EN

(...PICT...)|EUROPEAN COMMISSION|

Brussels, 21.4.2010

SEC(2010) 419 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Aid for Trade Monitoring Report 2010 accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS A twelve-point EU action plan in support of the Millennium Development Goals

{COM(2010) 159} {SEC(2010) 418} {SEC(2010) 420} {SEC(2010) 421} {SEC(2010) 422}

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Aid for Trade Monitoring Report 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 5

1.1. The EU’s Aid for Trade Strategy at a glance 5

2. Strategic AfT efforts continuing in EU Member States 7

3. EU Aid for Trade flows 7

3.1 EU € 2 billion target for Trade Related Assistance reached 7

3.2. Total Aid for Trade provided by the EU and its Member States increasing 10

3.3. Strong increases in EU / Member States support for productive sectors and infrastructure 13

3.4. Wide geographical distribution of EU AfT 14

3.5. …but the share of LDCs is not convincing 15

3.6. AfT reporting — some underlying facts 16

3.6.1 Disbursements & commitments 17

3.6.2 Multilateral funds 18

3.6.3 ODA grants & loans 18

4. Quality of overall EU Aid for Trade 20

4.1. Aid effectiveness – some progress but more to be done 20

4.2. The regional dimension of EU Aid for Trade is important 21

4.3. Towards enhanced trade and poverty outcomes 22

5. ACP specific issues 22

5.1 ACP Aid for Trade has increased by 36% 22

5.2. Regional AfT packages for the ACP 24

Executive summary

This is the third See 2009 report on: http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/COMM_NATIVE_SEC_2009_0442_4_Aid-for-Trade-monitoring-report-2009_EN.pdf. report on the implementation of the EU Aid for Trade Strategy , adopted on 15 October 2007 Council Conclusions of 15 October 2007 ( http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/misc/96506.pdf. ). . A joint EU and EU Member States initiative, the Strategy aims at supporting all developing countries, particularly the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), to better integrate into the rules-based world trading system and to use trade more effectively in the fight against poverty. [1][2]

See 2009 report on: http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/COMM_NATIVE_SEC_2009_0442_4_Aid-for-Trade-monitoring-report-2009_EN.pdf.

Council Conclusions of 15 October 2007 ( http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/misc/96506.pdf. ).

The two previous reporting exercises showed already that the AfT agenda was finding its way into EU and Member States development cooperation. That trend is confirmed again this year. The EU and its Member States are now very active in implementing the AfT Strategy.

In 2005, the EU and its Member States made a commitment to increase their Trade Related Assistance (TRA) to € 2 billion annually by 2010 These Commitments were made at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong in December 2005 . They have hit this target well in advance of the deadline. Support for TRA from the EU and its Member States totalled € 2.15 billion in 2008 - € 1.143 billion from Member States and € 1.007 billion from the EU.[3]

These Commitments were made at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong in December 2005

The most substantial increases have been reported in wider Aid for Trade - including transport and energy, productive sectors and trade-related adjustment. Total Aid for Trade from the EU and its Member States reached an all-time high of € 10.4 billion in 2008 Throughout this document, the EU Aid for Trade flows exclude 2008 amounts of ODA projects funded through the own sources of the European Investment Bank (a total amount of €1.348 billion). A discussion between OECD and European Commission services has not yet concluded on the relevance of including, based on existing OECD guidelines, some types of loans as ODA. The next monitoring report will provide an update on Aid for Trade flows, including for previous years, on the basis of the conclusions of these ongoing discussions. , an increase of € 3.4 billion (48 %) since 2007. This includes € 7.2 billion from the Member States and € 3.2 billion from the EU, up from € 4.6 billion and € 2.4 billion, respectively. [4]

Throughout this document, the EU Aid for Trade flows exclude 2008 amounts of ODA projects funded through the own sources of the European Investment Bank (a total amount of €1.348 billion). A discussion between OECD and European Commission services has not yet concluded on the relevance of including, based on existing OECD guidelines, some types of loans as ODA. The next monitoring report will provide an update on Aid for Trade flows, including for previous years, on the basis of the conclusions of these ongoing discussions.

AfT disbursements are following a more stable path than commitments, exhibiting a steady increase since 2002.

Africa remains the developing country region receiving most AfT: € 4.6 billion in 2008, accounting for 46 % of total EU and Member States AfT. The main share of this, € 2.9 billion, went to Sub Saharan Africa. This is followed by Asia (€ 2.2 billion), Europe (€ 1.3 billion), America (€ 0.7 billion) and Oceania (€ 0.01 billion) The classification of regions used here is the one used by the OECD in its database over Official Development Assistance – details of countries covered are provided in Annex 1. . [5]

The classification of regions used here is the one used by the OECD in its database over Official Development Assistance – details of countries covered are provided in Annex 1.

AfT to the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) increased substantially: from € 2.2 billion in 2007 to € 3 billion in 2008 - an increase of 36% .

About 23% of total EU and Member States AfT is committed to Least Developing Countries (LDCs), with absolute levels in 2008 being only marginally above those of 2005. There are positive reports, however, from EU donors active in LDCs as regards the existence of national coordination structures for trade policy coordination and trade needs assessments. There is a need to further strengthen these efforts in LDCs, closely linked to absorption capacity . In order not to overstretch LDC capacity, it remains essential to work effectively together, including under schemes such as the Enhanced Integrated Framework , the success of which is dependent on collaboration and integration into country structures.

The qualitative information in the present report is based on the views of EU Delegations and Member States embassies in a total of 77 partner countries across the developing world. This exercise showed that the AfT concept, its objectives and its practical implications are still not sufficiently known neither by active donors, nor by partner countries.

Some ownership progress was reported for the majority of partner countries, but it should be noted that only about 25% of partner countries are considered to considerably own and champion the process of AfT policy formulation and implementation , and to have effective coordination processes in place to develop and implement a trade strategy.

In 40 % of the countries for which responses were received, the EU and its Member States appear to be providing Aid for Trade despite the lack of an up-to-date trade needs assessment. For maximum effectiveness of support this needs to be followed up.

In some countries there appears to be a strikingly large number of AfT related activities ongoing simultaneously. Field offices report that there is room for at least a doubling of the number of countries in which EU joint Aid for Trade activities take place.

For ACP, specifically, the shared responses from EU and EU Member States indicated that dialogue on trade and AfT issues was happening regularly in about 65% of cases. Further: 33 ACP countries out of the 46 for which responses where received appear to have a comprehensive trade needs assessment, prepared with the involvement of key stakeholders. In 75% of cases, AfT priorities were said to be funded.

The regional dimension of AfT was reported as important, in ACP as well as Asia and Latin America . For the ACP, work continued on Aid for trade packages in support of their regional integration.

To build on this overall success of the EU’s Aid for Trade, the following are key elements for further consideration:

– the LDC share of overall EU Aid for Trade is only about 23% of the total AfT volumes and requires more attention following the specific pro poor focus of the EU AfT Strategy.

– Although the overall € 2 billion Trade Related Assistance target has been reached, trade policy and regulation and specific trade development efforts require continued attention

– 40 % of overall EU Aid for Trade appears to be provided without an up-to-date trade needs assessment -

– there is room for at least doubling the number of countries in which EU joint AfT activities take place.

– delivering on the ACP regional packages will require more political and technical attention on the part of the EU, its Member States and the ACP.

– there is a need to continue to improve communication and information on AfT.

1. Introduction

Trade can be a powerful tool in improving the livelihoods of the poor. Through increased employment and wages and enhanced government tax revenues and social spending, it can help reach the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This is why the EU and its Member States have committed themselves to increase their Aid for Trade (AfT).

Under the EU’s Aid for Trade Strategy of 2007, the EU and its Member States seek to help developing countries overcome barriers to trade expansion and become more competitive, thereby increasing their trade and generating resources for poverty reduction. In parallel, the EU is acting specifically to implement MDG 8 Develop a global partnership for development. , including by providing completely free access to the EU market for everything but arms from LDCs. These efforts are especially relevant in view of the need to counter the effects of the economic crisis, which has spread from developed to developing countries through reduced demand and export opportunities.[6]

Develop a global partnership for development.

This third AfT monitoring provides information on what the EU and its Member States provide under Aid for Trade and where progress has been made on common commitments. As the data available refers to 2008 AfT volumes, it should be noted that the possible effects of the recent economic downturn will not yet be visible in this report Clearer reflection on the effects of the economic crisis will be included when reporting on the 2009 commitments, in the 2011 report. Data availability is subject to a time lag that limits data analysis to 2008 volumes in 2010. . [7]

Clearer reflection on the effects of the economic crisis will be included when reporting on the 2009 commitments, in the 2011 report. Data availability is subject to a time lag that limits data analysis to 2008 volumes in 2010.

Box 1: Key sources of data for the report

This year’s monitoring report is based largely on three sources of data:

i) The OECD/DAC Creditor Reporting System (CRS), to which most EU Member States (15 out of 27) provide quantitative data on their Official Development Assistance (ODA);

ii) The responses to an EU questionnaire provided by 77 (out of 113) EU Delegations in Developing Countries. In 56 cases, the responses were prepared jointly with EU Member States providing bilateral Aid for Trade in the partner country in question;

iii) EU Member States' responses to the "Monterrey questionnaire" on which the EU report on Financing for Development is based See: SEC(2010) 420 - Financing for Development - Annual progress report 2010 - Getting back on track to reach the EU 2015 target on ODA spending. .[8]

See: SEC(2010) 420 - Financing for Development - Annual progress report 2010 - Getting back on track to reach the EU 2015 target on ODA spending.

1.1. The EU’s Aid for Trade Strategy at a glance

The EU’s Aid for Trade Strategy adopted in 2007 builds on the already strong performance by the EU and its Member States as key providers of AfT. The Strategy aims to support all developing countries, in particular the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), to help them better integrate within the rules-based world trading system and to use trade more effectively in promoting the overall objective of eradicating poverty. A joint initiative of the EU and its Member States, the Strategy focuses both on increasing the volume of AfT and on enhancing its results and effectiveness.

The Strategy covers the full AfT agenda, as identified by a 2006 WTO Aid for Trade Task Force (See Box 2): ‘classical’ trade-related assistance (including trade policy and regulation; trade development and ‘other trade-related needs’, together with productive capacity building, trade-related infrastructure and trade-related adjustment.

The EU’s AfT is part of its ODA. Therefore, Aid for Trade will also be achieved within the substantial increases in total ODA to which the EU is committed.

EU AfT funding is carried out through different EU financial instruments such as the European Development Fund ( EDF) and budget chapters as the Instrument for Development Cooperation (DCI), European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) and the Instrument for Pre-accession (IPA). In principle there are no specific, identifiable budget line items in the EU Budget for Aid for Trade – AfT is allocated on the basis of demand from developing countries. An exception is the AfT budget line dedicated to multilateral initiatives with a global coverage of € 4.5 million for the year 2009, which however covers only a small fraction of overall EU AfT.

The Strategy confirms and builds on previous political and financial commitments, such as those under the European Development Consensus, the Monterrey commitments to Financing for Development, and the pledges made in Hong Kong in the WTO context.

Box 2: The WTO Aid for Trade Initiative and its AfT categories Aid for Trade entered the WTO agenda with the Doha Development Round. In 2005, several donors, including the EU and its Member States, made commitments to increase their trade-related support. In December 2005, the WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong set up a Task Force to ‘operationalise Aid for Trade’. In its 2006 recommendations, this Task Force stated that ‘Projects and programmes should be considered as Aid for Trade if these activities have been identified as trade-related development priorities in the recipient country’s national development strategies’. It specified six groups of activities that it considered to constitute Aid for Trade. Categories 1, 2 and 6 correspond to ‘classical’ ‘trade-related assistance’ (TRA). TRA and the remaining categories are usually referred to together as ‘the wider Aid for Trade agenda’. Examples of support provided in these AfT areas are given below.To increase transparency, the OECD has sought to streamline reporting on the AfT categories identified by the Task Force. In particular, it has endeavoured to link each AfT category to one or more specific codes in the general Creditor Reporting System, to which donors report on overall ODA. Trade-Related Assistance (TRA)Category 1 — Trade policy and regulations : trade policy and planning, trade facilitation, regional trade agreements, multilateral trade negotiations, multi-sector wholesale/retail trade and trade promotion. Includes training of trade officials, analysis of proposals and positions and their impact, support for national stakeholders to articulate commercial interests and identify trade-offs, dispute issues, and institutional and technical support to facilitate implementation of trade agreements and to adapt to and comply with rules and standards. Category 2 — Trade development : investment promotion, analysis and institutional support for trade in services, business support services and institutions, public/private-sector networking, e-commerce, trade finance, trade promotion, market analysis and development. This is largely a subset of Category 4 (building productive capacity, see below), specifically the most trade-related components. Category 6 — Other trade-related needs : Refers to programmes supporting trade in sectors not comprised in the other five categories, such as vocational training or public sector policy programmes. Is also used to report on larger cross-sectoral programmes with important subcomponents in the other AfT categories. This is useful, as the CRS methodology requires the use of one single CRS code per reported programme, an approximation which limits in some cases the ability of the CRS to capture TRA. (See further box 3b)Wider Aid for Trade agenda: TRA plus further categories:Category 3 — Trade-related infrastructure : physical infrastructure including transport and storage, communications, and energy generation and supply. Category 4 — Building productive capacity : Includes business development and activities aimed at improving the business climate, privatisation, assistance to banking and financial services, agriculture, forestry, fishing, industry, mineral resources and mining, tourism. Includes trade- and non-trade-related capacity building. Category 5 — Trade-related adjustment: This code was created by OECD/DAC at the end of 2007. It covers contributions to the government budget to assist with the implementation of recipients’ own trade reforms and adjustments to trade policy measures taken by other countries; and assistance to manage balance of payments shortfalls due to changes in the world trading environment. |

2. Strategic AfT efforts continuing in EU Member States

Last year’s reporting exercise demonstrated increased engagement by EU Member States in the Aid for Trade agenda. Whilst all Member States have signed up to the joint EU Aid for Trade Strategy, several Member States have also got specific, operational national strategies that are adapted to the specific contexts of their development aid. Last year's reporting exercise showed that of all the respondents, 11 Member States (AT, BE, ES, FI, FR, IT, IR, LX, NL, SE, UK Abbreviations spelled out in Annex. ) indicated that they have a specific strategy of this kind. Four Member States (BU, DE, LV, LT) indicated explicitly that their AfT work is directly in line with the EU Aid for Trade Strategy.[9]

Abbreviations spelled out in Annex.

In this year’s responses to the Monterrey questionnaire, several EU Member States reported on further strategic efforts in the area of AfT. Substantial efforts are under way to strengthen national AfT policies and further implement AfT strategies. As such, Hungary reported for the first time on the financing of an AfT programme. Similarly, Slovenia mentioned a first proposal to implement AfT elements within a new regulation on the involvement of companies in international development cooperation. During 2009, some Member States also made public commitments to reach certain AfT (or related) targets (FR, NL, UK) .

There is a growing interest in EU Member States in AfT monitoring and evaluation with the aim of improving AfT effectiveness. For example, Germany financed a study aiming to provide programming guidelines for field organisations on division of labour, joint programming, programme-based approaches, and improving the quality of the existing AfT portfolio. The UK is developing a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework in order to better monitor progress of its Aid for Trade actions.

3. EU Aid for Trade flows

3.1 EU € 2 billion target for Trade Related Assistance reached

The initial focus of the WTO Aid for Trade initiative was on the capacity of developing countries to formulate trade policy, participate in trade negotiations, assess trade policy options and their impacts, implement new regulations, formulate export strategies and meet new quality requirements on international markets — largely issues encountered by developing countries in the context of WTO negotiations. Some donors made commitments to support such capacity building. The EU and its Member States, for example, undertook to increase its Trade Related Assistance to € 2 billion annually by 2010 — half of which would come from the EU and half from the Member States.

Figures for 2008 confirm that the EU and Member States have met their € 2 billion target, well ahead of time. In fact, Trade Related Assistance from the EU and its Member States has reached € 2.150 billion The total EU figure for TRA can be determined by adding the commitments under AfT Category 1 (Trade policy and regulations), Category 2 (Trade development) and Category 6 (Other trade-related needs). For details, see Box 2: Aid for Trade categories. - € 1.143 billion from EU Member States and € 1.007 billion from the EU. [10]

The total EU figure for TRA can be determined by adding the commitments under AfT Category 1 (Trade policy and regulations), Category 2 (Trade development) and Category 6 (Other trade-related needs). For details, see Box 2: Aid for Trade categories.

The following chart shows constant, substantial increases in TRA over the period 2004-2008, with relatively stable levels in 2007 and 2008.

Chart 1. EU TRA 2001 – 2008, million €

(...PICT...)

Source: OECD CRS

Box 3a: Sources of reporting – why are some amounts for a given year different from reports of previous years?

Until 2006, the Doha Database has been used as the main source for reporting Trade Related Assistance. Since 2007, the main source of reporting has been the OECD CRS database, coupled with additional information provided separately by donors (for instance, through the OECD Aid for Trade Questionnaire 2008). This means that the comparability of data from year to year, and particularly between the years up to 2006 and from 2007, has its limitations.

Secondly, the OECD CRS database is regularly updated. This is why results of a database query in 2009 for the year 2007, for instance, may differ from results of the same identical query in 2010. This explains why the previous monitoring report shows EU + EU Member States TRA at € 1.98 billion, while this report indicates for that same year an amount of € 2.15 billion.

In addition, this report uses the OECD CRS as the main the data source to capture Category 2 "Trade Development" for the years 2007 and 2008. While this approach ensures a methodologically better comparability, it must be noted that the year 2007 was the first year of use of the OECD CRS "Trade Development" marker (introduced to capture programmes under Category 2) and that not all donors have reliably reported to the OECD using this methodology. While previous reports have relied extensively on ad hoc questionnaires to EU Member States to compile data under Category 2, this year (with the exception of EU Member States not reporting to the OECD) it relies mainly on the OECD CRS. This may in part explain why for some EU Member States the differences between the year 2007 and 2008 for Category 2 are so important.

As shown in Table 1 below, the TRA contributions of the EU Member States have varied substantially in the past years. Worth noting is the increase for Germany from €30.8 million in 2006 to €238 million in 2007 and as much as €478.6 million in 2008. The increase registered for Spain is also significant; from €57.5 million in 2006 and €80.4 million in 2007 to €212.3 million in 2008.

Table 1. Trade-related assistance committed by the EU and EU Member States, 2001 – 2008, million €

(mn €)|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|

Austria|2.0|0.9|0.4|2.5|7.9|5.0|13.6|23.8|

Belgium|11.1|8.2|51.8|45.6|27.8|52.1|33.3|49.7|

Bulgaria |0.,0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|

Cyprus |0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|

Czech Rep. |0.5|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.1|0.1|0.1|0.0|

Denmark|12.8|4.8|34.9|3.8|28.2|48.1|112.5|72.9|

Estonia |0.0|0.0|0.,0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.1|

Finland|3.3|6.0|9.2|0.2|14.7|32.8|3.2|51.4|

France|30.6|128.7|99.8|64.6|83.3|106.2|218.2|16.5|

Germany|90.9|81.4|89.4|64.1|81.4|30.8|238.0|478.6|

Greece|4.2|5.8|2.3|1.0|0.1|3.5|6.1|3.8|

Hungary |0.1|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|

Ireland|0.0|0.1|0.1|0.0|0.2|4.9|10.4|10.0|

Italy|7.3|8.7|1.3|7.8|4.1|5.9|15.5|29.5|

Latvia |0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.1|0.1|0.3|

Lithuania |0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.1|0.3|0.3|

Luxembourg|0.0|0.3|0.1|0.1|0.3|0.3|0.3|0.3|

Malta |0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|

Netherlands|42.6|66.8|128.3|60.7|80.7|192.3|159.3|62.4|

Poland |0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|

Portugal|1.1|15.2|2.3|1.4|2.0|1.0|0.3|1.5|

Romania |0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.1|0.1|

Slovakia |0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|

Slovenia |0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.0|1.0|1.2|1.5|

Spain|1.4|1.4|3.5|2.4|7.2|57.5|80.4|212.3|

Sweden|8.2|5.2|17.9|9.0|45.9|24.7|82.7|35.6|

United Kingdom|59.5|54.5|40.6|36.2|89.6|105.8|54.2|92.4|

Total EU Member States|275.7|387.9|481.7|299.2|473.3|672.2|1.029.9|1.143.0|

EU|591.6|566.4|733.3|811.2|694.6|902,2|1.032.3|1.007.4|

Grand Total|867.3|954.3|1.215.0|1.110.5|1.167.9|1.574.4|2.062.2|2.150.5|

Source: OECD CRS; Monterrey questionnaire

3.2. Total Aid for Trade provided by the EU and its Member States increasing

Over time, and largely at the demand of developing countries, the scope of Aid for Trade widened to include more general support for production and transport of goods. The EU and its Member States have therefore taken on new commitments to increase their support for developing countries in these areas as well.

The new data for 2008 point to a very significant increase in wider Aid for Trade support from the EU and its Member States that year, delivering on the various commitments undertaken by the EU following the launch of the Doha Development Agenda.

In fact, Aid for Trade commitments by the EU and its Member States in 2008 can be estimated at a total of € 10.4 billion — € 7.2 billion from EU Member States and € 3.2 billion from the European Union. This approximation of the full bilateral AfT flows is obtained by adding up CRS data for trade policy and regulation, trade-related infrastructure and building productive capacity, and then adding funding not classified under any of the other mentioned categories but reported by donors in the Monterrey survey as supporting ‘other trade-related needs’. This reflects a substantial increase of € 3.4 billion ( 48 %) since 2007 . The increase can be attributed to both the EU and its Member States – EU Aid for Trade increased from € 2.4 billion in 2007 (up 33 %) whereas that of Member States increased from € 4.6 billion (up 56 %.). Comparing the total AfT 2005-2008 average with the previous 2001-2004 average in order to capture the trend over several years, the total AfT increased from €5.1 billion to €7.9 billion (up 54 %). [11]

This approximation of the full bilateral AfT flows is obtained by adding up CRS data for trade policy and regulation, trade-related infrastructure and building productive capacity, and then adding funding not classified under any of the other mentioned categories but reported by donors in the Monterrey survey as supporting ‘other trade-related needs’.

Chart 2, EU delivery of wider Aid for Trade, 2001 – 2008, million €

(...PICT...)

Source: OECD CRS

As can be seen in the table below, France, Germany and the UK have registered particularly large absolute increases. In fact, these three Member States, account for about 70 % of total EU Member States AfT, and together with the EU were the main providers of AfT in 2008. Their AfT increased from 2007 to 2008 by 71, 67 and 255 Up from an unusually low figure in 2007, partly representing problems in reporting. %, respectively. In relative terms, Spain and Italy also registered substantial increases in their Aid for Trade in 2008 – 50% and 67 % respectively.[12]

Up from an unusually low figure in 2007, partly representing problems in reporting.

Table 2, Total AfT committed by EU Member States reporting to OECD CRS, 2001 – 2008, million €

(mn €)|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|

Austria|15|63|21|17|27|26|44|51|

Belgium|114|186|135|178|155|139|192|204|

Bulgaria | | | | | |0|0|0|

Cyprus | | | | | |0|0|0|

Czech Rep. | | | | | |3|3|0|

Denmark|81|206|188|367|410|189|255|173|

Estonia | | | | | |0|0|0|

Finland|31|41|38|43|100|64|84|135|

France|635|329|466|527|755|744|1.017|1.738|

Germany|962|816|776|889|1.138|1.495|1.213|2.036|

Greece|0|6|4|12|14|22|11|10|

Hungary | | | | | |0|0|0|

Ireland|19|19|22|26|20|29|12|28|

Italy|105|164|187|70|310|239|111|186|

Latvia | | | | | |0|0|0|

Lithuania | | | | | |0|0|1|

Luxembourg|3|2|15|14|11|12|27|28|

Malta | | | | | |0|0|0|

Netherlands|343|463|303|461|384|642|486|462|

Poland | | | | | |0|0|0|

Portugal|30|17|8|41|61|7|65|13|

Romania | | | | | |0|0|0|

Slovakia | | | | | |0|0|0|

Slovenia | | | | | |1|1|2|

Spain|253|306|366|247|135|561|474|701|

Sweden|192|135|170|150|200|258|278|222|

United Kingdom|631|422|670|286|665|480|347|1.232|

Total EU Member States|3.413|3.175|3.369|3.327|4.385|4.912|4.621|7.223|

EU|1.741|2.036|1.903|1.444|2.117|2.563|2.436|3.202|

Grand Total|5.154|5.210|5.272|4.770|6.501|7.475|7.056|10.425|

Source: OECD CRS, Monterrey questionnaire

The 12 EU Member States that have not reported to the OECD CRS have submitted their AfT volumes in their replies to the Monterrey questionnaire. The total amount for this group is small in comparison to total EU Member States volumes, and showed a decreasing trend, down from € 4.2 million in 2006 and € 4.4 million in 2007 to € 3.1 million in 2008.

Box 3b - Category 6 explained

AfT category 6 "Other Trade-related needs" refers to programmes that incl ude trade-related components not comprised in the other five categories, such as vocational training or public sector policy programmes. From the EU side, this category has mainly been used to report Aid for Trade programmes for which the main CRS codes are not Categories 1-5, but which still clearly include Trade related objectives.

One example is the EU project SCR.DEC.020163.01.1, in Afghanistan. Titled "Support to Customs Administration in Afghanistan" this project aims at increasing revenue collection and securing borders to improve economic growth and international trade conditions. The project purpose is to strengthen the capacity of the Afghan Customs Department and other Administration bodies, and therefore it is classified as 15140 "Government Administration". It would not show up in the AfT statistics if it was not reported as "other".

Measured as a share of ODA, Aid for Trade has remained a priority in development cooperation for the EU as a whole, representing more than one fifth of total ODA from the EU and its Member States in 2008. O verall AfT commitments have increased steadily over the period 2001-2008, its share in total ODA increasing from 14 % in 2005 to 21 % in 2008.

Chart 3, Total EU Aid for Trade in relation to total ODA, 2001 – 2008, million €

(...PICT...)

Source: OECD CRS

Various factors lie behind these very substantial increases in EU and Member States Aid for Trade numbers. In part, they should logically result from the increased attention and political commitments now translating into numbers, with initial programme ideas and policy discussions with partners maturing into real programmes. They are also linked to the increased attention in the past years to infrastructure and productive capacity, including agriculture. For the EU, a contributing factor is the reinforced efforts in 2008 to commit outstanding funds under the 9 th European Development Fund, then coming to a close. As discussed below, the increases could also be explained by a larger than usual share of ODA loans in the AfT portfolios of EU Member States.

3.3. Strong increases in EU / Member States support for productive sectors and infrastructure

The table below shows the EU trend for each of the Aid for Trade categories. As can be seen, commitments increased in all categories over the period 2001 – 2008. From 2007 to 2008, support for trade-related infrastructure (TRI) increased strongly (up 75%), and although commitments have fluctuated extensively in this area, the 2008 figure of close to € 5 billion in total is a record high. Building productive capacity (BPC) also increased compared to 2007, by almost 24 %. Whilst the volumes of Trade-related adjustment (TRAdj) seem to indicate that no activity has been carried out prior to 2007, this is in actual fact due to the way the CRS code is being used in the reporting.

Chart 4, Total EU Aid for Trade broken down by category, 2001 – 2008, million €

(...PICT...)

Source: OECD CRS, EC Monterrey questionnaire

The AfT category Building Productive Capacity includes programmes in sectors such as Agriculture; Industry; Banking and finance; Business services; Forestry; Fishing; Tourism; and Mineral resources. Through the use of a so-called "Trade Development marker", donors can indicate to the OECD the programmes within these sectors that have a specific Trade related focus. As shown by the chart below, a relatively high share of such programmes can be found within the 'business and other services' sector. Interestingly, in sectors as forestry, agriculture, mineral resources and mining the share of specific trade related activities is quite low. One area for future attention is to understand better the extent to which programmes within the productive sectors interact with and support trade development.

Chart 5, Trade related programmes in building productive capacity.

(...PICT...)

3.4. Wide geographical distribution of EU AfT

The EU’s Aid for Trade Strategy has world-wide coverage. This is reflected in the chart below. Africa remains the region receiving most AfT (€ 4.6 billion in 2008, accounting for 46 % of total EU and Member States AfT). While South of Sahara receives the main share of AfT (€ 2.9 billion), in relative terms its share is decreasing in favour of North of Sahara, which received € 1.5 billion in 2008. Asia receives the second largest share of AfT of (€ 2.2 billion), followed by Europe (€ 1.3 billion), America (€ 0.7 billion) and Oceania (€ 0.01 billion). 11% of the total is classified as ‘Unspecified countries’, which include programmes with a global coverage.

In order to avoid the distortions of annual variations in commitments, it is worthwhile to compare multi-year averages. Comparing in this way the average of commitments for 2005-2008 with that of 2001-2004 shows increases in AfT for all regions: to Africa from €2.2 billion to €3.5 billion (up 56%); to Asia from €1.3 billion to €1.8 billion (up 45%); to Europe from €0.4 billion to €0.9 billion (up 208%); and to America from €0.598 billion to €0.605 billion (up 1.2%).

Detailed information on the distribution by sub-regions and AfT categories is given in Annex 1. Annex 2 lists all EU and Member States programmes of € 100 million or more. Suffice here to say that in West Africa, Central Africa, East Africa and Southern Africa (excluding East African Community) as well as Neighbourhood, Enlargement, Middle East and Central Asia, trade related infrastructure was the largest post in 2008. In the Caribbean, East African Community, the Pacific, as well in Latin America, South Asia, and ASEAN, building productive capacity was at the top of the list.

Chart 6, Total EU + Member State Aid for Trade by geographical distribution, 2005 – 2008, % of total

(...PICT...)

Source: OECD CRS

3.5. …but the share of LDCs is not convincing

More than ever, in the year of the MDG review, a special look at EU and Member States' Aid for Trade to the LDCs is indispensable. As shown in the chart below, AfT to LDCs increased between 2007 and 2008, but was only marginally above the levels of 2005. In 2008, a total of € 2.3 billion was committed to LDCs, reflecting 23 % of total Aid for Trade from the EU and its Member States. Interestingly, the LDC share of EU AfT increased from 24 % in 2007 to 40 % in 2008, whereas the share of Member States' AfT went down, from 21 % to 17 % in the same period.

Chart 7, Total EU + Member State AfT to LDCs, 2001 – 2008, million €

(...PICT...)

Source: OECD CRS

That only about 23% of total EU AfT is committed to LDCs would seem to be inconsistent with the aim of the AfT Strategy to help in particular the poorest countries with their trade integration. The LDC share of AfT has been relatively stable in the past years, and is quite consistently lower than the LDC share of total ODA. This indicates that other areas than AfT receive proportionally more attention in EU and its Member States cooperation with LDCs. The reasons for this should be explored further.

The relatively lower AfT volumes in LDCs could reflect weak demand, or low absorption capacity. Whilst information received from the EU and Member States in the LDCs (31 in total) may be considered to support this conclusion, it should be noted that the responses are, all in all, not so different from those received from field offices in non-LDC.

For example, in 17 out of 31 cases (60%), EU donors in LDCs indicate that the EU and its Member States regularly address the issue of AfT in their policy dialogue with key state and non-state actors. This is only marginally lower than the result for all the responses received, which is 51 out of 77 (66 %).

Similarly, in 26 out of 31 cases, EU donors in LDCs consider that the partner country owns the process of trade and AfT policy formulation, although only six of these (21 %) ‘considerably’. This is again not far from the overall result, which is that out of 77 partner countries, 70 are considered to own and champion the process of trade and AfT policy formulation and implementation, but only 18 of these (23 %) ‘considerably’.

22 out of 31 (79%) LDCs are said to have undertaken a comprehensive trade needs assessment in the last 5 years. This is an even better score than for all the respondents taken together - 47 out of 77 partner countries (60 %) are said to have done so.

As the data used here is based on self-reporting, there is great room for interpretation of the questions, and probably also different views as to the meaning of the assessment criteria ‘somewhat’ and ‘considerable’. The data nevertheless point clearly to a continued need to strengthen efforts in support of LDCs in order to increase total EU AfT funding for these countries. In order not to overstretch LDC absorption capacity, it remains essential to work effectively together, including under schemes such as the Enhanced Integrated Framework, the success of which is dependent on collaboration and integration into country structures. In this context, it is unsatisfactory that only in 7 LDCs (out of 31) do EU donors report having taken advantage of the Integrated Framework process to engage in coordination and joint policy dialogue on AfT.

3.6. AfT reporting — some underlying facts

As explained in Box 3a and 3b above, AfT reporting has developed since the adoption of the WTO AfT Task Force recommendations in 2006. By now, EU donors appear to have adjusted reasonably albeit perhaps not fully to these changes. This section outlines some important facts and issues linked to the reporting.

3.6.1 Disbursements & commitments Commitment refers to a firm obligation, expressed in writing and backed 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 the expected transfer, irrespective of the time required for the completion of disbursements. Disbursement refers to the release of funds to a recipient, or the purchase of goods or services for a recipient, and by extension the amount thus spent. Disbursements record the actual international transfer of financial resources, or of goods or services valued at the cost to the donor. In the case of activities carried out in donor countries, such as training, administration or public awareness programmes, disbursement is considered to have occurred when the funds have been transferred to the service provider or the recipient. They may be recorded gross (the total amount disbursed over a given accounting period) or net (the gross amount less any repayments of loan principal or recoveries on grants received during the same period).[13]

Commitment refers to a firm obligation, expressed in writing and backed 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 the expected transfer, irrespective of the time required for the completion of disbursements. Disbursement refers to the release of funds to a recipient, or the purchase of goods or services for a recipient, and by extension the amount thus spent. Disbursements record the actual international transfer of financial resources, or of goods or services valued at the cost to the donor. In the case of activities carried out in donor countries, such as training, administration or public awareness programmes, disbursement is considered to have occurred when the funds have been transferred to the service provider or the recipient. They may be recorded gross (the total amount disbursed over a given accounting period) or net (the gross amount less any repayments of loan principal or recoveries on grants received during the same period).

The pledges made in the WTO context referred to commitments, so reporting has so far focused on this aspect. However, the OECD CRS allows the tracking of both aid commitments and disbursements. Although this report primarily looks at commitments, it also provides the trend in disbursements . The figure below shows that disbursements are following a more stable path than commitments, exhibiting a steady increase since 2002. It should be pointed out that it is not meaningful to compare commitments and disbursements for a same given year, as disbursements refer to already ongoing programmes committed in previous years. However, the regular increase of disbursements over the past five years confirms that disbursements follow the positive trend in commitments. Furthermore, the level of disbursements in 2007 and 2008 (average €6.867) is comparable to the amounts committed in 2005-2007 (average €6.924), which seems to suggest that commitments are being sufficiently translated into actual disbursements.

Chart 8, Total EU + Member State AfT disbursements & commitments, 2001 – 2008, million €

(...PICT...)

Source: OECD CRS

3.6.2 Multilateral funds

In addition to bilateral initiatives, most EU Member States commit substantial AfT through multilateral institutions, e.g. contributions to the Enhanced Integrated Framework (BE, FR, HU, LU) , the WTO Doha Development Agenda Global Trust Fund (FR, LU) , the World Bank (UK), ITC (BE, UK) , etc.

However, the methodology used in this report to calculate EU Member States ODA excludes both general budget support programmes and all non specific support to multilateral organisations, as it is not possible to allocate general budget support amounts or non-earmarked commitments to multilateral organisations under any of the Aid for Trade categories.

Box 4: Trade Finance

Developing countries have been hit hard by the economic crisis, as international trade has slowed down. Lack of trade finance aggravated the situation. Against that background, the EU and its Member States also support the Aid for Trade agenda by means of trade finance, which is generally channelled via multilateral development banks.

Both the EU and its Member States have strongly supported the G-20 commitment to make available at least $ 250 billion over the next two years to support trade finance in developed and developing countries, and have contributed a substantial amount of € 107 billion.

Nine EU Member States reported that they had established trade finance facilities for developing countries, by financing specific programmes and providing technical assistance, including through their export credit agencies. While in most cases emerging markets benefit from such initiatives, lower-income countries are the main beneficiaries of the Member State initiatives.

Rather than just focusing on trade finance facilities, the EU also contributes to capacity building for export credit and investment facilities through more general and larger programmes. Pro-Invest, for example, provides organisations representing the private sector in ACP countries with technical and financial support to strengthen their capacity to promote investment. AL-Invest, Med-Invest and Asia-Invest are similar programmes for Latin America, the European Neighbourhood countries and Asia, respectively.

In addition, twelve Member States replied that they together with the EU contribute directly — by contributing to trust funds — or indirectly — by being shareholders of multilateral development banks — to concrete trade finance initiatives conducted by multilateral and regional development banks. These initiatives include e.g. the IFC’s Global Trade Finance and Liquidity Programmes and the EBRD Trade Facilitation Programme.

Source: 2009 Monterrey Questionnaire

3.6.3 ODA grants & loans

AfT is part of Official Development Assistance (ODA), as per definitions agreed within the OECD. Loans are recognised by the OECD as ODA under certain specific conditions. In particular, they must contain a grant element of at least 25 % ( see box 5). Past AfT monitoring exercises have not made any distinction between ODA grants and ODA loans. Nevertheless, it is interesting to explore the composition of Aid for Trade in this respect. As can be seen in the chart below, the ODA loan part of total Aid for Trade of the EU and its Member States is higher than usual in 2008.

It should be noted however, that this report does not to include 2008 amounts of ODA projects funded through the "own sources" of the European Investment Bank (a total amount of € 1.348 billion Aid for Trade commitments). A discussion between OECD and European Commission services was not yet concluded on the relevance of including, based on existing OECD guidelines, certain types of loans as ODA. The next monitoring report will provide an update on Aid for Trade flows, including for previous years, on the basis of the conclusions of these ongoing discussions.

Chart 9, Total EU + Member States AfT by ODA loans, grants, equity investment, 2001 – 2008, million €

(...PICT...)

Source: OECD CRS

Box 5: Definition of Official Development Assistance (ODA) OECD Grants or loans to countries and territories in 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 objective; (c) at concessional financial terms [if a loan, having a grant element of at least 25 per cent]. In addition to financial flows, technical cooperation is included in aid. Grants, loans and credits for military purposes are excluded. Transfer payments to private individuals (e.g. pensions, reparations or insurance payouts) are in general not counted.[14]

OECD

Chart 10, Total EU AfT from CEC, EDF, EIB, 2001 – 2008, million €

(...PICT...)

Source: OECD CRS

4. Quality of overall EU Aid for Trade

In 2009, the European Commission organised a special data collection exercise to gather inputs for the present report. A questionnaire was submitted to EU Delegations, to which replies were prepared jointly with representations of EU Member States providing bilateral Aid for Trade to the partner countries in question. Out of a possible total of 113, 77 responses were received, of which 56 were prepared with input from EU Member States generally representing the main EU AfT donors in the country. As a result, the information provided in the present chapter is based on the views of EU and Member State field offices in a total of 77 partner countries across the developing world (46 ACP; 14 Asia; 13 Latin America; and four European Neighbourhood. 31 of the 77 were LDCs).

4.1. Aid effectiveness – some progress but more to be done

AfT from the EU and its Member States is delivered in the same way as other EU aid i.e., following agreed aid effectiveness principles, such as ownership, alignment, and harmonisation, managing for results and mutual accountability See: SEC(2010) 422 - Aid Effectiveness – Annual Progress Report 2010. . This means working via policy dialogue with partner countries, common needs assessments, and inclusion of priorities within national and regional strategies. Division of labour is another important principle of the EU AfT Strategy.[15]

See: SEC(2010) 422 - Aid Effectiveness – Annual Progress Report 2010.

The overall AfT concept, its objectives and its practical implications are still not sufficiently understood by recipients of ODA and active donors: In 49 out of 77 partner countries (64 %), EU Delegations and EU Member State embassies report that some are not sufficiently informed about the AfT initiative (or the EIF in the case of LDCs), or that the AfT initiative in general lacks visibility in the country. Possibly linked to this, the EU Delegations and EU Member State embassies do not regularly address the AfT issue in their policy dialogue with key state and non-state actors (in 26 of 77 partner countries). And specifically for LDCs, only in seven countries (out of 31) have EU donors taken advantage of the Integrated Framework process to engage in coordination and joint policy dialogue on AfT.

Effective delivery of trade-related support requires effective ownership by partner countries. It is therefore important for trade to be embedded in the partner’s own development strategies. With regard to partner country ownership, the respondents to the Commission’s survey consider that, out of 77 partner countries, 70 own and champion the process of trade and AfT policy formulation and implementation — but only 18 ‘considerably’. Similarly, effective coordination processes are in place in 21 partner countries (and partially in 43) to develop and implement an integrated trade strategy. Thus, whilst some ownership progress was reported for the majority of partner countries, only about 25% of partner countries are considered to considerably own and champion the process of AfT policy formulation and implementation, and to have effective coordination processes in place to develop and implement a trade strategy

Only 47 out of 77 partner countries in which the EU provides Aid for Trade (61 %) have undertaken and updated a comprehensive trade needs assessment in the last 5 years. This seems to imply that in about 40 % of the countries where EU and its Member States are providing aid, this is done on the basis of a non-existent or out-of-date needs assessment. These figures should be verified in follow up to this report, and if confirmed, efforts should be made to support concerned countries to redress the situation. Specifically for LDCs, however, the picture is more positive, with 22 out of 31 countries (71 %) having conducted or updated a needs assessment, which seems to suggest that the Integrated Framework has had a positive impact.

Some countries appear to have a strikingly large number of AfT related activities ongoing simultaneously. As shown in Annex 6, 11 countries have more than 200 AfT "entries" for 2008, including India (328), Vietnam (311), China (295), Peru (285), Bolivia (265); Tanzania (254), Mozambique (236), Serbia (233), Morocco (230), Brazil (224), Nicaragua (223).

It is also noticeable that whilst the total number of EU projects (or entries) in 2008 were 258, for EU Member States it was 5,842. As shown in Annex 3, the EU had only 43 projects (entries) smaller than €100 000. For the EU Member States, this number was 3,217!

While the divergent reporting practices and a lack of a common definition of what constitutes a development activity makes it difficult to ascertain and analyse the actual situation, this ought to be further explored, in the context of EU and Member States efforts to improve aid effectiveness See : http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/AE_Full_Final_Report_20091023.pdf ; and http://capacity4dev.ec.europa.eu/operational-framework-aid-effectiveness . [16]

See : http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/AE_Full_Final_Report_20091023.pdf ; and http://capacity4dev.ec.europa.eu/operational-framework-aid-effectiveness

Some opportunity for progress is signalled in the responses provided by EU Delegations and Member States embassies. In 22 countries, joint programmes are reported — 16 between EU and other donors, and 6 between EU donors. However, in more than 70% of countries, no joint assistance programmes have been developed in AfT-related fields. 58 of the 77 joint responses report that there is potential for joint assistance programmes (including in 24 out 31 LDCs). There is in other words an opportunity to double the number of joint programmes to cover at least 44 countries, up from the currently reported 22. Efforts to promote joint analysis, joint response strategies and joint delivery of Aid for Trade need to be stepped up, in particular in countries having indicated that such possibilities exist.

4.2. The regional dimension of EU Aid for Trade is important

The EU and its Member States are committed to supporting regional integration organisations in implementing their strategies. Pursuing AfT at regional level also means translating national needs into regional policies, and regional policies into national implementation strategies.

Many challenges need to be overcome (lack of articulated demand for regional AfT; lack of coherence between national and regional priorities; lack of credible lending authorities at regional level; lack of effective coordination at regional level; difficulties in monitoring and evaluating at regional level; and lack of credible mutual accountability mechanisms at regional level). Despite these difficulties, there is an increasing interest in support for regional integration as part of the EU Aid for Trade agenda.

In 19 of the 77 countries for which field data were obtained, regional priorities for AfT are ‘considerably’ addressed in the national development strategies, whereas in 47 they are addressed only to a certain extent. In practice, the situation is somewhat better, with 52 out of 77 partner countries having national programmes that are acting on regional AfT priorities (24 fully and 28 partially).

Whereas regional integration in the ACP receives specific attention through the efforts to establish regional AfT packages (see chapter 5.2), the regional dimension of AfT is equally important in non-ACP regions. For the 31 non-ACP countries from which EU delegations provided feedback, AfT related regional priorities appeared to be reflected in the national development strategies (18 ‘somewhat’ and 9 ‘considerably’ - the exception being Algeria, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Nepal).

Of these 27 countries, 22 had national programmes acting on regional AfT priorities; 10 in Asia of which two partially, nine in Latin America of which four partially, and three in 'European Neighbourhood' of which two partially. It should be noted that three EU Member States (BE, FR, UK) reported specific efforts to scale up support for regional integration in 2009.

4.3. Towards enhanced trade and poverty outcomes

The rationale underlying AfT is its potential to make a sustainable contribution to poverty reduction by creating a dynamic that leads to reliable and increasing flows of resources to individuals and the state. Many examples show AfT achieving just this. That said, a strategic question currently attracting increasing interest from AfT practitioners is which AfT will be most effective and thus a priority in a situation of limited resources. The prioritisation process, while country-specific, can be supported by ongoing research on the returns on different kinds of AfT investments, in terms of both trade capacity/outcomes and poverty reduction.

The EU and its Member States also participates fully in ongoing efforts, especially in the OECD and WTO contexts, to make the evaluation of AfT more informative. Previous OECD studies have shown a lack of clear explicit intervention logics in AfT projects, and it is generally agreed that good practice in this area needs to be promoted and shared. In this work, it is important to reinforce the partner country’s capacity for results-based management, by helping to put in place in-country processes for monitoring and reviewing results, for feeding these back into necessary policy adjustments, and for translating these into new action priorities.

The issue of environmental sustainability of Aid for Trade requires continued attention. In parallel to AfT, sustainable impact assessments are carried out that are feeding into the EU's trade policy, to help ensure that trade liberalization takes place with all the necessary supports and safeguards.

5. ACP specific issues

5.1 ACP Aid for Trade has increased by 36%

The ACP share of total AfT delivered by the EU and its Member States was rather stable until 2008. In absolute terms, however, EU and Member States AfT commitments to the ACP increased substantially: from € 2.2 billion in 2007 to €3 billion in 2008 (an increase of 36%).

Chart 11, Total EU AfT (EU+EU Member States) to ACP and non-ACP countries, 2001 – 2008, million €

(...PICT...)

Source: OECD CRS

The chart below provides information on AfT committed to the various ACP sub-regions. Significant increases are evident for West and East Africa, which are also the main AfT recipients among the ACP group, followed by Southern Africa. Increases can also be noted for Central Africa.

Chart 12, Total EU AfT (EU+EU Member States) by ACP region, 2001 – 2008, million €

(...PICT...)

Source: OECD CRS

In 2007, the EU and its Member States undertook to enhance their dialogue with ACP countries on trade and AfT issues, with a view to achieving integration of trade concerns within the ACP countries’ poverty reduction and development strategies by 2013. In this regard, it is interesting to note that of the 46 responses from EU donors active in ACP countries, only 30 stated that the issue of AfT was regularly addressed through policy dialogue with the host country.

However, in 32 countries, EU donors considered that the partner country somewhat owned and championed the process of trade and AfT policy formulation and implementation, and eight responded that this was considerably the case. Only five (Guinea Bissau, Eritrea, Papua New Guinea, Sudan and Zimbabwe) found that this was not at all the case. 25 felt that partially effective coordination processes now existed in their host country to develop and implement an integrated trade strategy, and 11 considered that such processes were fully effective. Ten responded negatively to this question.

In line with these numbers, 32 out of 46 responded that a comprehensive trade needs assessment had been undertaken and updated in the past five years. All appears to have been prepared with the involvement of key stakeholders, all but two with external support (Ghana and Guinea Bissau being the exception). An important detail is that not all of the 32 were able to respond that AfT priorities were now being funded — this was the case in 24 countries – 75% of cases.

It should be noted that for 14 countries no comprehensive trade needs assessment had been undertaken in the last five years. All in all, the picture remains mixed, with clear room for continued improvement, in particular on coordination measures.

Chart 13, Total EU AfT (EU+EU Member States) to ACP: regional programmes, 2001 – 2008, million €

(...PICT...)

Source: OECD CRS

5.2. Regional AfT packages for the ACP

Across the African continent, countries are joining together to overcome political, physical, economic and social barriers that divide them from their neighbours and to manage shared resources and regional public goods. This is what regional economic integration is fundamentally about: working together across borders to create more opportunities for all, and to support peace and stability. ACP countries in the Caribbean and the Pacific are engaged in similar processes. The EU and its Member States support these efforts through both their trade and development policies. The EU AfT Strategy focuses in particular on the economic aspects of such integration.

On the economic side, the challenges are substantial, especially in Africa. Here, despite a large number of regional trade agreements, significant barriers to intraregional trade still remain within free trade areas, and even within customs unions, in all five of the regional EPA groups.

Box 6: EU Support for COMESA regional integration ( Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa)From the € 645 million allocated to the 10 th European Development Fund (Regional Indicative Programme for Eastern and Southern Africa-Indian Ocean), a new programme (with a budget of € 50 million over the coming three years) will directly support the agreed integration agenda of the regional integration organisations in Southern and Eastern Africa, as a means of enhancing economic growth and raising standards of living in the countries of the regions. The focus of RISP 2 is upon the economic integration agenda of COMESA and EAC ( East African Community) , both of which are reinforcing their free trade areas and customs unions. The programme will help implement the regional economic integration mandates, support trade development and facilitation, help regional institutions to implement and monitor regional policies and regulations, enhance the management capacities of the regional organisations to implement the agenda, and improve the linkages between regional and national policy levels by helping member countries address their regional integration commitments. The programme works directly with the regional organisation — not in parallel. Programme staff are directly incorporated within COMESA and work with its staff. While this is a more difficult approach than the creation of parallel support structures, this is more sustainable in the long term and makes real partners out of the regional integration organisations. COMESA's own financial and management systems are used. All this supports COMESA in becoming a stronger organisation.|

It is with these considerations in mind that the EU and its Member States have agreed to set up what are known as regional aid for trade packages with the ACP A commitment endorsed by the Council on 27 May 2008, and then again on 10 November 2008. . This is a concrete effort to increase EU support for regional integration and to provide it in a coordinated fashion, aligned with regionally owned visions and strategies.[17]

A commitment endorsed by the Council on 27 May 2008, and then again on 10 November 2008.

Setting up the regional AfT packages requires defining concrete priorities, if not already set out in the regions’ own agendas. This in turn demands major coordination efforts among a large number of stakeholders at national and regional level. This calls for very strong leadership by the regional integration organisations mandated by their members to pursue regional integration by establishing free trade agreements, customs unions or single markets. In addition, effective participation by the national ACP actors is required.

Experience to date indicates that the above aspects are important challenges for the ACP. For example, of the 46 responses received from EU and Member States donors in ACP countries, only ten indicated that regional priorities for Aid for Trade were considerably reflected / addressed in the national development strategies. Ten agreed that national programmes were acting on these priorities. There appears to be room for progress, as 29 responded that the priorities were somewhat reflected / addressed and 10 indicated that programmes were considerably addressing the issues. This is a good entry point for further dialogue. In seven countries EU donors reported that regional issues were not at all reflected at national level. It should be noted that 16 responses, i.e. 35 %, indicated that no programmes acting on regional AfT priorities were funded and put into practice in the country in question.

To deliver on the packages and enhance EU and Member States support for regional integration, there is a double need to help the integration organisations in executing their mandates effectively, and help the ACP actors at national level to define and act upon relevant priorities. It would seem reasonable to expect all countries that are members of a regional integration organisation to have some programmes under way at national level tackling the issues required to move forward with their integration agenda.

Donors need to consistently support these priorities, and apply aid effectiveness principles also when supporting regional integration. In this context, there may be a need to clarify that although they are guardians of the regional integration process, the Regional Integration Organisations (RIOs) need not necessarily implement all elements of the strategies they have drawn up: responsibility for implementing these strategies lies with a variety of actors at national, regional and continental level.

Box 7: Towards a regional AfT package in West Africa In West Africa, spurred in particular by the negotiation of an Economic Partnership Agreement with the EU, the two regional integration organisations (UEMOA and ECOWAS) have been working with their member states to develop PAPED [Programme APE pour le Développement / EPA Development Programme] into a comprehensive West African Aid-for-Trade programme. The EU and Member States has worked closely with them to provide a coordinated response to this programme.|

Annexes:

(1) Detailed regional AfT breakdown

(2) List of 2008 EU + Member State Aid for Trade programmes in 2008 > € 100 million

(3) EU+EU MS AfT Number of Projects 2008 by region and size

(4) Category 6 in EU AfT 2008, thousands €

(5) Breakdown amounts of projects by TRA as significant and main purpose

(6) EU+EU Member States: Number of Aft Projects by country

(7) Glossary

Annex 1: Detailed regional AfT breakdown

West Africa

Total (EU + MEMBER STATES) Aid for Trade by category; 2001-2008 (€ million)

AfT cat.|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|

1.TPR|2.7|2.1|1.9|4.4|4.5|14.3|6.6|2.1|

3.TRI|119.2|165.8|388.3|259.5|557.6|230.4|282.5|715.4|

4.BPC|268.7|244.9|250.9|240.9|297.0|274.8|327.8|279.3|

5.TRAdj||||||||0.6|

6.Other||||||||23.7|

TOTAL|390.6|412.8|641.1|504.8|859.1|519.5|616.9|1.021.1|

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

Central Africa

Total (EU + MEMBER STATES) Aid for Trade by category; 2001-2008 (€ million)

AfT cat.|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|

1.TPR|0.0|0.4|0.0|0.0|0.0|0.1|5.5|2.2|

3.TRI|164.2|155.5|83.2|56.3|184.7|304.9|111.0|198.0|

4.BPC|46.9|92.6|75.6|49.6|66.6|81.6|88.1|54.8|

5.TRAdj||||||||0.0|

6.Other||||||||1.6|

TOTAL|211.1|248.6|158.8|105.8|251.3|386.6|204.5|256.6|

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

East Africa excluding EAC countries

Total (EU + Member States) Aid for Trade by category; 2001-2008 (€ million)

AfT cat.|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|

1.TPR|0.2|0.5|0.5|0.6|2.3|8.8|5.4|1.0|

3.TRI|113.6|183.4|280.3|206.3|388.9|316.0|200.6|510.4|

4.BPC|112.5|116.7|186.4|113.3|174.6|187.2|141.8|174.9|

5.TRAdj||||||||2.2|

6.Other||||||||0.3|

TOTAL|226.3|300.6|467.2|320.2|565.8|512.1|347.8|688.7|

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

EAC countries (Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi)

Total (EU + Member States) Aid for Trade by category; 2001-2008 (€ million)

AfT cat.|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|

1.TPR|0.9||0.6|0.6|9.5|3.1|2.4|7.5|

3.TRI|182|99.8|106.5|138.2|331.8|183.1|182.3|122.8|

4.BPC|124.3|123.8|108.9|126.4|116.3|157.5|94.7|223.3|

5.TRAdj||||||||0.4|

6.Other||||||||0.3|

TOTAL|307.2|223.7|216.0|265.2|457.6|343.7|279.4|354.3|

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

Southern Africa

Total (EU + Member States) Aid for Trade by category; 2001-2008 (€ million)

AfT cat.|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|

1.TPR|0.4|0.1|0.2|3.9|1.8|4.3|1.9|18.3|

3.TRI|80.4|127.1|148.7|41.7|244.6|86.7|121.1|228.7|

4.BPC|193.1|143.6|84.0|69.3|240.1|156.4|156.5|157.6|

6.Other||||||||1.6|

TOTAL|273.9|270.7|232.8|114.9|486.5|247.4|279.5|406.2|

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

Caribbean

Total (EU + Member States) Aid for Trade by category; 2001-2008 (€ million)

AfT cat.|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|

1.TPR|0.3|0.0|0.0|0.1|1.6|5.0|0.8|0.1|

3.TRI|69.6|21.6|53.5|62.9|38.9|17.6|26.9|26.7|

4.BPC|110.0|82.0|26.9|97.2|73.3|73.5|94.5|95.1|

5.TRAdj||||||||0.8|

6.Other||||||||0.6|

TOTAL|179.8|103.6|80.4|160.1|113.7|96.2|122.1|123.3|

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

Pacific

Total (EU + Member States) Aid for Trade by category; 2001-2008 (€ million)

AfT cat.|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|

1.TPR|||||||3.2|0.0|

3.TRI|14.6|9.0|10.1|10.2|11.4|0.1|2.3|0.7|

4.BPC|5.0|55.6|11.7|8.6|13.5|8.0|7.2|10.4|

5.TRAdj||||||||0.0|

TOTAL|19.6|64.6|21.8|18.8|24.9|8.1|12.7|11.1|

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

Neighbourhood

Total (EU + Member States) Aid for Trade by category; 2001-2008 (€ million)

AfT cat.|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|

1.TPR|1.9|77.3|63.4|1.1|22.2|16.8|24.0|78.7|

3.TRI|94.8|329.0|334.3|342.0|393.5|453.9|692.5|1 473.5|

4.BPC|200.5|297.2|223.9|130.8|244.5|354.0|315.1|474.2|

6.Other||||||||6.6|

TOTAL|297.2|703.4|621.6|473.8|660.2|824.7|1 031.6|2 033.0|

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

Enlargement

Total (EU + Member States) Aid for Trade by category; 2001-2008 (€ million)

AfT cat.|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|

1.TPR|0.2|0.1|17.0|8.9|8.5|45.7|3.8|66.4|

3.TRI|88.4|293.6|313.8|167.3|169.1|460.1|227.7|1 404.8|

4.BPC|87.4|312.8|91.3|125.2|202.6|131.8|209.1|693.7|

6.Other ||||||||0.7|

TOTAL|176.0|606.5|422.2|301.3|380.2|637.6|440.6|2 165.6|

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

Latin America

Total (EU + Member States) Aid for Trade by category; 2001-2008 (€ million)

AfT cat.|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|

1.TPR|14.0|9.2|5.1|39.5|16.0|18.7|6.0|16.6|

3.TRI|181.2|154.0|89.1|95.1|7.3|15.5|34.9|82.8|

4.BPC|236.7|292.9|206.5|209.7|211.9|169.9|310.9|252.1|

6.Other||||||||21.6|

TOTAL|432.0|456.1|300.7|344.3|235.2|204.0|351.9|373.1|

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

South Asia

Total (EU + Member States) Aid for Trade by category; 2001-2008 (€ million)

AfT cat.|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|

1.TPR|0.6|0.8|28.5|5.0|4.4|17.8|1.2|30.6|

3.TRI|309.6|167.9|177.9|179.3|342.3|196.3|147.2|354.7|

4.BPC|163.3|167.1|266.9|97.7|192.0|280.6|303.6|400.3|

6.Other||||||||0.8|

TOTAL|473.6|335.7|473.3|282.0|538.7|494.7|452.0|786.3|

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

Middle East

Total (EU + Member States) Aid for Trade by category; 2001-2008 (€ million)

AfT cat.|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|

1.TPR|0.2|7.0|||0|6.5|0|0.3|

3.TRI|12.7|0.1|36.9|44.5|79.1|6.8|22.5|29.3|

4.BPC|0.3|4.3|5.5|55.9|22.2|1.2|1.2|5.4|

TOTAL|13.3|11.4|42.5|100.4|101.3|14.4|23.7|35.0|

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

Central Asia

Total (EU + Member States) Aid for Trade by category; 2001-2008 (€ million)

AfT cat.|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|

1.TPR||0||1.3|0.1|0|0.6|0.1|

3.TRI|31.1|0|12.6|3.0|39.7|0.1|66.7|47.8|

4.BPC|17.1|6.0|17.1|12.0|14.5|16.5|42.9|27.0|

TOTAL|48.2|6.1|29.6|16.2|54.2|16.6|110.2|74.9|

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

ASEAN

Total (EU + Member States) Aid for Trade by category; 2001-2008 (€ million)

AfT cat.|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|

1.TPR|0.9|0.1|12.2|8.8|4.1|7.9|26.1|20.4|

3.TRI|240.6|168.5|46.4|133.1|161.4|238.9|175.4|74.2|

4.BPC|182.7|159.3|196.9|210.7|234.1|187.8|287.2|184.0|

6.Other||||||||8.6|

TOTAL|424.1|328.0|255.4|352.7|399.7|434.6|488.7|287.2|

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

Asia (other)

Total (EU + Member States) Aid for Trade by category; 2001-2008 (€ million)

AfT cat.|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|

1.TPR|1.9|22.6|0.3|4.8|21.7|13.4|0.6|63.7|

3.TRI|256.3|103.2|232.5|180.2|179.3|340.4|93.8|298.0|

4.BPC|106.2|62.1|129.9|128.5|104.7|63.2|86.3|274.8|

6.Other||||||||1.4|

TOTAL|364.4|187.9|362.7|313.6|305..8|417.0|180.7|637.9|

(...PICT...)

(...PICT...)

Regional / Global

Total (EU + Member States) Aid for Trade by category; 2001-2008 (€ million)

AfT cat.|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|

1.TPR|41.7|73.7|105.4|66.4|130.3|280.7|234.7|139.4|

3.TRI|298.3|264.3|176.1|241.1|273.1|476.7|356.7|364.0|

4.BPC|644.4|555.2|564.8|751.6|633.7|1 343.2|1 109.1|1 289.7|

6.Other||||||||11.0|

TOTAL|984.4|893.2|846.4|1 059.1|1 037.1|2 100.6|1 700.5|1 804.2|

(...PICT...)

Annex 2. List of 2008 EU + Member State Aid for Trade programmes in 2008 > € 100 million

(...PICT...)

Donor|Recipient|Activity|Commitment (€ m)|

Germany|Iraq|Debt forgiveness|1.273|

Netherlands|Iran|Human rights|651|

Italy|Iraq|Debt forgiveness|547|

France|Lebanon|General budget support|375|

France|Morocco|Rail transport|350|

United Kingdom|Iraq|Debt forgiveness|345|

Germany|Cameroon|Debt forgiveness|327|

Netherlands|Bilateral, unspecified|Higher education|326|

EU|Burkina Faso|General budget support|320|

EU|Mozambique|General budget support|303|

Portugal|China|Import support (capital goods)|300|

EU|Turkey|Urban development and management|300|

Germany|Botswana|Debt forgiveness|298|

Sweden|Bilateral, unspecified|Refugees in donor countries|260|

Austria|Iraq|Debt forgiveness|259|

EU|Zambia|General budget support|225|

Netherlands|Bilateral, unspecified|Administrative costs|215|

France|Iraq|Debt forgiveness|212|

Austria|Iraq|Debt forgiveness|211|

EU|Ethiopia|Road transport|200|

Spain|Tunisia|Wind power|199|

United Kingdom|India|Public sector financial management|186|

EU|Bilateral, unspecified|Administrative costs|182|

EU|Madagascar|Road transport|180|

EU|Palestinian Adm. Areas|Social/welfare services|176|

EU|Ghana|General budget support|175|

EU|Rwanda|General budget support|175|

EU|Uganda|General budget support|175|

Netherlands|Bilateral, unspecified|Refugees in donor countries|172|

France|Bilateral, unspecified|Administrative costs|168|

EU|Mali|Road transport|165|

United Kingdom|Bilateral, unspecified|Strengthening civil society|163|

France|Indonesia|Environmental policy and admin. mgmt|157|

Germany|China|Higher education|154|

France|Egypt|Rail transport|152|

France|Morocco|Rail transport|150|

EU|Mali|General budget support|148|

France|Bilateral, unspecified|Agricultural research|139|

France|Congo, Rep.|Debt forgiveness|138|

Spain|America, regional|Basic drinking water supply and basic sanitation|132|

United Kingdom|Nigeria|Std control including HIV/AIDS|125|

United Kingdom|Viet Nam|General budget support|125|

United Kingdom|Bilateral, unspecified|Reproductive health care|125|

United Kingdom|India|Formal sector financ. intermediaries|122|

EU|Bilateral, unspecified|Multisector aid|121|

EU|Serbia|Civilian peace building, conflict prevention and resolution|120|

Germany|Liberia|Debt forgiveness|118|

Netherlands|Bilateral, unspecified|Reproductive health care|115|

United Kingdom|Zambia|General budget support|112|

France|South of Sahara, regional|Refugees in donor countries|108|

France|Congo, Rep.|Debt forgiveness|103|

Netherlands|Ghana|General budget support|100|

Portugal|Angola|Import support (capital goods)|100|

Portugal|Mozambique|Import support (capital goods)|100|

Annex 3. EU+EU MS AfT Number of Projects 2008 by region and size

Ranges (on commitments)|Africa|North of Sahara|South of Sahara|America|South America|North & Central America|Asia|South & Central Asia|Far East Asia|Middle East|Europe|Oceania|Unspecified|Total|

EU|||||||||||||||

<0.1|||22||1|5|||1|1|2|3|8|43|

[0.1-1[|||7|||3|1||||4|2|12|29|

[1-10[||5|26||4|9|4|6|1|2|61|1|6|125|

[10-100[||9|20||3|1|1|4|3|4|11||2|58|

100 and +|||3|||||||||||3|

Total|0|14|78|0|8|18|6|10|5|7|78|6|28|258|

|

EU MS|||||||||||||||

<0.1|35|162|970|33|578|348|2|262|255|90|244|1|237|3,217|

[0.1-1[|17|111|562|13|311|197|4|156|183|55|103|8|158|1,878|

[1-10[|28|24|167|9|28|31|11|69|70|19|59||97|612|

[10-100[|2|8|37|3|3|2|3|20|14|2|15||20|129|

100 and +||4||||||1|||||1|6|

Total|82|309|1.736|58|920|578|20|508|522|166|421|9|513|5,842|

|

EU+EU MS|||||||||||||||

<0.1|35|162|992|33|579|353|2|262|256|91|246|4|245|3,260|

[0.1-1[|17|111|569|13|311|200|5|156|183|55|107|10|170|1,907|

[1-10[|28|29|193|9|32|40|15|75|71|21|120|1|103|737|

[10-100[|2|17|57|3|6|3|4|24|17|6|26|0|22|187|

100 and +|0|4|3|0|0|0|0|1|0|0|0|0|1|9|

Total|82|323|1.814|58|928|596|26|518|527|173|499|15|541|6,100|

Annex 4. Category 6 in EU AfT 2008, thousands €

Recipient Country|Commitments||Regions EU|Commitments||Sector|Commitments|

S. Africa|100,000||Southern Africa|102,000||Multisector aid|115,422|

Europe – regional|54,400||Neighbourhood|95,700||Employment policy and administrative management|100,000|

Tunisia|50,000||Enlargement|82,852||General budget support|50,000|

Turkey|46,400||Enlargement or Neighbourhood|54,400||Government administration|40,600|

All countries|27,975||All countries|27,975||Economic and development policy/planning|38,600|

Morocco|20,000||Central Africa|17,000||Security system management and reform|23,550|

Serbia|16,601||Caribbean or Latin America|16,500||Higher education|17,400|

Moldova|15,700||Middle East|10,600||Civilian peace-building, conflict prevention and resolution|12,000|

N. & C. America – regional|15,000||Asia (other)|10,000||Public sector financial management|11,000|

Croatia|11,600||Asia Regional|7,860||Administrative costs|10,002|

Iraq|10,600||Asean|5,000||Post-conflict peace-building (UN)|9,200|

Cameroon|10,500||Latin America|5,000||Environmental policy and administrative management|8,500|

Afghanistan|10,000||Caribbean|4,339||Social/ welfare services|5,000|

Jordan|10,000||West Africa|3,500||Food aid/Food security programmes|4,500|

Asia - regional|7,860||East Africa|2,500||Education facilities and training|2,039|

Congo, rep.|6,000||South of Sahara|2,500||Culture and recreation|1,500|

Honduras|5,000||Central Asia|2,000|||1,053|

Indonesia|5,000||China Region|1,800||Bio-diversity|1,000|

Montenegro|4,450||Total|451,526||Sectors not specified|160|

Bosnia-Herzegovina|3,801|||||Total|451,526|

Gambia|3,500|||||||

Burundi|2,500|||||||

S. Sahara – regional|2,500|||||||

Suriname|2,300|||||||

Belize|2,039|||||||

Lesotho|2,000|||||||

Tajikistan|2,000|||||||

China|1,800|||||||

S. America – regional|1,500|||||||

Sao Tome & Principe|500|||||||

Total|451,526|||||||

Annex 5. Breakdown amounts of projects by TRA as significant and main purpose (amounts in € mn)|

||||||

Donor|Category|Objective|2007|2008||

EU|2.TD|Significant (1)|420|175||

EU|2.TD|Principal (2)|150|142||

EU MS|2.TD|Significant (1)|104|554||

EU MS|2.TD|Principal (2)|84|288||

Source: OECD CRS||||||

||||||

Donor|Category|TD Marker|2007|2008||

EU MS|6.Other TR Needs|Significant (1)||66||

EU MS|6.Other TR Needs|Principal (2)||13||

Source: OECD CRS||||||

||||||

Donor|Category|TD Marker|2007|2008||

EU|6.Other TR Needs|Significant (1)||422||

EU|6.Other TR Needs|Principal (2)||29||

Source: EU file||||||

||||||

TD Marker:||||||

• Score 2 =Principal (or primary) policy objectives, i.e. those which can be identified as beingfundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of theactivity. They may be selected by answering the question: “Would the activity have beenundertaken without this objective?”|

• Score 1=Significant (secondary) policy objectives, i.e. those which, although important, were notthe prime motivation for undertaking the activity.|

• Score 0=Not Targeted means that the activity was examined but found not to target the policyobjective.|

Annex 6. EU+EU Member States: Number of Aft Projects by country|

Recipient Name|2001|2002|2003|2004|2005|2006|2007|2008|

Total|11881|9181|8591|9414|13238|9949|9833|12377|

Share of TOP 10 (excl. Unspecified)| | | | | | |21%|

Bilateral, unspecified|948|876|950|859|1051|908|849|1000|

India|403|303|267|294|382|204|220|328|

Viet Nam|224|174|180|223|294|213|247|311|

China|443|249|243|268|385|254|254|295|

Peru|216|172|144|210|406|248|191|285|

Bolivia|205|179|148|184|333|257|216|265|

Tanzania|287|229|205|184|222|197|203|254|

Mozambique|261|206|176|204|259|202|220|236|

Serbia|109|112|130|132|166|156|140|233|

Morocco|225|168|133|148|261|154|163|230|

Brazil|189|156|160|237|260|181|200|224|

Nicaragua|185|128|113|143|248|196|154|223|

South of Sahara, regional|118|135|151|156|210|204|183|206|

Senegal|157|132|108|111|176|145|127|199|

Kenya|202|148|133|130|154|140|155|186|

Ecuador|138|132|104|121|293|137|117|184|

Uganda|227|196|145|145|192|159|146|176|

Egypt|218|155|180|190|249|147|152|173|

Africa, regional|69|76|110|110|138|139|158|170|

South Africa|118|118|93|106|159|136|118|156|

Ukraine|||||137|140|134|156|

Bosnia-Herzegovina|83|72|74|66|109|105|168|153|

Albania|65|51|59|46|89|108|126|152|

Bangladesh|170|93|105|120|141|116|118|152|

Indonesia|294|155|92|194|181|112|140|151|

Colombia|101|69|59|91|136|99|102|149|

Burkina Faso|150|137|109|113|157|122|136|148|

Ghana|179|117|126|140|163|131|134|146|

Ethiopia|233|209|130|115|142|153|130|143|

Europe, regional|27|27|47|53|59|71|79|143|

Cameroon|147|126|106|99|128|105|99|142|

Mali|125|90|77|86|119|87|113|138|

Philippines|154|117|112|170|222|116|105|128|

Congo, Dem. Rep.|104|58|72|89|123|89|78|125|

Guatemala|111|110|68|68|168|85|70|120|

Tunisia|201|134|127|119|148|92|94|116|

Argentina|56|42|49|69|105|96|100|110|

America, regional|59|65|60|89|102|52|82|108|

Afghanistan|13|16|29|50|89|80|86|105|

Asia, regional|59|55|60|62|70|65|54|103|

Benin|78|73|65|76|97|71|87|103|

El Salvador|68|57|63|80|184|91|73|99|

Madagascar|155|118|129|128|148|133|126|98|

Mauritania|119|98|87|98|126|88|73|97|

Rwanda|46|75|56|46|80|95|79|94|

Haiti|43|31|24|28|39|46|57|92|

Cambodia|38|38|39|58|84|71|62|91|

Honduras|84|59|70|63|122|61|53|90|

Guinea|112|98|100|77|74|79|27|89|

Palestinian Adm. Areas|85|40|46|44|68|54|71|87|

Zambia|101|111|88|83|124|102|84|82|

Mexico|77|74|56|66|148|65|61|76|

Laos|46|40|37|50|76|64|59|73|

Sri Lanka|93|55|85|73|93|91|65|73|

Dominican Republic|61|55|50|61|80|55|51|70|

Namibia|95|66|69|73|117|76|80|70|

Nepal|80|54|58|63|70|50|53|70|

North of Sahara, regional|33|23|14|19|61|108|53|70|

Macedonia, FYR|60|40|44|46|67|51|53|68|

Algeria|78|39|48|64|86|65|75|67|

Cuba|68|59|35|51|130|70|41|67|

Angola|134|67|63|49|61|74|62|66|

Chile|46|44|42|63|84|54|50|66|

Cape Verde|60|55|55|51|65|52|53|65|

Cote d'Ivoire|148|91|38|40|38|40|33|65|

North & Central America, regional|37|35|45|27|43|37|55|65|

Niger|67|64|56|54|82|46|54|63|

Turkey|91|76|77|75|121|38|43|61|

Paraguay|39|39|34|41|62|26|32|60|

Thailand|102|69|87|95|121|55|40|60|

Malawi|66|64|49|49|68|57|58|58|

Pakistan|134|48|41|29|63|42|44|56|

South America, regional|13|12|16|20|31|18|36|55|

Georgia|25|21|24|31|45|38|28|54|

Lebanon|50|31|37|26|28|41|51|54|

Jordan|82|36|32|66|74|32|40|53|

Moldova|23|17|21|17|31|29|39|52|

Kyrgyz Republic|23|14|24|25|47|32|38|51|

Central Asia, regional|||||17|36|44|49|

Nigeria|39|33|27|43|52|45|41|49|

Tajikistan||2|4|15|25|22|22|49|

Croatia|31|15|26|21|56|54|56|47|

Jamaica|45|33|20|21|28|22|28|47|

Mongolia|48|30|42|47|65|57|51|47|

Yemen|38|22|17|19|35|26|33|45|

Armenia|19|19|23|32|41|39|45|44|

Burundi|46|19|16|38|35|41|46|44|

Montenegro||||||13|36|42|

Togo|28|19|30|37|46|24|20|42|

Congo, Rep.|49|21|21|31|43|19|23|41|

Azerbaijan|21|12|19|23|45|24|31|38|

Timor-Leste|17|19|22|22|25|18|27|37|

Bhutan|30|12|16|14|31|33|25|36|

Guinea-Bissau|106|38|20|34|44|34|32|36|

Sierra Leone|26|26|25|38|37|33|31|36|

Chad|38|45|39|47|47|22|15|35|

Syria|28|32|24|30|42|33|33|35|

Belarus|||||23|10|22|34|

Middle East, regional|10|5|6|11|32|36|13|33|

Uruguay|31|26|22|28|30|23|25|32|

Zimbabwe|165|83|40|50|72|39|35|32|

Kazakhstan|15|11|14|22|46|28|30|31|

Belize|9|3|8|5|6|10|9|30|

Uzbekistan|22|14|26|29|41|22|27|29|

Costa Rica|34|37|28|36|51|19|25|28|

Sao Tome & Principe|50|40|26|33|29|20|25|28|

Suriname|31|25|21|14|22|13|25|26|

Gabon|45|30|35|38|33|23|21|24|

Dominica|7|7|3|4|9|7|13|23|

South Asia, regional|||||5|6|8|23|

Gambia|31|23|24|19|32|15|17|21|

Central African Rep.|25|21|19|18|22|14|11|20|

Venezuela|27|19|14|19|19|12|13|20|

St. Lucia|6|3|3|2|5|5|8|19|

Iraq||1|10|20|23|14|14|18|

Oceania, regional|15|14|14|21|20|25|22|18|

St. Helena|10|11|13|12|9|9|9|18|

Myanmar|41|4|7|8|7|7|4|17|

Mayotte|17|13|14|15|5|4|12|16|

Montserrat|31|35|19|15|15|15|13|16|

Sudan|24|19|15|14|10|13|16|16|

Liberia|12|5|4|3|6|6|5|15|

Panama|22|20|15|18|9|16|10|15|

Somalia|18|15|8|5|4|13|6|14|

St.Vincent & Grenadines|6|5|3|3|5|4|6|13|

Swaziland|29|20|16|12|16|9|13|13|

Papua New Guinea|28|22|15|16|17|7|11|11|

Vanuatu|25|19|16|14|13|11|10|11|

Guyana|12|11|5|8|5|4|5|10|

Mauritius|39|35|38|22|24|18|15|10|

Botswana|37|26|12|18|21|15|14|9|

Grenada|5|3|3|3|6|6|6|9|

Comoros|15|19|14|15|18|9|13|8|

Eritrea|28|24|17|7|22|14|12|8|

Far East Asia, regional|11|6|13|4|16|16|22|8|

Fiji|11|5|4|6|4|4|3|8|

Lesotho|47|36|30|27|29|14|13|8|

Malaysia|32|31|23|27|30|13|11|8|

States Ex-Yugoslavia|13|2|5|18|7|6|8|8|

West Indies Unallocated|6|5|6|7|9|11|7|8|

Korea, Dem. Rep.|2|7|7|15|13|9|4|7|

South & Central Asia, regional|11|19|23|30|25|13|11|6|

Equatorial Guinea|14|13|12|5|11|1|9|5|

Djibouti|26|19|13|13|10|3|5|4|

Libya|||||7|6|11|4|

Wallis & Futuna|9|9|8|9|1|1|5|4|

Maldives|7|2|5|4|2|1|4|3|

Micronesia, Fed. States|||||1|1|2|3|

Tonga|6|5|7|3|6|2|3|3|

Turkmenistan|4|2|4|3|3|3|1|3|

Iran|4|10|7|8|9|6|3|2|

Seychelles|25|11|12|12|13|7|7|2|

Solomon Islands|8|5|5|4|6|2|2|2|

St. Kitts-Nevis||||||||2|

Trinidad and Tobago|22|12|7|4|6|3|5|2|

Anguilla|7|10|9|7|5|2|1|1|

Barbados|2|1|2|2||2|1|1|

Kiribati|4|5|4|4|3|3|4|1|

Marshall Islands|||||1|1|1|1|

Nauru|||||1|1|1|1|

Niue|||||1|1|1|1|

Palau|||||1|1|2|1|

Samoa|4|1||1||||1|

Antigua and Barbuda|3|1|||1||||

Bahrain|1|1|||||||

Malta||1|||||||

Oman|3|2|1|3|2||||

Saudi Arabia|3|3|1|2|1|1|3||

Slovenia|20|10|||||||

Turks and Caicos Islands|11|7|6|5|4|1|1||

Tuvalu|1|2|1|3|||||

Annex 7. Glossary

ACP: African, Caribbean and Pacific states

AfT: Aid for Trade

BPC: Building Productive Capacities

CRS: Creditor Reporting System

COMESA: Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa

DAC: Development Assistance Committee (of the OECD)

DDA: Doha Development Agenda

EU: European Union

EAC: East African Community

ESA: Eastern and Southern Africa

ECOWAS: Economic Community of West African States

EDF: European Development Fund

EIB: European Investment Bank

EIF: Enhanced Integrated Framework for trade-related assistance to LDCs

EPA: Economic Partnership Agreement

IF: Integrated Framework for trade-related assistance to LDCs

LDC: Least Developed Country

MDG: Millennium Development Goal

MS: EU Member State

ODA: Official Development Assistance

OECD: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

PAPED: Programme APE pour le Développement

REC: Regional Economic Community

RIO: Regional Integration Organisation

RIP: Regional Indicative Programme

RPTF: Regional Preparatory Task Force

RSP: Regional Strategy Papers

TD: Trade Development

TRA: Trade-Related Assistance

TRAdj: Trade-Related Adjustment

TPR: Trade Policy and Regulation

TRI: Trade-Related Infrastructure

UEMOA: L’Union économique et monétaire ouest-africaine

WTO: World Trade Organisation

Abbreviations; EU Member States

BE Belgium

BG Bulgaria

CZ Czech Republic

DK Denmark

DE Germany

EE Estonia

IE Ireland

EL Greece

ES Spain

FR France

IT Italy

CY Cyprus

LV Latvia

LT Lithuania

LU Luxembourg

HU Hungary

MT Malta

NL Netherlands

AT Austria

PL Poland

PT Portugal

RO Romania

SI Slovenia

SK Slovakia

FI Finland

SE Sweden

UK United Kingdom

[1] See 2009 report on: http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/COMM_NATIVE_SEC_2009_0442_4_Aid-for-Trade-monitoring-report-2009_EN.pdf.

[2] Council Conclusions of 15 October 2007 ( http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/misc/96506.pdf. ).

[3] These Commitments were made at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong in December 2005

[4] Throughout this document, the EU Aid for Trade flows exclude 2008 amounts of ODA projects funded through the own sources of the European Investment Bank (a total amount of €1.348 billion). A discussion between OECD and European Commission services has not yet concluded on the relevance of including, based on existing OECD guidelines, some types of loans as ODA. The next monitoring report will provide an update on Aid for Trade flows, including for previous years, on the basis of the conclusions of these ongoing discussions.

[5] The classification of regions used here is the one used by the OECD in its database over Official Development Assistance – details of countries covered are provided in Annex 1.

[6] Develop a global partnership for development.

[7] Clearer reflection on the effects of the economic crisis will be included when reporting on the 2009 commitments, in the 2011 report. Data availability is subject to a time lag that limits data analysis to 2008 volumes in 2010.

[8] See: SEC(2010) 420 - Financing for Development - Annual progress report 2010 - Getting back on track to reach the EU 2015 target on ODA spending.

[9] Abbreviations spelled out in Annex.

[10] The total EU figure for TRA can be determined by adding the commitments under AfT Category 1 (Trade policy and regulations), Category 2 (Trade development) and Category 6 (Other trade-related needs). For details, see Box 2: Aid for Trade categories.

[11] This approximation of the full bilateral AfT flows is obtained by adding up CRS data for trade policy and regulation, trade-related infrastructure and building productive capacity, and then adding funding not classified under any of the other mentioned categories but reported by donors in the Monterrey survey as supporting ‘other trade-related needs’.

[12] Up from an unusually low figure in 2007, partly representing problems in reporting.

[13] Commitment refers to a firm obligation, expressed in writing and backed 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 the expected transfer, irrespective of the time required for the completion of disbursements. Disbursement refers to the release of funds to a recipient, or the purchase of goods or services for a recipient, and by extension the amount thus spent. Disbursements record the actual international transfer of financial resources, or of goods or services valued at the cost to the donor. In the case of activities carried out in donor countries, such as training, administration or public awareness programmes, disbursement is considered to have occurred when the funds have been transferred to the service provider or the recipient. They may be recorded gross (the total amount disbursed over a given accounting period) or net (the gross amount less any repayments of loan principal or recoveries on grants received during the same period).

[14] OECD

[15] See: SEC(2010) 422 - Aid Effectiveness – Annual Progress Report 2010.

[16] See : http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/AE_Full_Final_Report_20091023.pdf ; and http://capacity4dev.ec.europa.eu/operational-framework-aid-effectiveness

[17] A commitment endorsed by the Council on 27 May 2008, and then again on 10 November 2008.