RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/COMTD/AFT/M/8 
11 March 2009 
 (09-1206) 
Committee on Trade and Development 
Eighth Session on Aid for Trade  
 
 
 
NOTE ON THE MEETING OF 17 OCTOBER 2008 
 
Chairman:  H.E. Mr. Shree B.C. Servansing (Mauritius) 
  
A.
 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA .........................................................................................................1  
B. REPORTS ON THE OUTCOMES OF RECENT  STANDARDS AND TRADE DEVELOPMENT 
FACILITY (STDF ) EVENTS HELD IN CAMBODIA , UGANDA , AND GUATEMALA ..............................1  
C. FOLLOW -UP TO THE SYMPOSIUM ON MONITORING AND EVALUATION – IDENTIFYING 
INDICATORS FOR MONITORING AID FOR TRADE ..........................................................................5  
D. OTHER BUSINESS .......................................................................................................................13  
 
 
A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1. The draft agenda for the meeting as contai ned in Airgram WTO/AIR/3255 of 7 October 2008 
was adopted . 
B. REPORTS ON THE OUTCOMES OF  RECENT STANDARDS AND TRADE DEVELOPMENT FACILITY 
(STDF ) EVENTS HELD IN CAMBODIA , UGANDA , AND GUATEMALA  
2. The Chairman  recalled that discussion of the STDF even ts had been postponed at the meeting 
of the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD) in July because of time constraints.  Two 
documents relating to this agenda item ha d since been circulated to Members in 
WT/COMTD/AFT/W/7 and G/SPS/GEN/875.  He invited the WTO Secretariat to provide information about the STDF workshops that had been  held in Cambodia, Uganda and Guatemala.   
3. Beginning with some backgroun d information, the representative of the Secretariat
 said that 
the STDF was a joint initiative of the United Natio ns Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the 
World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the World Bank, the World Health Organization 
(WHO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), a nd that a number of other organizations – the 
United Nations Industrial Develo pment Organization (UNIDO), the United Nations Conference on 
Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and the International Trade Centre  (ITC) – were also involved.  
A total of 15 donors had provided contributions to  the STDF and developing-country representatives 
sat on the STDF Working Group and Policy Committee.   The STDF sought to enhance the expertise 
and capacity of developing countries to implemen t sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, 
including food safety, and animal health and plant protection measures, and to act as a vehicle for the coordination of SPS-relate d technical cooperation. 
4. He then presented an overview of the recent STD F work that had been carried out in relation 
to the Aid-for-Trade Initiative a nd provided examples of why SPS mattered in an Aid-for-Trade 
context.  A first example, in the area of plant health, was taken from a recent EC study which had 
looked at losses, in particular from mango production, as a result of infestation in West Africa of a WT/COMTD/AFT/M/8 
Page 2  
 
  new particular variety of fruit fly.  The study sh owed that these losses could have a significant impact 
on food security at a household level and could have a serious impact not only in terms of production 
and total revenues from production, but also in terms of trade.  An example of this was in Senegal 
where the problem of infestation was so bad that opportunities for trade were limited in terms of 
actual production seasons.  If put in a regulatory contex t, this meant that certain markets which would 
otherwise be open to mango producers and exporters in West Africa were cl osed as a result of the 
infestation.  A second example, with respect to an imal diseases, was the Rift Valley fever outbreaks in 
East Africa that had occurred in the late 1990s wh ich had affectively closed down livestock markets 
in the Middle East for exporters from Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia and other East African countries.  This highlighted another situation where issues of  disease led to production losses and reduced trade 
possibilities.  A third example, in the area of food safety, concerned Benin and Suriname.  Benin had 
introduced an auto-suspension on its  fish exports to the EC because of problems of compliance with 
EU standards and Suriname, too, had an on-going trade suspension because of its inability to meet EU 
legislation.  The ability to comply with importing countries' rules as well as the standard guidelines 
and recommendations adopted by international organi zations should be considered as a supply-side 
constraint within the Aid-for-Trade work.  A lthough these SPS examples were thematic and very 
specific, they gave an idea of how the Aid-fo r-Trade agenda could perh aps be implemented in 
practice on the ground.   
5. Another point he wished to raise concerned th e research that had been done on good practice 
in the SPS-related technical assistance area, monitori ng of aid flows, and trying to bring the supply 
and demand of SPS-related technical assistance into  better focus.  Three pilot regions had been 
surveyed in this respect: Central America, th e East African Community, and the Sub-Group of 
ASEAN, namely the Greater Mekong Delta Sub-regi on of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.  A Good 
Practice Workshop based around research on projects wh ich had been nominated by Members of the 
SPS Committee had taken place on 6 October 2008.  Some 24 projects had been considered as good 
practice.  One of the conclusions of the Works hop was the need to avoid fragmented programmes of 
assistance which were primarily supply-driven, not su stainable in the long run and which did not take 
into consideration the needs and implementation mechanism of the beneficiary countries.  The OECD 
principles of predictability, participation, part nership, and demand-driven approaches provided a 
robust framework for good practice and the Workshop had come up with a number of ideas of how to 
apply this in practice.  He referred to the not e by the secretariat in G/SPS/GEN/875 which gave an 
overview of good practice in SPS-related technical assistance and a synthesis of the findings of 
STDF/OECD research.   
6. Turning to measuring supply and demand for SPS assistance, he said the work on indicators 
was absolutely essential for managing results in th e SPS area.  The three workshops conducted in 
Cambodia, Uganda and Guatemala had tried to lo ok at matching the supply and demand based on an 
overview of technical assistance in the SPS area provi ded in the three regions between 2001 and 2006.  
It had been quite difficult to obtain information, par ticularly in the Central American region.  Reviews 
of existing evaluations of SPS capacity, on the other hand, were slightly easier to obtain, but there had nevertheless been significant duplication between th e on average 10 to 12 capacity evaluations per 
region that had been carried out in the SPS area.  This  was due to the fact that organizations that had 
conducted the evaluations had not necessarily been aware that other organizations had undertaken 
similar capacity evaluations.  Th ere had also been little exchange within recipient governments of 
these evaluations which had typical ly been focused at technical level officials from Agriculture, 
Health or Trade Ministries, and there tended to be  little discussion between the relevant ministries 
involved in the SPS area.  No consolidated analysis  had been done and the STDF, as a first stage, had 
therefore attempted to consolidate an analysis of these evaluations.  It had then attempted to 
consolidate the capacity evaluations by taking the results of the 10 to 12 evaluations per region, 
putting them into one document and then making a co mparison with past, present and future technical 
assistance so as to have an inventory of where n eeds were not being met with existing or planned 
technical assistance. These results had been valid ated at the Workshops in Cambodia, Uganda and 
Guatemala.  WT/COMTD/AFT/M/8 
 Page 3 
 
 
  7. This work had resulted in a very good overview  of where there were outstanding needs which 
were not being met by ongoing or planned assistance.  This was particularly so with respect to the 
Cambodia, Laos and Viet Nam area where it had been  possible to pin down the numbers quite well.  
Up until 2013, for example, some US$350 million had already been programmed in the SPS area, US$166 million of which had been pledged by donors as a result of the Asian influenza crisis.  It was 
hoped that the work that had been done by the STDF would improve the ability of both donors and 
beneficiaries to identify their own needs and design appropriate actions, particularly since the balance 
sheets looked at where assistance was already ongoing  and where it was planned, and identified areas 
where there was no ongoing assistance planned.  In this way, future needs could be targeted and 
duplication avoided. 
8. One question that arose concerned the sustaina bility of this in the long-term and how to 
ensure that the mechanisms put in place to cont rol avian influenza were used for other animal 
diseases.  Regional integration, such as moveme nts with ASEAN and the East African Community, 
was another example of assistance, as were ot her trade agreements and ongoing bilateral 
arrangements. 
9. Another area which had emerged as an importa nt theme was the general budget support being 
provided, in particular to LDCs, particularly for certain countries in East Africa, and notably Tanzania.  A theme that had arisen in Laos and Tanz ania was the development of a thematic basket of 
funds linked to the Integrated Framework. 
10. Turning to examples of shortcomings, he said th at one of the main difficulties was that the 
whole process had obviously generated considerable expectations on the part of the beneficiaries.  If 
this process was to be done again one would need to be more realistic in terms of the likely outcomes 
because there was inevitably a lead time between the identification of a need and a donor response of 
assistance delivery.  This obviously took time to be programmed out since donors would not commit 
to specific items at workshops.  In this respect, there was a need to perhaps incorporate a reality check 
into future work. 
11. Another theme concerned structural problems pa rticularly since different countries were at 
very different levels of development.  For ex ample, in Lao PDR there were very few trained 
veterinarians, whereas Costa Rica was now reaping the benefits of its capability in this area.  
Costa Rica's trade needs in the area of Aid for Tr ade related to market access issues which reflected 
the capability of the expertise they had.  Expertise had to be built on if trade policies were to become 
available in the future. 
12. Prioritization was another key issue as far as the STDF was concerned, particularly with 
respect to structural problems requiring sustained investment, in particular over the long-term for 
countries such as Lao PDR and other LDCs.  Long-term commitment was necessary, and 
prioritization was needed at donor level as well as at the level of the beneficiary governments.   
13. Work also needed to be done on sensitization once a problem that needed to be tackled had 
been identified.  The fruit fly example was the re sult of a study, but countries themselves had to 
express the need for assistance from the international donor community. 
14. As a result of the work done in the three pilot regions, there was a very clear identification of 
ongoing needs which were not being met by planne d technical assistance.  The donor community 
needed to be sensitized to these  needs and the STDF was cooperati ng with other partners in this 
regard.  For example, a background paper which lo oked at some of the SPS constraints faced by eight 
LDCs had been prepared for a UNIDO event pla nned in November.  Collaboration was also ongoing 
with the Integrated Framework and with respect  to the new generation of the Diagnostic Trade 
Integration Studies (DTIS) as they were updated. WT/COMTD/AFT/M/8 
Page 4  
 
  15. An evaluation of the STDF work in terms of out puts and impacts would be prepared early the 
following year on the basis of which, the STDF donors and other partners may request that this sort of exercise be repeated in other regions. 
16. The STDF was also looking to try and build on good practices with respect to the area of 
indicators.  If OECD guidelines on managing result s were to be followed, it would be necessary to 
have a clear idea of what those results were.  In the SPS area such results typically related to trade 
performance, improving the SPS situation in the count ry and poverty alleviation.  What had been 
made clear from this exer cise was that there were no indicators to  measure long-term impact.  If that 
could not be done, one had to question the sustaina bility in the long term, because if results of the 
actions being undertaken could not be shown, it would be difficult to maintain the donor commitment 
in this area.  The STDF was, therefore, very interest ed in trying to take the area of impact indicators 
forward. 
17. The Chairman
 thanked the representative of the Secretariat for his interesting report and 
presentation of some of the problems that devel oping countries faced with regard to SPS needs and 
constraints and asked whether any delegation wished to  take the floor or to ask for any clarification. 
18. The representative of Mexico  thanked the Secretariat for the presentation on what his 
delegation believed to be a very im portant topic.  Mexico agreed that the possibility of meeting the 
requirements and standards from a sanitary point of view was certainly a question of supply capacity 
and work being done in this rega rd was very relevant.  The presenta tion had demonstrated that one of 
the objectives was to identify the potential duplica tion of actions and projects and his delegation 
wondered whether inconsis tencies had been identified with re gard to coherence amongst what was 
being done in the different projects themselves.  It was very important to see whether what was being 
done in the recipient country complied with what was going on in the donor country.  At the same time, he asked what recommendati ons had emerged to deal with the different standards being 
proposed or promoted, and what availability had been seen on the part of the donors regarding 
harmonization.  It was not just a matter of preventing duplication of aid but also harmonizing aid. 
19. In response to the questions by Mexico rega rding inconsistencies or duplications, the 
representative of the Secretariat
 gave as an example the workshop held in Guatemala for the Central 
American region which had highlighted that there were nine organizations working in the area of 
laboratory infrastructure and that those actions were not necessarily harmonized.  One example was 
that incentives which were given between public and private laboratories were very different 
depending on the donor, and some of the actions could,  for example, interfere with market incentives.  
In trying to clarify this it was hoped that the vari ous donors would work together to come up with a 
coordinated approach.  He explained that the STD F was guided by the WTO legal framework and,  
more particularly, the SPS Agreement, so the approach being promoted was one based on the 
international standards which were recognized with in that SPS Agreement, i. e., Codex Alimentarius 
Commission (CODEX), World Organization for Animal  Health (OIE) and the International Plant 
Protection Convention (IPPC).  There were inevitabl y deviations from those standards in different 
programmes because Members' own SPS measures might de viate in part from those measures.  If that 
resulted in market access and the measures were not t oo trade-distorting or trade-inhibiting this would 
not be a matter which would be raised within th e SPS Committee.  As a general principle, Members 
should be looking at the already adopted CODEX, OIE and the IPPC on which to base their own measures.  One of the questions raised at the l ast working group was whether assistance being given 
to, for example, regional economic commissions, was coherent with WTO obligations.  An area worth 
highlighting concerned an ongoing discussion with in the SPS Committee on the issue of private 
standards which might go beyond those recognized inte rnational standards.  There was certainly the 
perception on the part of a number of developi ng countries that these standards could be more 
stringent and create trade obstacles for those countri es.  Harmonization in the area of private standards 
was under discussion in the SPS Committee.   WT/COMTD/AFT/M/8 
 Page 5 
 
 
  20. The representative of the United States  thanked the Secretariat for the presentation which had  
highlighted the interesting work that had been done in the regional seminars.  SPS was clearly an 
important issue whether it was in crisis situations such as avian influenza, in addressing some of the 
world's food security short- and long-term needs, or in facilitating trade.  In response to the issue of 
expectations that had been raised by the Secretar iat, she said it was very important for everyone to 
talk about what they could do and what they need ed.  There were many needs and, as a donor, the 
United States was trying very hard to respond to the demands put to them by a country.  In this respect, it was vital when partners did talk to the donors that they ensured that their priorities were 
expressed.  If a priority was raised in a workshop a nd that priority did not translate into the larger 
discussions between countries' ministries and Aid ag encies, then the funds would probably not flow.  
The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), for example, responded to exactly what countries 
asked for;  if it was asked to fund an SPS project it would do so, but it would not offer, then respond.  
Aid for Trade was about integration, and that needed  to be kept in mind when talking about the SPS 
work.  The last point she wished to raise concer ned monitoring and the discussion that was taking 
place within the CTD on global monitoring and indicato rs.  Monitoring needed to be calibrated very 
carefully to avoid too much time being spent on tryi ng to figure out how to monitor and less time in 
figuring out how to provide assistance.  She suggested  that the STDF exercise did not duplicate the 
indicator exercise that was being undertaken in th e broader aid-for-trade initiative.  The STDF should 
be encouraged to contribute to the monitoring ex ercise through case studies and best practices but her 
delegation hoped that there would not be a prolifera tion of indicators in aid for trade that one could 
spend many years discussing without necessarily seeing any results. 
21. The representative of the Secretariat
 said that the US had made a very clear point and he 
confirmed that it was not the intention in the STDF to duplicate anything which was being done in the 
CTD.  The idea was to try and harmonize what was going on between the various partner agencies in 
the STDF;  that might or might not result in something that could be brought in the future to the CTD.  
C. FOLLOW -UP TO THE SYMPOSIUM ON MONITORING AND EVALUATION – IDENTIFYING 
INDICATORS FOR MONITORING AID FOR TRADE  
22. The Chairman  recalled the results of the first Glob al Review of Aid for Trade held in 
November 2007 when it had been suggested, inter alia , that future monitoring should aim to begin 
tracking progress in the implementation and the impact  of Aid for Trade.  He also recalled that the 
Director-General's 2008 Aid-for-Trade Roadmap pr esented to the CTD in February 2008 set out 
several tasks for improving the quality of informatio n available for the monitoring exercise.  One of 
the tasks was to identify a cluster of indicators to  benchmark progress in building trade capacity.  The 
main focus and objective of the recently-held Sy mposium on Monitoring and Evaluation of Aid for 
Trade had therefore been to help identify suitable indicators for monitoring the WTO work programme on Aid for Trade.  A background note by the Secretariat providing information on the 
results of the Symposium and recommendations on core indicators to monitor the progress and impact 
of the Aid-for-Trade work programme had been circulated in WT/COMTD/AFT/W/9. 
23. The Deputy Director-General
 said that the STDF presentation was an excellent introduction 
to her report to the CTD on the Symposium that  had been held the previous month on the 
identification of possible indicators for Aid for Trade.   As had been stated, if the results of Aid for 
Trade could not be measured and if Aid for Trade could not be seen to be making a difference, it 
became very difficult to be accountable to constituen cies and development partners.  It was therefore 
critical to have simple indicators that would help measure results and whether Aid for Trade was 
having an impact.  The indicators not only had to be  simple but also ones that could be used by 
different Aid-for-Trade programmes.  The WTO fo r its part was working with the STDF and the 
Enhanced Integrated Framework (EIF) so that c ountries were not overwhelmed by different requests 
of parallel monitoring exercises.  Part of the Ai d-for-Trade agenda was to have better coordination 
and, at the same time, to make sure and check  at each global review whether trade was making a 
difference.  She said that the Symposium on Mon itoring had made a valuable contribution to the WT/COMTD/AFT/M/8 
Page 6  
 
  exercise that the CTD was engaged in of selecti ng indicators for monitoring the progress of the 
WTO's Aid-for-Trade work programme.
1 
24. By way of an introduction to the CTD discussi on on this agenda item, she wished to make 
three recommendations.  The first was that Me mbers consider adopting the structure for the 
monitoring exercise that was used at the Symposium.   In this regard, she recalled the conclusion from 
the 2007 Global Review of Aid for Trade that the WTO should strengthen, in particular, monitoring 
of the implementation and impact of the Ministeria l work programme that was agreed in Hong Kong.  
On that basis, the Symposium had targeted three elements for monitoring:  (i) Aid-for-Trade flows, 
which could be viewed as the supply-side of th e Aid-for-Trade equation;  (ii) Aid-for-Trade 
resource-use – i.e. the use of those resources to build  trade-related capacity in developing countries, in 
particular LDCs, so as to assist them to improve their trade performance.  This could globally be 
viewed as the demand-side of Aid for Trade;  and ( iii) matching up the supply- with the demand-side.  
On the third element, the presentation from th e STDF had shown how, in a specific technical 
assistance area such as SPS constraints, this matchi ng could be concretely f acilitated.  The matching 
up of the supply and demand included all of the st eps involved in matching donor financing with 
trade-related projects, from assessing and prioritizi ng trade capacity needs – as had been seen in the 
case of SPS – to integrating those needs into the na tional and regional developm ent strategy so as to 
place them in the broader development context of poverty reduction, and, of course, by doing so 
constructing a collaborative donor/beneficiary relationship. 
25. The discussion at the Symposium had vindicated the choice of the three elements, and her 
recommendation to the CTD was that the CTD use the three elements as the basic structure for the 
monitoring exercise that the CTD would be preparing for consideration at the next Global Review. 
26. Her second recommendation was that the monitori ng exercise should make use of a mixture 
of "macro" and "micro" indicators.  Macro indicat ors allowed for monitoring overall progress with the 
Aid-for-Trade work programme at the global level, be nchmarking of the main trends in Aid for Trade, 
and making comparisons across groups of countries and regions.  She emphasized that macro 
indicators already existed through databases pub lished on an annual basis and that no new macro 
indicators needed to be created.  Micro indicators were suited to monitoring progress at a more detailed level, for example through specific case studi es of Aid-for-Trade programmes at the level of 
individual countries and sub-regions.  She believed that the monitori ng exercise needed to make use 
of macro and micro indicators since they compleme nted each other and using both would allow for a 
richer and more meaningful monitoring process. 
27. Her third recommendation concerned the choice of  specific indicators.  With regard to 
"macro" indicators, she said there was a good range of  off-the-shelf indicators available.  A selection 
had been included in the background note for the pre sent meeting, and she believed that they would 
allow the CTD, and subsequently the General C ouncil when it undertook future Global Reviews, to 
track progress in a consistent way over time of th e reduction and removal of trade-related capacity 
constraints in developing countries and LDCs, and to also track the trade impact on their capacity 
building. 
28. Regarding the more detailed "micro" indicators, these would have to be generated afresh for 
each Global Review.  For example, case studies would be needed of what steps individual donors and 
international financial institutions were taking to meet the demand for Aid-for-Trade resources, and of 
what worked and what didn't in developing c ountries and LDCs when it came to building 
trade-related capacity, and so on.  As Members alre ady knew, the WTO did not have the means or the 
expertise to conduct and construct these case studies it self.  It would have to rely on support from 
partner organizations.  In that regard, she was pleas ed that the WTO had received strong statements of 
                                                     
 
1 The DDG's summing up at the end of the Symposium on Monitoring and Evaluation is reproduced in 
the Annex to this document.  WT/COMTD/AFT/M/8 
 Page 7 
 
 
  support and she was confident that the WTO could c ount on its partners to provide a steady and high 
quality stream of micro-level information on  which to base the monitoring exercise. 
29. In this respect, she also wish ed to mention the importance that should be attached to the 
donor- and partner-country questionnaires to monitor Aid for Trade.  She referred to the informal 
CTD consultation held on 13 October and said that the exchange of views which had followed the 
OECD presentation at that meeting would be take n into consideration when the questionnaire was 
redrafted.  The WTO was committed to helping to make a success of the exercise involving the 
partner-country questionnaires.  She mentioned that Members would recall that this had been one of 
the shortcomings of the 2007 Global Review.  De veloping and least-developed countries must be 
assisted not only to complete the questionnaires but also to use them in a pro-active way to promote 
Aid-for-Trade programmes in national capitals. Th e partner-country questionnaires could provide a 
rich source of information on the progress being made by individual countries and regions on their Aid-for-Trade programmes. 
30. The EIF could also be relied upon to provide important information on progress made with 
Aid-for-Trade implementation in the LDCs on three elements, namely Overseas Development 
Assistance (ODA) and other resource flows;  resource use;  and trade-capacity building and impact on 
trade performance.  Now that the EIF Secretariat was up and running with an Executive Director in 
place, these elements should be kept at the centre of the WTO's broader Aid-for-Trade work 
programme.   
31. In conclusion, she hoped that, as requested at  the Symposium held the previous month, 
Members had had the time to consult with their Government Ministries in capital and with other 
stakeholders on the basket of indicators that was best suited to the WTO monitoring exercise.  She 
looked forward to hearing preliminary feedback they had received in that regard. 
32. Before opening the floor for discussion, the Chairman
 asked that in their interventions 
delegations address the two points that the DDG had rai sed.  First, were delegations comfortable with 
the three-part structure of the monitoring exerci se that was described in paragraph 11 of the 
background document – i.e., Aid-for-Trade flows, th e use of Aid-for-Trade resources, and the process 
between donors and beneficiaries of matching up  capacity-building needs with Aid-for-Trade 
resources.  Second, were delegations comfortable with  the basket of indicators that were described in 
Section III of the background document.  In this rega rd, he wished to highlight the importance of the 
material that would be collected from the donor- and partner-country questionnaires in providing a core indicator in particular for parts 2 and 3 of the monitoring exercise. 
33. Finally, by way of introduction, he did not consider that the CTD should try to agree on each 
and every one of the indicators in the basket, nor that  it should consider the in dicators described in the 
background document to represent necessarily a closed list.  The indicators were a means to an end, 
the end being the ability to conduct an effective a nd successful review of the Aid-for-Trade work 
programme at the next Global Review to be held in  May or June the following year.  He added that 
the CTD would continue to prepare for that event, and said that, in his view, the indicators should be 
kept under review as they began to produce info rmation for monitoring the Aid-for-Trade work 
programme and that more indicators should be added or  subtracted from the current list, as necessary.    
34. The representative of Brazil
 said that the proposed structure for the monitoring exercise 
looked acceptable but that his capital had mixed feeli ngs regarding the selection of indicators and how 
the monitoring exercise should proceed based on t hose indicators.  Brazil understood that the purpose 
of the monitoring exercise was to have better data an d better quality of information that could be used 
to lead the way forward in providing Aid for Trade but  felt that not all of the proposed indicators were 
fully adequate for that scope of exercise.  In  particular, Brazil had mixed feelings about the 
information provided in the World Bank Doing Business Index.  The World Bank Doing Business Index had been carefully studied in Brazil after it had been published and it was found that the overall WT/COMTD/AFT/M/8 
Page 8  
 
  methodology and criteria were in some aspects deeply flawed.  For instance, the criteria relating to the 
facility of opening a business or to have a Court ruling applied were backed only with information 
regarding one city in Brazil which was São Paulo.  It ignored much of the reforms that were being 
made in other parts of the country.  Brazil was,  therefore, in discussion with the World Bank in 
Washington on how to improve the methodology and cr iteria of the Doing Business Index to make it a 
more reliable source of information reflecting th e actual state of Brazil's business environment.  
Having said that, although his delegation was not in  a position to fully endorse the whole set of 
indicators that had been presented, it would not oppo se them.  As the Chairman had put very clearly, 
this was not a closed list and the indicators should be kept under review as best as possible.  In this respect, his delegation believed that a commitment w as needed from the international organizations 
and agencies that drafted the indicators that they keep improving their work, reviewing the 
methodology and criteria to ensure that the indicator s and data to be provide d, which would be open 
to scrutiny, reflect as best as possible the reality on the ground.  This was really important for Brazil.  He then referred to the micro indicator concer ning the data on FDI flows from UNCTAD's World 
Investment Report (page 5 of the background documen t) and said that it would be good to have that 
data reflected as fully as possible and not just as aggregate numbers.  Referring to the DDG's 
suggestion that recipient countries should not be ov erburdened with analytical requirements, he gave 
the example that if, for instance, a country was very  rich in a certain commodity, that country could 
find a lot of investment targeted to just that par ticular sector of the economy and that an aggregate 
number would not indicate the full story of how th at country was improving or enhancing its overall 
economy and institutional framework to receive invest ment in other areas as well.  This would be 
something that had to be kept in mind.  At th e same time, he noted that the relationship between 
indicators and performance  were very clearly stated .  However, it should be kept in mind that some 
of the trade performances data were dependent not  just upon the kind and quality of assistance that 
was provided but also the market ac cess conditions that prevailed.  Fo r instance, at present there was a 
lot of assistance provided to the West African count ries with regard to cotton but he did not know 
whether the export capacity of those countries coul d respond fully to this assistance because the 
market access conditions were still undermined by  export subsidies and lower prices in the 
international market.  In the same  manner, assistance to East African countries to upgrade their coffee 
industry might find difficulties with the tariff escalation that was put in place in the main markets.  So, 
it was good to have a clear picture of not only how assistance had been provided but also how market 
access conditions could evolve. 
35. The representative of the United States
 said that the intervention by Brazil was a good 
indication of why one could neve r have a perfect set of indicators.  Indicators only provided 
information that might help people look at different  situations in different lights and one of the 
important things about the WTO monitoring exercise was that a variety of pieces of information of different types would be available to look at from which to make one's own responses.  The 
Symposium on Monitoring and Evaluation had provid ed a good opportunity to have an exchange of 
expectations and possibilities and there were certainly  a myriad of possibilities.  The main objective, 
though, was to build upon the monitoring that was started the previous year in the Global Review 
which, although modest, had given some insight into what more might be possible.  The Aid-for-Trade Task Force had given good instruc tions on what should be monitored and on which 
indicators were appropriate to Aid for Trade as an  umbrella of projects and not as a particular 
development area since most development agencies did not look at trade as an area but looked at 
infrastructure, productive capacity, and agriculture.  So, a political veil was being put over a very 
important area that touched a number of development projects.  It was very clear that in this exercise 
individual projects were not being monitored;  mon itoring was being done at a higher level.  As 
discussions had evolved, it was clear that one piece of the monitoring "envelope" was the core 
indicators which had come out of the Global Review and which were part of the Work Plan referred 
to in the background document as macro indicators.  The three areas to look at suggested in the 
background document were broadly in line with he r delegation's thinking, as were the selection of 
possible macro indicators listed by the WTO.  One of the objectives with regard to macro indicators was to make sure that a wider variety of inform ation was available and that core indicators were  WT/COMTD/AFT/M/8 
 Page 9 
 
 
  appropriate to the mandate and political veil of the WTO.  With that in mind, her delegation could 
certainly agree to the proposed structure.  For th e US, the discussion of micro indicators was a bit 
more confusing because, although some of the elemen ts being called indicators were part of the 
monitoring "envelope", the US did not consider them  exactly as indicators.  The US considered the 
monitoring "envelope" to consist of the follo wing elements:  the donor- and partner-country 
questionnaires which were vitally important and a way of demonstrating commitment to the Aid-for-
Trade initiative and the willingness to supply informa tion on what was being done by partners or 
beneficiaries;  the report and analytical work from the OECD on aid-for-trade flows, similar to what 
had been provided the previous year;  and sharing best practices and experiences so that what was learnt in one place could be shared elsewhere.  This element would be covered by case studies from 
partners, donors, the STDF, the World Bank and ot hers, and from information gathered from the 
national and regional reviews as well as any other in formation that Members thought might contribute 
to the discussion.  As DDG Rugwabiza had said, that  information would have to be generated each 
year but in some cases care would have to be ta ken so as not to have an overwhelming amount of 
information;  everyone should contribute judiciously  but to the greater good.  In conclusion, she said 
that her delegation was pleased to note that a tenta tive date was in mind for the Global Review as this 
would facilitate planning by all concerned. 
36. The representative of Mexico
 said that, like others, his delegation would not in principle have 
any problem with the proposed three-tiered structur e despite some comments that he wished to make 
on how that structure could be added to.  As far as i ndicators were concerned, Mexico also agreed that 
it would be appropriate to remain flexible and to  have the possibility of revising the indicators as 
necessary.  Mexico did not think any sort of peri odicity was needed.  The background document could 
be considered as a starting point which, in prin ciple, seemed appropriate to Mexico.  Another 
comment concerned the issue of monitoring the impact of Aid for Trade (3rd bullet of paragraph 11 of 
the background document).  That bullet point referr ed to the impact as far as trade efforts were 
concerned, but, as DDG Rugwabiza had said, Mexico felt that this had to be as simple and as 
operational as possible.  Mexico also agreed, howev er, with the recommendation that a way be found 
to complement the impact exerci se with information from other bodi es and partner organizations since 
it appeared to his delegation that the impact being sought regarding Aid for Trade was not only on trade development but also on poverty reduction.   Mention was made throughout the document of 
development strategies but not of  development strategies and pove rty reduction which was the case of 
many WTO Members, especially LDCs.  He agreed  that the indicators should not be made more 
cumbersome although, in some respects, this exerci se in itself was more cumbersome.  He referred to 
the comments that had been made in connection with the review of the OECD/WTO questionnaire 
with regard to the fact that the questionnaire in cluded questions on results as far as exports were 
concerned but not as far as imports were concerned.  As had been said, trade was made up of both 
exports and imports.  Imports a nd substitution of imports could be  extremely relevant for many 
countries, particularly LDCs, and especially tho se that imported and exported foodstuffs.  Mexico 
therefore thought that this was quite relevant a nd would have an impact on poverty reduction.  The 
relevant information could be taken from complementary exercises such as the study prepared by the UNDP which had reviewed 72 poverty reduction programmes to evaluate in what way the 
mainstreaming of trade was being undertaken in povert y reduction strategies.  The question, therefore, 
was how could the CTD tap into this type of study or exercise so that the missing dimension could be 
included in the WTO evaluation exercise.  At the regular meeting of the CTD held on 16 October, 
mention had been made of the possibility of havi ng a presentation of the UNDP study and Mexico 
wished, in principle, to support that possibility.  As had been mentioned by the DDG and others, 
another area which could be complementary to the WTO monitoring exercise was the collaboration of the EIF.  Here, there was a series of studies – th e DTIS – which could also supply very useful and 
important material, including details on impact, and it would be interesting to see what progress had 
been made in the new generation of DTIS wh ich his delegation believe d were being revised 
periodically. WT/COMTD/AFT/M/8 
Page 10  
 
  37. The representative of the European Communities
 appreciated the presentation and report the 
DDG had made on the Symposium on Monitoring and Evaluation that had taken place in mid-September.  The EC had participated very  actively in the Symposium since it considered 
monitoring and evaluation to be an important elemen t in the operationalization of Aid for Trade and it 
was pleased that the work regarding monitoring th e supply side – i.e. monitoring Aid-for-Trade flows 
granted by donors – was basically completed.  This was of clear interest to developing countries and 
beneficiaries of Aid for Trade and the EC wished to thank the OECD for the work it had done in 
refining the Creditor Reporting System (CRS) to wh ich aid-for-trade commitments were regularly 
reported, as well as for the work on the donor questi onnaire on Aid for trade.  Monitoring the supply 
of Aid for Trade was clearly an important element of the Aid-for-Trade equation, but it was not the 
only one.  In this respect, the EC wished to thank the Secretariat for its paper in 
WT/COMTD/AFT/W/9 which had put together suggesti ons on how to identify indicators also for the 
elements of the Aid-for-Trade equation.  This notab ly included indicators on the use of Aid for Trade, 
the possible impact of Aid for Trade on strengthe ning trade capacity, as well as indicators about the 
interaction between Aid-for-Trade donors and be neficiaries which was an important issue of 
mainstreaming.  The EC found that designing indicators for monitoring and evaluation of Aid for 
Trade was a rather technical and complex exercise – possibly more complex than had been thought at 
the beginning – that probably went beyond the usual know-how of the WTO Secretariat as well as of 
trade negotiators.  For this reason, the EC needed more  time to complete its internal reflections before 
being able to express a position on what would be the most appropriate and useful indicators on aid 
for trade.  The EC was therefore not in a position to  reply at the present meeting to the two questions 
put by the Chair because a meeting inter alia  on the issue of indicators was scheduled only the 
following week in Brussels between the member States and the European Commission.  At the 
moment, therefore, the EC was looking at the paper fr om the Secretariat as a fi rst step in the process 
which required further elaboration.  For example, th e EC had some questions regarding the distinction 
between micro and macro indicators that were used .  In its view, case studies and qualitative reports 
and progress in project implementation were not really  micro indicators.  They were certainly useful 
complementary sources of information but not really indicators.  At the same time, some of the macro indicators that were presented in the paper were s ources of indicators, therefore they included many 
other indicators from which to choose.  Overall, th erefore, the EC needed more time to reflect on 
these issues.  The EC was committed to getting the indicators right.  It was important to reflect 
carefully about them. In this context, the EC welc omed the fact that a possibility to discuss indicators 
in more detail would be presented in Paris at the OECD Policy Dialogue on Aid for Trade.  In general, 
and as the EC had mentioned at the previous CTD dedicated session on Aid for Trade, it would be 
useful if, given the complexity of the issues, all relevant stakeholders, i.e. beneficiaries, donors, 
regional development banks, and in ternational organizations, could meet regularly on an informal 
basis to work pragmatically on issues related to  the Aid-for-Trade agenda.  Discussion was now 
focused on indicators, but there were other issues as well, such as the preparation of the Aid-for-Trade 
regional reviews for which close cooperation between all stakeholders was necessary.  The EC would 
appreciate having the possibility of being able to wo rk pragmatically and informally on these issues in 
association with the Aid-for-Trade Advisory Group.  In conclusion, she stressed the EC's commitment 
to Aid for Trade, not just in relation to th e WTO Aid-for-Trade agenda, but also the actual 
implementation of aid for trade in countries.  Clearly , the present times of cris es were challenging for 
everyone, but the EC remained very much comm itted to its pledges.  The recently-presented EC 
Aid-for-Trade Strategy was, and remained, the fra mework of the EC's engagement and concrete 
operation. 
38. The representative of Argentina
 said that, like other delegations, Argentina could, in 
principle, agree to the three-tiered structure of work.  His delegation had some comments and some 
major criticism regarding sources of indicators.  For example, Argentina agreed with previous 
speakers, particularly Brazil, with respect to  the World Bank Doing Business Report where, for 
example, when looking at employment, contr acting and facilities for opening up small- and 
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), there were ma jor differences in data and data sources.  The 
indicators used should therefore be flexible and at least be assessed with flex ibility.  That being so,  WT/COMTD/AFT/M/8 
 Page 11 
 
 
  this matter was being looked at in capital.  Argen tina also considered that the World Economic Forum 
should be added as a source to the tentative list beca use this would reflect indicators that were linked 
to reality with respect to coefficients and numbers .   He said it was difficult to look at support for a 
given economic sector to improve trade performance as compared to the final results that might be 
obtained, not only with respect to market access, but  also to the actual development of the sector.  
Turning to the results of indicators, he said that these could provide quantitative elements and 
information.  For example, there could be situa tions where indicators showed greater competitiveness 
for a given sector and a greater performance in regional trade but not in global trade.  That could be as 
important a result as any other.  On the contrary, the participation or the improved yield of a given 
private sector linked to an economic activity was a very positive result but was not fully reflected 
from a trade point of view.  His delegation agreed with  Mexico in that indicators had to be as flexible 
as possible and work had to be done properly to avoid becoming obsessed by indicators per se.  It was 
not trade performance per se  that was being sought but rather the results obtained from trade 
performance in terms of development and improved living conditions.  Referring to paragraph 18 of 
WT/COMTD/AFT/W/9, Argentina agreed with what had been said with respect to the relationship 
between trade capacity building and trade performan ce lying at the heart of the WTO Aid-for-Trade 
Work Programme.  Although that was correct, he wished to repeat what his delegation had already said on this matter, that productive capacity was also at the heart.  It was not a question of trade 
per se , but a matter of how trade could generate the productive capacities in countries.  In summary, 
Argentina agreed with paragraph 11 of WT/COM TD/AFT/W/9, but believed that there should be 
flexibility.  His delegation was looking at what el ements could add to this flexibility in terms of 
indicators and agreed that case studies could be useful in that process. 
39. The representative of Barbados
 said that the Secretariat report in WT/COMTD/AFT/W9 had 
provided an overview of the discussions that ha d taken place at the Symposium on Monitoring and 
Evaluation and that, together with  DDG Rugwabiza's presentation, allowed Barbados to gain a deeper 
sense of the outcome.  After a very preliminary ass essment of the report, Barbados saw sense in the 
three-tiered structure and could support moving forwar d on that basis.  Regarding the supply of aid for 
trade, his delegation would be interested to know the base date that would be used to measure the data 
on financial flows.  It would also be important to know that in relation to bullet 2, on aid-for-trade 
resource use and trade performance, there could be outcomes that showed that increased trade 
capacity had led to an improvement in trade perfo rmance or a maintenance of trade performance of 
individual countries in regions where trade performance as a whole might be decreasing.  Growth in 
small economies, for example, was usually slow bu t without trade-related assistance a regression of 
development gains might be seen.  With regard to  the indicators and the delineation between micro 
and macro, Barbados could unders tand the logic in having these indicators and could agree to move 
forward on that basis although his Government would need to look more closely at those indicators.  Barbados could also agree with the call for more fl exibility with regard to th e indicators used.  There 
was no need to develop new indicators within the WTO when existing facilities could be used.  His 
delegation appreciated the concerns raised by Brazil and noted what had been stated in paragraph 8 of 
the Secretariat document that the indicators woul d provide factual information that Members would 
be allowed to analyse.  Therefore, it would have to be made clear from the beginning at what point the 
analysis took place.  Would it take place at the point of the identification of the indicators or after the 
factual information had been provided?  Would a decision be made on whether or not the indicator 
was valid based on its output?  The EC had also rai sed an important issue as to whether the macro 
indicators that had been replicated in the documen t were indeed indicators in themselves or whether 
they were sources of a number of separate indicators which would then have to be gone through.  If it 
became a matter of cherry-picking from the sources of indicators, to arrive at a sub-set of indicators 
based on individual concerns or individual member s, this could severely constrain progress.  On 
another issue, his delegation noted with inter est what was contained in paragraph 17 of the 
background document and looked forward to rece iving more information on how the CTD might 
approach the issue of additionality of funds.  In conclusion, he said that his Minister would be attending the OECD meeting in Paris the following month where he believed the issue of indicators 
would be discussed.  Barbados looked  forward to engaging on this issue. WT/COMTD/AFT/M/8 
Page 12  
 
  40. The representative of Japan
 expressed appreciation for the Secretariat's work on indicators as 
reflected in document WT/COMTD/AFT/W/9.  Japan, too, was still examining the indicators listed in that document based on the principles that had b een expressed at the Symposium on Monitoring and 
Evaluation in September.  One of those principles w as first to take advantage of existing indicators, 
while taking into account pitfalls expressed by Brazil.  A second concerned the flexibility of 
indicators that might reflect divergence. 
41. The representative of Pakistan
 thanked the DDG for her presentation and for the views that 
had already been expressed by delegations.  His first observation concerned the reference to total 
Aid-for-Trade figures vis-à-vis  Pakistan and the fact that they we re disaggregated into sector specific 
categories, i.e.  economic infrastructure, build ing productive capacity, etc.  These figures had been 
shared with capital and the initial response was that  they were not commensurate with the figures that 
Pakistan had.  A further verification of the figur es was being carried out, including by consulting with 
the relevant agencies involved.  Given the possi bility that there were discrepancies with the 
information, there was probably more work to be don e regarding the authenticity of the figures.  More 
verification was warranted, especially with the r ecipient country.  His second observation concerned 
the two broad parameters related to the indicators th at had been spelled out, namely, micro and macro.  
He said that the process had to be a bottom-up one and that micro indicators should feed into macro 
indicators.  In this respect, his delegation suppor ted Brazil's contention that the end result was an 
increase in exports which may very well be tied to market access opportunities.  He referred to 
Pakistan's own experience regarding its textiles sector  and said that a major study had been carried out 
in the textile region in 2005 which had led to major modernization insofar as removing obstacles was 
concerned, i.e. in the area of labour productivity , quality control and other parameters.  It was 
important to note that the end review had reveal ed that major productivity gains came from market 
access rather than purely indigenous factors. 
42. The representative of China  thanked the DDG for the very de tailed introduction she had given 
on the results of the Symposium on Monitoring and Evaluation.  As regards the two questions posed 
by the Chairman, he said that China could go along with the structure but still needed more time to 
analyse the content as well as the relevance of the i ndicators to Aid for Trade.  Regarding the question 
of micro indicators, China believed that the sense of  recipient-country satisfaction, including amongst 
its citizens, was one of the most important factor s in marrying Aid for Trade.  He suggested that 
partner countries should therefore be encouraged to provide feedback from their own point of view.  
Perhaps, also, some new indicators should be explor ed to reflect individual partner-country's feelings 
about Aid for Trade. 
43. The Deputy Director-General  thanked all Members for their reactions and for the information 
they had given which she said would be very useful  for the continuation of the Aid-for-Trade work.  
In order to clarify some of the questions that had b een raised, she wished to flag the following.  First 
of all, with respect to Brazil and the macro indicators and the source of these indicators, it was true 
that a great deal of specificity was being lost in  the indicators.  This was why they had to be 
complemented by much more specific case studies.  That was the reason why information on the 
indicators would be supplemented by information provided through responses to the questionnaires.  
It was important to have this information.  Re ferring to the questions and comments made by the 
representative of Pakistan, she said it was vital that indivi dual countries gave their part of the story;  it 
was only on that basis that additional information co uld be added to what was already contained in the 
report put together jointly by the OECD and WTO secretariats.   
44. A second point she wished to underline was the importance of remaining focused on the 
Aid-for-Trade work programme.  The objective of that  work programme was quite simple – to be able 
to increase resources for capacity building in developi ng countries and increase the efficiency of the 
various programmes that already exist.  And that could be done only by mobilizing and ensuring that 
there was transparency to be able  to measure what was being done and that it was being done in the 
best way possible.  At the same time, the impact of existing efforts and additional measures that  WT/COMTD/AFT/M/8 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Members had undertaken since the 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial had to be measured.  Other 
constraints with respect to trade were those linked to  market access.  This was not the objective of the 
Aid-for-Trade work programme, however, and w as being discussed in other working groups. 
45. A third comment she wished to make was that the indicators were not an end in themselves. 
That was why it was important not to get lost in a sea of indicators.  The indicators were an essential 
means to achieving the objectives of the Aid-for-T rade work programme decided by Ministers in 
December 2005 and should be kept as simple as possible.  That was why a simple structure had been 
proposed which allowed one to look at dema nd by volume and what was provided from the 
information sources of the donors and of the benefi ciary countries.  A second element of how those 
resources were being used would come from the bene ficiary countries, and a third element would be 
how the two could be put together and how they coul d be linked.  The indicators, therefore, sought to 
measure progress in the Aid-for-Trade work programme and were one way of measuring the three specific elements. 
46. The objective of the indicators went beyond bette r trade performance.  They sought to make a 
contribution to what the Director-General had ca lled the constitution of the WTO, a contribution to 
sustainable development, and a contribution to povert y reduction.  But, at the same time, work being 
done in other fora should not be duplicated.  For example, the WTO was already contributing to the group which was measuring progress towards ach ieving the Millennium Development Goals. 
47. In conclusion, she wished to encourage Members which had not yet completed their 
consultation exercise to do so bearing in mind bot h the objectives of the indicators and the time 
constraints between now and the 2
nd Global Review on Aid for Trade.  Here, in answer to the question 
by the representative of Barbados, she said that it would be in the 2nd Global Review that one would 
be able to report on and analyse the quality of inform ation received.  It was by analysing the quality of 
the information that Members would be in a position to inform whether or not the selected indicators 
were the most appropriate.  The list of indicators w ould be ongoing and flexible and would evolve as 
the various reviews took place.  The CTD, however, was the forum for giving feedback and which 
had a remit to decide on the specific indicators to ch oose.  She informed Members that there would be 
various informal consultation processes in this resp ect including, for example, an OECD meeting in 
Paris scheduled at the beginning of November.   
48. The Chairman  said that it had been an interesting discussion and that delegations had 
provided an initial feedback on the indicators.  Cl early more time was needed and discussions were 
still ongoing at the capital-based level and in other fo ra.  The results of those discussions would have 
to come back to the CTD because,  as had been said by DDG Rugwabiza, this was the forum where the 
decision would be made on how to tie up this part  of the Aid-for-Trade work programme.  He, too, 
encouraged Members to keep in mind th e calendar for the work programme.   
49. Before closing, he informed that, as had b een requested by some delegations at the CTD 
information meeting on Aid for Trade held the previous Monday, dedicated sessions had been 
convened for the LDC and African Groups to provide  more detailed information regarding completion 
of the Aid-for-Trade partner-country questionnaire and the way forward.  A representative from the 
OECD would be present at those sessions and Members would be notified about the details of the briefings in due course.   
D. 
OTHER BUSINESS  
50. There were no items raised under "Other Business". 
51. The meeting was adjourned . WT/COMTD/AFT/M/8 
Page 14  
 
  Annex 
 
Aid for Trade 
Symposium on Evaluation 
Identifying Indicators for Monitoring Aid for Trade 
15-16 September 2008 
 
Session 4: Summary Session 
Remarks by Deputy Director-General Valentine Rugwabiza 
  
1. Welcome to this final session of the symposiu m, in which we will pull together the key 
elements of the discussion that has taken place in th e last two days on indicators for monitoring the 
progress of the WTO's Aid-for-Trade work programme.  With me on the podium is Ambassador Servansing, in his capacity as Chairm an of the Committee on Trade and Development, 
who will take the floor shortly to discuss with you how he intends to move the process forward in the 
CTD on this Aid-for-Trade monitoring exercise.  
2. Let me recall what we set out to achieve at this  symposium.  We have been following up on 
the recommendations of the 2006 Aid-for-Trade Ta sk Force and the 2007 Global Review that the 
WTO should strengthen the monitoring of Aid for Trade, and in particular monitoring of the 
implementation and impact of the Ministerial work  programme that was agreed on in Hong Kong. 
I. STRUCTURE OF THE MONITORING EXERCISE 
 
3. We selected three main themes on which to structure this symposium.  They were:  
•  first, Aid-for-Trade flows, which I think can be viewed as the supply-side of the 
Aid-for-Trade equation; 
 
•  second, resource-use: the use of Aid-for-Trade  resources to build trade-related capacity in 
developing countries, particularly the LDCs, so as to assist them to improve their trade performance, or in other words the dema nd-side of the Aid-for-Trade equation; 
 
•  third, the process of matching up the supply-side  with the demand-side.  This includes all of 
the steps involved in matching donor financing with trade-related projects, from assessing 
and prioritizing trade capacity needs, to integr ating these needs into the national or regional 
development strategy so as to place them in  the broader developmen t context of poverty 
reduction, and finally constructing a colla borative donor/beneficiary relationship. 
 4. I think that the discussion at this symposium has vindicated our choice of those three elements.  We have covered all of the key areas of the Aid-for-Trade work programme that were 
identified by the 2006 Task Force, and my sense is that we could recommend to the Committee on 
Trade and Development that they use these three elem ents as the basic struct ure for the monitoring 
exercise that the CTD will be preparing for consideration at the next Global Review.  
II. SELECTING BENCHMARK INDICATORS 
 5. Over the past two days we have been cons idering sets of indicators in each of these three 
areas.  Why do we need these indicators?  The answer, I think, is that we have many different actors involved who will all need to contribute to the Ai d-for-Trade monitoring exercise if it is to be a 
success.  We have the donors and the beneficiary c ountries, individually and in some cases as regional 
or sub-regional groups.  We also have the international development agencies and regional  WT/COMTD/AFT/M/8 
 Page 15 
 
 
  development banks (RDBs) or or ganisations, which are involved in the financing and delivery of 
trade-related technical assistance and capacity-building.   We shall need to collect information from all 
of these sources for the monitoring exercise in the WTO.  That will be made easier if we have 
benchmark indicators that all interested parties can use.  I am not suggesting that we should impose on 
anyone a common format for collecting, processing and reporting all information on Aid-for-Trade 
activities.  There will always need to be room for monitoring at the level of individual countries or 
agencies, what we have referred to as the micro-leve l in the background paper.  But we do need to try 
to identify a few common indicators that we feel ar e central to the monitoring exercise, and that all 
Aid- for-Trade actors feel comfortable using.  
6. Let me illustrate what I mean by referring to  each of the three elements of the monitoring 
exercise, starting with the supply-side of Aid-for-Tra de resource flows.  Here we have consensus, I 
think, that the benchmark indicator for the monitori ng exercise will be the CRS data on Aid-for-Trade 
flows that is collected by the OECD.  However, it will be valuable to complement the CRS data with 
information provided by individual donor and bene ficiary countries and by international agencies on 
their specific Aid-for-Trade activities.  This will not only allow us to capture information that is not 
collected routinely in the CRS database, such as non-concessional Aid-for-Trade financing by the 
multilateral and regional development banks.  It will also allow us to flesh out the raw numbers from 
the CRS database by providing more detail on sp ecific Aid-for-Trade categories such as trade 
adjustment assistance, trade facilitation measures, a nd trade-related infrastructure at the national or 
regional level.   
 
7. So, in the area of Aid-for-Trade resource flow s, we have our benchmark indicator that we 
shall ask everyone who provides information for the monitoring exercise to apply as far as possible 
for comparability purposes.  But we will supplement that with more micro-level monitoring from 
individual donors or beneficiaries, or international agencies.   
 
8. Now let me turn to the second element of Aid-for-Trade resource use, or if you like the 
demand-side of the equation, which covers the two issues of implementation and impact that the last 
Global Review said should be monitored.  The central  focus of the monitoring exercise here is the 
trade-related capacity building in developing countries and its impact on their trade competitiveness 
and their trade performance.  Also, the broade r issue of how improved trade performance is 
contributing to the achievement of developm ent objectives such as poverty reduction and the 
Millennium Development Goals.  9. Several benchmark indicators could be of value to us here.  One is the World Bank's 
"Logistics Performance Index", which compiles information and presents it at a comparable 
macro-level on the trade capacity and trade-relate d infrastructure of each developing country and 
LDC.  This would allow us to monitor over time and overall whether developing countries and LDCs 
are making progress in overcoming their trade-related capacity constraints.  Others are the ITC's Trade Performance Indices which cover trade flows, market access data, foreign investment data and trade competitiveness data, and the World Bank/IF C's "Doing Business" database which provides 
comparable data on the domestic regulatory environm ent.  And for the broader development picture, 
we could use a benchmark indicator such as peri odic reports from the UN on meeting the MDGs and 
UNDP's "Human Development Index".  10. However, this is an area where I believe we need to deepen our anal ysis and monitoring to 
take into account developments at the regional and the individual country level.  At the regional level, 
we could draw on regional benchmark indicators such as the African Competitiveness Report, and 
similar material produced by the World Bank a nd the Regional Developmen t Banks for Asia and 
Latin America.  At the sub-regional and national le vel we could rely on material produced for specific 
projects, such as the COMESA-EAC-SADC Regional Trade Facilitation Programme, and for national Aid-for-Trade monitoring purposes such as that descri bed yesterday by Vishnu Bassant in the case of 
Mauritius.  That would allow us to consider issues th at have been raised at this symposium, such as WT/COMTD/AFT/M/8 
Page 16  
 
  the importance of the right sequencing of Aid-for-Tra de interventions for an optimal impact of the 
capacity built on the trade performance and de velopment of concerned countries' regions. 
 11. The third element is the process of bringing together the supply and the demand sides of the 
Aid-for-Trade equation, covering the assessment of trade capacity needs, their integration into 
national development strategies, the donors' responses and collaboration between donors and 
beneficiaries to get trade-related capacity building projects off the ground.  My sense is that in this 
area we shall need to rely very heavily on more micro-level indicators such as case studies at the 
national and regional or sub-regional levels.  
12. Overall, I think that our discussions have point ed to the conclusion that macro-level indicators 
will not be enough on their own in any of the three areas of the Aid-for-Trade  work programme that 
we are covering. Those indicators can very usefully  be complemented by more micro-level data and 
information, to help bring a qualitative element into the monitoring exercise.  An example here is the 
value that we can add to the exer cise by looking in depth at a few case studies, for example of how 
individual developing countries or  regions are assessing their trade capacity needs, how they are 
integrating these into their development stra tegies and constructing their donor-beneficiary 
relationships, how they are investing their Aid-fo r-Trade resources to build trade capacity, and how 
these investments are impacting on their trade perform ance.  It is an impossible task to capture 
properly this kind of "what works and what doesn't" experience, or "best practice", in cross-country, macro-level indicators, where all of the country-sp ecific details are washed out during the aggregation 
process.   
 
III COLLECTING DATA  
 
13. I think the collection of the data for the macr o-level benchmark indicators is straightforward.  
The difficulty is collecting comparable data at th e more detailed level of sub-regional and national 
Aid-for-Trade projects and programmes.  That lead s me to stress the importance for our monitoring 
work of several exercises that are underway this year and that will help to generate this kind of 
micro-level evidence about the implementation and im pact of the Aid-for-Trade work programme.   
 14. One of those exercises is being carried out by the Regional Development Banks, who are each 
organising a number of national and regional reviews of Aid for Trade.  The results of those reviews 
will provide a rich source of material for the m onitoring exercise in the next Global Review, and I 
encourage the RDBs and the countries and regions involved to keep that outcome in mind as they 
move forward with their own regional Aid-for-Trade programmes.    
15. A second exercise, which is being carried out by  the OECD Secretariat, is the preparation of 
the donor and partner country questionnaires to monito r Aid for Trade.  Let me emphasize here that 
the WTO is committed to helping to make a success  of the exercise involving the partner country 
questionnaires.  This was one of the shortcomings of last year's Global Review.  The questionnaires 
will be considered presently in the Committee on Tr ade and Development, and we are prepared to 
assist our developing and least-developed country Me mbers to not only complete the questionnaires 
but also to use them in a pro-active way to pr omote their Aid-for-Trade programmes in national 
capitals.  The donor and the partner country ques tionnaires can provide us with a wealth of 
information on the progress being made by indivi dual countries and regions on their Aid-for-Trade 
programmes.  
16. Finally, I think we can depend on the Enhanced  Integrated Framework to provide us with a 
rich source of information on progress made wi th Aid-for-Trade implementation in the LDCs 
(resource flows and use, trade-capacity building and impact on trade performance).  Now that the EIF 
is almost up and running, I think we will do well to make sure that we keep it at the centre of the 
WTO's broader Aid-for-Trade work programme , including on indicators of progress.   
  WT/COMTD/AFT/M/8 
 Page 17 
 
 
  IV NEXT STEPS 
 
17. Looking forward to the next steps in this ex ercise, I believe we should focus on three issues. 
 18. The first is to stabilize the set of indicators  that Members wish to use for the Aid-for-Trade 
monitoring exercise.  That is the role of the CTD.   The recommendations of this symposium will be 
sent to the CTD so that Members can make thei r choices on which indicators they wish to use.   The 
criterion that should be used to make that choice is, in my view, which indicators will be the most 
useful for the WTO to monitor progress in the impl ementation of the Aid-for-Trade work programme 
and its impact on the trade performance of developing  countries and LDCs.  We need to keep in mind 
this pragmatic approach, we need to  keep things simple as far as po ssible, we need to make use of 
what already exists.  19. The second issue is collecting the data for those indicators.    
• For the macro-level cross-country indicators, such as the CRS database and the World Bank's 
Logistics Performance Index, the process is already in train.   
 
• We are making progress too with the donor and the beneficiary country questionnaires.  The 
information gathered from these questionnaires will play a very important role in the monitoring exercise.  The CTD has an important job ahead of it to finalize the questionnaires.  
We then need, I believe, to use available vehi cles, such as the Trade Policy Review process 
and the Enhanced Integrated Framework, to  get out and help developing countries, and 
especially the LDCs, to prepare their responses to the questionnaires.  We need to set a 
deadline for those responses, and we need to aim for as full a participation as possible from 
developing countries and LDCs in the exercise so as to have a more complete picture than we 
were able to provide at the first Global Review. 
 
• The third source of data for the monitoring exer cise will come from case studies of individual 
national, sub-regional or regional Aid-for-Tra de projects and programmes.  The Regional 
Development Banks are preparing case studies th rough the national and regional reviews that 
they are organizing over the next few months.  That should produce a rich source of case by case information on progress in implementing the Aid-for-Trade work programme at the 
national and regional level.  It would be valuab le to be able to count on case studies other than 
those being organized by the Regiona l Development Banks, for example the 
COMESA-EAC-SADC Trade Facilitation Pr ogramme, and we should be identifying 
candidates that we think would contribute to our monitoring effort. 
 20. The third issue is, of course, the next Global Review.  We have to have everything prepared  
well in advance if Members are to be able to revi ew the material produced to monitor progress on the 
Aid-for-Trade work programme and to come to th e Global Review prepared to provide the political 
level input that is expected from them.  The Global Review is expected to be an operational exercise, 
from which Members draw conclusions that will co ntribute to steadily increasing the effectiveness of 
our monitoring and evaluation of the Aid-for-Trade work programme.  
_________