Commission Staff Working Paper accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee 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}
Date: 2009-04-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cooperation agreement (EU), developing countries, economic recession, report, the EU's international role, third country

 EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 8.4.2009 
SEC(2009) 442 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

accompanying the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE 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 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

5. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

7. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6 

The EU Aid for Trade Strategy At A Glance............................................................... 6 

Strategic and thematic EU efforts in Follow up of the Strategy in 2008 ..................... 8 

Joint efforts initiated at EU headquarters level in 2008............................................... 9 

Developments in Strategic Frameworks, and progress in individual EU donor efforts 
to increase AfT demand and supply........................................................................... 12 

Progress as regards volumes of EU TRA and AfT .................................................... 13 

EU delivery of TRA ................................................................................................... 14 

EU delivery of wider Aid for Trade........................................................................... 17 

Developments in EU AfT per category...................................................................... 18 

Geographical distribution of EU AfT ........................................................................ 19 

Outlook for the future ................................................................................................ 21 

EU alignment with Aid Effectiveness Principles in Aid for Trade............................ 21 

Joint analysis, strategies, programmes, delivery and monitoring .............................. 21 

Regional integration ................................................................................................... 23 

ACP specific issues .................................................................................................... 26 

7.1. 

Regional AfT packages for the ACP.......................................................................... 27 

Annex 1: Details of EC and Member States commitments to the different AfT categories .... 31 

Annex 2: Geographical distribution per category 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 

2 

   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  supporting  all  developing  countries, 
particularly  the  Least  Developed  Countries  (LDCs),  to  better  integrate  into  the  rules-based 
world trading system and to use trade more effectively in 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  Development),  as  well  Productive  Capacity  Building;  Trade  Related 
Infrastructure; Trade Related Adjustment and "Other trade related needs". The dual focus on 
more resources and better impact on development objectives is complementary.  

Already  in  last  year’s  reporting  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  operational  strategy,  based  on  the  EU  Aid  for  Trade 
Strategy,  and  four  are  linking  activities  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 collective 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  billion2.  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 under-reporting of previous years. Efforts to keep TRA at high 
levels must be sustained so that 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  Productive  Capacity,  Trade-Related  Adjustment  and 
"Other trade related needs" - it can be seen that total EU AfT reached €7.17 billion in 2007, 
representing  a  stable  level  as  compared  to  2006,  when  the  commitments  were  €7.12 

1 

2 

Council Conclusions of 15 October 2007 
(http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/misc/96506.pdf.). 
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 activities, identifying several projects not previously 
included in its reporting and contributing to substantially increasing the numbers for 2006. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
billion3. This includes €4.74 billi on in 2007 for EU Member States, 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 cooperation 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 questionnaire 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 donors 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  concerns  are  an  important  part  of  the  policy 
dialogue with more than 75% of their partner countries, 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 AfT 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  sufficiently  mainstreamed  in  the  policy  dialogue  that 
EU donors are having with partner countries.  

The collection of information on the application of the principles of aid effectiveness has been 
refined this year, allowing a more quantitative appreciation of the way in which donors work 
together in the AfT arena. However, whilst many Member States have some experience of 
joint needs assessment, strategy 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  had  supported  or  were  contributing  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 

4 

   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  explanation  of  the  rationale  for  increased  efforts  at 
regional  level  in  the  operational  instructions/  action  plans.  Some  Member  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  challenges  encountered  in  implementation  at 
regional level (lack of an articulated demand for regional Aid for Trade; lack of  coherence 
between national and regional priorities; lack of credible lending authorities at regional level; 
lack  of  effective  coordination  at  regional  level;  difficulties  of  monitoring  and  evaluating  at 
regional level; and lack of credible mutual accountability mechanisms at regional level).  

At  EU  and  international  level,  the  joint  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 support for setting up the Enhanced Integrated 
Framework. Important work went into advancing the preparation of regional AfT packages 
for  the  ACP,  which  is  expected  to  remain  a  key  activity  in  2009,  in  line  with  the  Council 
conclusions of November 2008. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION  

Aid  and  trade  are  twin  pillars  of  the  EU  development  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 adopted, on 15 October 2007, a joint Aid for Trade 
Strategy4. The Strategy is aimed at supporting all developing countries, particularly the Least 
Developed  Countries  (LDCs),  to  better  integrate  into  the  rules-based  world  trading  system 
and  to  use  trade  more  effectively  in  promoting  the  overarching  objective  of  eradicating 
poverty. The present report reflects the second monitoring exercise since the adoption of the 
EU AfT strategy5, following up on the requirements of the Council.  

This  year's  monitoring  report  is  based  largely  on  two  sources:  The  OECD/DAC  Creditor 
Reporting System (CRS) to which most EU Member States provide quantitative 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  AfT  questionnaire  to  all  EU  Member  States  in  the  past,  this 
year it has worked with the OECD to ensure that their questionnaire also catered for the EU's 
internal monitoring needs, in order to avoid duplication and to reduce 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 Commission responded to the OECD/WTO 
questionnaire,  albeit  in  varying  levels  of  detail.  The  Commission  responded  to  the 
questionnaire on the basis of detailed information received from 71 Commission Delegations 
in third countries.  

After a brief summary of the contents of the EU AfT Strategy, the report 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  other  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  field,  as  the  largest  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 policy initiative to substantially step 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  integration  of  developing  countries  into  the  world  trading 

4 

5 
6 

Council Conclusions of 15 October 2007 
(http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/misc/96506.pdf.). 
The first monitoring report was published in April 2008: SEC (2008) 431 
Issues  not  covered  in  detail  include  use  of  the  IF,  experience  of  specific  poverty  targeted  and 
sustainability  efforts  in  AfT  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 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
system  and  to  better  harness  the  benefits  to  be  gained  from  this,  especially  with  a  view  to 
poverty reduction.  

The  EU  AfT  Strategy  is  comprehensive:  It  embraces  "classical"  Trade  Related  Assistance 
(TRA:  Trade  Policy  and  Regulation;  and  Trade  Development),  as  well  the  other  areas 
identified by the WTO Aid for Trade Taskforce: Productive Capacity Building; Trade Related 
Infrastructure; Trade Related Adjustment and "Other trade related needs". Box 1 provides an 
overview  of  the  different  AfT  categories.  The  Strategy  confirms  and  builds  on  previous 
political and financial commitments, such as those of the European Development Consensus7, 
the  Monterrey  commitments  to  Financing  for  Development,  and  the  pledges  made  in  Hong 
Kong in the WTO context.  

The  EU  AfT  is  a  part  of  EU  ODA.  Therefore,  additional  support  for  Aid  for  Trade  will  be 
achieved within the substantial increases in total ODA to which 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 development of new delivery modes, the strategy does 
not involve the creation of additional appropriations over and above ODA.  

The EU AfT Strategy is articulated 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  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  assistance 

delivered,  

•  how to support ACP regional integration efforts; and 
•  how  to  ensure  effective  monitoring  and  reporting  to  sustain  the  process  of  implementing 

the pledges and commitments. 

The Strategy is based on a number of key principles:  

•  AfT should be provided to all developing countries, but particularly to the poorest; 
•  AfT is part of the broader development policies and linked to MDGs; 
•  AfT  complements  but  is  not  a  substitute  for  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 

8 
9

EN 

Joint  Statement  by  the  Council  and  the  representatives  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. 
http://www.oecd.org/document/15/0,2340,en_2649_3236398_35401554_1_1_1_1,00.html  

http://www.ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/michel/Policy/key_documents/docs/COMM_PD

F_COM_2007_0072_F_EN_ACTE.pdf 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Box 1: Aid for Trade categories  

In December 2005, the WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong set up a Task Force to 'operationalise Aid 
for  Trade'.  In  its  2006,  recommendations,  this  Task  Force  stated  that  'Projects  and  programmes  should  be 
considered as Aid for Trade if these activities have been identified as trade-related development priorities in the 
recipient  country's  national  development  strategies'.  It  specified  six  groups  of  activities  that  it  considered  to 
constitute Aid for Trade. The first two of these encompass "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 worked  to  streamline  the  reporting  on  the AfT  categories 
identified by  the  Task  Force.  In  particular, it  has  worked to  link  each AfT  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/ retail trade and trade promotion. Includes training of trade 
officials,  analysis  of  proposals  and  positions  and  their  impact,  support  for  national  stakeholders  to  articulate 
commercial  interest  and  identify  trade-offs,  dispute  issues,  and  institutional  and  technical  support  to  facilitate 
implementation of trade agreements and to adapt to and comply with rules and standards. 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 networking, 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  transport  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 other 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  captured  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  partner  countries  and  regions  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,  programming,  stakeholder  coordination, 
programme implementation, etc. Progress in integrating trade and AfT dimensions into these 
efforts over the past year is reflected in the responses to the OECD/WTO questionnaire, and 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
in  the  levels  of  AfT  flows  over  the  years.  All  these  issues  are  reported  upon  in  subsequent 
chapters.  

EU  Headquarters  support  country  and  regional  work  by  means  of  a  'backstop'  function: 
helping  to  focus  and  prioritise  work,  facilitating  EU  collaboration,  providing  technical 
analysis,  establishing  baselines,  and  ensuring  information  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  impact  of  AfT  on  sustainable 
poverty  reduction.  Among  other  things,  the  EU  would  exchange  information  with  partners 
regarding best practices in this area. In line with this, Sweden and the UK volunteered to lead 
work on strengthening the pro-poor focus and quality 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  inclusive  growth  and  poverty  reduction.  Specific 
objectives are to further develop the ways in which key stakeholders understand and act upon 
the linkages between trade, poverty and inequality.  

Products that are anticipated 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 the 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  and  categories  where  necessary,  and  improving  the  geographical 
tracking  of  AfT  delivered  through  multilateral  channels.  During  2008,  one  working  group 
consisting of the Commission and interested 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  Database)  and  to  rely  instead  on  the  general  ODA 
reporting system offered by the OECD DAC Creditor Reporting System, the CRS. One key 
objective of the EU Working Group was to determine 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  consensus  emerged  that  this  could  not  be 
achieved  fully  at  the  present  time.  It  was  agreed  that  monitoring  of  the  TRA  commitments 
would be optimally assured by all donors continuing to report with 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  falling  within  the  main  AfT  categories.  Full 
transparency on reporting approaches would be essential, and the present report advances this 
objective. Details of the reporting methodology now applied are given in Box 2. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
The  group  also  discussed  the  tracking  of  AfT  delivered  through  multilateral  channels.  At 
present,  OECD  asks  donors  not  to  include  non-earmarked  funding  in  their  ODA  reporting. 
Instead,  AfT  efforts  implemented  by  multilateral  organisations  are  reported  upon  by  the 
respective recipient organisation. The total flow of AfT is thus correctly reflected. However, 
there  is  a  concern  among  donors  providing  important  non-earmarked  resources  to 
organisations whose core business is linked to AfT that this approach leads to under-reporting 
of the effort of the donor who provided the resources. Increasing transparency on the source 
of AfT of multilateral organisations may be important 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 assistance to a specific database hosted by the WTO, the 
Doha  Trade  Capacity  Building  Database.  When  the  WTO  AfT  Taskforce  identified  additional  Aid  for  Trade 
categories  in  2006,  efforts were undertaken  to find proxies  for  these  in  the regular  Creditor  Reporting  System 
(CRS)  that  captures  all  Overseas  Development  Assistance  (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 Infrastructure was proxied with Economic Infrastructure, 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 “33150” 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 OECD. 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 marked 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 Member 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 captured in trade-related CRS codes as “Other trade related 
needs” through the donor questionnaire prepared by the 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.  Examples  are  found  in  rural  development  or  research  and 
innovation programmes (multi purpose codes 430xx), in vocational 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  reporting,  even  if  at  times  disbursement  conditions  and 
indicators  touch  upon  trade-relevant  issues.  Therefore  the  amounts  reported  can  be  said  to  underestimate  the 
actual support that EU provides 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  figures  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 the Trade-related assistance (categories 
1, 2 and 6) globally, whereas TRI and BPC numbers can be compared individually.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
3.1.3. 

Support to the WTO Global AfT Review: Questionnaire and Indicators 

During 2008, the EU lent its support to the preparations for the next WTO Global AfT review, 
which is due to take place in July2009. First, the EU engaged substantially with the OECD in 
the  preparation  of  the  donor  and  partner  country  questionnaires  that  will  feed  into  the 
exercise. A key concern which has been addressed was that the questionnaires should make it 
possible to condense trends and results. The EU participated extensively in the efforts of the 
OECD  to  streamline  reporting  of  AfT  flows  in  the  context  of  discontinuing  the  Doha 
Database  and  switching  to  exclusive  use  of  the  CRS  database  (See  boxes  1  and  2).  In  so 
doing, it was able to ensure that reliable reporting on the AfT pledges made in the WTO could 
continue. 

The  EU  has  also  worked  with  the  WTO  and  other  actors  in  order  to  help  establish  AfT 
indicators,  intended  to  support  the  next  global  AfT  review  in  the  summer  of  2009.  The 
indicators, which are still in preparation, will complement the aggregated data collection and 
analysis  with  specific  information  country  by  country.  This  is  expected  to  facilitate  policy 
dialogue on key issues. The EU underlines the importance of ensuring 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 brought together more than 
200  practitioners,  from  both  developing  and  industrialised  economies  and  also  from  civil 
society  and  from  national  and  international  agencies.  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 levels - of this initiative, to make sure that it is effectively 
delivering its results for the benefit 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  use  of  regular,  independent  evaluations.  It  was 
suggested  that,  where  possible,  joint  donor-partner  evaluations  should  be  undertaken  in  the 
future, as well as evaluations on both policy and 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  Meeting  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,  the  Enhanced  Integrated  Framework  (EIF)10  has 
become  the  focus  of  great  expectations  and  a  symbol  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 ownership and partnership. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Following the selection of the United Nations Office 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  the  objective  to  secure 
predictable and long-term funding for the EIF. About 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 discussion 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  individual  projects.  With  the  remaining  legal  and 
institutional elements falling into place over the 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, operational  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 their AfT work is directly in 
line with the EU Aid for Trade Strategy. The Slovak Republic intends 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  policies  of  the  EU  Member  States.  Many  of  the  respondents 
indicate that their strategy has a specific pro-poor focus, but only a few 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  increased  demand  reported  having  taken  various 
actions  to  respond  to  this,  including:  increased  aid  resources  (9  respondents),  increased  in-
house trade expertise (8 respondents), increased awareness of policy makers (8 respondents), 
strengthened  political  commitment  (8  respondents),  and,  to  a  somewhat  lesser  extent, 
increased  coordination  among  donors  (5  respondents).  Germany  reported  on 
the 
institutionalisation  of  inter-agency  coordination  through  the  setting  up  of  a  special  working 
group;  the  UK  also  reported  on  institutional  changes  aimed  at  raising  the  profile  of  trade 
issues, as well as strengthening linkages with 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 partner countries  take charge  of  defining priorities 
and articulating them in their development strategies. The EU is committed to supporting this 
broadened inclusion of trade and AfT in partners' poverty reduction and national development 
strategies by 2010, by stepping up joint policy dialogue on AfT.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
It is therefore surprising that in this year's questionnaire only the European Commission and 
the Netherlands L mentioned AfT concerns as being an important part of the policy dialogue 
with  more  than  75%  of  their  partner  countries.  Five  Member  States  (DK,  EE,  FI,  LT,  SI) 
indicated  that  the  policy  dialogue  is  important  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 ticked 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 

AT 
EC 
NL 
DE 
DK 
EE 
FI 
LT 
SI 
BE  
EL 
ES 
FR 
IE 
IT 
LU 
LV 
PT 
SE 
UK 

AfT 
important 
of 
part 
Policy 
dialogue  in 
more  than 
75% 
of 
partner 
countries  

AfT 
important 
of 
part 
Policy 
dialogue  in 
between 50 
and  75% 
of  partner 
countries 

AfT 
important 
of 
part 
Policy 
dialogue  in 
between 25 
and  50% 
of  partner 
countries 

AfT 
important 
of 
part 
Policy 
dialogue  in 
than 
less 
25% 
of 
partner 
countries 
X 

X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
X 

X 

X 
X 
X 

X 
X 

X 

AfT  present 
in 
more 
than  75% 
of  Country 
Assistance 
Strategies 

AfT  present 
in  between 
and 
50 
75% 
of 
Country 
Assistance 
Strategies 

AfT  present 
in  between 
and 
25 
50% 
of 
Country 
Assistance 
Strategies 

AfT  present 
in  less  than 
of 
25% 
Country 
Assistance 
Strategies 

X 
X 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

X 
X 
X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
X 

X 
X 

More or less mirroring this picture, the European Commission, DK and NL indicated that the 
country assistance strategies contain trade or AfT 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  indicated  that  AfT  elements  are 
present in less than 25% of country strategies. Seven replied "not sure/n.a". 

4. 

PROGRESS AS REGARDS VOLUMES OF EU TRA AND AFT 

The  EU  AfT  Strategy  sets  out  the  EU  approach  for  collectively  delivering  on  its  2005 
commitment  to  increase  its  Trade  Related  Assistance  to  €2  billion  annually  by  2010  (€1 
billion  from  the  European  Community,  €1  bil lion  from  the  EU  Member  States).  It  also 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
commits the EU to increase its efforts in the wider Aid for Trade agenda 'in coherence with 
overall increases in ODA', but without setting absolute financial targets.  

As discussed in detail in chapter 3, until 2006 the source for monitoring TRA was the Doha 
Database.  From  2007  onwards,  the  annual  monitoring  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.  However,  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 signalled 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 inventory 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  collective  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 

12 

13 

to 

on 

on 

Aid: 

CRS 

direct 

access 

OECD 

online: 

statistics 

statistics 

information 

International  Development 

For 
http://www.oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_34447_1_1_1_1_1,00.html  
the  OECD 
For 
http://stats.oecd.org/WBOS/Default.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW 
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. 
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 provided additional information allowing to correct the 
figures. In cases where an alternative number was provided, the updated figures have been used in this 
report. Where no other information was provided, the CRS data has been used. .  

EN 

14 

   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  practice  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 total 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

2,500

2,000

 €
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

1,500

1,000

500

0

1,188

1,113

912

755

275

358

2001

2002

2003

1,980

1,800

1,427

1,392

941

1,252

1,020

EC

MS Total

Grand total

923

504

983

408

859

960

2005

2006

2007

958

294

2004

Year

Source: Doha Development Database, CRS profiles and responses to Monterrey questionnaire 

14 

15 

EN 

information, 

For  more 
http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/SEC(2008)431%20Aid%20for%20Trade.pdf 
Further details are available in the annexed MS and EC donor sheets. 

for  Trade  monitoring 

see  Aid 

report  2008;  SEC(2008)  431 

15 

   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 

0.24 
9.89 
0 
0 

0.48 
10.82 
0 
4.09 
9.65 
90.86 
4.38 
0.11 
0.44 
7.11 
0 
0 
0.25 
0 
44.68 
0 
1.10 
0 
0 
0 
1.07 
10.21 

0.47 
8.05 
0 
0 

0 
4.45 
0 
5.82 
125.90 
76.52 
6.03 
0 
0.40 
4.49 
0 
0 
0.05 
0 
54.58 
0 
15.32 
0 
0 
0 
2.41 
4.58 

0.58 
51.09 
0 
0 

0 
34.93 
0 
9.20 
85.47 
91.07 
2.37 
0.01 
0.59 
2.68 
0 
0 
0.01 
0 
125.27 
0 
2.28 
0 
0 
0 
5.20 
17.31 

2.76 
38.64 
0 
0 

0 
2.75 
0 
0 
56.90 
68.67 
1.03 
0 
0.30 
7.16 
0 
0 
0.04 
0 
65.19 
0 
1.35 
0 
0 
0 
1.57 
8.60 

6.72 
26.81 
0 
0 

0.06 
0.50 
0 
16.05 
85.47 
90.89 
0.06 
0 
0.69 
1.86 
0 
0 
0.04 
0 
76.16 
0 
1.90 
0 
0 
0 
6.13 
31.05 

4.95 
23.71 
0 
0 

0.03 
48.34 
0.01 
30.53 
147.77 
243.16 
3.52 
0 
7.10 
5.73 
0.08 
0.06 
0.34 
0 
195.24 
0 
0.99 
0 
0 
1.00 
46.92 
22.07 

13.58 
33.57 
0 
0 

0.12 
112.48 
0.04 
1.60 
214.94 
223.71 
6.09 
0 
10.40 
15.51 
0.08 
0.27 
0.13 
0 
126.08 
0 
0.15 
0.10 
0 
1.20 
81.82 
55.07 

1.01 
26.92 
0 
0 

0.12 
13.24 
0 
4.78 
69.48 
81.78 
3.45 
0.03 
0.43 
5.36 
0 
0 
0.09 
0 
72.43 
0 
5.01 
0 
0 
0 
2.56 
10.18 

8.42 
28.03 
0 
0 

0.07 
53.77 
0.02 
16.06 
149.39 
185.92 
3.22 
0 
6.06 
7.70 
0.05 
0.11 
0.17 
0 
132.49 
0 
1.01 
0.03 
0 
0.73 
44.96 
36.06 

64.00 
79.95 
68.14 
742.44 
408.39 
275.33 
981.35 
983.46 
912.44 
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 

63.35 
960.30 
1,019.68 

60.96 
357.83 
887.01 

77.08 
858.64 
940.90 

38.56 
293.52 
958.06 

49.17 
358.24 
755.00 

76.16 
504.22 
922.52 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Czech 
Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
United 
Kingdom 
MS Total 
EC 
Grand total 

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 

16 

   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  Trade  Policy  and  Regulation,  Trade  Related  Infrastructure  and 
Building Productive Capacity, and then adding to this funding not classified under any of the 
other mentioned categories but flagged up by donors 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 Agenda

EU Commitments 2001-2007

7,121

7,168

6,559

2,118

2,565

2,428

5,157

5,210

5,273 

1,742

2,035

1,903

4,771

1,444

3,415

3,175

3,370

3,327

4,441

4,556

4,740

EC

MS Total

Grand Total

8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0

 €

n
o

i
l
l
i

M

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

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  volumes  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 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
This  methodology  excludes  from  the  analysis  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 commitments 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 development cooperation for the EU as a whole. Details 
are provided in Table 3.  

Table 3: EU AfT versus EU ODA commitments17 

EU 
Commitments 
AfT 
ODA - bilateral 
Sector Allocable 
% AfT/ODA 
bilateral Sector 
Allocable 
Total ODA  
% AfT/ total 
ODA 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

5,157 

5,210 

5,273 

4,771 

6,559 

7,121 

7,168 

10,387.6  12,371.38 

14,745.76 

18,990.81 

20,111.06 

24,096,25  27,255.73 

49.65% 

42.11% 
29,204.79  34,371.38 

35.76% 
41,758.27 

25.12% 
47,724.6 

32.61% 
62,094.41 

29.55% 
75,082,7 

26.30% 
68,622.1 

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 (Member 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  Infrastructure  (TRI);  and  Building  Productive 
Capacities  (BPC,  including  Trade  Development)  for  2005/2006  as  compared  to  previous 
years. Thereafter, there is a decline in Trade Related Infrastructure, although the levels remain 
higher  than  in  all  the  years  prior  to  2004.  Commitments  to  Productive  Capacities  have 
increased substantially since 2004. Trade Related Adjustment is just starting to emerge, with 
the  European  Community  being  the  only  donor  supporting  this  issue.  "Other  trade  related 
needs"  account  for  a  negligible  share  of  the  total.  Details  of  European  Community  versus 
Member States' contributions to the different categories 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 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Chart 3. EU Aid for Trade by category, Million € 

EU Commitments 2001-2007 by AfT Category 

n
o

i
l
l
i

M

4,000 

3,500 

3,000 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500  

0 

TPR – Cat 1   

TRI – Cat 3 

BPC – Cat 4 

TRAdj – Cat 5 

Other TR Needs – Cat 6 

AfT reported without 
Category breakdown 

2001  2002  2003   2004  2005 2006 2007
Year

Source: CRS database  

4.4. 

Geographical distribution of EU AfT  

Of  the  27  Member  States,  only  15  use  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 provide a detailed breakdown by region of their AfT 
volumes  through  the  OECD/WTO  AfT  questionnaire,  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 database. 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 and 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 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
€
 
                                                 
As the TD marker is not yet used systematically, 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

3,500  

3,000  

2,500  

n
o

i
l
l
i

2,000  

M

1,500  

1,000  
500   

0 

Source: CRS 

2005
2006 
2007

Africa 

America 

Asia 

Europe  Oceania  Developing 
countries  
unspecified 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
€
 
Chart 5. EU Aid for Trade by region, distribution, % 

Wider AfT Agenda
Distribution of EU Commitments by region in 2005-2007

12.8%

0.5%

10.4%

24.1%

8.4%

Africa

America

43.9%

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 forward 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 available, 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, programmes, delivery and monitoring 

Moving towards more joint and less dispersed AfT efforts is a key dimension of the EU AfT 
Strategy (as it is in the overarching development cooperation efforts of the EU). The EU will 
take joint action to respond to AfT needs identified by comprehensive needs assessments, and 
increasingly  develop  and  apply  joint  implementation  modalities,  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 

21 

   EN 

 
 
6.1.1. 

Joint needs assessment 

Five Member States (DK, IE, NL, SE, UK) and the European Commission 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 partner 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 countries19. 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 the Integrated Framework, which - despite a great 
deal of overarching EU commitment to the instrument - 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 strategy 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 reported having embarked on joint programming.  

6.1.3. 

Joint aid for trade programmes  

Three Member States (DK, SE, UK) indicated that they had supported or were contributing to 
Joint AfT programmes in more than 30% of their 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  contributing  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 

20 

21 

Nb: as formulated, the question does not allow to say whether all the 12 MS actually had an experience 
with joint needs assessment 
Nb:  as  formulated,  the  question  does  not  allow  to  conclude  that  all  these  13  MS  actually  had  an 
experience with joint AfT strategy formulation 
Nb:  as  formulated,  the  question  does  not  allow  to  conclude  that  all  these  13  MS  actually  had  an 
experience with joint AfT programmes 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the European Community were contributing or had done so in less than 10% of their partner 
countries22.  

Last  year,  seven  Member  States  reported  experience  of  joint  delivery  in  the  broadest  sense 
(not only pool funding). 

6.1.5.  Delegated cooperation  

One Member States only, namely the Netherlands, had experience of delegated cooperation in 
more than 30% of its partner countries. 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 Commission had supported or 
were  contributing  to  Joint  monitoring  and  evaluation  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  evaluation  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 are adhered to in AfT.  

6.2. 

Regional integration 

The  EU  AfT  Strategy  commits  the  EU  to  collectively  upgrade  AfT  at  regional  level  and  to 
further  strengthen  its  support  for  the  implementation  of  regional  integration  strategies.  It 
commits the EU to step up support to regional organisations' capacity to organise coordination 
and  stakeholder  involvement  and  to  further  identify  and  prioritise  trade  related  needs.  The 
Strategy commits the EU to provide adequate responses 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 support 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 

23 

24 

Nb:  as  formulated,  the  question  does  not  allow  to  conclude  that  all  these  14  MS  actually  had  an 
experience with joint pool funding 
Nb:  as  formulated,  the  question  does  not  allow  to  conclude  that  all  these  13  MS  actually  had  an 
experience with Delegated AfT Cooperation 
Nb:  as  formulated,  the  question  does  not  allow  to  conclude  that  all  these  14  MS  actually  had  an 
experience with joint AfT evaluations 

EN 

23 

   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 cooperation with regional integration commissions 
and secretariats (DE). Some (e.g. Hungary) mentioned examples 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 strategy, both as a means of enhancing regional South-South trade, 
but  also  as  an  important  stepping  stone  to  increased  multilateral  trade.  Sweden  is  in  the 
process  of  developing  a  new  cooperation  strategy  for  Africa,  which  will  keep  regional 
economic integration (including trade integration) as one of its main priorities.  

The European Commission has supported extensive policy discussions on this matter in 2008, 
which  were  started  off  by  the  issuing  of  a  new  Communication  on  Regional  Integration  for 
Development in ACP countries25, and recorded in the conclusions 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 determining the channelling 

of support 

One  Member  States  (LT)  indicated  that  demand  for  regional  support  had  increased 
significantly.  Eight  Member  States  (BE,  DE,  EE,  LV,  FI,  NL,  SE  UK)  and  the  European 
Commission said it had increased. 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 support regions covered all those included in the 
questionnaire:  

–  "Relevance  to  ongoing  regional  trade  agreements/  negotiations"  was  ticked  by  15 

respondents 

–  "Regional proximity/ support to neighbouring regional 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 counterpart at regional level" was ticked by 15 respondents 
–  "Request for assistance from a regional body" was ticked by 18 respondents 
–  "Availability  of  a  clearly  defined  regional  development  strategy"  was  ticked  by  13 

respondents 

–  "Geographical concentration of donor activities" was ticked by 14 respondents 

Germany pointed out that it has a range of regional concept and profile papers that are used as 
political guidelines for determining the focal areas of German support to the various countries 

25 
26 

Regional Integration for Development in ACP countries, Com (2008) 604 of 1 October 2008  
Council conclusions of 10 November 2008 

EN 

24 

   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 regions are engaged 
in regional integration processes and whether they need and request 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  various  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 increased 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  support  at  the  present  time,  it  does  intend  to  improve  data 
tracking in the future. 

Chart 6 below indicates the share of EU Aid for Trade that is delivered at regional level. This 
is  not  synonymous  with  supporting  regional  integration,  but  it  gives  an  indication  of  the 
presence of the regional dimension in EU Aid for Trade. As can be seen from the chart, the 
share  of  regional  programmes  in  EU  AfT  (excluding  "bilateral  unspecified"  commitments) 
was  nearly  a  sixth  of  the  total  in  2007.  There  are  important  differences  between  the 
Community  and  the  EU  Member  States,  however.  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 

25 

   EN 

 
Chart 6: EU AfT delivered at regional level 

Wider AfT Agenda 

EU Commitments, regional programmes in 2005-2007

n
o

i
l
l
i

M

10,000.0

9,000.0

8,000.0

7,000.0

6,000.0

5,000.0

4,000.0

3,000.0

2,000.0

1,000.0

0.0

18%

13%

8%

2005

2006

Year

2007

20%

18%

16%

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

Regional programmes

Total (national + regional)

Regional programmes, 
% of grand total 

7. 

ACP SPECIFIC ISSUES  

Chart 7 and tables 4, 5 and 6 below provide information on bilateral and regional AfT to ACP 
countries/region, based on information 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 attention to regional integration as an engine for development. 
On 1st October 2008, the Commission issued a Communication 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 provision of regional public goods 
(e.g.  cross-border  infrastructure)  and  to  the  solving  of  challenges  (such  as  AIDS  or  the 
protection of natural resources and migration).  

On  10  November  2008,  the  Council  endorsed  the  five  priorities  that  were  advocated  to 
enhance  regional  integration  in  the  ACP  countries:  strengthening  regional  institutions, 
building  regional  integrated  markets,  supporting  business  development,  connecting  regional 
infrastructure  networks  and  developing  regional  policies  for  sustainable  development.  It 
stressed  that  the  priorities  for  European  support  for  regional  integration  will  need  to  be 
tailored  to  the  priorities  identified  with  each  region.  It  recalled  the  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 

26 

   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 closely involved. It also underlined the importance of 
increased engagement with the private sector and civil society.  

The  Council  reiterated  its  faith  in  economic  partnership  agreements  (EPAs),  which  are 
intended to assist the development of ACP countries and are a key element, in the context of 
the ACP-EC partnership, in strengthening 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 €  

n
o

i
l
l
i

M

Wider AfT Agenda 
-2007 
EU Commitments in ACP region 2005

8,000.0 
7,000.0 
6,000.0 
5,000.0
4,000.0 
3,000.0 
2,000.0

1,000.0
0.0 

AC P T otal

Gr and Total (excluding

bilateral unspecified) 

AC P %  of grand  total

60% 
50% 

40% 

30% 
20% 

10% 

0% 

50%  

38% 

36% 

2005 

2006 
Year 

2007  

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  Partnership  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  Council  on  27  May  2008,  and  then  again  on  10 
November 2008. . The role of the regional AfT packages is to support the regional integration 
agendas  of  the  ACP  countries  by  providing  a  coordinated  and  increased  financial  response 
from  the  EU  (i.e.  European  Community  and  Member  States)  to  the  needs  and  priorities 
expressed  by  the  ACP  countries  and  regions,  including  for  implementation  of  Economic 
Partnership Agreements that are agreed or being negotiated between the EU and ACP regions. 
Box 3 sets out the aims and principles of the packages.  

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
€
 
 
 
Box 3: Aims and principles of the 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 AfT28; 
•  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 consideration 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 end, the Council reconfirmed that 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  costing,  concrete 
planning  and  sequencing  of  activities,  identification  of  responsible  agencies;  mapping  of 
ongoing relevant activities; and, finally, matching of key gaps with financial responses from 
various actors, which include both ACP and EU as well as other donors. The key challenges 
are, on the one hand, to work through and towards joint regional strategies and, on the other, 
to mobilise additional financial support.  

The  regional  integration  organisations  of  the  ACP  countries  are  the  natural  leaders  of  this 
work,  as  coordinators  of  the  regional  integration  processes.  A  challenge  for  them  is  to 
adequately  involve  their  own  members’  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 promote 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 between 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 

28 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
The signing of the 10th EDF Regional Indicative Programmes (RIPs) in November 2008 can 
be  seen  as  one  milestone  in  the  work  to  establish  the  packages.  Together  with  the 
Commission, the ACP regional organisations have prepared the 10th EDF Regional Strategy 
Papers (RSPs), embedding the regional integration visions of the ACP countries, 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 programmes are the basis 
for EU support for regional AfT packages, although 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 importance 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  significant  steps  to  increase  support  for  regional 
integration.  

Setting  up  the  regional  packages  is  quite  an  ambitious  agenda,  requiring  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 factor in the success of the packages is the effective involvement 
and support of the national ACP actors. The national level needs 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  integration  agendas  and  prepare  the  countries 
for  EPA  implementation.  The  importance  of  the  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 regions on which further work can build (See box 
4 on the West African process). 

Box 4. PAPED, progressing towards a regional AfT package in West Africa 

In the framework of the initiative "Aid for trade regional packages" the Commission has been working with EU 
Member  States  to  prepare  a  "collective  and  coherent  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  together  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 

29 

   EN 

 
 
Tables 4,5 and 6: AfT to ACP regions. Million € 

Members States 

Caribbean 
Pacific 
Sub Saharan Africa 
ACP countries total 
Grand Total (excluding 
bilateral unallocated) 
ACP % of grand total 

EC 

Caribbean 
Pacific 
Sub Saharan Africa 
ACP countries total 
Grand Total (excluding 
bilateral unallocated) 
ACP % of grand total 

EU (Member States+EC) 

Caribbean 
Pacific 
Sub Saharan Africa 
ACP countries total 
Grand Total (excluding 
bilateral unallocated) 
ACP % of grand total 

Source: CRS 

TPR 
1.87 
0.41 
22.25 
24.52 

73.00 
34% 

TPR 
2.60 
0.00 
62.70 
65.30 

2005 

TRI 
24.02 
0.72 
790.31 
815.05 

BPC 
28.63 
18.48 
623.62 
670.74 

TOTAL 
54.52 
19.61 
1,436.18 
1,510.32 

2,032.47 
40% 

1,808.00 
37% 

3,913.48 
39% 

2005 

TRI 
14.87 
11.41 
999.88 
1,026.17 

BPC 
44.98 
13.78 
314.829 
373.59 

TOTAL 
62.46 
25.19 
1,377.42 
1,465.06 

120.99 
54% 

1,282.19 
80% 

650.95 
57% 

2,054.14 
71% 

TPR 
4.47 
0.41 
84.95 
89.83 

2005 

TRI 
38.90 
12.13 
1,790.19 
1,841.22 

BPC 
73.61 
32.26 
938.45 
1,044.33 

TOTAL 
116.98 
44.80 
2,813.59 
2,975.38 

193.99 
46% 

3,314.67 
56% 

2,458.96 
42% 

5,967.61 
50% 

EN 

TPR 
0.45 
0.00 
28.66 
29.11 

90.84 
32% 

TPR 
45.50 
0.00 
118.12 
163.61 

294.22 
56% 

TPR 
45.95 
0.00 
146.78 
192.73 

385.06 
50% 

30 

2006 

TRI 
3.61 
2.70 
284.30 
290.62 

BPC 
16.31 
1.32 
585.64 
603.28 

TOTAL 
20.37 
4.03 
898.61 
923.00 

1,987.15 
15% 

2,029.44 
30% 

4,107.42 
22% 

TPR 
0.00 
0.00 
11.05 
11.05 

36.73 
30% 

2007 

TRI 
2.88 
2.79 
371.38 
377.05 

BPC 
19.20 
6.08 
645.73 
671.02 

TOTAL 
22.09 
8.87 
1,028.16 
1,059.12 

1,616.15 
23% 

2,292.19 
29% 

3,945.07 
27% 

2006 

2007 

TRI 
24.027 
5.00 
884.50 
913.53 

1,298.87 
70% 

BPC 
66.38 
15.12 
416.52 
498.10 

802.43 
62% 

TOTAL 
135.91 
20.20 
1,419.14 
1,575.24 

TPR 
2.32 
4.56 
111.91 
118.78 

TRI 
24.00 
1.46 
539.70 
565.15 

2,395.52 
66% 

174.790 
68% 

989.926 
57% 

BPC 
75.87 
12.61 
266.03 
354.51 

780.37 
45% 

TOTAL 
102.18 
18.63 
917.63 
1,038.44 

1,945.08 
53% 

2006 

2007 

TRI 
27.64 
7.70 
1,168.81 
1,204.15 

BPC 
82.69 
16.52 
1,002.16 
1,101.37 

TOTAL 
156.27 
24.23 
2,317.75 
2,498.24 

3,286.02 
37% 

2,831.87 
39% 

6,502.94 
38% 

TPR 
2.32 
4.56 
122.96 
129.84 

211.51 
61% 

TRI 
26.88 
4.24 
911.08 
942.205 

BPC 
95.07 
18.70 
911.76 
1,025.52 

TOTAL 
124.26 
27.50 
1,945.79 
2,097.56 

2,606.07 
36% 

3,072.56 
33% 

5,890.15 
36% 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Annex 1: Details of EC and Member States commitments to the different AfT categories 

Trade Policy and Regulation

EU Commitments 2001-2007

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

n
o

i
l
l
i

M

 €

n
o

i
l
l
i

M

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

487

328

320

EC

MS Total

229

200

Grand Total

236

194

122

191

123

146

68

26
42

72

45

98

48

106

159

119

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

Trade Related Infrastructure

EU Commitments 2001-2007

3,451

3,141

1,285

2,826

1,312

1,102

2,302

2,269

885

903 

2,551

1,010

2,166

759

1,417 

1,366

1,541 

1,407

2,166

1,829

1,724

EC

MS Total

Grand Total

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

.

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
€
 
 
 
 
 
 €

n
o

i
l
l
i

M

Building Productive Capacity

EU Commitments 2001-2007 

4,500 

4,000 

3,500 

3,000 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

3,995

3,491 

1,102 

2,786 

2,747 

831  

1,010  

925

2,879

2,486

2,459

710 

702 

587 

1,955 

1,737  

1,784 

1,872

2,169 

2,894 

2,565

EC 

MS Total 

Grand Total 

2001  

2002 

2003 

2004

2005 

2006

2007 

Year

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EU Aid for Trade from 2001 – 2006 expressed in million €  

Member States 

TPR – Cat 1 
TRI – Cat 3 
BPC – Cat 4 
TRAdj – Cat 5 
Other TR Needs – Cat 6 
AfT (No category 
specified) 
Total MS AfT 

EC 

TPR – Cat 1 
TRI – Cat 3 
BPC – Cat 4 
TRAdj – Cat 5 
Other TR Needs – Cat 6 
AfT (No category 
specified) 
Total EC AfT 

EU (MS + EC) 

TPR – Cat 1 
TRI – Cat 3 
BPC – Cat 4 
TRAdj – Cat 5 
Other TR Needs – Cat 6 
AfT (No category 
specified) 
Total EU AfT 

2003 
45.00 

2002 
72.00 

2001 
42.00 

2007 
2004 
48.00 
117.15 
1,417.00  1,366.00 1,541.00 1,407.00 2,166.00  1,829.60  1,722.50
1,955.00  1,737.00 1,784.00 1,872.00 2,169.00  2,568.82  2,893.00
0.00 
0.00 

2006 
157.70 

2005 
106.00 

0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

0.59 

0.00 
3,414.59  3,175.00 3,370.01 3,327.00 4,441.06  4,559.05  4,735.17

2.52 

0.01 

0.06 

0.00 

2.92 

2001 
26.00 
885.00 
831.00 
0.00 
0.00 

2002 
122.00 
903.00 
1,010.00
0.00 
0.00 

2003 
191.00 
1,010.00
702.00 
0.00 
0.00 

2004 
98.00 
759.00 
587.00 
0.00 
0.00 

2007 
2006 
2005 
198.27 
327.70 
123.00 
1,285.00  1,312.30  1,101.52
861.71 
925.15 
710.00 
14.18 
0.00 
0.00 
249.83 
0.00 
0.00 

0.00 

0.00 
1,742.00  2,035.00 1,903.00 1,444.00 2,118.00  2,565.14  2,425.51

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

2001 
68.00 

2002 
194.00 

2003 
236.00 

2007 
2004 
315.42 
146.00 
2,302.00  2,269.00 2,551.00 2,166.00 3,451.00  3,141.90  2,824.02
2,786.00  2,747.00 2,486.00 2,459.00 2,879.00  3,493.97  3,754.70
14.18 
0.00 
249.83 
0.00 

2005 
229.00 

2006 
485.40 

0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

0.00 
0.00 

0.59 

0.00 
5,156.59  5,210.00 5,273.01 4,771.00 6,559.06  7,124.19  7,160.67

2.52 

2.92 

0.01 

0.00 

0.06 

Source:  OECD-CRS.  EU  Member  States:  Austria,  Belgium,  Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece, 
Ireland,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Spain,  Sweden,  United  Kingdom)  and  Monterrey 
questionnaire

EN 

33 

   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

3,500

3,000

2,500

 €

n
o

i
l
l
i

M

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

n
o

i
l
l
i

M

1,104

2,091

91
2005

312

104

36

2005

1,363

1,659

200

2006
Year

Wider AfT Agenda in America
EU Commitments 2005-2007

347

140

78

2006

Year

34 

BPC
TRI
TPR

BPC

TRI

TPR

1,178

1,424

132
2007

599

142

14

2007

   EN 

EN 

 
 
 
€
 
 €

n
o

i
l
l
i

M

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

n
o

i
l
l
i

M

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0 

EN 

Wider AfT Agenda in Asia
EU Commitments 2005-2007

754

770

885

54

2005

259

223
13 
2005

875

60

2006

Year

Wider AfT Agenda in Europe
EU Commitments 2005-2007

332

605

47

2006

Year

35 

BPC

TRI

TPR

BPC

TRI

TPR

1.002

613

51

2007

276

422

10 
2007

   EN 

 
 
€
 
Wider AfT Agenda in Oceania
EU Commitments 2005-2007

31

12

0
2005

20

6
0
2006

Year

18

5

5

2007

Wider AfT Agenda in developing countries (unspecified)
EU Commitments 2005-2007

446

90
35

2005

768

158

131

2007

806

150

100

2006

Year

36 

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

n
o

i
l
l
i

M

 €

n
o

i
l
l
i

M

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

EN 

BPC

TRI

TPR

BPC

TRI

TPR

   EN 

 
 
€
 
 
Member States 

Africa 
Africa 

America 
America 

Asia 
Asia 

North of Sahara 
South of Sahara 
Africa, regional 

North & Central 
America 
South America 
America, regional 

Far East Asia 
South & Central 
Asia 
Middle East 
Asia, regional 

Europe 
Oceania 
Developing countries 
unspecified 

Grand Total 

Annex 3: EU AfT: Geographical breakdown by donors and sectors 2005 – 2007. Million €

2005 

2006 

2007 

TPR 
28.33 
3.88 
22.25 
2.21 
13.94 

2.73 
0.09 
11.12 
29.72 
6.66 

21.41 
1.00 
0.65 
1.01 
0.00 

TRI 
1,071.86 
280.06 
790.31 
1.49 
38.03 

31.03 
4.81 
2.19 
843.12 
316.14 

434.79 
88.04 
4.15 
79.05 
0.41 

BPC 
751.38 
101.22 
623.62 
26.53 
212.54 

76.74 
128.89 
6.90 
658.54 
318.54 

247.48 
68.11 
24.40 
168.50 
17.05 

Total 
1,851.57 
385.16 
1,436.18 
30.23 
264.51 

110.51 
133.79 
20.21 
1,531.37 
641.34 

703.68 
157.15 
29.20 
248.56 
17.46 

TPR 
65.79 
0.08 
28.66 
37.05 
9.51 

9.06 
0.45 
0.00 
14.40 
0.93 

2.15 
0.60 
10.72 
1.14 
0.00 

TRI 
647.10 
349.01 
284.30 
13.79 
91.34 

8.49 
82.74 
0.11 
836.44 
535.39 

259.01 
7.66 
34.38 
411.04 
1.23 

BPC 
878.40 
238.16 
585.64 
54.60 
233.82 

74.83 
120.62 
38.38 
646.95 
238.03 

371.34 
20.79 
16.79 
269.82 
0.44 

Total 
1,591.29 
587.24 
898.61 
105.44 
334.67 

92.37 
203.81 
38.49 
1,497.80 
774.34 

632.50 
29.06 
61.90 
682.00 
1.67 

TRP 
16.31 
0.63 
11.05 
4.63 
3.65 

3.26 
0.25 
0.14 
11.28 
5.44 

3.48 
2.25 
0.11 
5.49 
0.00 

TRI 
884.16 
496.52 
371.38 
16.26 
94.24 

52.81 
34.58 
6.86 
556.54 
237.61 

274.90 
35.07 
8.95 
79.95 
1.26 

BPC 
835.82 
89.29 
645.73 
100.79 
397.57 

138.36 
246.20 
13.01 
925.50 
364.05 

410.86 
139.00 
11.59 
128.12 
5.19 

Total 
1,736.28 
586.44 
1,028.16 
121.69 
495.45 

194.42 
281.03 
20.01 
1,493.32 
607.10 

689.24 
176.32 
20.65 
213.55 
6.46 

33.31 
66.12 
373.20 
106.31  2,119.67  2,181.21  4,407.19  156.95

493.71 

87.20 

93.34 
136.96 
2,124.11  2,712.48  4,993.54  130.06

886.11 

683.04 

46.66 

632.64 
772.64 
1,662.81  2,924.83  4,717.70 

EN 

37 

EN 

 
  
 
 
European Community 

Africa 
Africa 

America 
America 

Asia 
Asia 

North of Sahara 
South of Sahara 
Africa, regional 

North & Central 
America 
South America 
America, regional 

Far East Asia 
South & Central 
Asia 
Middle East 
Asia, regional 

Europe 
Oceania 
Developing countries 
unspecified 

Grand Total 

2005 

2006 

2007 

TRI 
1,018.89 
19.00 
999.89 
0.00 

BPC 
352.37 
37.54 
314.83 
0.00 

65.87 

99.32 

Total 
1,433.96 
56.55 
1,377.42 
0.00 
186.80 

TPR 
134.17 
16.00 
118.11 
0.05 

TRI 
1,011.80 
42.30 
884.50 
85.00 

68.75 

49.12 

14.88 
51.00 
0.00 

42.15 
0.85 

36.31 
4.50 
0.50 
143.87 
11.41 

61.52 
37.80 
0.00 

95.00 
0.00 

2.00 
93.00 
0.00 
90.48 
13.78 

84.00 
102.80 
0.00 
161.84 
8.13 

40.71 
112.50 
0.50 
246.35 
25.19 

62.50 
6.25 
0.00 

45.61 
18.30 

17.80 
6.50 
3.01 
45.70 
0.00 

24.74 
0.37 
24.00 

38.56 
2.39 

28.87 
7.30 
0.00 
194.39 
5.00 

BPC 
484.77 
30.00 
416.52 
38.25 

113.09 

53.72 
38.88 
20.50 

123.12 
20.89 

22.23 
60.00 
20.00 
62.21 
19.24 

Total 
1,630.74 
88.30 
1,419.13 
123.30 
230.96 

TRP 
115.26 
0.00 
111.91 
3.35 

TRI 
539.69 
0.00 
539.69 
0.00 

10.15 

48.21 

140.96 
45.50 
44.50 
207.29 
41.58 

68.90 
73.80 
23.01 
302.30 
24.24 

3.75 
6.40 
0.00 

40.02 
21.57 

3.45 
15.01 
0.00 
4.81 
4.56 

38.11 
10.10 
0.00 

56.70 
0.00 

44.70 
0.00 
12.00 
341.70 
3.62 

BPC 
342.03 
40.00 
266.03 
36.00 

201.17 

59.22 
46.94 
95.00 

76.89 
3.29 

13.60 
20.00 
25.00 
147.67 
12.61 

Total 
996.98 
40.00 
917.63 
39.35 
259.53 

101.08 
63.44 
95.00 
173.61 
24.85 

61.75 
35.01 
37.00 
494.17 
20.79 

TPR 
62.70 
0.00 
62.70 
0.00 

21.60 

7.60 
14.00 
0.00 

24.69 
7.29 

2.40 
15.00 
0.00 
12.00 
0.00 

2.04 
123.03 

2.32 
1,284.52 

72.80 
723.76 

77.16 
2,131.30 

33.48 
327.70 

13.43 
1,312.30 

122.71 
925.15 

169.62 
2,565.14 

37.66 
212.45 

111.59 
1,101.52 

135.60 
915.97 

284.86 
2,229.94 

EN 

38 

EN 

 
  
 
EU (MS + EC) 

2005 

2006 

2007 

Africa 
Africa 

America 
America 

Asia 
Asia 

North of Sahara 
South of Sahara 
Africa, regional 

North & Central 
America 
South America 
America, regional 

Far East Asia 
South & Central 
Asia 
Middle East 
Asia, regional 

Europe 
Oceania 
Developing countries 
unspecified 

TPR 
91.03 
3.88 
84.95 
2.21 
35.54 
10.33 

14.09 
11.12 
54.40 
13.94 
23.81 

16.00 
0.65 
13.01 
0.00 
35.35 

TRI 

BPC 

Total 

TPR 
2,090.75  1,103.75  3,285.53  199.95
299.06 
16.08 
441.71 
2,813.59  146.78
1,790.19 
37.10 
1.49 
78.26 
103.91 
71.56 
45.91 

138.77 
938.45 
26.53 
311.86 
138.26 

30.23 
451.31 
194.50 

TRI 

BPC 

Total 

268.16 

TRP 
1,658.90  1,363.17  3,222.03  131.57
391.31 
0.63 
1,168.81  1,002.16  2,317.75  122.96
7.98 
13.80 
7.00 

92.85 
346.92 
128.54 

98.79 
140.46 
33.23 

228.74 
565.63 
233.33 

675.54 

TRI 

Total 

BPC 
1,423.85  1,177.85  2,733.27 
129.29 
496.52 
626.44 
911.76 
911.08 
1,945.79 
136.79 
16.26 
161.04 
754.98 
598.73 
142.45 
197.58 
90.92 
295.51 

55.81 
2.19 
885.28 
316.98 
471.10 

92.54 
4.65 
222.92 
11.82 
89.52 

166.69 
6.90 
753.54 
318.54 
249.48 

161.11 
24.40 
258.98 
30.83 
446.01 

236.59 
20.21 
1,693.21 
649.47 
744.39 

269.65 
29.70 
494.91 
42.65 
570.88 

6.70 
0.00 
60.01 
19.22 
19.95 

7.10 
13.73 
46.84 
0.00 
99.60 

83.12 
24.11 
875.00 
537.78 
287.88 

14.96 
34.38 
605.42 
6.23 
150.39 

159.49 
58.88 
770.08 
258.92 
393.57 

80.79 
36.79 
332.03 
19.67 
805.75 

249.31 
82.99 
1,705.09 
815.92 
701.40 

6.65 
0.14 
51.30 
27.01 
6.92 

102.86 
84.91 
984.30 
25.90 

17.26 
0.11 
10.30 
4.56 
1,055.74  130.99

44.68 
6.86 
613.24 
237.61 
319.60 

35.07 
20.95 
421.64 
4.88 
158.26 

293.14 
344.47 
108.01 
115.01 
1,002.39  1,666.93 
367.34 
631.95 
424.46 
750.99 

159.00 
36.59 
275.78 
17.80 
768.24 

211.33 
57.65 
707.73 
27.25 
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 

39 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Annex 4. EU support delivered at regional level 2005 – 2007. Million €. Source: CRS database  

Members States 

Africa, regional 
North of Sahara, regional 
South of Sahara, regional 
America, regional 
North & Central America, 
regional 
South America, regional 
Asia, regional 
Central Asia, regional 
South & Central Asia, regional 
South Asia, regional 
Far East Asia, regional 
Middle East, regional 
West Indies Unallocated 
Europe, regional 
States Ex-Yugoslavia 
Oceania, regional 
Total regional funds 
Total (national + regional 
funds) 
Regional funds % of total 

2005 

2006 

2007 

TPR 
2.21 
0.75 
4.13 
11.12 

0.00 
0.00 
0.65 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.96 
0.29 
0.48 
0.00 
0.00 
20.60 

TRI 
1.49 
0.40 
2.40 
2.19 

4.46 
0.01 
4.15 
0.00 
2.66 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.16 
0.00 
0.41 
18.34 

BPC 
26.53 
5.04 
13.71 
6.90 

4.88 
8.64 
24.40 
4.84 
0.53 
0.67 
0.00 
1.57 
0.31 
14.33 
0.10 
4.36 
116.81 

TOTAL 
30.23 
6.20 
20.25 
20.21 

9.34 
8.65 
29.20 
4.84 
3.18 
0.67 
0.00 
2.53 
0.61 
14.96 
0.10 
4.77 
155.74 

TPR 
37.05 
0.00 
7.43 
0.00 

0.33 
0.00 
10.72 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.49 
0.44 
0.55 
0.00 
0.00 
57.02 

TRI 
13.79 
0.79 
8.78 
0.11 

2.83 
70.15 
34.38 
10.27 
0.00 
10.96 
0.00 
0.05 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
1.16 
153.27 

BPC 
54.60 
5.08 
28.12 
38.38 

10.04 
24.78 
16.79 
15.88 
4.92 
10.39 
38.25 
0.53 
0.00 
156.36 
0.15 
0.00 
404.27 

TOTAL 
105.44 
5.87 
44.33 
38.49 

13.20 
94.93 
61.90 
26.15 
4.92 
21.35 
38.25 
1.07 
0.44 
156.91 
0.15 
1.16 
614.56 

TPR 
4.63 
0.00 
2.14 
0.14 

1.90 
0.00 
0.11 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.47 
0.00 
0.76 
0.00 
0.00 
10.15 

TRI 
16.26 
1.04 
6.05 
6.86 

44.70 
4.84 
8.95 
0.04 
0.00 
2.00 
3.80 
3.98 
0.00 
2.49 
0.00 
0.19 
101.20 

BPC 
100.79 
4.62 
12.61 
13.01 

32.92 
32.97 
11.59 
5.43 
2.02 
16.11 
16.22 
20.76 
0.00 
33.61 
0.11 
0.00 
302.78 

TOTAL 
121.69 
5.67 
20.80 
20.01 

79.52 
37.81 
20.65 
5.47 
2.02 
18.11 
20.02 
25.22 
0.00 
36.85 
0.11 
0.19 
414.13 

106.31  2,119.67  2,181.21  4,407.19  156.95
36% 
5% 

19% 

4% 

1% 

2,124.11  2,712.48  4,993.54  130.06

7% 

15% 

12% 

8% 

1,662.81  2,924.83  4,717.70 
10% 

6% 

9% 

EN 

40 

EN 

 
  
 
European Community 

Africa, regional 
North of Sahara, regional 
South of Sahara, regional 
America, regional 
North & Central America, 
regional 
South America, regional 
Asia, regional 
Central Asia, regional 
South & Central Asia, regional 
South Asia, regional 
Far East Asia, regional 
Middle East, regional 
West Indies Unallocated 
Europe, regional 
States Ex-Yugoslavia 
Oceania, regional 
Total regional funds 
Total (national + regional 
funds) 
Regional funds % of grand 
total 

TPR 
0.00 
0.00 
62.70 
0.00 

0.00 
4.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
7.29 
0.00 
2.60 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
76.59 

2005 

2006 

2007 

TRI 
0.00 
2.50 
80.20 
0.00 

0.00 
51.00 
0.50 
0.00 
13.01 
0.00 
0.00 
4.50 
0.00 
15.00 
0.00 
0.00 
166.71 

BPC 
0.00 
32.50 
26.44 
0.00 

0.00 
6.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
32.50 
0.00 
3.00 
0.00 
13.00 
113.44 

TOTAL 
0.00 
35.00 
169.34 
0.00 

0.00 
61.00 
0.50 
0.00 
13.01 
0.00 
7.29 
37.00 
2.60 
18.00 
0.00 
13.00 
356.74 

TPR 
0.05 
0.00 
108.51 
0.00 

7.00 
6.25 
3.01 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
40.50 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
165.33 

TRI 
85.00 
7.30 
38.97 
24.00 

0.00 
0.27 
0.00 
18.00 
3.07 
0.00 
0.00 
7.30 
10.00 
82.86 
0.00 
5.00 
281.77 

BPC 
38.25 
30.00 
105.85 
20.50 

0.00 
0.00 
20.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
30.00 
4.50 
1.03 
0.00 
11.65 
261.78 

TOTAL 
123.30 
37.30 
253.33 
44.50 

7.00 
6.52 
23.01 
18.00 
3.07 
0.00 
0.00 
37.30 
55.00 
83.89 
0.00 
16.65 
708.87 

TPR 
3.35 
0.00 
98.72 
0.00 

1.42 
2.00 
0.00 
0.30 
0.00 
2.59 
0.65 
0.00 
1.55 
1.00 
0.00 
1.40 
112.98 

TRI 
0.00 
0.00 
8.05 
0.00 

17.22 
7.00 
12.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
75.40 
0.00 
2.35 
122.03 

BPC 
36.00 
0.00 
71.31 
95.00 

7.90 
0.00 
25.00 
5.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
14.01 
0.00 
10.61 
264.83 

TOTAL 
39.35 
0.00 
178.09 
95.00 

26.54 
9.00 
37.00 
5.30 
0.00 
2.59 
0.65 
0.00 
1.55 
90.41 
0.00 
14.36 
499.83 

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 

62% 

13% 

16% 

17% 

50% 

21% 

28% 

28% 

53% 

11% 

29% 

22% 

EN 

41 

EN 

 
  
 
 
EU (Member States 
+European Community) 

Africa, regional 
North of Sahara, regional 
South of Sahara, regional 
America, regional 
North & Central America, 
regional 
South America, regional 
Asia, regional 
Central Asia, regional 
South & Central Asia, regional 
South Asia, regional 
Far East Asia, regional 
Middle East, regional 
West Indies Unallocated 
Europe, regional 
States Ex-Yugoslavia 
Oceania, regional 
Total regional funds 
Total (national + regional 
funds) 
Regional funds % of grand 
total 

2005 

2006 

2007 

TPR 
2.21 
0.75 
66.83 
11.12 

0.00 
4.00 
0.65 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
7.29 
0.96 
2.89 
0.48 
0.00 
0.00 
97.18 

TRI 
1.49 
2.90 
82.60 
2.19 

4.46 
51.01 
4.65 
0.00 
15.66 
0.00 
0.00 
4.50 
0.00 
15.16 
0.00 
0.41 
185.05 

BPC 
26.53 
37.54 
40.15 
6.90 

4.88 
14.64 
24.40 
4.84 
0.53 
0.67 
0.00 
34.07 
0.31 
17.33 
0.10 
17.36 
230.25 

TOTAL 
30.23 
41.20 
189.59 
20.21 

9.34 
69.65 
29.70 
4.84 
16.19 
0.67 
7.29 
39.53 
3.21 
32.96 
0.10 
17.77 
512.48 

TPR 
37.10 
0.00 
115.94
0.00 

7.33 
6.25 
13.73 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.00 
0.49 
40.94 
0.55 
0.00 
0.00 
222.35

TRI 
98.79 
8.09 
47.75 
24.11 

2.83 
70.42 
34.38 
28.27 
3.07 
10.96 
0.00 
7.35 
10.00 
82.86 
0.00 
6.16 
435.04 

BPC 
92.85 
35.08 
133.97 
58.88 

10.04 
24.78 
36.79 
15.88 
4.92 
10.39 
38.25 
30.53 
4.50 
157.39 
0.15 
11.65 
666.05 

TOTAL 
228.74 
43.17 
297.66 
82.99 

TPR 
7.98 
0.00 
100.87
0.14 

20.20 
101.45 
84.91 
44.15 
7.99 
21.35 
38.25 
38.37 
55.44 
240.81 
0.15 
17.81 

3.32 
2.00 
0.11 
0.30 
0.00 
2.59 
0.65 
0.47 
1.55 
1.76 
0.00 
1.41 
1,323.43  123.13

TRI 
16.26 
1.04 
14.10 
6.86 

61.92 
11.84 
20.95 
0.04 
0.00 
2.00 
3.80 
3.98 
0.00 
77.89 
0.00 
2.54 
223.23 

BPC 
136.79 
4.62 
83.92 
108.01 

40.82 
32.97 
36.59 
10.43 
2.02 
16.11 
16.22 
20.76 
0.00 
47.62 
0.11 
10.61 
567.61 

TOTAL 
161.04 
5.67 
198.89 
115.01 

106.05 
46.81 
57.65 
10.77 
2.02 
20.70 
20.67 
25.22 
1.55 
127.26 
0.11 
14.56 
913.97 

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 

42% 

5% 

8% 

8% 

46% 

13% 

18% 

18% 

36% 

8% 

15% 

13% 

EN 

42 

EN 

 
  
 
Annex 5. Glossary 

ACP:  African, Caribbean and Pacific States 

AfT:  Aid for Trade 

BPC:  Building Productive Capacities 

CRS:  Creditor Reporting System  

DAC:  Development Assistance 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 trade 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 Preparatory Task Force 

RSP: Regional Strategy Papers  

TD: Trade Development 

TRA:  Trade Related Assistance 

TRAdj: Trade Related Adjustment 

TPR:  Trade Policy and Regulation 

TRI:  Trade Related Infrastructure 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
UNOPS: United Nations Office of Project Services 

WTO:  World Trade Organisation 

EN 

44 

   EN