EN    EN  EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 8.4.2009 
SEC(2009) 442 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
 
accompanying the 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS 
 
Supporting developing countries in coping with the crisis 
 
Aid for Trade monitoring report 2009 
  
{COM(2009) 160 final} 
{SEC(2009) 443} 
{SEC(2009) 444} {SEC(2009) 445}
 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Introduction................................................................................................................ .. 6 
2. The EU Aid for Trade Strategy At A Glance............................................................... 6 3. Strategic and thematic EU efforts in Follow up of the Strategy in 2008 ..................... 8 3.1. Joint efforts initiated at EU  headquarters level in 2008............................................... 9 
3.2. Developments in Strategic Frameworks, a nd progress in individua l EU donor efforts 
to increase AfT demand and supply........................................................................... 12 
4. Progress as regards volumes of EU TRA and AfT .................................................... 13 4.1. EU delivery of TRA................................................................................................... 14 4.2. EU delivery of wider Aid for Trade........................................................................... 17 4.3. Developments in EU AfT per category...................................................................... 18 4.4. Geographical distribu tion of EU AfT ........................................................................ 19 
5. Outlook for the future ................................................................................................ 21 6. EU alignment with Aid Effectivenes s Principles in Aid for Trade............................ 21 
6.1. Joint analysis, strategies, progr ammes, delivery and monitoring .............................. 21 
6.2. Regional integration................................................................................................... 23 7. ACP specific issues.................................................................................................... 26 7.1. Regional AfT packages for the ACP.......................................................................... 27 
Annex 1: Details of EC and Member States co mmitments to the different AfT categories.... 31 
Annex 2: Geographical distribution per categor y of the wider AfT agenda. EU commitments 
2005- 2007..................................................................................................................... ........... 34 
Annex 3: Geographical breakdown by donors and sectors 2005 – 2007. .............................. 377 Annex 4. EU support delivered at regional level 2005 – 2007 ................................................ 40 Annex 5. Glossary.............................................................................................................. ...... 43 
 
EN 3   EN Executive Summary  
On 15 October 2007, the EU adopted a joint Aid for Trade Strategy1. A joint Community and 
EU Member States initiative,  the Strategy aims at supportin g all developing countries, 
particularly the Least Developed Countries (LDC s), to better integrate into the rules-based 
world trading system and to use trade more effe ctively in promoting the overarching objective 
of eradicating poverty. The present report is the second monitoring exercise since the 
adoption of this strategy.  
The EU AfT Strategy embraces the full Aid for Trade agenda, as identified by the WTO Aid 
for Trade Taskforce: "classical" Trade Related Assistance (TRA: Trade Policy and 
Regulation; and Trade Developm ent), as well Productive Capa city Building; Trade Related 
Infrastructure; Trade Related Adjustment and "Other trade related needs". The dual focus on more resources and better impact on de velopment objectives is complementary.  
Already in last year’s reporti ng exercise it was clear that the Aid for Trade agenda was 
finding its way into EU development cooperation. That trend is being confirmed this year. 
Eleven Member States now have an operatio nal strategy, based on the EU Aid for Trade 
Strategy, and four are linking ac tivities directly  to the Joint EU AfT Strategy. The Slovak 
Republic intends to adopt AfT guidelines this year. 22 out of the 27 Member States have 
on-going co-operation activities  in the field of Aid for Trade , an increase of two Member 
States over last year.  
As regards the specific EU 2005 pledge to commit €2 billion annually to Trade Related 
Assistance by 2010, new figures indicate that the collect ive EU pledge was nearly met in 
2007. In 2007, the total commitments from EU  Member States towards TRA amounted 
to €0.96 billion, an increase of 8% fr om 2006, when EU TRA was 0.89 billion
2. The 
Community, for its part, reached its TRA target  and committed just under €1.02 billion to 
TRA in 2007, which was up from €0.94 billion in 2006. The total EU support for TRA in 
2007 thus reached €1.98 billion, reflecting subs tantial EU progress towards reaching its 
target of €1 + €1 billion by 2010. 
Reporting on TRA remains complex, with Member States still adjusting to the change in 
reporting procedure introduced in 2007/2008. In part, the increase in Member States TRA 
may reflect a correction of an unde r-reporting of previous years. Efforts to keep TRA at high 
levels must be sustained so th at the EU TRA target can be credibly met in 2010, along with 
the commitment to increase funding  of the broader AfT agenda.   
Looking at the wider Aid for Trade Agenda - Trade Policy and Regulation together with 
Trade Related Infrastructure; Building Producti ve Capacity, Trade-Related Adjustment and 
"Other trade related needs" - it can be seen that total EU AfT reach ed €7.17 billion in 2007, 
representing a stable level as compa red to 2006, when the commitments were €7.12 
                                                 
1 Council Conclusions of 15 October 2007  
(http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/misc/96506.pdf.). 
2 Last year's Monterrey report estimated the 2006  EU MS TRA commitments to approximately € 640 
million, in turn having increased from an average of 358 million between 2001 and 2004 (data was drawn from the Doha Database). Since then, there has been an updating of the figures, including by 
Germany who has done an inventory of its TRA activ ities, identifying several projects not previously 
included in its reporting and contributing to substantially increasing the numbers for 2006. 
 
EN 4   EN billion3. This includes €4.74 billi on in 2007 for EU Member Stat es, up from €4.56 billion in 
2006; and  €2.43 million for the Community, down from €2.57 billion in 2006. Overall AfT 
commitments of the EU have steadily increased over the period 2004-2007. AfT has 
remained a priority in development c ooperation for the EU as a whole.  
Africa is confirmed as the region receiving  most AfT: €2.73 billion in 2007 and 43.9% of 
total EU AfT in 2005-2007 . The ACP share of EU AfT share was 36%, down from 38% in 
2006.  
The EU Member States’ responses to the AfT qu estionnaire did not enable any clear forecasts 
to be made concerning future spending. Predictability remains an important area for progress. 
Information regarding the incorporation of trade and AfT in the policy dialogue and 
response strategies of EU dono rs presents a mixed picture. Eleven MS and the European 
Commission felt that demand for AfT had increased since 2005. However, only the 
Commission and the NL indicate that AfT con cerns are an important  part of the policy 
dialogue with more than 75% of their partner co untries, and five Member States say that it is 
important in 50 to 75% of partner countries. Seven Member States said it is important in 25 to 
50% of cases. 
Similarly, only three donors (the European Commission, DK and the NL)  stated that the 
country assistance strategies contain trade or Af T elements in more than 75% of their partner 
countries. Five Member States indicated that such elements are present in between 50 and 
75% of cases. Six Member States indicated that  this is the case in 25 – 50% of the country 
strategies. While there could be some difference in interpretation across Member States, 
this suggests that AfT is still not sufficientl y mainstreamed in the policy dialogue that 
EU donors are having with partner countries.  
The collection of information on th e application of the principles of aid effectiveness has been 
refined this year, allowing a more quantitative  appreciation of the wa y in which donors work 
together in the AfT arena. However, whilst many Member Stat es have some experience of 
joint needs assessment, strate gy formulation, programmes or  delivery, these approaches 
are not commonly applied.  In fact, as regards joint needs assessment, only five Member 
States and the European Commission indicated that they had supported or were contributing 
to joint needs assessments in more than 30% of their partner countries. As for joint AfT strategy formulation, only four Member States  and the Commission indicated that they had 
supported or were contributing to Joint AfT strategy formulation  in more than 30% of their 
partner countries. Only three  Member States said that they had supported or were contributing 
to Joint AfT programmes in more than 30% of their partner countries. And only five Member 
States indicated that they ha d supported or were contributi ng to pool funding in more than 
30% of their partner countries. All in all, there is  room for much closer collaboration 
between donors under government leadership in AfT.  
Support for regional integration appears to be capturing an increasingly prominent 
share of the EU Aid for Trade agenda . 17 Member States rated the regional dimension as 
important, and the UK and the European Commission rated it as essential. Recently some 
                                                
 
3 For various reasons explained in other sections of this report, the total numbers for 2006 have been 
updated since last year's report. Thus the figure given above is a little lower than what was reported for 
2006 in the 2008 EU AFT Monitoring report where it was estimated at € 7.279 billion for the EU on the 
whole, and € 4.715 billion for EU Member States. 
 
EN 5   EN Member States have taken specific measures to address the regional level, such as creation of 
specific cells within the administration to deal with regional issues; specific directions being 
sent to embassies; specific mention or explanat ion of the rationale for increased efforts at 
regional level in the operational instructions/ action plans. Some Memb er States are in the 
process of increasing bilateral cooperation with regional integration commissions and 
secretariats.   
An increase in regional Aid for Trade has been recorded since 2005, providing a good 
basis for future work, despite the many chal lenges encountered in implementation at 
regional level  (lack of an articulated demand for regi onal Aid for Trade; lack of coherence 
between national and regional priori ties; lack of credible lending authorities at regional level; 
lack of effective coordination at regional leve l; difficulties of monito ring and evaluating at 
regional level; and lack of credible mutual accountability mechanisms at regional level).  
At EU and international level, the join t work of EU donors continued in 2008 , in 
particular through work on monitoring and reporting, guidance in the area of AfT and 
poverty, development of AfT indicators, and su pport for setting up the Enhanced Integrated 
Framework. Important work went in to advancing the preparation of regional AfT packages 
for the ACP , which is expected to remain a key ac tivity in 2009, in line  with the Council 
conclusions of November 2008. 
 
EN 6   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
Aid and trade are twin pillars of the EU de velopment policy. Using a mix of grant aid and 
innovative trade instruments, the EU has sought to help some of the world's poorest countries 
to achieve sufficient economic transformation to  lift their populations out of poverty. Building 
on this longstanding commitment, the EU adopt ed, on 15 October 2007, a joint Aid for Trade 
Strategy4. The Strategy is aimed at su pporting all developing countri es, particularly the Least 
Developed Countries (LDCs), to better integrate into  the rules-based wo rld trading system 
and to use trade more effectively in promo ting the overarching objective of eradicating 
poverty. The present report reflec ts the second monitoring exerci se since the adoption of the 
EU AfT strategy5, following up on the requirements of the Council.  
This year's monitoring report is based la rgely on two sources: Th e OECD/DAC Creditor 
Reporting System (CRS) to which most EU Member  States provide quanti tative data on their 
Overseas Development Assistance (ODA); and EU responses to the OECD/WTO donor 
questionnaire regarding Aid for Trade flows, approaches and practice. Whilst the European 
Commission has sent a special Af T questionnaire to all EU Member  States in the past, this 
year it has worked with the OECD to ensure th at their questionnaire also catered for the EU's 
internal monitoring needs, in order to avoid duplication and to reduc e reporting obligations. 
Whilst some of the areas addressed by the EU AfT Strategy are not explicitly covered in the 
questionnaire6, it was nevertheless felt that sufficient data could be collected to draft the EU 
report. All EU Member States  and the European Commissi on responded to the OECD/WTO 
questionnaire, albeit in vary ing levels of detail. The Commission responded to the 
questionnaire on the basis of detailed info rmation received from 71 Commission Delegations 
in third countries.  
After a brief summary of the contents of the EU AfT Strategy, the re port provides information 
on a) key efforts made by the EU during 2008 to  implement the EU AfT Strategy at EU and 
international level; b) progress as regards EU financial support to Trade Related Assistance 
and overall Aid for Trade; and c) EU progress in delivering the AfT in accordance with 
established Aid Effectiveness principles, and ot her issues important to  ensuring the quality 
and effectiveness of the EU AfT.  
2. THE EU AID FOR TRADE STRATEGY AT A GLANCE  
The EU Aid for Trade Strategy adopted by the Council on 15 October 2007 builds on an 
already strong performance by the European Union in this fiel d, as the larges t provider of 
grant Aid for Trade, consistent with its role as the largest global provider of overall overseas 
development assistance (ODA). This Strategy, which involves the Community and the 27 EU 
Member States, is a joint EU polic y initiative to substantially st ep up the collective EU effort 
and the impact of Aid for Trade. The EU AfT Strategy commits the EU to channel more and 
better support to improve the in tegration of developing count ries into the world trading 
                                                 
4 Council Conclusions of 15 October 2007  
(http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/misc/96506.pdf.). 
5 The first monitoring report was published in April 2008: SEC (2008) 431 
6 Issues not covered in detail include use of th e IF, experience of specifi c poverty targeted and 
sustainability efforts in Af T etc. Further work will be required to finetune the questionnaire so to 
capture all the key issues properly and enable to measure progress in them over time. 
 
EN 7   EN system and to better harness the benefits to be  gained from this, esp ecially with a view to 
poverty reduction.  
The EU AfT Strategy is comprehensive: It em braces "classical" Trade Related Assistance 
(TRA: Trade Policy and Regulation; and Trad e Development), as well the other areas 
identified by the WTO Aid for Trade Taskforce:  Productive Capacity Bu ilding; Trade Related 
Infrastructure; Trade Related Adjustment and "O ther trade related needs". Box 1 provides an 
overview of the different AfT categories. Th e Strategy confirms and builds on previous 
political and financial commitments, such as those of the European Development Consensus7, 
the Monterrey commitments to Financing for De velopment, and the pledges made in Hong 
Kong in the WTO context.  
The EU AfT is a part of EU ODA. Therefor e, additional support for Aid for Trade will be 
achieved within the substantial increases in total ODA to whic h the EU is already committed. 
Whilst implementation of the strategy has already ensured that more resources are channelled 
into Aid for Trade and may include the develo pment of new delivery modes, the strategy does 
not involve the creation of additiona l appropriations over and above ODA.  
The EU AfT Strategy is articulate d around the following key pillars:  
• how to deliver on EU quantitative AfT ambitions,  
• how to ensure the quality and pro-poor focus of the assistance, 
• how to increase EU-wide capacity and impr ove the effectiveness of the assistance 
delivered,  
• how to support ACP regional integration efforts; and 
• how to ensure effective monito ring and reporting to sustain the proc ess of implementing 
the pledges and commitments. 
The Strategy is based on a number of key principles:  
• AfT should be provided to all developing c ountries, but particularly to the poorest; 
• AfT is part of the broader devel opment policies and linked to MDGs; 
• AfT complements but is not a substitute fo r a successful outcome of the DDA or other 
trade negotiations; 
• AfT should operationalise the Paris Principles8 and the EU Code of Conduct on 
Complementarity and Division of Labour in Development Policy9 
                                                 
7 Joint Statement by the Council and the representa tives of the Governments of the Member States 
meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on European Union 
Development Policy: "The European Consensus". Brussels, 22 November 2005. 
8 http://www.oecd.org/document/15/0,2340,en_2649_3236398_35401554_1_1_1_1,00.html  
9
 http://www.ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/ michel/Policy/key_documents/docs/COMM_PD
F_COM_2007_0072_F_EN_ACTE.pdf 
 
EN 8   EN  
Box 1: Aid for Trade categories  
In December 2005, the WTO Ministeria l Conference in Hong K ong set up a Task Force to 'operationalise Aid 
for Trade'. In its 2006, recommendations, this Task For ce stated that 'Projects a nd 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. The first two of these encomp ass "classical" "Trade Related Assistance" (TRA). TRA 
and the other four groups are usually referred to together as "the wider Aid for Trade agenda". Examples of what 
is usually referred to by these categories are given below. 
To facilitate coherent reporting, the OECD has then wo rked to streamline the reporting on the AfT categories 
identified by the Task Force. In pa rticular, it has worked to link each Af T category to one or several specific 
codes in the general Creditor Reporting System to which overall ODA is reported.  (Box 2 provides further detail 
on AfT reporting)  
Trade Related Assistance (TRA) : 
Trade policy and regulations : trade policy and planning, trade facilitation, regional trade agreements, 
multilateral trade negotiations, multi sector wholesale/ reta il trade and trade promotion. Includes training of trade 
officials, analysis of proposals and positions and their impact, support for national stakeholders to articulate 
commercial interest and identify trade-offs, dispute issu es, and institutional and technical support to facilitate 
implementation of trade agreements and to adapt to and comply with rules and standards. CRS Purpose codes: 
33110, 33120, 33130, 33140, 33181 
Trade development : investment promotion, analysis and institutional support for trade in services, business 
support services and institutions, public-private sector ne tworking, e-commerce, trade finance, trade promotion, 
market analysis and development. This is largely a subset of building productive capacity, covering specifically 
its most trade related part. CRS Purpose codes which are marked using the "Trade Development Marker": 24010 to 24081, 25010, 31110 to 31195, 31210 to 31291, 31310 to 31391, 32110 to 32182, 32210 to 32268, 33210  
Wider Aid for Trade agenda: TRA together with the below:
 
Trade-related infrastructure : physical infrastructure including tran sport and storage, communications and 
energy generation and supply. CRS Purpose codes: 21010 to 21081; 22010 to 22040; 23010 to  
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. CRS Purpose 
codes: 24010 to 24081, 25010, 31110 to 31195, 31210 to 31291, 31310 to 31391, 32110 to 32182, 32210 to 
32268, 33210 
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 by othe r countries; and assistance to manage shortfalls in the balance of payments due to 
changes in the world trading environment. CRS Purpose Code 33150 
Other trade-related needs:  Other trade-related support not capture d under the categories or purpose codes 
above 
3. STRATEGIC AND THEMATIC EU EFFORTS IN FOLLOW UP OF THE STRATEGY IN 2008 
The EU AfT strategy is implemented in part ner countries and regi ons under the partners' 
leadership and with the support of EU country and regional offices. This is where the key 
activities take place, such  as policy dialogue, programmi ng, stakeholder coordination, 
programme implementation, etc. Progress in inte grating trade and AfT dimensions into these 
efforts over the past year is reflected in the responses to the OECD/WTO questionnaire, and 
 
EN 9   EN in the levels of AfT flows ove r the years. All these issues are reported upon in subsequent 
chapters.  
EU Headquarters support count ry and regional work by mean s of a 'backstop' function: 
helping to focus and prioritise work, fac ilitating EU collaborati on, providing technical 
analysis, establishing baselines, and ensuring in formation sharing. This section reviews the 
main activities in 2008. 
3.1. Joint efforts initiated at EU  headquarters level in 2008 
3.1.1.  Strengthening the pro-poor focus and quality of AfT  
The EU AfT Strategy includes a commitment to enhance the im pact of AfT on sustainable 
poverty reduction. Among other things, the EU w ould exchange information with partners 
regarding best practices in this area. In line w ith this, Sweden and the UK volunteered to lead 
work on strengthening the pro-poor focus and quali ty of AfT, and commissioned the Overseas 
Development Institute (ODI) to take this work forward.  
The overall goal is to assist the EU donors to  enhance understanding and implementation of 
Aid for Trade in ways that contribute to in clusive growth and povert y reduction. Specific 
objectives are to further devel op the ways in which key stak eholders understand and act upon 
the linkages between trade, poverty and inequality.  
Products that are anticip ated include a concept and issues paper; guidance and toolkits; and a 
review and recommendations relating to the use of impact assessment. 
A workshop has been held with members of th e group, and all EU donors have been invited to 
submit cases for further analysis. 
3.1.2.  Facilitation of AfT reporting 
When adopting the EU AfT Strategy, the EU Council underlined the need to improve the 
consistency and quality of EU  AfT reporting, inter alia by harmonising reporting practices, 
clarifying AfT definitions a nd categories where necessary,  and improving the geographical 
tracking of AfT delivered through multilatera l channels. During 2008, one working group 
consisting of the Commission and in terested EU Member States ( DE, ES, FI, FR, IE, UK, and 
DK) met on a number of occasions to seek to clarify these matters. The group was established 
in the context of the WTO's decision in 2007 to  abandon the current practice of reporting of 
TRA to a specific database (the Doha Databa se) and to rely instead on the general ODA 
reporting system offered by the OECD DAC Cr editor Reporting System, the CRS. One key 
objective of the EU Working Group was to determ ine whether this procedure was suitable for 
reporting to the WTO on the EU TRA pledge.  
Very useful exchanges of information took place in this group, helping to create transparency 
around current EU donors' reporting practices . Whilst the members shared the long-term 
objective of harmonising reporting practices, a c onsensus emerged that this could not be 
achieved fully at the present time. It was ag reed that monitoring of the TRA commitments 
would be optimally assured by a ll donors continuing to report w ith the methodologies used at 
the time when they made their financial pledges.  Aid for Trade Category  6 could be used to 
cover support to trade-related needs not fa lling within the main AfT categories. Full 
transparency on reporting approaches would be essential, an d the present report advances this 
objective. Details of the reporting met hodology now applied are given in Box 2. 
 
EN 10   EN The group also discussed the tracking of Af T delivered through multilateral channels. At 
present, OECD asks donors not to include  non-earmarked funding in their ODA reporting. 
Instead, AfT efforts implemented by multilate ral organisations are reported upon by the 
respective recipient organisation. Th e total flow of AfT is thus correctly reflected. However, 
there is a concern among donors providi ng important non-earmarked resources to 
organisations whose core business is linked to Af T that this approach leads to under-reporting 
of the effort of the donor who provided the re sources. Increasing transp arency on the source 
of AfT of multilateral organisations may be im portant for the future. 
Box 2: Switching over from reporting to Doha Database to reporting to OECD/ CRS  
For some years, donors have reported on trade related as sistance to a specific database hosted by the WTO, the 
Doha Trade Capacity Building Database. When the WT O AfT Taskforce identified additional Aid for Trade 
categories in 2006, efforts were undertaken to find pr oxies for these in the regular Creditor Reporting System 
(CRS) that captures all Overseas Development A ssistance (ODA) of the OECD members and multilateral 
donors. This required creating a direct link between a particular AfT category and a set of CRS purpose codes 
(DAC codes). “Trade-Related Infrastr ucture was proxied with Economic Infr astructure, and Productive Capacity 
Building was proxied with Productive Sectors. The AfT category 5 “Trade Related Adjustment” had not been 
measured previously, so a new code “331 50” was created to capture this one.  
In the course of these efforts, it was decided to abandon the previous Doha database and to report in future 
exclusively through the CRS, in particular  to ensure full consistency of data.  
A specific CRS code already existed for “trade policy and regulation, so in this case the switch was not 
problematic. However, “trade development” (TD) could not be distinguished in the CRS. Whilst recognised as 
largely (but not exclusively) drawn from the CRS purpose codes for ”productive sectors”, the CRS did not allow 
to distinguish between trade–related or non trade-related productive capacity building.  
To enable continued tracking of TRA, and reporting on the pledges of several donors, a new "Trade 
Development marker" was therefore introduced by the OE CD. The marker allows a reporting donor to "mark" 
those programmes in productive sectors that it considers qualify as "Trade Development". Combined with 
information on Trade Related Assistance, programmes ma rked as "Trade Development" will provide information 
on the level of TRA of concerned donors, along the lines of what was reported to the DDA Database before. In this year’s reporting, 8 out of the 15 Memb er States reporting to the OECD/DAC CRS (AT, BE, DK, EL, IT,ES, 
SE, UK) , as well as the European Commission, made use of the TD marker. Furthermore, donors have the 
opportunity to report trade-related support that is not cap tured in trade-related CRS co des as “Other trade related 
needs” through the donor questionnaire prepared by th e OECD / WTO within the framework of the Annual AfT 
Review (See footnote 15).  
The switch from an ad hoc database to an established system as the CRS has not only produced benefits, but also 
introduced some inflexibility. Since in the CRS, any funding can only be reported with a single code and AfT 
categories are directly associated to the codes, a number of trade-relevant activities will  not be captured as such 
by the system. Even if trade is a significant objective of a programme, the programme will be registered with 
different codes if trade not its primary objective. Exam ples are found in rural development or research and 
innovation programmes (multi purpose codes 430xx), in vo cational training (11330) or in general institutional 
support to public administration (15100). No General Budget Support or programmes or un-earmarked funding 
to multilateral organisations are included in this repor ting, even if at times di sbursement conditions and 
indicators touch upon trade-relevant issues. Therefore the amounts reported can be said to underestimate the 
actual support that EU provid es in the AfT framework. 
It should also be noted that the change in methodology from Doha Database to the CRS and the new definitions 
create an incomparability of some figur es over time. The amounts captured in the former database as "Trade 
Policy and Regulation" (cat. 1) and "Trade development" (cat. 2) are nowadays split into three categories, 
namely categories 1 and 2 and 6 "Other trade-related needs". Due to the definitions of codes in the CRS, it is not 
possible to continue counting some activities as TD, since they have different CRS purpose codes and so they are 
captured in category 6. It is therefore not possible to  compare the figures for all individual categories with 
previous years. However, it would be correct to compare the evolution of th e Trade-related assistance (categories 
1, 2 and 6) globally, whereas TRI and BPC numbers can be compared individually.  
 
 
EN 11   EN 3.1.3.  Support to the WTO Global AfT Revi ew: Questionnaire and Indicators 
During 2008, the EU lent its support to the prepar ations for the next WTO Global AfT review, 
which is due to take place in July2009. First, the EU engaged substantia lly with the OECD in 
the preparation of the donor and partner coun try questionnaires that will feed into the 
exercise. A key concern which ha s been addressed was that the questionnaires should make it 
possible to condense trends and re sults. The EU participated exte nsively in the efforts of the 
OECD to streamline reporting of AfT flows in  the context of discontinuing the Doha 
Database and switching to excl usive use of the CRS database (See boxes 1 and 2). In so 
doing, it was able to ensure that  reliable report ing on the AfT pledges made in the WTO could 
continue. 
The EU has also worked with the WTO and ot her actors in order to  help establish AfT 
indicators, intended to suppor t the next global AfT review  in the summer of 2009. The 
indicators, which are still in pr eparation, will complement the aggregated data collection and 
analysis with specific informa tion country by country. This is expected to facilitate policy 
dialogue on key issues. The EU und erlines the importance of ensu ring the full participation of 
developing country stakeholders in the definition of indicators, not just at the level of the 
WTO representatives, but also in-country. 
In the framework of its work with the OECD , the European Commission also financed the 
OECD Policy Dialogue on AfT in November 2008. This meeting br ought together more than 
200 practitioners, from both developing and i ndustrialised economies and also from civil 
society and from national and international ag encies. Discussions focused on (i) gaining a 
better understanding of the potential role of Aid for Trade as a development tool, (ii) sharing 
knowledge about best practices , particularly with respect  to the implementation and 
evaluation of Aid for Trade programmes, (iii) the need to improve evaluation and monitoring - at national, regional, and global le vels - of this initiative, to make sure that it is effectively 
delivering its results for the bene fit of developing countries.  
With regard to this last point - which proved to be a key issue - participants came to the 
conclusion that there is a need for wider us e of regular, independent  evaluations. It was 
suggested that, where possible, joint donor-partn er evaluations should be undertaken in the 
future, as well as evaluations on both policy an d programme level, and that these should be 
based more closely on comprehensive monitoring and evaluation frameworks.   
3.1.4.  Enhanced Integrated Framework 
At the WTO Doha Round Ministerial Meetin g in Hong Kong in December 2005, ministers 
agreed to strengthen what was then the Integrated Framework (IF) for Trade Related 
Assistance for LDCs. Since that time, th e Enhanced Integrated Framework (EIF)
10 has 
become the focus of great expectations and a sy mbol of the Aid for Trade Initiative at the 
WTO. During 2008, the EU remained a very active partner in the formulation of the EIF, which is now nearly ready to take off.  
                                                
 
10 www.integratedframework.org  The IF has two objectives: to "mainstream" (integrate) trade into the 
national development plans such as the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) of least-developed 
countries; and to assist in the co-ordinated delivery of trade-related technical assistance in response to 
needs identified by the LDC. The IF is built on the principles of country ow nership and partnership. 
 
EN 12   EN Following the selection of the United Nations Of fice of Project Services (UNOPS) as Trust 
Fund Manager, the European Commission along with  several Member States made substantial 
contributions to the multilateral trust fund, thereby delivering on th e objective to secure 
predictable and long-ter m funding for the EIF. A bout two thirds of the IF trust fund is funded 
by the EU. According to the IF, eleven Member States and the Commission have acted as 'donor facilitators' in a total of 24 countries.  
The most important aspect still under discussi on is the monitoring and evaluation framework, 
which should be finalised at the beginning of 2009. This is important in order to ensure the 
sustainability of both the programme and indivi dual projects. With the remaining legal and 
institutional elements falling into place over th e coming months, the EIF is expected to start 
operational work by mid 2009 at the latest.  
3.2. Developments in Strategic Frameworks , and progress in individual EU donor 
efforts to increase AfT demand and supply 
3.2.1.  Operational Strategic Frameworks  responding to changing AfT demand 
Whilst all Member States have signed up to the joint EU Aid for Trade Strategy, several 
Member States have also got specific, operationa l national strategies that are adapted to the 
specific contexts of their development aid. Of all the respondents,  11 Member States (AT, BE, 
ES, FI, FR, IT, IR, LX, NL, SE, UK)  indicated that they have a specific strategy of this kind. 
Four Member States (BU, DE, LV, LT)  indicated explicitly that th eir AfT work is directly in 
line with the EU Aid for Trade Strategy. The Slovak Republic inte nds to adopt guidelines this 
year. The European Commission applies the EU  Aid for Trade Strategy, complemented by 
programming guidelines for the different regions.  
23 out of the 27 Member States provide AfT;  only five EU Member  States have no AfT 
activities. All in all, these results point to further progress in the take up of AfT in the 
cooperation approaches and polic ies of the EU Member States. Many of the respondents 
indicate that their strategy has a specific pr o-poor focus, but only a fe w are providing details 
of this.  
Eleven Member States (FR, BE, DE, EE, FI, IT , LT, LV, NL, SE, UK)  and the European 
Commission felt that demand for AfT had grown since 2005. Of those, FR felt that demand 
had increased significantly. Nine Member States felt that there was little or no change. Those 
Member States that had experienced an in creased demand reported  having taken various 
actions to respond to this, including: increase d aid resources (9 respondents), increased in-
house trade expertise (8 respondent s), increased awareness of po licy makers (8 respondents), 
strengthened political commitment (8 responde nts), and, to a somewhat lesser extent, 
increased coordination among donors (5 respondents). Germany reported on the 
institutionalisation of inter-agency coordinati on through the setting up of a special working 
group; the UK also reported on institutional cha nges aimed at raising the profile of trade 
issues, as well as strengthening linkages w ith the country offices in this area.  
3.2.2.  AfT in EU Policy dialogue with partner countries 
A prerequisite for scaling up AfT is that partne r countries take charge of defining priorities 
and articulating them in their de velopment strategies. The EU is  committed to supporting this 
broadened inclusion of trade and AfT in part ners' poverty reduction and national development 
strategies by 2010, by stepping up joint policy dialogue on AfT.  
 
EN 13   EN It is therefore surpri sing that in this year's questionna ire only the European Commission and 
the Netherlands L mentioned AfT concerns as be ing an important part of the policy dialogue 
with more than 75% of their partne r countries. Five Member States (DK, EE, FI, LT, SI) 
indicated that th e policy dialogue is impor tant in 50 to 75% of partner countries. Seven 
Member States (BE, ES, FR, IE, LU, LV and UK)  said that it is important in between 25 and 
50% of partner countries. Six Member States (AT, DE, EL, IT, PT, SE)  said it was important 
in less than 25% of partner countries. Seven tic ked the "not sure/na" box. Whilst there could 
be some difference in interpretation across Member States, this suggests that whilst EU Member States increasingly have operational guidance in place to step up AfT efforts, AfT is 
still insufficiently mainstreamed  in the policy dialogue that EU  donors are having with partner 
countries.  
Table 1: Overview of importance of AfT in EU Donors Policy Dialogues and Country Assistance 
Strategies 
EU 
donor AfT 
important 
part of 
Policy 
dialogue in 
more than 
75% of 
partner 
countries  AfT 
important 
part of 
Policy 
dialogue in 
between 50 
and 75% 
of partner 
countries AfT 
important 
part of 
Policy 
dialogue in 
between 25 
and 50% 
of partner 
countries AfT 
important 
part of 
Policy 
dialogue in 
less than 
25% of 
partner 
countries  AfT present 
in more 
than 75% 
of Country 
Assistance 
Strategies AfT present 
in between 
50 and 
75% of 
Country 
Assistance 
Strategies AfT present 
in between 
25 and 
50% of 
Country 
Assistance 
Strategies AfT present 
in less than 
25% of 
Country 
Assistance 
Strategies 
AT    X    X  
EC X    X    
NL X    X    
DE    X    X   
DK   X   X    
EE   X       
FI   X    X   
LT   X    X   
SI   X    X   
BE     X   X   
EL    X     X  
ES    X     X  
FR    X     X  
IE    X    X   
IT    X     X  
LU    X    X   
LV    X    X   
PT    X     X  
SE    X    X   
UK    X    X   
More or less mirroring this picture, the European Commission, DK and NL indicated that the 
country assistance strategies contain trade or Af T elements in more than 75% of their partner 
countries. Five Member States ( BE, CZ, FI, LT, SI)  indicated that it does  so in 50 to 75% of 
cases. Six Member States (DE, IE, LU, LV, SE, UK)  indicated that this is the case in 25 to 
50% of the country strategies. AT, ES, EL, FR, IT and PT indi cated that AfT elements are 
present in less than 25% of country stra tegies. Seven replied "not sure/n.a". 
4. PROGRESS AS REGARDS VOLUMES OF EU TRA  AND AFT 
The EU AfT Strategy sets out the EU appr oach for collectively delivering on its 2005 
commitment to increase its Trade Related As sistance to €2 billion annually by 2010 (€1 
billion from the European Community, €1 bil lion from the EU Member States). It also 
 
EN 14   EN commits the EU to increase its efforts in the wider Aid for Trade agenda 'in coherence with 
overall increases in ODA', but without se tting absolute financial targets.  
As discussed in detail in chapter 3, until 2006 the source for monito ring TRA was the Doha 
Database. From 2007 onwards, the annual m onitoring of TRA volumes is based on the 
amounts reported to the OECD DAC11 Creditor reporting System (CRS) by EU DAC 
members and on the individual replies of the European Commission12 and EU Member States 
to the Monterrey questionnaire13. As explained in Box 2, the change in methodology from the 
Doha Database to the CRS and the consequent adjustment of reporting guidance has resulted 
in the incomparability of some figures over time . It is not possible to compare the figures for 
all individual categories with those of previous years. Howe ver, it would be correct to 
compare the evolution of the Trade-related assistance (categories 1, 2 and 6) globally, 
whereas TRI and BPC numbers can be compared individually.  
4.1. EU delivery of TRA  
Already last year’s report sign alled an important increase in the TRA of EU Member States: 
their total TRA commitments reported for 2006 amounted to €0.64 billion, having increased 
from an average of €0.36 billion between 2001 and 2004. For the European Commission, the 
figure was €0.94 billion. Since th en, there has been an updating of  the Member States figures, 
including by Germany which has made an inventor y of its TRA activities, identifying several 
projects not previously included in its reporting and contributing to a substantial increase in 
the numbers for 2006. According to the new figures, Member States TRA in 2006 was € 0.89 
billion.  
New figures indicate that the collect ive EU pledge was nearly met in 2007.  The total 
reported commitments from EU Member States towards TRA in that year amounted to 
€0.96 billion, up 8% from (updated figures for)  2006. The Community, for its part, passed 
its 1 billion TRA target for the first time . It committed approximately €1.02 billion to 
TRA in 2007. The total EU volumes for the year 2007 towards TRA have thus reached 
€1.98 billion, indicating substantial EU progress towards reaching its targets of €1 + €1 billion by 2010.  
                                                
 
11 For information on OECD CRS statistics on Aid: 
http://www.oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_34447_1_1_1_1_1,00.html  
For direct access to the OECD Interna tional Development statistics online: 
http://stats.oecd.org/WBOS/Default.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW  
12 EC volumes reported in this document include amounts committed by EC and by the EIB Group which 
are classified under the OECD definitions as ODA. 
13 All OECD/DAC members received the questionnaire with an extract of its so called "CRS profile", also 
showing programmes marked as "Trade Development". As part of the questionnaire, donors were asked 
to verify whether the CRS profile provided a correct representation of the AfT provided by them. 
Where not, they were asked to provide additional information. In order to capture other programmes that may have been reported as TRA to the Doha Database in the past, the OECD also encourages 
donors to indicate "other" AfT support. . In this year's reporting, nine out of the 16 EU donors (eight 
Member States, AT, DK, EL, FI, FR, IT LU, SE , and the European Commission) reporting to the 
OECD/DAC CRS indicated that the CRS profile was a correct presentation of their AfT (including 
Trade Development) whilst seven said it was not. Four indicated that it was an underestimation.  Of 
those reporting that figures were not correct, six prov ided additional information allowing to correct the 
figures. In cases where an alterna tive number was provided, the updated figures have been used in this 
report. Where no other information was pr ovided, the CRS data has been used. .  
 
EN 15   EN Reporting on TRA remains complex, and it is clear that the increase in TRA on the part of EU 
Member States reflects a certain correction of under-reporting of previous  years, following the 
change in international AfT reporting practi ce in 2007/2008. Efforts to keep TRA at high 
levels must be sustained in the coming years,  along with the commitment to increase funding 
of the broader AfT agenda.   
The table and chart below summarise the to tal TRA volumes by EU donor between 2001 and 
2007. For the period 2001-2005, data are drawn from the Doha Database14. For 2006 and 
2007, the data come from the Doha Database or  the CRS profiles, as confirmed/corrected by 
Member States responses to the Monterrey questionnaire.15 Figures show a constant, 
substantial increase in TRA amounts over the period 2004-2007. 
Chart 1, EU TRA 2001 – 2007, Million €  
Trade Related Assistance
EU Commitments 2001 - 2007
275358504
294408859960912 755923
9589839411,020
1,188
1,1131,427
1,2521,3921,8001,980
05001,0001,5002,0002,500
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
YearMillion €EC
MS Total
Grand total
 
Source: Doha Development Database, CRS profiles and responses to Monterrey questionnaire 
                                                 
14 For more information, see Aid for Trade monitoring report 2008; SEC(2008) 431 
http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/SEC(2008)431%20Aid%20for%20Trade.pdf  
15 Further details are available in the annexed MS and EC donor sheets. 
 
EN 16   EN  
Table 2: EU commitments towards TRA between 2001 and 2007, expressed in million €  
  2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2001-
2004 
average 2005-
2007 
average 
Austria 0.24 0.47 0.58 2.76 6.72 4.95 13.58 1.01 8.42 
Belgium 9.89 8.05 51.09 38.64 26. 81 23.71 33.57 26.92 28.03 
Bulgaria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Cyprus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Czech 
Republic 0.48 0 0 0 0.06 0. 03 0.12 0.12 0.07 
Denmark 10.82 4.45 34.93 2.75 0.50 48.34 112.48 13.24 53.77 
Estonia 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.04 0 0.02 
Finland 4.09 5.82 9.20 0 16.05 30.53 1.60 4.78 16.06 
France 9.65 125.90 85. 47 56.90 85.47 147.77 214.94 69.48 149.39 
Germany 90.86 76.52 91.07 68.67 90.89 243.16 223.71 81.78 185.92 
Greece 4.38 6.03 2. 37 1.03 0.06 3.52 6.09 3.45 3.22 
Hungary 0.11 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0.03 0 
Ireland 0.44 0.40 0.59 0.30 0.69 7.10 10.40 0.43 6.06 
Italy 7.11 4.49 2. 68 7.16 1.86 5.73 15.51 5.36 7.70 
Latvia 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0.08 0 0.05 
Lithuania 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 0.27 0 0.11 
Luxembourg 0.25 0.05 0.01 0.04 0. 04 0.34 0.13 0.09 0.17 
Malta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Netherlands 44.68 54.58 125.27 65.19 76.16 195.24 126.08 72.43 132.49 
Poland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Portugal 1.10 15.32 2.28 1.35 1.90 0.99 0.15 5.01 1.01 
Romania 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.10 0 0.03 
Slovakia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Slovenia 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.20 0 0.73 
Spain 1.07 2.41 5. 20 1.57 6.13 46.92 81.82 2.56 44.96 
Sweden 10.21 4.58 17. 31 8.60 31.05 22.07 55.07 10.18 36.06 
United 
Kingdom 79.95 49.17 76.16 38.56 64.00 77.08 63.35 60.96 68.14 
MS Total 275.33 358.24 504.22 293.52 408.39  858.64 960.30 357.83 742.44 
EC 912.44 755.00 922.52 958.06 983.46  940.90 1,019.68 887.01 981.35 
Grand total 1,187.77 1,113.24 1,426.74 1,251.58 1,391.85 1,799.54 1,979.98 1,244.83 1,723.79 
Source: Doha Development Database except for amounts in italics, for which the data are drawn from the CRS 
and/or responses to the Monterrey questionnaire 
 
EN 17   EN 4.2. EU delivery of wider Aid for Trade 
As explained in Chapter 3, an approximation of  the full bilateral AfT flows can be obtained 
by adding up CRS data for Trad e Policy and Regulation, Trade Related Infrastructure and 
Building Productive Capacity, and then adding to  this funding not classi fied under any of the 
other mentioned categories but flagged up by don ors in the OECD AfT donor questionnaire as 
supporting “Other Trade-related needs”. Using this methodology for the year 2007, Aid for 
Trade can be estimated at €4.74 billion from  EU Member States and €2.43 billion from 
the European Community. Total EU Aid for Trade for 2007 thus reached €7.17 billion. In comparison, for the year 2006, total EU AfT can be estimated at €7.12 billion, €4.56 billion for EU Member States, and €2.57 billion for the European Community.
16  
Chart 2: EU Commitments to the wider AfT agenda 
 Wider Aid for Trade Agend a
EU Commitments 2001-2007
3,4153,175 3,370 3,3274,441 4,5564,7401,742 2,035 1,9031,4442,1182,5652,428
5,157 5,210 5,273 
4,7716,5597,121 7,168
01,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 
2001 2002 2003 2004 200 5 2006 2007 
Year 
Million €EC
MS Total
Grand Total
Source: Doha Development Database, CRS profiles and responses to Monterrey questionnaire 
                                                 
16 The values reported have been obtained by including amounts reported by Member States and EC in 
their replies to the OECD/WTO Aid for Trade questionnaire sent in February 2009. The individual 
amounts and the totals don't necessarily reflect vol umes of Aid as registered in the OECD CRS 
database. The three main reasons are:  (i) only 15 of the 27 MS report to the OECD - the CRS database doesn’t include AfT amounts from BG, 
CY, CZ, EE, HU, LT, LV, MT, PL, RO, SI, SK  
(ii) some MS and the EC reported that the OECD CRS volumes don't reflect their AfT correctly 
(iii) The information in the OECD Database may not include latest volumes reported by donors to the 
OECD as the database can be updated with revised figures when corrections are made. This also explains why volumes for 2006 reported this year may differ from those presented in last year's report. 
The volumes of AfT obtained from the OECD CRS Database for 2007 (download of February 2009) 
are as follows: EU MS € 4.72 billion; EC € 2.23  billion; Grand Total EU (EC+MS) € 6.95 billion 
 
EN 18   EN This methodology excludes from the analys is general budget support programmes and all 
non-earmarked support to multilateral organisations, as it is not possible to allocate general 
budget support amounts, or non-earmarked comm itments to multilateral organisations under 
any of the Aid for Trade categories.  For these reasons, one might consider that amounts 
reported in the present document underestimate  the actual volumes channelled by the 
EU in support of development of trade .  
Overall AfT commitments of the EU have increased steadily over the period 2004-2007, and 
AfT has remained a priority in developm ent cooperation for the EU as a whole. Details 
are provided in Table 3.  
Table 3: EU AfT versus EU ODA commitments17 
EU 
Commitments 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 
AfT 5,157 5,210 5,273 4,771 6,559 7,121 7,168 
ODA - bilateral 
Sector Allocable 10,387.6 12,371.38 14,74 5.76 18,990.81 20,111. 06 24,096,25 27,255.73 
% AfT/ODA 
bilateral Sector 
Allocable 49.65% 42.11% 35.76 % 25.12% 32.61% 29.55% 26.30% 
Total ODA  29,204.79 34,371.38 41,758. 27 47,724.6 62,094.41 75,082,7 68,622.1 
% AfT/ total 
ODA 17.66% 15.14% 12.63% 10.00 % 10.56% 9.48% 10.45% 
Source: OECD-STATS (DAC5; DAC1) and responses to Monterrey questionnaire  
4.3. Developments in EU AfT per category 
The following graph shows the trend in EU (M ember States and European Community) AfT 
for each of the Aid for Trade categories. The data show an increase in spending for Trade Policy and Regulation (TPR); Trade-Related In frastructure (TRI); and Building Productive 
Capacities (BPC, including Tr ade Development) for 2005/2006 as compared to previous 
years. Thereafter, there is a decline in Trade Re lated Infrastructure, alth ough the levels remain 
higher than in all the years prior to 2004. Commitments to Productive Capacities have 
increased substantially since 2004. Trade Related Ad justment is just starting to emerge, with 
the European Community being the only donor s upporting this issue. "Other trade related 
needs" account for a negligible share of the to tal. Details of European Community versus 
Member States' contributions  to the different categorie s are provided in Annex 1.  
                                                
 
17  It should be noted that contrary to the practice regarding general EU ODA reporting, the Aid for Trade 
reporting is made on commitments, not disbursements.   
 
EN 19   EN Chart 3. EU Aid for Trade by category, Million € 
 EU Commitments 2001 -2007 by AfT Category  
0 500  1,000  1,500  2,000  2,500  3,000  3,500  4,000  
2001  2002  2003   2004  2005 2006 2007
YearMillion €
 TPR – Cat 1    
TRI – Cat 3  
BPC – Cat 4  
TRAdj – Cat 5  
Other TR Needs –C a t  6  
AfT reported without  
Category breakdown  
Source: CRS database  
4.4. Geographical distribution of EU AfT  
Of the 27 Member States, only 15 us e the OECD CRS, while the others (BG, CY, CZ, EE, 
HU, LT, LV, MT, PL, RO, SI, SK)  report volumes through the OECD/WTO questionnaire 
only. However, as not all Member States provi de a detailed breakdown by region of their AfT 
volumes through the OECD/WTO AfT questionnair e, their support cannot be included in a 
consolidated analysis of AfT by region for 2007. The only way a regional analysis can be 
done at present is by using the OECD CRS da tabase. Even though the OECD CRS database 
does not include AfT support from all EU donors, it  is considered to be  sufficiently reliable 
for the purposes of this analysis.18  
On the basis of this analysis, Africa is confirmed as the region receiving most AfT (€2.73 
billion in 2007 and 43.9% of total EU AfT in  2005-2007), followed by Asia (24.1%, with an 
increase in 2007 of BPC flows up to over €1 bill ion) and America (8.4%), which recorded the 
highest relative increase in 2007. Total EU AfT to "unspecified countries", which include 
global commitments, represent 12.1% of the total. This is illustrated in charts 4 and 5 below. 
Detailed information on distribution by region an d by sector is available in Annex 2 and 3. 
                                                 
18 For instance the total EU AfT in 2005-2007 from  the OECD CRS Database have a 10% difference 
compared to the volumes reported in Section 4.2, based on CRS+ Monterrey questionnaires. Total EU 
AfT in the CRS Database is € 6.95 billion, while the MS and the EC actually reported commitments in 
2007 for € 7.17 
 
EN 20   EN As the TD marker is not yet used systematica lly, it is not possible to analyse the distribution 
of TRA alone. This issue will have to be addressed in the coming years, by making consistent use of the TD marker. 
Chart 4. EU Aid for Trade by region, million € 
Wider AfT Agenda
EU Commitments by region 2005 -2007
0 500   1,000   1,500   2,000   2,500   3,000   3,500   
Africa  America  Asia  Europe  Oceania  Developing  
countries   
unspecified  Million € 
2005
2006  
2007
Source: CRS 
 
EN 21   EN Chart 5. EU Aid for Trade by region, distribution, % 
Wider AfT Agenda
Distribution of EU Commitments by region in 2005-2007
43.9%
8.4%24.1%10.4%0.5%12.8%Africa
America
Asia
Europe
Oceania
Developing countries
unspecified
 
Source: CRS 
5. OUTLOOK FOR THE FUTURE  
Ten of the 27 Member States (CZ, DK, FI, FR, IE, LT, LU, NL, SE and UK)  and the European 
Commission replied that they have indicative fo rward spending plans that include estimates of 
AfT. However, from the details provided it was not possible to draw clear conclusions on the 
amounts that will be made availa ble, except in a few cases. This  is due to budgetary rules and 
the lack of sufficiently detailed multi-annual planning systems. 
6. EU ALIGNMENT WITH AID EFFECTIVENESS PRINCIPLES IN AID FOR TRADE  
6.1. Joint analysis, strategies, program mes, delivery and monitoring 
Moving towards more joint and less dispersed Af T efforts is a key dimension of the EU AfT 
Strategy (as it is in the overar ching development cooperation effo rts of the EU). The EU will 
take joint action to respond to AfT needs identified by comprehensive needs assessments, and increasingly develop and appl y joint implementation modalitie s, in cooperation with all 
partners.  
This year's questionnaire has tried to capture the situation in this regard in some detail. 
However, as shown below, whilst many Member States have some experience of joint needs assessment, strategy formulation, programmes or  delivery, these approaches are not common 
practice. This indicates that this is an area where important further work is required. 
 
EN 22   EN 6.1.1.  Joint needs assessment 
Five Member States (DK, IE, NL, SE, UK)  and the European Commi ssion indicated that they 
had supported or were contributing to joint needs assessments in more than 30% of their partner countries. Two Member States (DE and FI)  indicated that they did so or had done so 
in some 10 to 30% of their partne r countries. Twelve Member States (AT, BE, CY, CZ, EE, 
EL, FR, HU, IT, LT, LU, PT)  had experience of joint needs assessment in less than 10% of 
their partner countries
19. Seven Member States did not answer this question. All in all, this is 
an important area in terms of the need for more  work and effort. The answers are in line with 
last year's responses relating to the use of th e Integrated Framework, which - despite a great 
deal of overarching EU commitment to the instru ment - showed little direct Member State use 
of the tool.  
Last year, nine Member States reported having undertaken joint analysis of trade situations. 
6.1.2.  Joint AfT strategy formulation  
Four Member States (DK, NL, SE, UK)  and the European Commission said that they had 
supported or were contributing to Joint AFT stra tegy formulation in more than 30% of their 
partner countries. One Member States, namely Finland, indicated that it had experience of 
joint strategy formulation in between 10 and 30 % of its partner countries. Thirteen Member 
States  (AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, PT)  had experience of joint AfT 
strategy formulation in less than  10% of their partner countries20. Eight Member States did 
not answer this question. 
Last year, seven Member States reporte d having embarked on joint programming.  
6.1.3.  Joint aid for trade programmes  
Three Member States (DK, SE, UK)  indicated that they had suppor ted or were contributing to 
Joint AfT programmes in more than 30% of th eir partner countries. Four Member States (AT, 
FI, LV, SI)  indicated that they did or had done so  in between 10 and 30 % of their partner 
countries. Thirteen Member States (BE, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, FR, HU, IE , IT, LU, NL, PT)  
and the European Commission had experience of  joint AfT programmes in less than 10% of 
their partner countries21. Six Member States did not answer the question. 
6.1.4.  Pool funding  
Five Member States (DK, IE, NL, SE, UK)  indicated that they had supported or were 
contributing to pool funding in more than 30% of  their partner countries. Two Member States 
(AT and FI)  indicated that were cont ributing or had done so in some 10 to 30% of their 
partner countries. Eleven Member States (BE, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, FR, HU, IT, LU, PT)  and 
                                                 
19 Nb: as formulated, the question does not allow to say whether all the 12 MS actually had an experience 
with joint needs assessment 
20 Nb: as formulated, the question does not allow to conclude that all these 13 MS actually had an 
experience with joint AfT strategy formulation 
21 Nb: as formulated, the question does not allow to conclude that all these 13 MS actually had an 
experience with joint AfT programmes 
 
EN 23   EN the European Community were c ontributing or had done so in le ss than 10% of  their partner 
countries22.  
Last year, seven Member States reported experi ence of joint delivery in the broadest sense 
(not only pool funding). 
6.1.5.  Delegated cooperation  
One Member States only, namely the Netherla nds, had experience of delegated cooperation in 
more than 30% of its partner c ountries. Three Member States (BE, FI, IE)  indicated that they 
had such experience in between 10 and 30% of  their partner countries. Thirteen Member 
States ( AT, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL , FR, HU, IT, LU, PT, SE) and the European Commission 
had experience of delegated cooperation in less than 10% of their partner countries23. Eight 
Member States did not respond. 
6.1.6.  Joint monitoring and evaluation 
Five Member States (DK, IE, NL, SE, UK)  and the European Comm ission had supported or 
were contributing to Joint monitoring and eval uation in more than 30% of their partner 
countries. Fourteen Member States (AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, FI, FR, HU, IT, LU, NL, 
PT) had experience of joint monitoring and eval uation in less than 10% of their partner 
countries24.  
All in all there appears to be room for major improvements in the area of closer collaboration 
between donors under government leadership. Much more work is required to ensure that Aid 
Effectiveness Principles ar e adhered to in AfT.  
6.2. Regional integration 
The EU AfT Strategy commits the EU to colle ctively upgrade AfT at regional level and to 
further strengthen its support for the implementa tion of regional integr ation strategies. It 
commits the EU to step up support to regional or ganisations' capacity to organise coordination 
and stakeholder involvement and to further identify and priori tise trade related needs. The 
Strategy commits the EU to provide adequate re sponses to the priorities thus defined, using 
joint delivery mechanisms where possible.  
6.2.1.  Strategic importance  
Last year, eight Member States (FI, FR, DE, ES, NL, SI, SE and the UK)  stated that they had 
strengthened their suppor t for the implementation of regional integration strategies. This year,  
17 Member States (BE, BG, CZ, DE, DK, FI, FR, HU, IE , LT, LU, LV, NL, PT, RO, SE, SI)  
highlighted the regional dimension as being important. UK and the European Commission 
indicated that it was essential. AT pointed out that it was a minor  aspect of its AfT, and three 
Member States ( EL, ES, IT ) indicated that it was not present in their AfT, although ES did not 
                                                 
22 Nb: as formulated, the question does not allow to conclude that all these 14 MS actually had an 
experience with joint pool funding 
23 Nb: as formulated, the question does not allow to conclude that all these 13 MS actually had an 
experience with Delegated AfT Cooperation 
24 Nb: as formulated, the question does not allow to conclude that all these 14 MS actually had an 
experience with joint AfT evaluations 
 
EN 24   EN rule out the possibility that this might change in the future. The remaining five Member States 
(CY, EE, MT, PL, SK)  ticked the "n.a/ not sure" box).  
Some Member States pointed to specific measures that had been  taken recently to address the 
regional level. This included the creation of specific cells within the administration to deal with regional issues (BE) ; specific directions sent to embassies (BE); specific mention or 
explanation of the rationale for increased efforts at regional level in the operational 
instructions/ AfT action plans of Member States (FI). Some Member States said that they 
were in the process of increasing bilateral c ooperation with regional integration commissions 
and secretariats (DE) . Some (e.g. Hungary) mentioned exam ples of regional projects.  
France indicated that the consideration of the regional dimension takes place primarily 
through the handling of national demands in line with the EU AfT Strategy, and in particular 
the work on regional packages. Sweden said that regional integration is an important part of 
the Swedish Aid for Trade strate gy, both as a means of enhanci ng regional South-South trade, 
but also as an important stepping stone to in creased multilateral trade. Sweden is in the 
process of developing a new cooperation strategy for Africa,  which will keep regional 
economic integration (including trade integrat ion) as one of its main priorities.  
The European Commission has supported extensiv e policy discussions on  this matter in 2008, 
which were started off by the issuing of a new Communicati on on Regional Integration for 
Development in ACP countries
25, and recorded in the conclu sions by the Council of the EU26. 
It also drew attention to the ongoing work on regional AfT packages, outlined in Chapter 7 
below.  
6.2.2.  Assessment of demand for regional support and factors determin ing the channelling 
of support 
One Member States (LT) indicated that demand for re gional support had increased 
significantly. Eight Member States (BE, DE, EE, LV, FI, NL, SE UK) and the European 
Commission said it had increase d. Seven considered that it had remained relatively unchanged 
(AT, CZ, EL, FR, HU, IE, SI) . (Six Member States ticked the n.a /don't know box). 
Important factors in determining whether to sup port regions covered all those included in the 
questionnaire:  
– "Relevance to ongoing regional trade ag reements/ negotiations" was ticked by 15 
respondents 
– "Regional proximity/ support to neighbouring re gional economic integration process" was 
ticked by 14 respondents 
– "Cultural, linguistic or historical ties with the region" was ticked by 12 respondents 
– "Existence of a viable count erpart at regional level" was ticked by 15 respondents 
– "Request for assistance from a regi onal body" was ticked by 18 respondents 
– "Availability of a clearly defined region al development strategy" was ticked by 13 
respondents 
– "Geographical concentration of donor act ivities" was ticked by 14 respondents 
Germany pointed out that it has a range of regional  concept and profile pape rs that are used as 
political guidelines for determining the focal ar eas of German support to the various countries 
                                                 
25 Regional Integration for Development in ACP countries, Com (2008) 604 of 1 October 2008  
26 Council conclusions of 10 November 2008 
 
EN 25   EN and regions globally. Most regional support is currently given to African Regional Economic 
Communities (RECs), based on the decision that strengthening regional integration processes 
can provide major leverage to economic and political stability, growth and poverty reduction 
in the African regions.  
For the European Commission, the key factor to be considered is whether regi ons are engaged 
in regional integration processes and whether they need and reque st support for these efforts. 
Much emphasis is being placed at present on supporting regional organisations in the implementation of their mandates. A great deal  of effort is going into supporting regional 
organisations defining and sequencing support priorities, supporting absorption capacity, 
supporting coordination with the Regional Organisations' national members, donors, and other 
stakeholders, supporting the effectiveness of va rious forms of regional delivery such as 
regional funds, etc. 
6.2.3.  Volumes of EU regional support 
There has been an increase in the volume of EU regional support since 2005. Five Member 
States ( CZ, HU, LT, SE, UK ) and the European Commission indicated that regional support 
had increased by more than 30% in this period. Three Member States ( AT, DE, LV)  said it had 
increased by between 15 and 30 %. For BE and SI it had increased between 5 and 15%, whilst 
for DK, EE, IE, and NL it had increase d by less than 5%. One Member State (FR)  considered 
that their CRS profile did not allow to respond to  the question. Spain said that, whilst it is not 
specifically tracking regional s upport at the present time, it does intend to improve data 
tracking in the future. 
Chart 6 below indicates the share of EU Aid for Tr ade that is delivered at regional level. This 
is not synonymous with supporting regional in tegration, but it gives an indication of the 
presence of the regional dimension in EU Aid fo r Trade. As can be seen from the chart, the 
share of regional programmes in EU AfT (e xcluding "bilateral unspecified" commitments) 
was nearly a sixth of the total in 2007. Th ere are important differences between the 
Community and the EU Member States, howev er. EU Member States regional programme 
funding moved from 4% to 9% of total AfT during the period 2005 to 2007. For the European 
Community, the corresponding figures were 17% and 22%(See Annex 4 for details.). 
 
EN 26   EN Chart 6: EU AfT delivered  at regional level 
 Wider AfT Agenda 
EU Commitments, regional programmes in 2005-2007
8%18%
13%
0.01,000.02,000.03,000.04,000.05,000.06,000.07,000.08,000.09,000.010,000.0
2005 2006 2007
YearMillion €  
0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%16%18%20%
Regional programmes
Total (national + regional )
Regional programmes, 
% of grand total  
 
7. ACP  SPECIFIC ISSUES  
Chart 7 and tables 4, 5 and 6 below provide in formation on bilateral and regional AfT to ACP 
countries/region, based on inform ation drawn from the OECD CRS. The ACP share of total 
Member States AfT varies from 39% in 2005, to 22% in 2006, and back up to 27% in 2007. 
For the European Community, the figures were 71%, 62% and 53% respectively. The 2007 
EU average was 36%, down from the level of 50% in 2005. Due to the fact that not all 
Member States are applying the trade development marker, it was not possible to calculate the 
percentage of EU TRA that goes to ACP.  
In 2008, the EU paid particular at tention to regional integration as an engine for development. 
On 1st October 2008, the Commission issued a Co mmunication on "Regional integration for 
development in ACP countries27". This highlighted the contribution that regional integration 
can make to political stability (for instance through regional conflict resolution mechanisms), 
prosperity (through larger, more effective markets), to the pr ovision of regional public goods 
(e.g. cross-border infrastructure) and to the solving of challe nges (such as AIDS or the 
protection of natural res ources and migration).  
On 10 November 2008, the Council endorsed the five priorities that were advocated to 
enhance regional integration in  the ACP countries: strengthe ning regional institutions, 
building regional integrated markets, supportin g business development,  connecting regional 
infrastructure networks and de veloping regional policies for sustainable development. It 
stressed that the priorities for European supp ort for regional integra tion will need to be 
tailored to the priorities identified with each region. It recalled th e importance of greater 
ownership of integration by the ACP and called on the Commission and the Member States to 
                                                 
27 Regional Integration for Development in ACP countries, Com (2008) 604 of 1 October 2008 
 
EN 27   EN intensify dialogue with the ACP countries on this topic. In  this connection, the Council 
pointed out that the success of  regional integration processes also requires national public 
institutions to be strengthened and more closel y involved. It also underlined the importance of 
increased engagement with the priv ate sector and civil society.  
The Council reiterated its faith in economic partnership agreements (EPAs), which are 
intended to assist the development of ACP countri es and are a key element, in the context of 
the ACP-EC partnership, in st rengthening regional integration. 
The Council also agreed to make headway with  the preparation of regional AfT packages for 
the ACP. This will be a key area of EU work in 2009.  
Chart 7: AFT to the ACP, Million €  
 Wider AfT Agenda  EU Commitments in ACP region 2005 -2007 
50%  
38% 36% 
0.0 1,000. 0 2,000. 0 3,000. 0 4,000. 0 5,000. 0 6,000. 0 7,000. 0 8,000. 0 
2005 2006 2007  
Year Million €
 
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 
ACP  Total
 
Grand Total (excl uding
bilateral unspecified ) 
ACP % of grand  tota l
 
Source: CRS   
7.1. Regional AfT packages for the ACP 
At the heart of efforts in 2008 has been work to step up support to ACP regional integration 
agendas and implementation of Economic Partne rship Agreements (EPAs), in particular 
through the process of establishing what are known as regional aid for trade packages  for the 
ACP, a commitment endorsed by the Counc il on 27 May 2008, and then again on 10 
November 2008. . The role of the regional AfT p ackages is to support th e regional integration 
agendas of the ACP countries by providing a c oordinated and increased financial response 
from the EU (i.e. European Community and Me mber States) to the needs and priorities 
expressed by the ACP countries and regions , including for implementation of Economic 
Partnership Agreements that are agreed or be ing negotiated between the EU and ACP regions. 
Box 3 sets out the aims and principles of the packages.  
 
EN 28   EN  
Box 3: Aims and principles of th e Regional AfT packages for the ACP 
"The Council encourages the Commission and the Member States to continue working together to this purpose" 
{i.e. enhanced coordination and predictability in the planning and delivery of AfT contributions}, and welcomes the Commission initiative for the joint design with our ACP partners of specific EU Regional AfT packages for 
the ACP, including accompanying measures of regional EPAs, building on the 10th EDF regional programming 
process. These packages would be based on the following aims and principles: 
• Supporting ACP owned regional integration agendas, including addressing needs arising from EPAs as well 
as from interim agreements; 
• Providing an effective, coherent and concrete EU response to needs and priorities expressed by the ACP 
countries and regions, including in national and regional development plans; 
• Fostering coordination among all donors and recipients; 
• Covering, as appropriate, programmes falling under the six categories of AfT
28; 
• Covering actions, ongoing and planned at national and regional level by the Commission, the Member States 
and, as far as possible, other donors; in this context, the Commission is invited to further involve Member 
States during the 10th EDF programming.   
When planning and designing these packages, due considera tion will be given to the principles and best practices 
agreed in the Paris Declaration on  Aid Effectiveness and in the Code of Conduct on Complementarity and 
Division of Labour in Development Policy. To this en d, the Council reconfirmed th at the EU will support the 
technical capacity of regional and national ACP institutions for identifying, prioritising, designing, implementing 
and monitoring AfT programmes." 
Source: Para 9 of Council conclusions of 27 May 2008.  
Regional packages are prepared on a region by region basis. This involves identification of 
support needs and priorities at  national and regional level, including cost ing, concrete 
planning and sequencing of activities, identif ication of responsible  agencies; mapping of 
ongoing relevant activities; and, finally, matching of key gaps with financial responses from 
various actors, which include bo th ACP and EU as well as ot her donors. The key challenges 
are, on the one hand, to work through and toward s joint regional strategi es and, on the other, 
to mobilise additional financial support.  
The regional integration organisations of the AC P countries are the natural leaders of this 
work, as coordinators of the regional integration pr ocesses. A challenge for them is to 
adequately involve their own me mbers’ stakeholders as well as EU and other donors in the 
needs assessment and prioritisation process. The EU is committed to supporting the regional 
organisations in these efforts, by financing studies, supporting policy dialogue on regional 
integration at national level, etc.  
To support the development of the packages, the European Commission held meetings in 
2008 to inform Member States about progress in EPA negotiations and in the respective 
integration efforts of each region; to prom ote the mapping of ongoing EU support for regional 
integration and trade; and to facilitate a coordinated response  to ACP regional integration 
needs. The European Commission also seeks to ensure full involvement of EU Member States 
in the work of the Regional Preparatory Task  Forces (RPTFs) (or equivalent bodies) which 
serve as a forum to channel information betw een the EPA negotiations and the development 
communities. 
                                                 
28 In addition to TRA, this includes "trade-related infrastructure", "building productive capacity", "trade-
related adjustment" and "other trade-related needs" as defined by the WTO Task Force on AfT . 
 
EN 29   EN The signing of the 10th EDF Regional Indicative Program mes (RIPs) in November 2008 can 
be seen as one milestone in the work to establish the packages. Together with the 
Commission, the ACP regional organi sations have prepared the 10th EDF Regional Strategy 
Papers (RSPs), embedding the regional integrati on visions of the ACP c ountries, and also the 
Regional Indicative Programmes  (RIPs), which constitute the main European Community 
support to these RSPs from 2008 to 2013. The 10th EDF regional progra mmes are the basis 
for EU support for regional AfT packages, alth ough this support has still to be completed by 
EU Member States. With €1.78 billion being allocated to regional  integration of ACP 
countries under the 10th EDF, the overall budget has almost doubled compared to the previous 
period of 2000-2007, reflecting the EU-ACP consensus on the impor tance of regional issues 
for development.  
The European Community regional level support amounts to €645 million in ESA / IO; €116 
million in SADC; €597 million in West Africa; €95 million for the Pacific; and €165 million 
for the Caribbean. An amount of €165 million is  earmarked for the Central Africa region. 
Some EU Member States have also taken si gnificant steps to increase support for regional 
integration.  
Setting up the regional packages is quite an ambitious agenda, requ iring unprecedented 
coordination efforts among a large number of stakeholders which currently may not all be 
fully represented at the regional level. This calls  for very strong leadership by the regions. It is 
also quite clear that a major fa ctor in the success of the packag es is the effective involvement 
and support of the nationa l ACP actors. The national level n eeds not only to actively endorse 
the execution of the mandates of the regional organisation. It also needs to support the 
definition of a coherent set of capacity priorities relevant to the regional strategy, implement 
trade related programmes that match regional in tegration agendas and prepare the countries 
for EPA implementation. The importance of th e national ACP level will be an important 
consideration in the ongoing work in 2009. It should be noted, however, that processes are 
increasingly emerging in the different ACP re gions on which further work can build (See box 
4 on the West African process). 
Box 4. PAPED, progressing towards a re gional AfT package in West Africa 
In the framework of the initiative "Aid for trade region al packages" the Commission has been working with EU 
Member States to prepare a "collective and cohere nt response" to the West Africa's EPA Development 
Programme ( Programme APE pour le Développement –PAPED) . The coordination has been carried out within 
the Regional Preparatory Task Force, bringing toge ther the European Commission, EU-Member States, West 
Africa regional organisations (ECOWAS, UEMOA) and representatives from the countries in the region.  
The EPA Development Programme has the general goal of building a competitive and harmonious regional 
economy that is integrated into the global economy and stimulates growth and sustainable development. 
Specifically, the programme is aimed at helping the West Africa region to derive full benefits from the 
opportunities offered by the EPA and address the adjustment costs, such as the fiscal impact of the trade liberalisation scheme. The EPA Development Programme is based on a broad definition of aid for trade. 
 
 
 
EN 30   EN Tables 4,5 and 6: AfT to ACP regions. Million € 
2005 2006 2007 Members States 
TPR TRI BPC TOTAL TPR TRI BPC TOTAL TPR TRI BPC TOTAL 
Caribbean 1.87 24.02 28. 63 54.52 0.45 3.61 16.31 20. 37 0.00 2.88 19.20 22.09 
Pacific 0.41 0.72 18.48 19.61 0.00 2.70 1.32 4.03 0. 00 2.79 6.08 8.87 
Sub Saharan Africa 22.25 790.31 623.62 1,436.18 28.66 284. 30 585.64 898.61 11.05 371.38 645.73 1,028.16 
ACP countries total 24.52 815.05 670. 74 1,510.32 29.11 290.62 603.28 923. 00 11.05 377.05 671.02 1,059.12 
Grand Total (excluding 
bilateral unallocated) 73.00 2,032.47 1,808.00 3,913.48 90. 84 1,987.15 2,029.44 4,107.42 36.73 1,616.15  2,292.19 3,945.07 
ACP % of grand total 34% 40% 37% 39% 32% 15% 30% 22% 30% 23% 29% 27% 
 
2005 2006 2007 EC 
TPR TRI BPC TOTAL TPR TRI BPC TOTAL TPR TRI BPC TOTAL 
Caribbean 2.60 14.87 44.98 62.46 45.50 24.027 66.38 135.91 2.32 24.00 75.87 102.18 
Pacific 0.00 11.41 13.78 25.19 0.00 5.00 15.12 20.20 4. 56 1.46 12.61 18.63 
Sub Saharan Africa 62.70 999.88 314. 829 1,377.42 118.12 884.50 416.52 1, 419.14 111.91 539.70 266.03 917.63 
ACP countries total 65.30 1,026.17 373. 59 1,465.06 163.61 913.53 498.10 1, 575.24 118.78 565.15 354.51 1,038.44 
Grand Total (excluding 
bilateral unallocated) 120.99 1,282.19  650.95 2,054.14 294.22 1, 298.87 802.43 2,395.52 174.7 90 989.926 780.37 1,945.08 
ACP % of grand total 54% 80% 57% 71% 56% 70% 62% 66% 68% 57% 45% 53% 
 
2005 2006 2007 EU (Member States+EC) 
TPR TRI BPC TOTAL TPR TRI BPC TOTAL TPR TRI BPC TOTAL 
Caribbean 4.47 38.90 73.61 116.98 45.95 27.64 82.69 156.27  2.32 26.88 95.07 124.26 
Pacific 0.41 12.13 32.26 44.80 0.00 7.70 16.52 24.23 4. 56 4.24 18.70 27.50 
Sub Saharan Africa 84.95 1,790.19 938. 45 2,813.59 146.78 1,168.81  1,002.16 2,317.75 122.96  911.08 911.76 1,945.79 
ACP countries total 89.83 1,841.22 1,044.33  2,975.38 192.73 1,204.15 1,101.37 2,498.24 129.84 942.205 1,025.52  2,097.56 
Grand Total (excluding 
bilateral unallocated) 193.99 3,314.67 2,458.96 5,967.61 385.06  3,286.02 2,831.87 6, 502.94 211.51 2,606.07  3,072.56 5,890.15 
ACP % of grand total 46% 56% 42% 50% 50% 37% 39% 38% 61% 36% 33% 36% 
Source: CRS 
 
EN 31   EN Annex 1: Details of EC and Member States commitments to the different AfT categories  
Trade Policy and Regulation
EU Commitments 2001-2007
427245 48106159119 26122 191
98123328
200
68194236
146229487
320
0100200300400500600
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007YearMillion €EC
MS Total
Grand Total
 
. Trade Related Infrastructur e
EU Commitments 2001-200 7
1,417 1,3661,541 1,4072,166
1,829 1,724885 903 1,010
7591,285
1,312
1,102 2,302 2,2692,551
2,1663,451
3,141
2,826
05001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 200 6 2007 
Year 
Million €EC
MS Total
Grand Total
 
 
EN 32   EN  Building Productive C apacity
EU Commitments 2001 -2007 
1,955 1,737  1,784 1,8722,169 2,5652,894 831  1,010  702 587 710 9251,102 
2,786 2,747 
2,486 2,4592,8793,491 3,995
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 
2001  2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007  
Year 
Million €  
 
EC 
MS Total  
Grand Total  
 
EN 33   EN EU Aid for Trade from 2001 – 2006 expressed in million €  
Member States 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 
TPR – Cat 1 42.00 72.00 45.00 48.00 106.00 157.70 117.15 
TRI – Cat 3 1,417.00 1,366. 00 1,541.00 1,407.00 2,166.00 1,829.60 1,722.50
BPC – Cat 4 1,955.00 1,737. 00 1,784.00 1,872.00 2,169.00 2,568.82 2,893.00
TRAdj – Cat 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
Other TR Needs – Cat 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
AfT (No category 
specified) 0.59 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.06 2.92 2.52 
Total MS AfT 3,414.59 3,175.00 3,370. 01 3,327.00 4,441.06 4,559.05 4,735.17
        
EC 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 
TPR – Cat 1 26.00 122.00 191.00 98.00 123.00 327.70 198.27 
TRI – Cat 3 885.00 903.00 1,010.00 759.00 1,285.00 1,312.30 1,101.52
BPC – Cat 4 831.00 1,010.00 702.00 587.00 710.00 925.15 861.71 
TRAdj – Cat 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.18 
Other TR Needs – Cat 6 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 249.83 
AfT (No category 
specified) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
Total EC AfT 1,742.00 2,035.00 1,903. 00 1,444.00 2,118.00 2,565.14 2,425.51
        
EU (MS + EC) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 
TPR – Cat 1 68.00 194.00 236.00 146.00 229.00 485.40 315.42 
TRI – Cat 3 2,302.00 2,269.00 2,551. 00 2,166.00 3,451.00 3,141.90 2,824.02
BPC – Cat 4 2,786.00 2,747.00 2,486. 00 2,459.00 2,879.00 3,493.97 3,754.70
TRAdj – Cat 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.18 
Other TR Needs – Cat 6 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 249.83 
AfT (No category 
specified) 0.59 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.06 2.92 2.52 
Total EU AfT 5,156.59 5,210.00 5,273. 01 4,771.00 6,559.06 7,124.19 7,160.67
Source: OECD-CRS. EU Member States: Austria, Belg ium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, 
Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom) and Monterrey 
questionnaire
 
EN 34   EN Annex 2: Geographical distribution per category of the wider AfT agenda. EU 
commitments 2005- 2007. Million €. Source: CRS  
Wider AfT Agenda in Africa
EU Commitments 2005-2007
91 200 1322,0911,6591,4241,1041,363
1,178
05001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,500
2005 2006 2007
YearMillion €  
BPC
TRI
TPR
Wider AfT Agenda in America
EU Commitments 2005-2007
367814104140
142312347599
0100200300400500600700800
2005 2006 2007
YearMillion €BPC
TRI
TPR
 
 
EN 35   EN Wider AfT Agenda in Asia
EU Commitments 2005-2007
54 60 51885 875
613754 770
1.002
02004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,800
2005 2006 2007YearMillion €
BPC
TRI
TPR
Wider AfT Agenda in Europe
EU Commitments 2005-2007
13 4710 223605
422259332
276
0 2004006008001,0001,200
2005 2006 2007YearMillion €BPC
TRI
TPR
 
 
EN 36   EN Wider AfT Agenda in Oceania
EU Commitments 2005-2007
00512
6531
2018
051015202530354045
2005 2006 2007
YearMillion €BPC
TRI
TPR
 
Wider AfT Agenda in developing countries (unspecified)
EU Commitments 2005-2007
35100131 90150158446806 768
02004006008001,0001,200
2005 2006 2007YearMillion €
BPC
TRI
TPR
 
 
EN 37   EN Annex 3: EU AfT: Geographical breakdown by donors and sectors 2005 – 2007. Million €  
2005 2006 2007 Member States TPR TRI BPC Total TPR TRI BP C Total TRP TRI BPC Total 
Africa 28.33 1,071.86 751.38 1,851.57 65.79 647.10 878.40 1,591.29 16.31 884.16 835.82 1,736.28 
North of Sahara 3.88 280.06 101.22 385.16 0.08 349.01 238.16 587.24 0.63 496.52 89.29 586.44 
South of Sahara 22.25 790.31 623.62 1,436.18 28.66 284.30 585.64 898.61 11.05 371.38 645.73 1,028.16 Africa 
Africa, regional 2.21 1.49 26.53 30.23 37.05 13.79 54.60 105.44 4.63 16.26 100.79 121.69 
America 13.94 38.03 212.54 264.51 9.51 91.34 233.82 334.67 3.65 94.24 397.57 495.45 
North & Central 
America 2.73 31.03 76.74 110.51 9.06 8.49 74.83 92.37 3.26 52.81 138.36 194.42 
South America 0.09 4.81 128.89 133.79 0.45 82.74 120.62 203.81 0.25 34.58 246.20 281.03 America 
America, regional 11.12 2.19 6.90 20.21 0.00 0.11 38.38 38.49 0.14 6.86 13.01 20.01 
Asia 29.72 843.12 658.54 1,531.37 14.40 836.44 646. 95 1,497.80 11.28 556.54 925.50 1,493.32 
Far East Asia 6.66 316.14 318.54 641.34 0.93 535.39 238.03 774.34 5.44 237.61 364.05 607.10 
South & Central 
Asia 21.41 434.79 247.48 703.68 2.15 259.01 371.34 632.50 3.48 274.90 410.86 689.24 
Middle East 1.00 88.04 68.11 157.15 0.60 7.66 20.79 29.06 2.25 35.07 139.00 176.32 Asia 
Asia, regional 0.65 4.15 24.40 29.20 10.72 34.38 16.79 61.90 0.11 8.95 11.59 20.65 
Europe 1.01 79.05 168.50 248.56 1.14 411.04 269.82 682.00 5.49 79.95 128.12 213.55 
Oceania 0.00 0.41 17.05 17.46 0.00 1.23 0.44 1.67 0.00 1.26 5.19 6.46 
Developing countries 
unspecified 33.31 87.20 373.20 493.71 66.12 136.96 683.04 886.11 93.34 46.66 632.64 772.64 
Grand Total 106.31 2,119.67 2,181.21 4,407.19 156.95 2,124.11 2,712.48 4,993.54 130.06 1,662.81 2,924.83 4,717.70 
 
 
EN 38   EN  
2005 2006 2007 European Community TPR TRI BPC Total TPR TRI BPC Total TRP TRI BPC Total 
Africa 62.70 1,018.89 352.37 1,433.96 134.17 1,011.80 484.77 1,630.74 115.26 539.69 342.03 996.98 
North of Sahara 0.00 19.00 37.54 56.55 16.00 42.30 30.00 88.30 0.00 0.00 40.00 40.00 
South of Sahara 62.70 999.89 314.83 1,377.42 118.11 884.50 416.52 1,419.13 111.91 539.69 266.03 917.63 Africa 
Africa, regional 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 85.00 38.25 123.30 3.35 0.00 36.00 39.35 
America 21.60 65.87 99.32 186.80 68.75 49.12 113.09 230.96 10.15 48.21 201.17 259.53 
North & Central 
America 7.60 14.88 61.52 84.00 62.50 24.74 53.72 140.96 3.75 38.11 59.22 101.08 
South America 14.00 51.00 37.80 102.80 6.25 0.37 38.88 45.50 6.40 10.10 46.94 63.44 America 
America, regional 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.00 20.50 44.50 0.00 0.00 95.00 95.00 
Asia 24.69 42.15 95.00 161.84 45.61 38.56 123.12 207.29 40.02 56.70 76.89 173.61 
Far East Asia 7.29 0.85 0.00 8.13 18.30 2.39 20.89 41.58 21.57 0.00 3.29 24.85 
South & Central 
Asia 2.40 36.31 2.00 40.71 17.80 28.87 22.23 68.90 3.45 44.70 13.60 61.75 
Middle East 15.00 4.50 93.00 112.50 6.50 7.30 60.00 73.80 15.01 0.00 20.00 35.01 Asia 
Asia, regional 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 3.01 0.00 20.00 23.01 0.00 12.00 25.00 37.00 
Europe 12.00 143.87 90.48 246.35 45.70 194.39 62.21 302.30 4.81 341.70 147.67 494.17 
Oceania 0.00 11.41 13.78 25.19 0.00 5.00 19.24 24.24 4.56 3.62 12.61 20.79 
Developing countries 
unspecified 2.04 2.32 72.80 77.16 33.48 13.43 122.71 169.62 37.66 111.59 135.60 284.86 
Grand Total 123.03 1,284.52 723.76 2,131.30 327.70 1,312.30 925.15 2,565.14 212.45 1,101.52 915.97 2,229.94 
 
EN 39   EN  
2005 2006 2007 EU (MS + EC) 
TPR TRI BPC Total TPR TRI BP C Total TRP TRI BPC Total 
Africa 91.03 2,090.75 1,103.75 3, 285.53 199.95 1,658.90 1,363.17 3,222. 03 131.57 1,423.85 1,177.85 2,733.27 
North of Sahara 3.88 299.06 138.77 441.71 16.08 391.31 268.16 675.54 0.63 496.52 129.29 626.44 
South of Sahara 84.95 1,790.19 938.45 2,813.59 146.78 1,168.81 1,002.16 2,317.75 122.96 911.08 911.76 1,945.79 Africa 
Africa, regional 2.21 1.49 26.53 30.23 37.10 98.79 92.85 228.74 7.98 16.26 136.79 161.04 
America 35.54 103.91 311.86 451.31 78.26 140.46 346.92 565.63 13.80 142.45 598.73 754.98 
North & Central 
America 10.33 45.91 138.26 194.50 71.56 33.23 128.54 233.33 7.00 90.92 197.58 295.51 
South America 14.09 55.81 166.69 236.59 6.70 83.12 159.49 249.31 6.65 44.68 293.14 344.47 America 
America, regional 11.12 2.19 6.90 20.21 0.00 24.11 58.88 82.99 0.14 6.86 108.01 115.01 
Asia 54.40 885.28 753.54 1,693.21 60.01 875.00 770.08 1,705.09 51.30 613. 24 1,002.39 1,666.93 
Far East Asia 13.94 316.98 318.54 649.47 19.22 537.78 258.92 815.92 27.01 237.61 367.34 631.95 
South & Central 
Asia 23.81 471.10 249.48 744.39 19.95 287.88 393.57 701.40 6.92 319.60 424.46 750.99 
Middle East 16.00 92.54 161.11 269.65 7.10 14.96 80.79 102.86 17.26 35.07 159.00 211.33 Asia 
Asia, regional 0.65 4.65 24.40 29.70 13.73 34.38 36.79 84.91 0.11 20.95 36.59 57.65 
Europe 13.01 222.92 258.98 494.91 46.84 605.42 332.03 984.30 10.30 421.64 275.78 707.73 
Oceania 0.00 11.82 30.83 42.65 0.00 6.23 19.67 25.90 4.56 4.88 17.80 27.25 
Developing countries 
unspecified 35.35 89.52 446.01 570.88 99.60 150.39 805.75 1,055.74 130.99 158.26 768.24 1,057.49 
Grand Total 229.34 3,404.19 2,904. 96 6,538.49 484.65 3,436.41 3,637.62 7, 558.68 342.51 2,764.33 3,840.80 6,947.64 
 
  
 
EN 40   EN Annex 4. EU support delivered at regional le vel 2005 – 2007. Million €. Source: CRS database  
2005 2006 2007 Members States TPR TRI BPC TOTAL TPR TRI BP C TOTAL TPR TRI BPC TOTAL 
Africa, regional 2.21 1.49 26.53 30.23 37.05 13.79 54.60 105.44 4.63 16.26 100.79 121.69 
North of Sahara, regional 0.75 0.40 5. 04 6.20 0.00 0.79 5.08 5. 87 0.00 1.04 4.62 5.67 
South of Sahara, regional 4.13 2.40 13. 71 20.25 7.43 8.78 28.12 44. 33 2.14 6.05 12.61 20.80 
America, regional 11.12 2.19 6.90 20.21 0.00 0.11 38.38 38.49 0.14 6.86 13.01 20.01 
North & Central America, 
regional 0.00 4.46 4.88 9.34 0.33 2.83 10.04 13.20 1.90 44.70 32.92 79.52 
South America, regional 0.00 0.01 8.64 8.65 0.00 70.15 24.78 94. 93 0.00 4.84 32.97 37.81 
Asia, regional 0.65 4.15 24.40 29.20 10. 72 34.38 16.79 61.90 0.11 8.95 11.59 20.65 
Central Asia, regional 0.00 0.00 4.84 4.84 0.00 10.27 15.88 26. 15 0.00 0.04 5.43 5.47 
South & Central Asia, regional 0.00 2.66 0.53 3.18 0.00 0.00 4.92 4.92 0.00 0.00 2.02 2.02 
South Asia, regional 0.00 0.00 0.67 0. 67 0.00 10.96 10.39 21.35 0.00 2.00 16.11 18.11 
Far East Asia, regional 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.25 38. 25 0.00 3.80 16.22 20.02 
Middle East, regional 0.96 0.00 1.57 2. 53 0.49 0.05 0.53 1.07 0.47 3.98 20.76 25.22 
West Indies Unallocated 0.29 0.00 0.31 0.61 0.44 0.00 0.00 0. 44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
Europe, regional 0.48 0.16 14.33 14.96 0.55 0.00 156.36 156.91 0.76 2.49 33.61 36.85 
States Ex-Yugoslavia 0.00 0.00 0.10 0. 10 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 
Oceania, regional 0.00 0.41 4.36 4.77 0.00 1.16 0.00 1.16 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.19 
Total regional funds 20.60 18.34 116.81 155. 74 57.02 153.27 404.27 614.56 10.15 101.20 302.78 414.13 
Total (national + regional 
funds) 106.31 2,119.67 2,181.21 4, 407.19 156.95 2,124.11 2,712.48 4,993. 54 130.06 1,662.81 2,924.83 4,717.70 
Regional funds % of total 19% 1% 5% 4% 36% 7% 15% 12% 8% 6% 10% 9% 
 
 
EN 41   EN  
2005 2006 2007 European Community TPR TRI BPC TOTAL TPR TRI BP C TOTAL TPR TRI BPC TOTAL 
Africa, regional 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 85.00 38.25 123.30 3.35 0.00 36.00 39.35 
North of Sahara, regional 0.00 2.50 32. 50 35.00 0.00 7.30 30.00 37. 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
South of Sahara, regional 62.70 80.20 26. 44 169.34 108.51 38.97 105.85 253. 33 98.72 8.05 71.31 178.09 
America, regional 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.00 20.50 44.50 0.00 0.00 95.00 95.00 
North & Central America, 
regional 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 1.42 17.22 7.90 26.54 
South America, regional 4.00 51.00 6.00 61.00 6.25 0.27 0.00 6. 52 2.00 7.00 0.00 9.00 
Asia, regional 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 3. 01 0.00 20.00 23.01 0.00 12.00 25.00 37.00 
Central Asia, regional 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.00 0.00 18. 00 0.30 0.00 5.00 5.30 
South & Central Asia, regional 0.00 13.01 0.00 13.01 0.00 3.07 0.00 3.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
South Asia, regional 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.59 0.00 0.00 2.59 
Far East Asia, regional 7.29 0.00 0.00 7.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.65 
Middle East, regional 0.00 4.50 32.50 37. 00 0.00 7.30 30.00 37.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
West Indies Unallocated 2.60 0.00 0.00 2.60 40.50 10.00 4.50 55. 00 1.55 0.00 0.00 1.55 
Europe, regional 0.00 15.00 3.00 18.00 0.00 82.86 1.03 83.89 1.00 75.40 14.01 90.41 
States Ex-Yugoslavia 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
Oceania, regional 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 0.00 5.00 11.65 16.65 1.40 2.35 10.61 14.36 
Total regional funds 76.59 166.71 113.44 356. 74 165.33 281.77 261.78 708.87 112.98 122.03 264.83 499.83 
Total (national + regional 
funds) 123.03 1,284.52 723.76 2, 131.30 327.70 1,312.30 925.15 2,565. 14 212.45 1,101.52 915.97 2,229.94 
Regional funds % of grand 
total 62% 13% 16% 17% 50% 21% 28% 28% 53% 11% 29% 22% 
 
 
EN 42   EN  
2005 2006 2007 EU (Member States 
+European Community) TPR TRI BPC TOTAL TPR TRI BP C TOTAL TPR TRI BPC TOTAL 
Africa, regional 2.21 1.49 26.53 30.23 37.10 98.79 92.85 228.74 7.98 16.26 136.79 161.04 
North of Sahara, regional 0.75 2.90 37. 54 41.20 0.00 8.09 35.08 43. 17 0.00 1.04 4.62 5.67 
South of Sahara, regional 66.83 82.60 40. 15 189.59 115.94 47.75 133.97 297. 66 100.87 14.10 83.92 198.89 
America, regional 11.12 2.19 6.90 20.21 0.00 24.11 58.88 82.99 0.14 6.86 108.01 115.01 
North & Central America, 
regional 0.00 4.46 4.88 9.34 7.33 2.83 10.04 20.20 3.32 61.92 40.82 106.05 
South America, regional 4.00 51.01 14.64 69.65 6.25 70.42 24.78 101. 45 2.00 11.84 32.97 46.81 
Asia, regional 0.65 4.65 24.40 29.70 13. 73 34.38 36.79 84.91 0.11 20.95 36.59 57.65 
Central Asia, regional 0.00 0.00 4.84 4.84 0.00 28.27 15.88 44. 15 0.30 0.04 10.43 10.77 
South & Central Asia, regional 0.00 15.66 0.53 16.19 0.00 3.07 4.92 7.99 0.00 0.00 2.02 2.02 
South Asia, regional 0.00 0.00 0.67 0. 67 0.00 10.96 10.39 21.35 2.59 2.00 16.11 20.70 
Far East Asia, regional 7.29 0.00 0.00 7.29 0.00 0.00 38.25 38. 25 0.65 3.80 16.22 20.67 
Middle East, regional 0.96 4.50 34.07 39. 53 0.49 7.35 30.53 38.37 0.47 3.98 20.76 25.22 
West Indies Unallocated 2.89 0.00 0.31 3.21 40.94 10.00 4.50 55. 44 1.55 0.00 0.00 1.55 
Europe, regional 0.48 15.16 17.33 32.96 0.55 82.86 157.39 240.81 1.76 77.89 47.62 127.26 
States Ex-Yugoslavia 0.00 0.00 0.10 0. 10 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 
Oceania, regional 0.00 0.41 17.36 17.77 0.00 6.16 11.65 17.81 1.41 2.54 10.61 14.56 
Total regional funds 97.18 185.05 230.25 512. 48 222.35 435.04 666.05 1,323. 43 123.13 223.23 567.61 913.97 
Total (national + regional 
funds) 229.34 3,404.19 2,904.96 6, 538.49 484.65 3,436.41 3,637.62 7,558. 68 342.51 2,764.33 3,840.80 6,947.64 
Regional funds % of grand 
total 42% 5% 8% 8% 46% 13% 18% 18% 36% 8% 15% 13% 
 
EN 43   EN Annex 5. Glossary  
ACP: African, Caribbean  and Pacific States 
AfT: Aid for Trade BPC: Building Productive Capacities CRS: Creditor Reporting System  DAC: Development Assistan ce Committee (of the OECD) 
DDA: Doha Development Agenda EC: European Community EAC: East African Community ECOWAS:
 Economic Community of West African States 
EDF: European Development Fund  EIF: Enhanced Integrated Framework for trade related assistance to LDCs 
EPA: Economic Partnership Agreement IF: Integrated Framework for trad e related assistance to LDCs 
LDC: Least Developed Country MDG: Millennium Development Goal ODA: Overseas Development Assistance 
OECD: Organisation for Economic  Cooperation and Development 
REC: Regional Economic Community RIP: Regional Indicative Programme RPTF: Regional Prepar atory 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 
 
EN 44   EN UNOPS: United Nations Office of Project Services 
WTO: World Trade Organisation