity ( i.e. activities marked 
as contributing principally or significantly to trade development). This new 
category compensates the loss of precisi on of using the CRS instead of the 
TCB. Two caveats should be kept in mind when assessing the data: a) some donors have not used the trade development policy marker, reflecting the fact that this marker is used on a voluntary basis; b) the amounts presented under this category cannot be added to the global flows; they are part and parcel of 
the total flows on productive capacity building. In 2008, twelve members 
reported on the marker. The number of trade development activities is much smaller in the CRS than in members’ TCB reporting for 2006 (over 3,800 activities were reported by 22 DAC members). In volume terms, the TCB total for 2006 was lower at US$2.1 billion though it should be recalled that only the “trade share” amount was recorded in the TCB and not the total 
value of the activity. The fact that CRS amounts for Belgiu m, New Zealand, 
Switzerland and the United Kingdom are about the same as, or lower than their TCB levels could therefore be an indication of incomplete reporting. For 
the other eight users, the CRS figure is  around two to three times higher than 
in the TCB. 
(iv) Trade-related adjustment . A new sub-heading has been introduced in the 
CRS to track flows corresponding to trade-related adjustment as of the 2008 data collection of 2007 activities. This category identifies contributions to developing country budgets to assist th e implementation of trade reforms and 
adjustments to trade policy measures by other countries, and alleviate 
shortfalls in balance-of-payments due  to changes in the world trading 
environment. Only two members reported activities in this category in 2007, 
Canada (US$0.3 million) and the EC (US$17.4 million). 
(v) Other trade-related needs. The CRS covers all ODA, but only those activities 
reported under the above four categori es will be identified as Aid for Trade. 
Data on ‘other trade-related needs’  cannot be gleaned from the CRS. To 
estimate the volume of such ‘other’ commitments, donors would need to 
examine aid projects in sectors other th an those considered so far – for 
example in health and education – and indicate what share, if any, of these activities have an important trade component. A health programme, for 
instance, might permit increased tr ade from localities where the disease 
burden was previously a constraint on trade. Consequently, accurately 
monitoring Aid for Trade would require comparison of the CRS data with 
donor and partner countries self-assessments of their Aid for Trade. 
 
  WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
 Page 21 
 
 
  ANNEX 2 
 
Glossary  
 
COMMITMENT  
A firm obligation, expressed in writing and back ed by the necessary funds, undertaken by an 
official donor to provide specified  assistance to a recipient country or a multilateral organisation. 
Bilateral commitments are recorded in the full amount  of expected transfer, irrespective of the time 
required for the completion of disbursements. Commi tments to multilateral organisations are reported 
as the sum of (i) any disbursements in the year repor ted on which have not prev iously been notified as 
commitments and (ii) expected disbursements in the following year. 
CONCESSIONALITY LEVEL  
A measure of the "softness" of a credit reflecti ng the benefit to the borrower compared to a 
loan at market rate. (cf. Grant Element). Technica lly, it is calculated as the difference between the 
nominal value of a Tied Aid Credit (q.v.) and the present value of the debt service as of the date of 
disbursement, calculated at a discount rate applicab le to the currency of the transaction and expressed 
as a percentage of the nominal value. 
DISBURSEMENT  
The release of funds to, or the purchase of goods or services for a recipient; by extension, the 
amount thus spent. Disbursements record the actual in ternational transfer of financial resources, or of 
goods or services valued at the cost of the donor. 
GRANT ELEMENT  
Reflects the financial terms of a commitment: interest rate, MATURITY (q.v.) and grace 
period (interval to first repayment of capital). It measures the concessionality of a loan, in the form of 
the present value of an interest rate below the mark et rate over the life of a loan. Conventionally the 
market rate is taken as 10 per cent in DAC statis tics. Thus, the GRANT ELEMENT is nil for a loan 
carrying an interest rate of 10 percent; it is 1 00 per cent for a grant; and it lies between these two 
limits for a soft loan. If the face value of a loan  is multiplied by its GRANT ELEMENT, the result is 
referred to as the grant equivalent of that loan. (cf.CONCESSIONALITY LEVEL) (Note: the GRANT ELEMENT concept is not applied to the mark et-based lending operations of the multilateral 
development banks.) The extent of concessionality can be measured either as the benefit to the 
borrower, or the opportunity cost to the lender. Both benefit and opportunity cost depend on the 
interest rate and duration of the loan. In a bene fit calculation, concessionality would be calculated 
from the difference between the interest charged a nd the market rate of interest which the borrower 
would otherwise have had to pay.  In an opportunity cost calcula tion, the concessionality would be 
calculated from the difference between the interest ch arged and the return that the lender could have 
expected from the next most profitable means of  investing the capital. DAC statistics generally 
measure costs to donors, and consideration of o pportunity costs played an important part in 
determining a reference rate of interest for calcu lating grant elements. For practical purposes this was 
set as 10%. 
GRANT
 
Transfers made in cash, goods or services for which no repayment is required. WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
Page 22  
 
  LOANS (ALSO CREDITS)
 
Transfers for which repayment is required. Only LOANS with maturities of over one year are 
included in DAC statistics. Data on net LOANS incl ude deductions for repaymen ts of principal (but 
not payment of interest) on earlier LOANS. This mean s that when a loan has been fully repaid, its 
effect on total net ODA over the life of the loan is zero. 
NET DISBURSEMENTS  
also see Disbursements. Net Flow(s), whence Net Inflow, Net Outflow 
OFFICIAL AID (OA)  
Flows which meet conditions of eligibility for inclusion in OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT 
ASSISTANCE (q.v.), other than the fact that the re cipients are on Part II of the DAC List of Aid 
Recipients (see Recipient Countries and Territories). References to Official  Development Assistance 
in this publication can be taken, mutatis mutandis, to apply to OFFICIAL AID. 
OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE (ODA)  
Grants or Loans to countries and territories on Part I of the DAC List of Aid Recipients 
(developing countries) which are: (a) undertaken by  the official sector; (b) with promotion of 
economic development and welfare as the main obj ective; (c) at concessional financial terms [if a 
loan, having a Grant Element (q.v.) of at least 25 pe r cent]. In addition to financial flows, Technical 
Co-operation (q.v.) is included in  aid. Grants, Loans and credits for military purposes are excluded. 
For the treatment of the forgiveness of Loans orig inally extended for military purposes, see Notes on 
Definitions and Measurement below. Transfer pa yments to private individuals (e.g. pensions, 
reparations or insurance payouts)  are in general not counted. 
OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE (ODF)  
Used in measuring the inflow of resources to recipient countries: includes (a) bilateral ODA, 
(b) grants and concessional and non concessional development lending by multilateral financial 
institutions, and (c) Other Official Flows for de velopment purposes (including refinancing Loans) 
which have too low a Grant Element (q.v.) to qualify as ODA. 
OTHER OFFICIAL FLOWS (OOF)  
Transactions by the official sector with countries on the List of Aid Recipients which do not 
meet the conditions for eligibility as Official Develo pment Assistance or Official Aid, either because 
they are not primarily aimed at development, or b ecause they have a Grant Element of less than 25 per 
cent. 
PRIVATE FLOWS 
Consist of flows at market terms financed out of private sector resources (i.e. changes in 
holdings of private long-term  assets held by residents of the reporting country) and private grants (i.e. 
grants by non-governmental organizations and other private bodies, net of subsidies received from the 
official sector).In data presentations which focus on the outflow of funds from donors, private flows 
other than foreign direct investment ar e restricted to credits with a maturity  of greater than one year 
and are usually divided into:  WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
 Page 23 
 
 
  Foreign direct investment: Investment made to acquire or add to a lasting interest in an 
enterprise in a country on the DAC List of ODA Recipients . "Lasting interest" implies a long-term 
relationship where the direct investor has a significa nt influence on the management of the enterprise, 
reflected by ownership of at least 10% of the shar es, or equivalent voting power or other means of 
control. In practice, it is recorded as the change in the net worth of a subsidiary in a recipient country 
to the parent company, as shown in the books of the latter. 
VOLUME (REAL TERMS)  
The flow data in this publication are expressed in US dollars. To give a truer idea of the 
volume of flows over time, some data are presented in constant prices and exchange rates, with a 
reference year specified. This means that adjustment  has been made to cover both inflation between 
the year in question and the reference year, and ch anges in the exchange rate between the currency 
concerned and the United States dollars over the same  period. A table of combined conversion factors 
is provided at the end of the Statistical Annex whic h allows any figure in the Report in current United 
States dollars to be converted to dollars of  the reference year ("constant prices"). WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
Page 24  
 
  ANNEX 3 
 
CODE CATEGORY SUB-CATEGORY 
Trade Policy and Regulation  
331 Trade policy and 
regulations Trade policy and planning; Trade facilitation; Regional trade agreements; Multilateral trade 
negotiations; Trade education/training  
Economic Infrastructure 
210  Transport and 
storage Transport policy and administrative manageme nt; Road transport; Rail transport; Water 
transport; Air transport; Storage; Educati on and training in transport and storage 
220 Communications  Communications  policy and administrative ma nagement; Telecommunications; 
Radio/television/print me dia; Information and comm unication technology (ICT)  
230 Energy generation 
and supply Energy policy and administrative manageme nt; Power generation/non-renewable sources; 
Electrical transmission/distri bution; Gas distribution; Oil -fired power plants; Gas-fired 
power plants; Coal-fired power plants; Nuclear power plants; Hydro-electric power plants; 
Geothermal energy; Solar energy; Wind power; Ocean power; Biomass; Energy education/training; Energy research  
Building Productive Capacity 
240  Banking and 
financial services Financial policy and administrative management; Monetary institutions; Formal sector 
financial intermediaries; Informal/semi-formal financial Intermediaries; Education/training 
in banking and financial services  
250 Business and other 
services Business support services and institutions; Privatisation 
311 Agriculture Agricultural policy and administrative ma nagement; Agricultural de velopment; Agricultural 
land resources; Agricultural water resource s; Agricultural inputs; Food crop production; 
Industrial crops/export crops; Livestock; Ag rarian reform; Agricultural alternative 
development; Agricultural extens ion; Agricultural education/tr aining; Agricultural research; 
Agricultural services; Plant and post-harves t protection and pest control; Agricultural 
financial services; Agricult ural co-operatives; Livest ock/veterinary services  
312  Forestry Forestry policy and administrative manageme nt; Forestry development; Fuelwood/charcoal; 
Forestry education/training; Forest ry research; Forestry services 
313  Fishing Fishing policy and administrative management; Fishery development; Fishery 
education/training; Fishery research; Fishery services  
321  Industry Industrial policy and administrative management; Indus trial development; Small and 
medium-sized enterprises (SME s) development; Cottage industries and handicraft; Agro-
industries; Forest industries; Textiles, leather and substitutes; Chemicals; Fertilizer plants; 
Cement/lime/plaster; Energy manufacturing; Pharmaceutical production; Basic metal 
industries; Non-ferrous metal industries; En gineering; Transport equipment industry; 
Technological research and development 
332  Tourism Tourism policy and administrative management  
Trade-Related Adjustment 
33150  Trade-related 
adjustment Contributions to the government budget to assi st the implementation of recipients’ own 
trade reforms and adjustments to trade policy measures by other c ountries; Assistance to 
manage shortfalls in the balance of paym ents due to changes in the world trading 
environment  
  WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
 Page 25 
 
 
  ANNEX 4 
 
Total Aid for Trade by Recipient  
 
       US$ 
million 
(constant) 
  Commitments Disbursements 
  02-05 
ave. 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 
Afghanistan   761.0  1 271.7 1 486.3 1 701.0  818.4   991.7  1 185.6 
Albania   138.0   238.5  32.2  144.6  103.5   82.3   108.9 
Algeria   111.5   243.0  182.4  36.8  149.8   123.9   120.1 
Angola   23.4   36.3  145.1  77.9  26.1   27.5   44.3 
Anguilla   1.6   12.5  5.8 ..  5.3  ..  3.5 
Antigua and Barbuda   2.4   0.1  0.2  0.5  2.2   0.2   0.5 
Argentina   48.2   30.4  34.1  15.9  31.2   45.2   25.7 
Armenia   111.7   287.2  137.3  207.8  63.0   86.8   155.2 
Azerbaijan   144.2   83.2  140.7  86.6  76.6   88.0   96.3 
Bangladesh   859.3   591.5 1 012.2 1 239.9  252.7   570.6   712.8 
Barbados   0.4   4.0  16.5  15.3  0.0   0.0   0.6 
Belarus   0.6   2.3  14.2  9.4  2.3   4.2   6.9 
Belize   9.7   13.8  3.4  13.3  3.4   4.9   10.8 
Benin   149.5   326.5  100.9  182.1  77.2   111.2   186.5 
Bhutan   43.7   16.5  84.7  26.5  34.1   28.2   20.0 
Bolivia   258.5   130.0  298.1  82.6  153.9   137.5   146.0 
Bosnia-Herzegovina   120.1   216.8  17 6.5  147.1  78.4   109.2   132.9 
Botswana   16.6   2.2  10.2  4.9  11.6   14.9   10.7 
Brazil   53.7   46.5  111.8  57.4  45.2   126.6   69.8 
Burkina Faso   248.9   178.0  179. 4  261.3  201.4   290.0   224.1 
Burundi   53.1   109.2  99.5  94.5  61.8   104.9   81.8 
Cambodia   194.8   202.7  186.2  281.9  114.4   141.7   145.2 
Cameroon   126.3   338.8  321.5  260.7  129.8   161.6   134.1 
Cape Verde   83.2   28.3  85.8  171.4  47.9   58.1   97.6 
Central African Rep.   36.6   130.9  48.7  6.6  60.7   30.4   18.9 
Chad   102.8   2.4  69.0  26.5  57.4   34.1   69.8 
Chile   40.7   6.8  20.1  79.1  38.4   80.0   16.1 
China   801.8   618.3  391.3  762.2  750.5   855.6   874.2 
Colombia   81.9   130.9  137.4  189.6  96.3   122.6   164.4 
Comoros   4.7   9.7  7.7  1.9  3.6   5.4   2.8 
Congo, Dem. Rep.   525.3   165.6  49 3.5  283.0  197.0   169.3   261.3 
Congo, Rep.   41.4   25.3  67.7  25.7  13.8   42.7   37.4 
Cook Islands   1.3   0.1  0.0  1.2  1.0   1.3   1.2 
Costa Rica   54.8   11.1  27.6  32.0  27.3   53.0   52.4 
Cote d'Ivoire   61.6   22.1  44.6  269.6  20.8   29.0   258.5 
Croatia   67.9   80.8  95.7  187.8  28.1   33.0   60.0 
Cuba   9.5   8.7  9.2  17.5  11.5   5.4   12.3 
Djibouti   23.9   0.8  5.6  12.0  3.4   9.5   12.6 
Dominica   14.9   6.1  7.6  6.8  6.7   11.2   11.7 
Dominican Republic   45.7   35.8  35.4  34.0  40.1   43.4   84.5 WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
Page 26  
 
   
       US$ 
million 
(constant ) 
  Commitments Disbursements 
 02-05 
ave. 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 
Ecuador   51.8   19.9  94.5  68.9  27.1   40.7   59.2 
Egypt   573.9   771.6  579.4 1 013.7  511.6   434.6   695.8 
El Salvador   30.8   26.6  391.7  160.0  41.7   43.8   76.7 
Equatorial Guinea   1.0   0.0  0.8  0.2  0.0   0.8   0.6 
Eritrea   52.2   20.5  72.0  20.2  23.7   15.2   18.4 
Ethiopia   617.5   751.6  941.2  760.8  526.2   514.3   576.6 
Fiji   7.6   11.3  5.4  18.1  10.9   7.8   7.3 
Gabon   43.6   77.4  16.8  68.1  19.2   36.6   20.5 
Gambia   28.7   17.2  10.2  7.9  12.4   15.4   16.1 
Georgia   102.6   368.5  94.2  250.9  114.1   130.0   222.0 
Ghana   324.3   357.0  789.5  654.0  343.0   314.5   375.2 
Grenada   8.4   0.8  0.2  3.4  0.8   0.7   2.0 
Guatemala   30.7   103.0  30.3  28.8  22.4   28.4   34.2 
Guinea   69.3   64.4  152.6  12.0  30.5   41.9   63.9 
Guinea-Bissau   27.7   23.8  19.9  5.1  33.2   44.7   29.8 
Guyana   43.9   12.7  103.2  56.6  5.8   10.5   37.2 
Haiti   88.9   89.5  71.8  140.0  36.1   63.2   83.7 
Honduras   187.8   36.6  32.8  148.2  75.7   58.4   103.4 
India  1 651.8  1 763.0 2 317.7 3 254.4 1 053.4  1 148.3  1 687.5 
Indonesia  1 127.9   954.9  865.2  870.7  840.2   751.2  1 053.0 
Iran   5.0   3.3  1.6  1.2  3.0   1.6   1.3 
Iraq  2 088.9  2 195.4 1 186.0 2 836.5 2 912.5  1 636.0   754.1 
Jamaica   36.1   19.6  54.1  36.6  26.2   43.5   76.9 
Jordan   45.4   6.8  74.6  177.7  45.8   44.0   67.6 
Kazakhstan   36.1   57.6  183.4  92.3  17.9   108.6   152.9 
Kenya   330.4   529.3  960.2  92.9  216.8   352.4   324.8 
Kiribati   7.4   1.3  15.3  5.2  10.7   13.3   6.3 
Korea, Dem. Rep.   32.8   7.9  2.6  15.2  6.9   3.0   16.0 
Kyrgyz Republic   53.0   77.7  102.7  69.5  64.3   53.6   50.7 
Laos   161.7   124.9  146.5  111.0  121.0   137.2   119.2 
Lebanon   27.5   32.6  172.1  61.9  22.1   71.2   59.7 
Lesotho   18.8   23.1  71.5  5.9  15.6   18.0   21.4 
Liberia   0.9   58.9  130.4  49.3  2.8   55.8   63.4 
Libya   2.3   2.9  4.7  6.1  0.7   6.1   4.1 
Macedonia, FYR   51.3   32.5  49.6  66.5  30.6   44.7   26.3 
Madagascar   319.4   167.0  241. 9  448.8  270.0   346.2   259.3 
Malawi   136.8   120.4  177.0  90.3  92.0   120.1   118.1 
Malaysia   12.5   8.9  31.7  89.2  57.5   247.1   118.7 
Maldives   8.9   2.6  31.8  14.1  0.4   5.8   6.7 
Mali   208.5   158.7  782.6  591.1  209.3   326.0   246.9 
Marshall Islands   5.2   1.2  1.6  0.9  1.3   1.7   2.4 
Mauritania   127.3   182.5  30.3  40.4  57.8   110.2   82.3 
Mauritius   58.5   44.7  15.2  70.9  2.0   14.3   5.0  WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
 Page 27 
 
 
         US$ 
million 
(constant) 
  Commitments Disbursements 
 02-05 
ave. 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 
Mayotte   20.7   0.2  39.2  39.0  0.6   40.4   24.6 
Mexico   26.8   22.0  62.3  66.7  23.9   26.4   32.7 
Micronesia, Fed. States   13.6   14.2  3.8  33.3  8.4   10.1   9.7 
Moldova   67.7   49.8  46.9  70.9  33.1   46.1   50.3 
Mongolia   59.4   143.2  72.6  533.1  51.3   64.1   91.0 
Montenegro   0.0   15.2  45.6  26.0  21.7   22.6   20.8 
Montserrat   8.3   20.8  12.0  5.5  8.0   2.2   4.8 
Morocco   332.4   506.1  311.5 1 894.3  375.8   518.9   458.0 
Mozambique   392.3   361.7  504.3  542.4  419.1   366.5   349.5 
Myanmar   11.0   15.8  10.2  22.1  16.8   12.3   21.5 
Namibia   34.9   116.1  32.5  95.7  23.4   33.7   36.3 
Nauru   2.1   11.1  10.5  6.5  8.0   7.8   11.6 
Nepal   173.6   201.0  269.6  230.9  97.6   125.0   177.9 
Nicaragua   193.2   311.6  89.8  190.2  124.2   155.8   145.9 
Niger   122.5   81.6  57.6  232.9  79.0   102.6   110.3 
Nigeria   253.6   197.0  293.1  728.8  181.3   338.7   232.1 
Niue   2.1   3.2  1.4  0.3  1.6   1.4   3.1 
Oman   2.4   0.9  0.5  17.6  0.9   7.6   0.9 
Pakistan   656.4   385.6  758.4 1 125.8  343.9   422.8   368.4 
Palau   6.6   2.3  14.7  2.0  7.2   5.4   12.2 
Palestinian Adm. Areas   65.7   43.1  60.3  165.0  83.9   67.0   58.5 
Panama   9.9   6.4  22.3  8.1  6.2   9.2   9.0 
Papua New Guinea   120.1   147.2  11 3.5  112.4  54.1   111.8   111.7 
Paraguay   17.1   214.2  22.0  38.9  12.7   26.4   67.3 
Peru   132.4   173.7  115.1  93.5  129.8   232.9   163.1 
Philippines   341.3   79.0  238.4  296.7  347.9   710.2   477.4 
Rwanda   102.4   130.9  105.0  170.9  75.6   95.1   147.8 
Samoa   14.5   2.4  61.6  17.1  9.0   8.8   8.6 
Sao Tome & Principe   8.4   9.1  6.8  3.8  6.1   6.5   7.8 
Saudi Arabia (1)  1.6   1.9  1.5 ..  2.2   1.5  .. 
Senegal   228.8   260.4  130.2  358.9  213.7   197.5   292.9 
Serbia   464.5   275.3  293.3  333.8  282.2   249.2   228.2 
Seychelles   3.4   4.1  0.7  12.4  6.8   1.4   2.2 
Sierra Leone   100.5   22.0  105.7  123.7  43.2   43.9   72.4 
Slovenia (1)  6.1  .. .. .. .. .. .. 
Solomon Islands   12.1   46.9  5.6  18.3  20.6   18.3   11.2 
Somalia   4.7   10.2  9.7  26.2  7.6   3.0   9.3 
South Africa   135.2   134.5  121.5  246.5  95.4   244.2   275.5 
Sri Lanka   506.2   330.8  320.2  472.5  289.9   243.4   375.9 
St. Helena   44.2   23.8  6.0  17.9  10.0   8.3   29.0 
St. Kitts-Nevis   1.6   0.0  0.1  0.7  4.7   0.8   0.7 
St. Lucia   9.8   9.1  9.4  7.6  3.8   6.6   12.9 
St.Vincent & Grenadines   6.8   12.1  9.3  1.2  3.0   10.0   17.0 
States Ex-Yugoslavia   56.7   1.4  2.3  3.0  4.4   4.3   6.1 WT/COMTD/AFT/W/21 
Page 28  
 
         US$ 
million 
(constant) 
  Commitments Disbursements 
 02-05 
ave. 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 
Sudan   24.3   34.6  69.0  133.3  16.7   24.5   57.9 
Suriname   24.8   6.7  23.9  26.5  4.9   28.9   40.2 
Swaziland   18.9   9.0  25.1  36.1  16.2   9.8   11.4 
Syria   18.1   26.9  53.3  12.4  23.4   14.0   16.2 
Tajikistan   94.1   79.4  129.5  146.8  45.1   46.8   47.9 
Tanzania   443.9   441.5  596.2 1 353.3  414.9   449.3   493.7 
Thailand   358.7   45.0  52.9  640.5  291.8   141.9   112.2 
Timor-Leste   32.9   24.7  33.2  43.0  21.8   17.8   34.8 
Togo   6.0   3.4  5.5  120.7  9.5   2.9   122.6 
Tokelau   1.3   0.6  1.5  0.9  0.9   4.4   1.0 
Tonga   2.6   3.1  11.8  24.6  4.3   10.7   3.8 
Trinidad and Tobago   16.6   1.7  12.5  14.9  2.2   4.0   0.5 
Tunisia   225.6   180.9  215.7  602.4  176.5   160.0   233.6 
Turkey   464.7   289.3  229.6 2 421.2  321.7   289.6  1 115.1 
Turkmenistan   2.6   0.9  0.8  3.6  1.4   0.7   3.6 
Turks and Caicos Islands 
(1)  0.1  .. .. ..  0.0   0.0  .. 
Tuvalu   4.1   0.9  9.6  5.5  8.1   3.1   4.4 
Uganda   289.6   197.3  756.5  314.5  253.9   441.3   471.6 
Ukraine   84.7   216.3  242.9  293.2  170.1   124.5   209.5 
Uruguay   6.4   2.8  5.3  4.8  6.6   10.1   4.3 
Uzbekistan   147.3   36.3  45.5  82.2  50.6   25.9   75.6 
Vanuatu   6.8   66.3  28.3  26.2  5.8   16.0   45.5 
Venezuela   2.5   2.5  1.4  1.1  3.1   2.1   1.9 
Viet Nam  1 601.2  1 411.7 2 118.3 2 033.1  903.2  1 234.5  1 220.1 
Wallis & Futuna   7.9  ..  3.1  2.3 ..  3.1   2.3 
West Indies Unallocated   10.5   90.1  6.9  5.7  13.3   30.6   8.3 
Yemen   56.4   82.2  91.4  73.7  56.8   50.2   67.0 
Zambia   228.4   303.9  191.1  220.7  173.7   112.0   175.7 
Zimbabwe   10.7   5.2  34.9  10.0  7.7   19.3   9.7 
Overall Total 23 
285.4  22 956.5 26 775.8 36 615.9 18 305.0  20 185.0  22 542.1 
Source: OECD DAC 
Creditor Reporting System.        
(1) Saudi Arabia and the Turks and 
Caicos Islands graduated from DAC 
List of ODA recipients in 2008.  Slovenia was excluded from the List 
in 2005.  
     
 
 
__________