Commission staff working document - Aid for Trade Monitoring Report 2010 accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - A twelve-point EU action plan in support of the Millennium Development Goals {COM(2010) 159} {SEC(2010) 418} {SEC(2010) 420} {SEC(2010) 421} {SEC(2010) 422}
Date: 2010-04-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: AIDS, development plan, development policy, environmental protection, hunger, infant mortality, international cooperation, poverty, primary education, sexual discrimination

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 21.4.2010 
SEC(2010) 419 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Aid for Trade Monitoring Report 2010 

accompanying the 

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

A twelve-point EU action plan in support of the Millennium Development Goals 

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

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Aid for Trade Monitoring Report 2010 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

Introduction...................................................................................................................5 

1.1. 

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

2. 

3. 

3.1 

3.2. 

3.3. 

Strategic AfT efforts continuing in EU Member States ...............................................7 

EU Aid for Trade flows ................................................................................................7 

EU €

 2 billion target for Trade Related Assistance reached .........................................7 

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

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

3.4.  Wide geographical distribution of EU AfT ................................................................14 

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

3.6. 

AfT reporting — some underlying facts.....................................................................16 

3.6.1  Disbursements & commitments..................................................................................17 

3.6.2  Multilateral funds........................................................................................................18 

3.6.3  ODA grants & loans ...................................................................................................18 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

5. 

5.1 

Quality of overall EU Aid for Trade...........................................................................20 

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

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

Towards enhanced trade and poverty outcomes .........................................................22 

ACP specific issues.....................................................................................................22 

ACP Aid for Trade has increased by 36% ..................................................................22 

5.2. 

Regional AfT packages for the ACP ..........................................................................24 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
Executive summary  
This is the third1 report on the implementation of the EU Aid for Trade Strategy, adopted on 
15 October 20072. A joint EU and EU Member States initiative, the Strategy aims at supporting all 
developing  countries,  particularly  the  Least  Developed  Countries  (LDCs),  to  better  integrate  into 
the rules-based world trading system and to use trade more effectively in the fight against poverty.  

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

In  2005,  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  made  a  commitment  to  increase  their  Trade  Related 
 2 billion annually by 20103. They have hit this target well in advance of 
Assistance (TRA) to €
 2.15 billion in 2008 - 
the deadline. Support for TRA from the EU and its Member States totalled €

 1.143 billion from Member States and €

 1.007 billion from the EU. 

The most substantial increases have been reported in wider Aid for Trade - including transport and 
energy, productive sectors and trade-related adjustment. Total Aid for Trade from the EU and its 
Member  States  reached  an  all-time  high  of  €
 3.4  billion 
(48 %) since 2007. This includes €
 3.2 billion from the EU, 
 4.6 billion and €
up from €

 10.4  billion  in  20084,  an  increase  of  €

 7.2 billion from the Member States and €

 2.4 billion, respectively.  

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

Africa  remains  the  developing  country  region  receiving  most  AfT:  €
accounting for 46 % of total EU and Member States AfT. The main share of this, €
to  Sub  Saharan  Africa.  This  is  followed  by  Asia  (€
(€

 0.7 billion) and Oceania (€

 2.2  billion),  Europe  (€

 0.01 billion)5.  

 4.6  billion  in  2008, 
 2.9 billion, went 
 1.3  billion),  America 

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

 2.2 billion in 2007 to €

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

1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

See 2009 report on: http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/COMM_NATIVE_SEC_2009_0442_4_Aid-for-
Trade-monitoring-report-2009_EN.pdf. 
Council Conclusions of 15 October 2007 
(http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/misc/96506.pdf.). 
These Commitments were made at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong in December 2005 
Throughout this document, the EU Aid for Trade flows exclude 2008 amounts of ODA projects funded through the own 
sources  of  the  European  Investment  Bank  (a  total  amount  of  €1.348  billion).  A  discussion  between  OECD  and 
European  Commission  services  has  not  yet  concluded  on  the  relevance  of  including,  based  on  existing  OECD 
guidelines, some types of loans as ODA. The next monitoring report will provide an update on Aid for Trade flows, 
including for previous years, on the basis of the conclusions of these ongoing discussions. 
The  classification  of  regions  used  here  is  the  one  used  by  the  OECD  in  its  database  over  Official  Development 
Assistance – details of countries covered are provided in Annex 1. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–  the  LDC  share  of  overall  EU  Aid  for  Trade  is  only  about  23%  of  the  total  AfT  volumes  and 

requires more attention following the specific pro poor focus of the EU AfT Strategy.  

–  Although the overall €

 2 billion Trade Related Assistance target has been reached, trade policy 

and regulation and specific trade development efforts require continued attention 

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

assessment - 

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

place.  

–  delivering on  the ACP regional packages will require  more political  and technical attention on 

the part of the EU, its Member States and the ACP. 

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

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

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

Under  the  EU’s  Aid  for  Trade  Strategy  of  2007,  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  seek  to  help 
developing countries overcome barriers to trade expansion and become more competitive, thereby 
increasing their trade and generating resources for poverty reduction. In parallel, the EU is acting 
specifically to implement MDG 86, including by providing completely free access to the EU market 
for  everything  but  arms  from  LDCs.  These  efforts  are  especially  relevant  in  view  of  the  need  to 
counter the effects of the economic crisis, which has spread from developed to developing countries 
through reduced demand and export opportunities. 

This  third  AfT  monitoring  provides  information  on  what  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  provide 
under  Aid  for  Trade  and  where  progress  has  been  made  on  common  commitments.  As  the  data 
available  refers  to  2008  AfT  volumes,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  possible  effects  of  the  recent 
economic downturn will not yet be visible in this report7.  

Box 1: Key sources of data for the report 

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

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

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

iii)  EU  Member  States'  responses  to  the  "Monterrey  questionnaire"  on  which  the  EU  report  on  Financing  for 
Development  is based8. 

1.1. 

The EU’s Aid for Trade Strategy at a glance 

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

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

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

6 
7 

8 

Develop a global partnership for development. 
Clearer reflection on the effects of the economic crisis will be included when reporting on the 2009 commitments, in the 
2011 report. Data availability is subject to a time lag that limits data analysis to 2008 volumes in 2010. 
See: SEC(2010) 420 - Financing for Development - Annual progress report 2010 - Getting back on track to reach the 
EU 2015 target on ODA spending. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

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

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

Box 2: The WTO Aid for Trade Initiative and its AfT categories  

Aid for Trade entered the WTO agenda with the Doha Development Round. In 2005, several donors, including 
the EU and its Member States, made commitments to increase their trade-related support. In December 2005, the 
WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong set up a Task Force to ‘operationalise Aid for Trade’.  

In its 2006 recommendations, this Task Force stated that ‘Projects and programmes should be considered as Aid 
for Trade if these activities have been identified as trade-related development priorities in the recipient country’s 
national  development  strategies’.  It  specified  six  groups  of  activities  that  it  considered  to  constitute  Aid  for 
Trade. Categories 1, 2 and 6 correspond to ‘classical’ ‘trade-related assistance’ (TRA). TRA and the remaining 
categories are usually referred to together as ‘the wider Aid for Trade agenda’. Examples of support provided in 
these AfT areas are given below. 

To increase transparency, the OECD has sought to streamline reporting on the AfT categories identified by the 
Task  Force.  In  particular,  it  has  endeavoured  to  link  each  AfT  category  to  one  or  more  specific  codes  in  the 
general Creditor Reporting System, to which donors report on overall ODA.  

Trade-Related Assistance (TRA) 

Category  1  —  Trade  policy  and  regulations:  trade  policy  and  planning,  trade  facilitation,  regional  trade 
agreements,  multilateral  trade  negotiations,  multi-sector  wholesale/retail  trade  and  trade  promotion.  Includes 
training of trade officials, analysis of proposals and positions and their impact, support for national stakeholders 
to articulate commercial interests and identify trade-offs, dispute issues, and institutional and technical support to 
facilitate implementation of trade agreements and to adapt to and comply with rules and standards.  

Category  2  —  Trade  development:  investment  promotion,  analysis  and  institutional  support  for  trade  in 
services, business support services and institutions, public/private-sector networking, e-commerce, trade finance, 
trade promotion, market analysis and development. This is largely a subset of Category 4 (building productive 
capacity, see below), specifically the most trade-related components.  

Category 6 — Other trade-related needs: Refers to programmes supporting trade in sectors not comprised in 
the other five categories, such as vocational training or public sector policy programmes. Is also used to report 
on larger cross-sectoral programmes with important subcomponents in the other AfT categories. This is useful, 
as  the  CRS  methodology  requires  the use of  one  single  CRS  code per  reported programme,  an  approximation 
which limits in some cases the ability of the CRS to capture TRA. (See further box 3b) 

Wider Aid for Trade agenda: TRA plus further categories: 

Category  3  —  Trade-related  infrastructure:  physical  infrastructure  including  transport  and  storage, 
communications, and energy generation and supply.  

Category 4 — Building productive capacity: Includes business development and activities aimed at improving 
the  business  climate,  privatisation,  assistance  to  banking  and  financial  services,  agriculture,  forestry,  fishing, 
industry, mineral resources and mining, tourism. Includes trade- and non-trade-related capacity building.  

Category 5 — Trade-related adjustment: This code was created by OECD/DAC at the end of 2007. It covers 
contributions to the government budget to assist with the implementation of recipients’ own trade reforms and 
adjustments  to  trade  policy  measures  taken  by  other  countries;  and  assistance  to  manage  balance  of  payments 
shortfalls due to changes in the world trading environment.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
2. 

Strategic AfT efforts continuing in EU Member States  

Last year’s reporting exercise demonstrated increased engagement by EU Member States in the Aid 
for Trade agenda. Whilst all Member States have signed up to the joint EU Aid for Trade Strategy, 
several Member States have also got specific, operational national strategies that are adapted to the 
specific  contexts  of  their  development  aid.  Last  year's  reporting  exercise  showed  that  of  all  the 
respondents, 11 Member States (AT, BE, ES, FI, FR, IT, IR, LX, NL, SE, UK9) 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. 

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

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

3. 

EU Aid for Trade flows 

3.1 

EU €

 2 billion target for Trade Related Assistance reached 

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

Figures  for  2008  confirm  that  the  EU  and  Member  States  have  met  their  €
 2  billion  target,  well 
ahead of time. In fact, Trade Related Assistance from  the EU  and its Member States has reached 
 2.150 billion10 - €

 1.143 billion from EU Member States and €

 1.007 billion from the EU.  

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

9 
10 

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

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
€
                                                 
Chart 1. EU TRA 2001 – 2008, million € 

Trade Related Assistance
EU Commitments 2001-2008 (mn €)

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

500

0

592

276

566

388

733

482

811

299

695

473

1 032

1 007

1.030

1.143

902

672

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

EU MS

EU

Source: OECD CRS 

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

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

Secondly, the OECD CRS database is regularly updated. This is  why results of a database query in 2009 for the year 
2007,  for  instance,  may  differ  from  results  of  the  same  identical  query  in  2010.  This  explains  why  the  previous 
monitoring report shows EU + EU Member States TRA at € 1. 98 billion, while this report indicates for that same year 
an amount of € 2.15 billion. 

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

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

EN 

8 

   EN 

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

(mn €) 

2001 

2002 

2003

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria  

Cyprus  

Czech Rep.  

Denmark 

Estonia  

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary  

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia  

Lithuania  

Luxembourg 

Malta  

2.0 

11.1 

0.,0 

0.0 

0.5 

12.8 

0.0 

3.3 

30.6 

90.9 

4.2 

0.1 

0.0 

7.3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.9 

8.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

4.8 

0.0 

6.0 

128.7 

81.4 

5.8 

0.0 

0.1 

8.7 

0.0 

0.0 

0.3 

0.0 

0.4

51.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

34.9

0.,0

9.2

99.8

89.4

2.3

0.0

0.1

1.3

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

2004

2.5

45.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.8

0.0

0.2

64.6

64.1

1.0

0.0

0.0

7.8

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

2005

7.9

27.8

0.0

0.0

0.1

28.2

0.0

14.7

83.3

81.4

0.1

0.0

0.2

4.1

0.0

0.0

0.3

0.0

2007 

2008

2006

5.0

52.1

0.0

0.0

0.1

48.1

0.0

32.8

13.6 

33.3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

112.5 

0.0 

3.2 

23.8

49.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

72.9

0.1

51.4

16.5

106.2

218.2 

30.8

238.0 

478.6

3.5

0.0

4.9

5.9

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.0

6.1 

0.0 

10.4 

15.5 

0.1 

0.3 

0.3 

0.0 

3.8

0.0

10.0

29.5

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.0

Netherlands 

42.6 

66.8 

128.3

60.7

80.7

192.3

159.3 

62.4

Poland  

Portugal 

Romania  

Slovakia  

Slovenia  

Spain 

Sweden 

United 
Kingdom 

Total 
EU 
Member States 

0.0 

1.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.4 

8.2 

0.0 

15.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.4 

5.2 

59.5 

54.5 

0.0

2.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.5

17.9

40.6

0.0

1.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.4

9.0

36.2

0.0

2.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

7.2

45.9

89.6

0.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

57.5

24.7

105.8

0.0 

0.3 

0.1 

0.0 

1.2 

80.4 

82.7 

54.2 

0.0

1.5

0.1

0.0

1.5

212.3

35.6

92.4

275.7 

387.9 

481.7

299.2

473.3

672.2

1.029.9 

1.143.0

EU 

591.6 

566.4 

733.3

811.2

694.6

902,2

1.032.3 

1.007.4

Grand Total 

867.3 

954.3 

1.215.0

1.110.5

1.167.9

1.574.4

2.062.2 

2.150.5

Source: OECD CRS; Monterrey questionnaire 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
3.2. 

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

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

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

 10.4 billion — €

 7.2 billion from EU Member States and €

In fact, Aid for Trade commitments by the EU and its Member States in 2008 can be estimated at a 
total of €
 3.2 billion from the European 
Union.11  This reflects a substantial increase of €
 3.4 billion (48 %) since 2007. The increase can be 
attributed to both the EU and its Member States – EU Aid for Trade increased from €
 2.4 billion in 
 4.6 billion (up 56 %.). Comparing 
2007 (up 33 %) whereas that of Member States increased from €
the total AfT 2005-2008 average with the previous 2001-2004 average in order to capture the trend 
over several years, the total AfT increased from €5.1 b illion to €7.9 billion (up 54 %).  

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

mn €

12.000

10.000

8.000

6.000

4.000

2.000

0

EU + EU MS Aid for Trade

10.425

3.202

7.475

7.056

2.563

2.436

7.223

EU

EU MS

EU+EU MS

6.501

5.154 5.210

5.272

4.770

2.117

1.741

2.036

1.903

1.444

3.413

3.175

3.369

3.327

4.385

4.912

4.621

2001 2002

2003 2004 2005 2006

2007 2008

Source: OECD CRS 

As can be seen in the table below, France, Germany and the UK have registered particularly large 
absolute increases. In fact, these three Member States, account for about 70 % of total EU Member 
States AfT, and together with the EU were the main providers of AfT in 2008. Their AfT increased 
from  2007  to  2008  by  71,  67  and  25512  %,  respectively.  In  relative  terms,  Spain  and  Italy  also 
registered substantial increases in their Aid for Trade in 2008 – 50% and 67 % respectively. 

11 

12 

This approximation of the full bilateral AfT flows is obtained by adding up CRS data for trade policy and regulation, 
trade-related  infrastructure  and  building productive  capacity,  and  then  adding  funding not  classified under  any of  the 
other mentioned categories but reported by donors in the Monterrey survey as supporting ‘other trade-related needs’. 
Up from an unusually low figure in 2007, partly representing problems in reporting. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

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

(mn €) 

2001 

2002 

2003

2004 

2005

2006 

2007 

2008

15 

114 

63 

186 

21

135

17 

178 

27

155

26 

139 

0 

0 

3 

44 

192 

0 

0 

3 

81 

206 

188

367 

410

189 

255 

31 

635 

962 

0 

19 

105 

41 

329 

816 

6 

19 

164 

38

466

776

4

22

187

43 

527 

889 

12 

26 

70 

0 

64 

744 

100

755

1.138

1.495 

14

20

310

0 

84 

1.017 

1.213 

11 

0 

12 

239 

111 

186

51

204

0

0

0

173

0

135

1.738

2.036

10

0

28

Luxembourg 

3 

2 

15

14 

11

Malta  

Netherlands 

343 

463 

303

461 

384

642 

30 

17 

8

41 

61

253 

192 

631 

306 

135 

422 

366

170

670

247 

150 

286 

135

200

665

0 

7 

0 

0 

1 

561 

258 

480 

22 

0 

29 

0 

0 

12 

0 

0 

0 

27 

0 

486 

0 

65 

0 

0 

1 

474 

278 

347 

0

1

28

0

462

0

13

0

0

2

701

222

1.232

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria  

Cyprus  

Czech Rep.  

Denmark 

Estonia  

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary  

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia  

Lithuania  

Poland  

Portugal 

Romania  

Slovakia  

Slovenia  

Spain 

Sweden 

United 
Kingdom 

Total EU 
Member States 

EU 

Grand Total 

3.413 

3.175 

3.369

3.327 

4.385

4.912 

4.621 

7.223

1.741 

5.154 

2.036 

5.210 

1.903

5.272

1.444 

4.770 

2.117

6.501

2.563 

7.475 

2.436 

3.202

7.056 

10.425

Source: OECD CRS, Monterrey questionnaire 

EN 

11 

   EN 

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

 4.4 million in 2007 to €

 3.1 million in 2008. 

Box 3b - Category 6 explained  

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

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

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

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

mn €

60.000

50.000

40.000

30.000

20.000

10.000

0

EU + EU MS Aid for Trade and Total Aid

49.132

48.802

45.024

39.918

32.123 31.208 31.384

24.926

Other aid

AfT

Total

5.154

5.210

5.272

4.770

6.501

7.470

7.052

10.422

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Source: OECD CRS 

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

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
3.3. 

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

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

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

AfT by Category
(EU MS+EU)

6.000 

5.000 

4.000 

3.000 

2.000 

1.000 

-

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

1. TPR

3. TRI

4. BPC

5. TRAdj

6. Other

Source: OECD CRS, EC Monterrey questionnaire 

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

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Chart 5, Trade related programmes in building productive capacity. 

Trade Development Markers & Cat. 4

3635

Agriculture

521

Industry

Banking & Fin.
Services

Business & Oth.
Serv.

Forestry

39

1491

1007

884

396

282

589

476

Fishing

Tourism

328

127

325

193

Mineral resources
& mining

105

17

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Programs with a TD marker 

Total Number of Programs in Cat. 4 

3.4.  Wide geographical distribution of EU AfT  

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

 2.2  billion),  followed  by  Europe  (€

 0.7  billion)  and  Oceania  (€

In order to avoid the distortions of annual variations in commitments, it is worthwhile to compare 
multi-year averages. Comparing in this way the average of commitments for 2005-2008 with that of 
2001-2004  shows  increases  in  AfT  for  all  regions:  to  Africa  from  €2.2  billi on  to  €3.5  billion  (up 
56%); to Asia from €1.3 billion to €1.8 billion ( up 45%); to Europe from €0.4 billion to €0.9 billion 
(up 208%); and to America from €0. 598 billion to €0.605 billion (up 1.2%). 

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

EN 

14 

   EN 

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

EU + EU MS Aid for Trade
(% of Total)

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

2005

2006

2007

2008

Africa
Regional

North of
Sahara

South of
Sahara

America

Asia

Europe

Oceania Unspecified

Source: OECD CRS 

3.5.  …but the share of LDCs is not convincing 

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

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

70.000 

60.000 

50.000 

26%

AfT to LDC
(EU MS + EU)

37%

27%

33%

29%

28%

24%

32%

27%

23%

23%

22%

22%

22%

27%

23%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

AfT

ODA

% LDC in AfT 

% LDC in ODA 

40.000 

30.000 

20.000 

10.000 

-

Source: OECD CRS 

EN 

15 

   EN 

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.6. 

AfT reporting — some underlying facts 

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

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
3.6.1  Disbursements & commitments13 

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

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

AfT Disbursements & Commitments
(EU MS+EU)

mn €

12.000 

10.000 

8.000 

6.000 

4.000 

2.000 

-

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Total Disbursements 

Total Commitments

Source: OECD CRS 

13 

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

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
3.6.2  Multilateral funds 

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

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

Box 4: Trade Finance  

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

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

 107 billion. 

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

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

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

Source: 2009 Monterrey Questionnaire 

3.6.3  ODA grants & loans 

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

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

EN 

18 

   EN 

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

AfT by type of flow
(EU MS+EU)

mn €

12.000 

10.000 

8.000 

6.000 

4.000 

2.000 

-

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Equity Investment

ODA Grants

ODA Loans

Source: OECD CRS 

Box 5: Definition of Official Development Assistance (ODA)14 Grants or loans to countries and territories in Part I of 
the  DAC  List  of  Aid  Recipients  (developing  countries)  which  are:  (a)  undertaken  by  the  official  sector;  (b)  with 
promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective; (c) at concessional financial terms [if a loan, 
having a grant element of at least 25 per cent]. In addition to financial flows, technical cooperation is included in aid. 
Grants,  loans  and  credits  for  military  purposes  are  excluded.  Transfer  payments  to  private  individuals  (e.g. pensions, 
reparations or insurance payouts) are in general not counted. 

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

AfT by Agency
(EU)

mn €

3.000 

2.500 

2.000 

1.500 

1.000 

500 

-

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

CEC

EDF

2008

2007

EIB

Source: OECD CRS 

14 

OECD 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4. 

Quality of overall EU Aid for Trade  

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

4.1. 

Aid effectiveness – some progress but more to be done 

AfT from the EU and its Member States is delivered in the same way as other EU aid i.e., following 
agreed aid effectiveness principles, such as ownership, alignment, and harmonisation, managing for 
results and mutual accountability15. This means working via policy dialogue with partner countries, 
common  needs  assessments,  and  inclusion  of  priorities  within  national  and  regional  strategies. 
Division of labour is another important principle of the EU AfT Strategy. 

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

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

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

15 

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

EN 

20 

   EN 

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

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

While  the  divergent  reporting  practices  and  a  lack  of  a  common  definition  of  what  constitutes  a 
development activity makes it difficult to ascertain and analyse the actual situation, this ought to be 
further explored, in the context of EU and Member States efforts to improve aid effectiveness16.  

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

4.2. 

The regional dimension of EU Aid for Trade is important 

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

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

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

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

Of these 27 countries, 22 had national programmes acting on regional AfT priorities; 10 in Asia of 
which  two  partially,  nine  in  Latin  America  of  which  four  partially,  and  three  in  'European 

16 

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

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Neighbourhood' of which two partially. It should be noted that three EU Member States (BE, FR, 
UK) reported specific efforts to scale up support for regional integration in 2009.  

4.3. 

Towards enhanced trade and poverty outcomes 

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

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

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

5. 

ACP specific issues  

5.1 

ACP Aid for Trade has increased by 36% 

The ACP share of total AfT delivered by the EU and its Member States was rather stable until 2008. 
In  absolute  terms,  however,  EU  and  Member  States  AfT  commitments  to  the  ACP  increased 
substantially: from €

 2.2 billion in 2007 to €3 billion  in 2008 (an increase of 36%).  

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

AfT to ACP
(EU MS + EU)

41%

41%

33%

34%

34%

32% 31%

mn €

12.000 

10.000 

37%

8.000 

6.000 

4.000 

2.000 

-

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

non ACP

Total ACP

% ACP 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Source: OECD CRS 

EN 

22 

   EN 

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

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

mn €

3.500 

3.000 

2.500 

2.000 

1.500 

1.000 

500 

-

AfT to ACP Regions

Pacific

Caribbean

South of Sahara

Central Africa

Southern Africa

West Africa

East Africa

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Source: OECD CRS 

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

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

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

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

EN 

23 

   EN 

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

AfT to ACP - regional programmes

ACP regional
programmes

ACP non-
regional prog.

mn €

3.500 

3.000 

2.500 

2.000 

1.500 

1.000 

500 

-

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Source: OECD CRS 

5.2. 

Regional AfT packages for the ACP 

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

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

Box 6: EU Support for COMESA regional integration (Common Market for Eastern and Southern 
Africa) 

 645 million allocated to the 10th European Development Fund (Regional Indicative Programme for 
From the €
Eastern and Southern Africa-Indian Ocean), a new programme (with a budget of €
 50 million over the coming 
three  years)  will  directly  support  the  agreed  integration  agenda  of  the  regional  integration  organisations  in 
Southern and Eastern Africa, as a means of enhancing economic growth and raising standards of living in the 
countries of the regions.  

The  focus  of  RISP  2  is  upon  the  economic  integration  agenda  of  COMESA  and  EAC  (East  African 
Community), both of which are reinforcing their free trade areas and customs unions. The programme will help 
implement the regional economic integration mandates, support trade development and facilitation, help regional 
institutions to implement and monitor regional policies and regulations, enhance the management capacities of 
the  regional  organisations  to  implement  the  agenda,  and  improve  the  linkages  between  regional  and  national 
policy levels by helping member countries address their regional integration commitments.  

The  programme  works  directly  with  the  regional  organisation  —  not  in  parallel.  Programme  staff  are  directly 
incorporated within COMESA and work with its staff. While this is a more difficult approach than the creation 
of parallel support structures, this is more sustainable in the long term and makes real partners out of the regional 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
integration  organisations.  COMESA's  own  financial  and  management  systems  are  used.  All  this  supports 
COMESA in becoming a stronger organisation. 

It is with these considerations in mind that the EU and its Member States have agreed to set up what 
are known as regional aid for trade packages with the ACP17. This is a concrete effort to increase 
EU  support  for  regional  integration  and  to  provide  it  in  a  coordinated  fashion,  aligned  with 
regionally owned visions and strategies. 

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

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

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

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

Box 7: Towards a regional AfT package in West Africa  

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

17 

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

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annexes: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

Detailed regional AfT breakdown  

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

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

Category 6 in EU AfT 2008, thousands € 

Breakdown amounts of projects by TRA as significant and main purpose 

EU+EU Member States: Number of Aft Projects by country 

Glossary 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
West Africa 

Annex 1: Detailed regional AfT breakdown 

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

AfT cat. 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2.7 

119.2 

268.7 

2.1 

1.9 

4.4 

4.5 

14.3 

6.6 

165.8 

388.3 

259.5 

557.6 

230.4 

282.5 

244.9 

250.9 

240.9 

297.0 

274.8 

327.8 

1.TPR 

3.TRI 

4.BPC 

5.TRAdj 

6.Other 

2.1 

715.4 

279.3 

0.6 

23.7 

TOTAL 

390.6 

412.8 

641.1 

504.8 

859.1 

519.5 

616.9 

1.021.1 

1.200

1.000

800

600

400

200

0

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

TOTAL

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Gambia
Guinea-Bissau
Guinea
Togo
Cote d'Ivoire
Liberia
Mauritania
Nigeria
Sierra Leone
Burkina Faso
Cape Verde
Benin
Niger
Senegal
Ghana
Mali

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

5.TRAdj

6.Other TR Needs

0

50

100

150

200

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Central Africa 

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

AfT cat. 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

1.TPR 

3.TRI 

4.BPC 

5.TRAdj 

6.Other 

0.0 

0.4 

164.2 

155.5 

46.9 

92.6 

0.0 

83.2 

75.6 

0.0 

56.3 

49.6 

0.0 

0.1 

5.5 

2.2 

184.7 

304.9 

111.0 

198.0 

66.6 

81.6 

88.1 

54.8 

0.0 

1.6 

TOTAL 

211.1 

248.6 

158.8 

105.8 

251.3 

386.6 

204.5 

256.6 

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

TOTAL

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Equatorial Guinea

Central African Rep.

Sao Tome & Principe

Congo, Rep.

Chad

Gabon

Congo, Dem. Rep.

Cameroon

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

5.TRAdj

6.Other TR Needs

0

50

100

150

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
East Africa excluding EAC countries 

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

AfT cat. 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

1.TPR 

3.TRI 

4.BPC 

5.TRAdj 

6.Other 

0.2 

0.5 

0.5 

0.6 

2.3 

8.8 

5.4 

1.0 

113.6 

183.4 

280.3 

206.3 

388.9 

316.0 

200.6 

510.4 

112.5 

116.7 

186.4 

113.3 

174.6 

187.2 

141.8 

174.9 

2.2 

0.3 

TOTAL 

226.3 

300.6 

467.2 

320.2 

565.8 

512.1 

347.8 

688.7 

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Djibouti

Comoros

Seychelles

Eritrea

Zimbabwe

Sudan

Malawi

Somalia

Mayotte

Mauritius

Zambia

Madagascar

Ethiopia

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

TOTAL

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

5.TRAdj

6.Other TR Needs

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

EN 

29 

   EN 

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

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

AfT cat. 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

1.TPR 

3.TRI 

4.BPC 

5.TRAdj 

6.Other 

0.9 

182 

0.6 

0.6 

9.5 

3.1 

2.4 

7.5 

99.8 

106.5 

138.2 

331.8 

183.1 

182.3 

122.8 

124.3 

123.8 

108.9 

126.4 

116.3 

157.5 

94.7 

223.3 

0.4 

0.3 

TOTAL 

307.2 

223.7 

216.0 

265.2 

457.6 

343.7 

279.4 

354.3 

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Burundi

Kenya

Rwanda

Uganda

Tanzania

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

TOTAL

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

5.TRAdj

6.Other TR Needs

0

50

100

150

200

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Southern Africa 

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

AfT cat. 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

1.TPR 

3.TRI 

4.BPC 

6.Other 

0.4 

80.4 

0.1 

0.2 

127.1 

148.7 

193.1 

143.6 

84.0 

3.9 

41.7 

69.3 

1.8 

244.6 

4.3 

86.7 

1.9 

18.3 

121.1 

228.7 

240.1 

156.4 

156.5 

157.6 

1.6 

TOTAL 

273.9 

270.7 

232.8 

114.9 

486.5 

247.4 

279.5 

406.2 

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Lesotho

Botswana

Angola

St. Helena

Swaziland

Namibia

Mozambique

South Africa

0

50

100

150

200

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

TOTAL

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

6.Other TR Needs

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Caribbean 

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

AfT cat. 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

0.3 

69.6 

110.0 

0.0 

21.6 

82.0 

0.0 

53.5 

26.9 

0.1 

62.9 

97.2 

1.6 

38.9 

73.3 

5.0 

17.6 

73.5 

0.8 

26.9 

94.5 

1.TPR 

3.TRI 

4.BPC 

5.TRAdj 

6.Other 

0.1 

26.7 

95.1 

0.8 

0.6 

TOTAL 

179.8 

103.6 

80.4 

160.1 

113.7 

96.2 

122.1 

123.3 

200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Turks and Caicos Islands
St. Kitts-Nevis
Antigua and Barbuda
Anguilla
Grenada
St.Vincent & Grenadines
St. Lucia
Dominica
Montserrat
Haiti
Cuba
Belize
Barbados
Trinidad and Tobago
Dominican Republic
Jamaica
Suriname
Guyana

0

5

10

15

20 25

30

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

TOTAL

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

5.TRAdj

6.Other TR Needs

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pacific 

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

AfT cat. 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

1.TPR 

3.TRI 

4.BPC 

5.TRAdj 

14.6 

5.0 

9.0 

55.6 

10.1 

11.7 

10.2 

8.6 

11.4 

13.5 

0.1 

8.0 

3.2 

2.3 

7.2 

0.0 

0.7 

10.4 

0.0 

TOTAL 

19.6 

64.6 

21.8 

18.8 

24.9 

8.1 

12.7 

11.1 

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

TOTAL

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Tuvalu
Tokelau
Samoa
Palau
Niue
Nauru
Marshall Islands
Kiribati
Cook Islands
Solomon Islands
Micronesia, Fed. States
Tonga
Vanuatu
Papua New Guinea
Wallis & Futuna
Fiji

3.TRI

4.BPC

5.TRAdj

0

2

4

6

8

10

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Neighbourhood 

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

AfT cat. 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

1.TPR 

3.TRI 

4.BPC 

6.Other 

1.9 

94.8 

77.3 

63.4 

1.1 

22.2 

16.8 

329.0 

334.3 

342.0 

393.5 

453.9 

200.5 

297.2 

223.9 

130.8 

244.5 

354.0 

24.0 

692.5 

315.1 

78.7 

1 473.5 

474.2 

6.6 

TOTAL 

297.2 

703.4 

621.6 

473.8 

660.2 

824.7 

1 031.6 

2 033.0 

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

500

0

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

TOTAL

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Libya

Syria

Belarus

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Algeria

Moldova

Georgia

Lebanon

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

Palestinian Adm. Areas

6.Other TR Needs

Jordan

Ukraine

Egypt

Tunisia

Morocco

0

200 400 600 800 1000

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Enlargement 

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

AfT cat. 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

1.TPR 

3.TRI 

4.BPC 

6.Other  

0.2 

88.4 

87.4 

0.1 

17.0 

8.9 

8.5 

45.7 

3.8 

66.4 

293.6 

313.8 

167.3 

169.1 

460.1 

227.7 

1 404.8 

312.8 

91.3 

125.2 

202.6 

131.8 

209.1 

693.7 

0.7 

TOTAL 

176.0 

606.5 

422.2 

301.3 

380.2 

637.6 

440.6 

2 165.6 

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

500

0

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

TOTAL

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

States Ex-Yugoslavia

Montenegro

Macedonia, FYR

Albania

Bosnia-Herzegovina

Croatia

Serbia

Turkey

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

6.Other TR Needs

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Latin America 

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

AfT cat. 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

1.TPR 

3.TRI 

4.BPC 

6.Other 

14.0 

9.2 

181.2 

154.0 

5.1 

89.1 

39.5 

95.1 

16.0 

7.3 

18.7 

15.5 

6.0 

34.9 

16.6 

82.8 

236.7 

292.9 

206.5 

209.7 

211.9 

169.9 

310.9 

252.1 

21.6 

TOTAL 

432.0 

456.1 

300.7 

344.3 

235.2 

204.0 

351.9 

373.1 

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

TOTAL

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Venezuela

Uruguay
Panama

Argentina
Honduras
Guatemala
Paraguay
Mexico

Costa Rica
Bolivia
El Salvador
Nicaragua
Peru

Brazil
Ecuador
Colombia
Chile

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

6.Other TR Needs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
South Asia 

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

AfT cat. 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

1.TPR 

0.6 

0.8 

28.5 

5.0 

4.4 

17.8 

1.2 

30.6 

3.TRI 

309.6 

167.9 

177.9 

179.3 

342.3 

196.3 

147.2 

354.7 

4.BPC 

163.3 

167.1 

266.9 

97.7 

192.0 

280.6 

303.6 

400.3 

6.Other 

0.8 

TOTAL 

473.6 

335.7 

473.3 

282.0 

538.7 

494.7 

452.0 

786.3 

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Maldives

Bhutan

Sri Lanka

Nepal

Bangladesh

Pakistan

India

0

100

200

300

400

500

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

TOTAL

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

6.Other TR Needs

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Middle East 

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

AfT cat. 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

1.TPR 

0.2 

3.TRI 

12.7 

4.BPC 

0.3 

7.0 

0.1 

4.3 

36.9 

5.5 

44.5 

55.9 

0 

79.1 

22.2 

6.5 

6.8 

1.2 

0 

0.3 

22.5 

29.3 

1.2 

5.4 

TOTAL 

13.3 

11.4 

42.5 

100.4 

101.3 

14.4 

23.7 

35.0 

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Saudi Arabia

Oman

Iran

Iraq

Yemen

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

TOTAL

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Central Asia 

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

AfT cat. 

2001  2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

1.TPR 

3.TRI 

4.BPC 

31.1 

17.1 

TOTAL 

48.2 

0 

0 

6.0 

6.1 

12.6 

17.1 

29.6 

1.3 

3.0 

12.0 

16.2 

0.1 

39.7 

14.5 

54.2 

0 

0.1 

16.5 

16.6 

0.6 

66.7 

42.9 

110.2 

0.1 

47.8 

27.0 

74.9 

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Turkmenistan

Uzbekistan

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyz Republic

Tajikistan

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

TOTAL

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ASEAN 

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

AfT cat. 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

1.TPR 

0.9 

0.1 

3.TRI 

240.6 

168.5 

12.2 

46.4 

8.8 

4.1 

7.9 

26.1 

133.1 

161.4 

238.9 

175.4 

20.4 

74.2 

4.BPC 

182.7 

159.3 

196.9 

210.7 

234.1 

187.8 

287.2 

184.0 

6.Other 

8.6 

TOTAL 

424.1 

328.0 

255.4 

352.7 

399.7 

434.6 

488.7 

287.2 

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Myanmar

Thailand

Malaysia

Laos

Philippines

Cambodia

Viet Nam

Indonesia

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

TOTAL

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

6.Other TR Needs

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Asia (other) 

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

AfT cat. 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

1.TPR 

1.9 

22.6 

0.3 

4.8 

21.7 

13.4 

3.TRI 

256.3 

103.2 

232.5 

180.2 

179.3 

340.4 

4.BPC 

106.2 

62.1 

129.9 

128.5 

104.7 

63.2 

6.Other 

0.6 

93.8 

86.3 

63.7 

298.0 

274.8 

1.4 

TOTAL 

364.4 

187.9 

362.7 

313.6 

305..8 

417.0 

180.7 

637.9 

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Korea, Dem. Rep.

Timor-Leste

Mongolia

Afghanistan

China

0

100

200

300

400

500

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

TOTAL

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

6.Other TR Needs

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Regional / Global 

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

AfT cat. 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

1.TPR 

41.7 

73.7 

105.4 

3.TRI 

298.3 

264.3 

176.1 

4.BPC 

644.4 

555.2 

564.8 

66.4 

241.1 

751.6 

130.3 

273.1 

633.7 

280.7 

476.7 

234.7 

356.7 

139.4 

364.0 

1 343.2 

1 109.1 

1 289.7 

6.Other 

11.0 

TOTAL 

984.4 

893.2 

846.4 

1 059.1 

1 037.1 

2 100.6 

1 700.5 

1 804.2 

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

500

0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

South & Central Asia, regional

West Indies Unallocated

Oceania, regional

Far East Asia, regional

Middle East, regional
North & Central America,
regional

South Asia, regional

Central Asia, regional

South America, regional

North of Sahara, regional

Europe, regional

America, regional

Asia, regional

South of Sahara, regional

Global programmes

0

200 400 600 800 100

0

120
0

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

TOTAL

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

6.Other TR
Needs

EN 

42 

   EN 

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

 100 million 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
 
Donor 

Recipient 

Activity 

Germany 

Netherlands 

Italy 

France 

France 

Iraq 

Iran 

Iraq 

Lebanon 

Morocco 

United Kingdom 

Iraq 

Germany 

Cameroon 

Debt forgiveness 

Human rights 

Debt forgiveness 

General budget support 

Rail transport 

Debt forgiveness 

Debt forgiveness 

Netherlands 

Bilateral, unspecified 

Higher education 

EU 

EU 

Portugal 

EU 

Burkina Faso 

Mozambique 

China 

Turkey 

General budget support 

General budget support 

Import support (capital goods) 

Urban development and management 

Germany 

Botswana 

Debt forgiveness 

Sweden 

Austria 

EU 

Bilateral, unspecified 

Refugees in donor countries 

Iraq 

Zambia 

Debt forgiveness 

General budget support 

Netherlands 

Bilateral, unspecified 

Administrative costs 

France 

Austria 

EU 

Spain 

Iraq 

Iraq 

Ethiopia 

Tunisia 

Debt forgiveness 

Debt forgiveness 

Road transport 

Wind power 

United Kingdom 

India 

Public sector financial management 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

EU 

Bilateral, unspecified 

Administrative costs 

Madagascar 

Road transport 

Palestinian Adm. Areas 

Social/welfare services 

Ghana 

Rwanda 

Uganda 

General budget support 

General budget support 

General budget support 

Netherlands 

Bilateral, unspecified 

Refugees in donor countries 

France 

EU 

Bilateral, unspecified 

Administrative costs 

Mali 

Road transport 

United Kingdom  Bilateral, unspecified 

Strengthening civil society 

France 

Germany 

France 

France 

EU 

France 

France 

Spain 

Indonesia 

China 

Egypt 

Morocco 

Mali 

Environmental policy and admin. mgmt 

Higher education 

Rail transport 

Rail transport 

General budget support 

Bilateral, unspecified 

Agricultural research 

Congo, Rep. 

Debt forgiveness 

America, regional 

Basic drinking water supply and basic 
sanitation 

United Kingdom  Nigeria 

Std control including HIV/AIDS 

Commitment 
 m) 

(€

1.273 

651 

547 

375 

350 

345 

327 

326 

320 

303 

300 

300 

298 

260 

259 

225 

215 

212 

211 

200 

199 

186 

182 

180 

176 

175 

175 

175 

172 

168 

165 

163 

157 

154 

152 

150 

148 

139 

138 

132 

125 

EN 

United Kingdom  Viet Nam 

United Kingdom  Bilateral, unspecified 

General budget support 

44 

Reproductive health care 

125 

   EN 

125 

United Kingdom 

India 

Formal sector financ. intermediaries 

EU

Bilateral unspecified

Multisector aid

122 

121

 
EN 

45 

   EN 

 
 
Ranges (on 
commitments) 

Africa 

North 
of 
Sahara 

South 
of 
Sahara 

America 

South 
America 

North & 
Central 
America 

Asia 

South & 
Central 
Asia 

Far 
East 
Asia 

Middle 
East 

Europe  Oceania  Unspecified 

Total 

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

EU 

<0.1 

[0.1-1[ 

[1-10[ 

[10-100[ 

100 and + 

5 

9 

Total 

0 

14 

EU MS 

<0.1 

[0.1-1[ 

[1-10[ 

[10-100[ 

100 and + 

35 

17 

28 

2 

162 

111 

24 

8 

4 

22 

7 

26 

20 

3 

78 

970 

562 

167 

37 

0 

33 

13 

9 

3 

1 

4 

3 

8 

578 

311 

28 

3 

5 

3 

9 

1 

18 

348 

197 

31 

2 

Total 

82 

309 

1.736 

58 

920 

578 

35 

17 

28 

2 

0 

162 

111 

29 

17 

4 

992 

569 

193 

57 

3 

33 

13 

9 

3 

0 

579 

311 

32 

6 

0 

353 

200 

40 

3 

0 

EU+EU MS 

<0.1 

[0.1-1[ 

[1-10[ 

[10-100[ 

100 and + 

EN 

1 

4 

1 

6 

2 

4 

11 

3 

20 

2 

5 

15 

4 

0 

46 

1 

1 

3 

5 

255 

183 

70 

14 

1 

2 

4 

7 

90 

55 

19 

2 

2 

4 

61 

11 

78 

244 

103 

59 

15 

3 

2 

1 

6 

1 

8 

6 

4 

10 

262 

156 

69 

20 

1 

8 

12 

6 

2 

28 

237 

158 

97 

20 

1 

43 

29 

125 

58 

3 

258 

3,217 

1,878 

612 

129 

6 

508 

522 

166 

421 

9 

513 

5,842 

262 

156 

75 

24 

1 

256 

183 

71 

17 

0 

91 

55 

21 

6 

0 

246 

107 

120 

26 

0 

4 

10 

1 

0 

0 

245 

170 

103 

22 

1 

3,260 

1,907 

737 

187 

9 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total 

82 

323 

1.814 

58 

928 

596 

26 

518 

527 

173 

499 

15 

541 

6,100 

EN 

47 

EN 

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

Recipient 
Country 

Commitments 

Regions EU 

Commitments 

Sector 

Commitments 

S. Africa 

100,000 

Southern Africa 

102,000 

Multisector aid 

115,422 

Europe – 
regional 

Tunisia 

54,400 

50,000 

Turkey 

46,400 

Neighbourhood 

Enlargement 

Enlargement or 
Neighbourhood 

95,700 

82,852 

54,400 

All countries 

27,975 

All countries 

27,975 

Morocco 

20,000 

Central Africa 

17,000 

Employment policy and 
administrative 
management 

100,000 

General budget support 

50,000 

Government 
administration 

Economic and 
development 
policy/planning 

Security system 
management and reform 

40,600 

38,600 

23,550 

Serbia 

16,601 

Caribbean or Latin 
America 

16,500 

Higher education 

17,400 

Moldova 

15,700 

Middle East 

10,600 

N. & C. 
America – 
regional 

Croatia 

15,000 

11,600 

Asia (other) 

Asia Regional 

10,000 

7,860 

Iraq 

10,600 

Asean 

5,000 

Cameroon 

10,500 

Latin America 

Afghanistan 

10,000 

Caribbean 

5,000 

4,339 

48 

Civilian peace-building, 
conflict prevention and 
resolution 

Public sector financial 
management 

Administrative costs 

Post-conflict peace-
building (UN) 

Environmental policy and 
administrative 
management 

Social/ welfare services 

12,000 

11,000 

10,002 

9,200 

8,500 

5,000 

EN 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
Jordan 

10,000 

West Africa 

3,500 

Asia - regional 

7,860 

East Africa 

South of Sahara 

Central Asia 

China Region 

2,500 

2,500 

2,000 

1,800 

Total 

451,526 

Sectors not specified 

Food aid/Food security 
programmes 

Education facilities and 
training 

Culture and recreation 

Bio-diversity 

4,500 

2,039 

1,500 

1,053 

1,000 

160 

Total 

451,526 

Congo, rep. 

Honduras 

Indonesia 

Montenegro 

Bosnia-
Herzegovina 

Gambia 

Burundi 

S. Sahara – 
regional 

Suriname 

Belize 

Lesotho 

Tajikistan 

China 

S. America – 
regional 

Sao Tome & 
Principe 

Total 

6,000 

5,000 

5,000 

4,450 

3,801 

3,500 

2,500 

2,500 

2,300 

2,039 

2,000 

2,000 

1,800 

1,500 

500 

451,526 

EN 

49 

EN 

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

Donor 

EU 

EU 

EU MS 

EU MS 

Source: 
CRS 

Category 

Objective 

2007 

2008 

2.TD 

2.TD 

2.TD 

2.TD 

OECD 

Significant (1) 

Principal (2) 

Significant (1) 

Principal (2) 

420 

150 

104 

84 

175 

142 

554 

288 

Donor 

Category 

TD Marker 

2007 

2008 

EU MS 

EU MS 

Source: 
CRS 

OECD 

6.Other TR Needs 

Significant (1) 

6.Other TR Needs 

Principal (2) 

Donor 

Category 

TD Marker 

2007 

6.Other TR Needs 

Significant (1) 

6.Other TR Needs 

Principal (2) 

EU 

EU 

Source: EU file 

TD Marker: 

66 

13 

2008 

422 

29 

• Score 2 =Principal (or primary) policy objectives, i.e. those which can be identified as being 

fundamental in the design and impact of the activity and which are an explicit objective of the 

activity. They may be selected by answering the question: “Would the activity have been 

undertaken without this objective?” 

• Score 1=Significant (secondary) policy objectives, i.e. those which, although important, were not 

the prime motivation for undertaking the activity. 

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

objective. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

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

Recipient Name 

Total 

2001 

11881 

2002 

9181 

2003 

8591 

2004 

2005 

9414 

13238 

2006 

9949 

2007 

2008 

9833 

12377 

Share of TOP 10 (excl. Unspecified) 

Bilateral, unspecified 

India 

Viet Nam 

China 

Peru 

Bolivia 

Tanzania 

Mozambique 

Serbia 

Morocco 

Brazil 

Nicaragua 

South of Sahara, regional 

Senegal 

Kenya 

Ecuador 

Uganda 

Egypt 

Africa, regional 

South Africa 

Ukraine 

Bosnia-Herzegovina 

Albania 

Bangladesh 

Indonesia 

Colombia 

Burkina Faso 

Ghana 

Ethiopia 

Europe, regional 

Cameroon 

Mali 

948 

403 

224 

443 

216 

205 

287 

261 

109 

225 

189 

185 

118 

157 

202 

138 

227 

218 

69 

118 

83 

65 

170 

294 

101 

150 

179 

233 

27 

147 

125 

876 

303 

174 

249 

172 

179 

229 

206 

112 

168 

156 

128 

135 

132 

148 

132 

196 

155 

76 

118 

72 

51 

93 

155 

69 

137 

117 

209 

27 

126 

90 

950 

267 

180 

243 

144 

148 

205 

176 

130 

133 

160 

113 

151 

108 

133 

104 

145 

180 

110 

93 

74 

59 

105 

92 

59 

109 

126 

130 

47 

106 

77 

859 

294 

223 

268 

210 

184 

184 

204 

132 

148 

237 

143 

156 

111 

130 

121 

145 

190 

110 

106 

66 

46 

120 

194 

91 

113 

140 

115 

53 

99 

86 

1051 

382 

294 

385 

406 

333 

222 

259 

166 

261 

260 

248 

210 

176 

154 

293 

192 

249 

138 

159 

137 

109 

89 

141 

181 

136 

157 

163 

142 

59 

128 

119 

908 

204 

213 

254 

248 

257 

197 

202 

156 

154 

181 

196 

204 

145 

140 

137 

159 

147 

139 

136 

140 

105 

108 

116 

112 

99 

122 

131 

153 

71 

105 

87 

21% 

1000 

328 

311 

295 

285 

265 

254 

236 

233 

230 

224 

223 

206 

199 

186 

184 

176 

173 

170 

156 

156 

153 

152 

152 

151 

149 

148 

146 

143 

143 

142 

138 

849 

220 

247 

254 

191 

216 

203 

220 

140 

163 

200 

154 

183 

127 

155 

117 

146 

152 

158 

118 

134 

168 

126 

118 

140 

102 

136 

134 

130 

79 

99 

113 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
Philippines 

Congo, Dem. Rep. 

Guatemala 

Tunisia 

Argentina 

America, regional 

Afghanistan 

Asia, regional 

Benin 

El Salvador 

Madagascar 

Mauritania 

Rwanda 

Haiti 

Cambodia 

Honduras 

Guinea 

Palestinian Adm. Areas 

Zambia 

Mexico 

Laos 

Sri Lanka 

Dominican Republic 

Namibia 

Nepal 

North of Sahara, regional 

Macedonia, FYR 

Algeria 

Cuba 

Angola 

Chile 

Cape Verde 

Cote d'Ivoire 

North & Central America, regional 

Niger 

Turkey 

Paraguay 

Thailand 

Malawi 

EN 

154 

104 

111 

201 

56 

59 

13 

59 

78 

68 

155 

119 

46 

43 

38 

84 

112 

85 

101 

77 

46 

93 

61 

95 

80 

33 

60 

78 

68 

134 

46 

60 

148 

37 

67 

91 

39 

102 

66 

117 

58 

110 

134 

42 

65 

16 

55 

73 

57 

112 

170 

72 

68 

89 

68 

127 

119 

49 

60 

29 

60 

65 

63 

69 

89 

50 

62 

76 

80 

118 

129 

128 

98 

75 

31 

38 

59 

98 

40 

111 

74 

40 

55 

55 

66 

54 

23 

40 

39 

59 

67 

44 

55 

91 

35 

64 

76 

39 

69 

64 

87 

56 

24 

39 

70 

100 

46 

88 

56 

37 

85 

50 

69 

58 

14 

44 

48 

35 

63 

42 

55 

38 

45 

56 

77 

34 

87 

49 

98 

46 

28 

58 

63 

77 

44 

83 

66 

50 

73 

61 

73 

63 

19 

46 

64 

51 

49 

63 

51 

40 

27 

54 

75 

41 

95 

49 

222 

123 

168 

148 

105 

102 

89 

70 

97 

184 

148 

126 

80 

39 

84 

122 

74 

68 

124 

148 

76 

93 

80 

117 

70 

61 

67 

86 

130 

61 

84 

65 

38 

43 

82 

121 

62 

121 

68 

116 

105 

89 

85 

92 

96 

52 

80 

65 

71 

91 

78 

70 

94 

100 

82 

86 

54 

87 

73 

133 

126 

88 

95 

46 

71 

61 

79 

54 

102 

65 

64 

91 

55 

76 

50 

108 

51 

65 

70 

74 

54 

52 

40 

37 

46 

38 

26 

55 

57 

73 

79 

57 

62 

53 

27 

71 

84 

61 

59 

65 

51 

80 

53 

53 

53 

75 

41 

62 

50 

53 

33 

55 

54 

43 

32 

40 

58 

128 

125 

120 

116 

110 

108 

105 

103 

103 

99 

98 

97 

94 

92 

91 

90 

89 

87 

82 

76 

73 

73 

70 

70 

70 

70 

68 

67 

67 

66 

66 

65 

65 

65 

63 

61 

60 

60 

58 

52 

   EN 

 
Pakistan 

South America, regional 

Georgia 

Lebanon 

Jordan 

Moldova 

Kyrgyz Republic 

Central Asia, regional 

Nigeria 

Tajikistan 

Croatia 

Jamaica 

Mongolia 

Yemen 

Armenia 

Burundi 

Montenegro 

Togo 

Congo, Rep. 

Azerbaijan 

Timor-Leste 

Bhutan 

Guinea-Bissau 

Sierra Leone 

Chad 

Syria 

Belarus 

Middle East, regional 

Uruguay 

Zimbabwe 

Kazakhstan 

Belize 

Uzbekistan 

Costa Rica 

Sao Tome & Principe 

Suriname 

Gabon 

Dominica 

South Asia, regional 

134 

13 

25 

50 

82 

23 

23 

39 

31 

45 

48 

38 

19 

46 

28 

49 

21 

17 

30 

106 

26 

38 

28 

10 

31 

165 

15 

9 

22 

34 

50 

31 

45 

7 

48 

12 

21 

31 

36 

17 

14 

33 

2 

15 

33 

30 

22 

19 

19 

19 

21 

12 

19 

12 

38 

26 

45 

32 

5 

26 

83 

11 

3 

14 

37 

40 

25 

30 

7 

41 

16 

24 

37 

32 

21 

24 

27 

4 

26 

20 

42 

17 

23 

16 

30 

21 

19 

22 

16 

20 

25 

39 

24 

6 

22 

40 

14 

8 

26 

28 

26 

21 

35 

3 

29 

20 

31 

26 

66 

17 

25 

43 

15 

21 

21 

47 

19 

32 

38 

37 

31 

23 

22 

14 

34 

38 

47 

30 

11 

28 

50 

22 

5 

29 

36 

33 

14 

38 

4 

63 

31 

45 

28 

74 

31 

47 

17 

52 

25 

56 

28 

65 

35 

41 

35 

46 

43 

45 

25 

31 

44 

37 

47 

42 

23 

32 

30 

72 

46 

6 

41 

51 

29 

22 

33 

9 

5 

42 

18 

38 

41 

32 

29 

32 

36 

45 

22 

54 

22 

57 

26 

39 

41 

13 

24 

19 

24 

18 

33 

34 

33 

22 

33 

10 

36 

23 

39 

28 

10 

22 

19 

20 

13 

23 

7 

6 

44 

36 

28 

51 

40 

39 

38 

44 

41 

22 

56 

28 

51 

33 

45 

46 

36 

20 

23 

31 

27 

25 

32 

31 

15 

33 

22 

13 

25 

35 

30 

9 

27 

25 

25 

25 

21 

13 

8 

56 

55 

54 

54 

53 

52 

51 

49 

49 

49 

47 

47 

47 

45 

44 

44 

42 

42 

41 

38 

37 

36 

36 

36 

35 

35 

34 

33 

32 

32 

31 

30 

29 

28 

28 

26 

24 

23 

23 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Gambia 

Central African Rep. 

Venezuela 

St. Lucia 

Iraq 

Oceania, regional 

St. Helena 

Myanmar 

Mayotte 

Montserrat 

Sudan 

Liberia 

Panama 

Somalia 

St.Vincent & Grenadines 

Swaziland 

Papua New Guinea 

Vanuatu 

Guyana 

Mauritius 

Botswana 

Grenada 

Comoros 

Eritrea 

Far East Asia, regional 

Fiji 

Lesotho 

Malaysia 

States Ex-Yugoslavia 

West Indies Unallocated 

Korea, Dem. Rep. 

South & Central Asia, regional 

Equatorial Guinea 

Djibouti 

Libya 

Wallis & Futuna 

Maldives 

Micronesia, Fed. States 

Tonga 

31 

25 

27 

6 

15 

10 

41 

17 

31 

24 

12 

22 

18 

6 

29 

28 

25 

12 

39 

37 

5 

15 

28 

11 

11 

47 

32 

13 

6 

2 

11 

14 

26 

9 

7 

6 

23 

21 

19 

3 

1 

14 

11 

4 

13 

35 

19 

5 

20 

15 

5 

20 

22 

19 

11 

35 

26 

3 

19 

24 

6 

5 

36 

31 

2 

5 

7 

19 

13 

19 

9 

2 

5 

24 

19 

14 

3 

10 

14 

13 

7 

14 

19 

15 

4 

15 

8 

3 

16 

15 

16 

5 

38 

12 

3 

14 

17 

13 

4 

30 

23 

5 

6 

7 

23 

12 

13 

8 

5 

7 

19 

18 

19 

2 

20 

21 

12 

8 

15 

15 

14 

3 

18 

5 

3 

12 

16 

14 

8 

22 

18 

3 

15 

7 

4 

6 

27 

27 

18 

7 

15 

30 

5 

13 

9 

4 

3 

32 

22 

19 

5 

23 

20 

9 

7 

5 

15 

10 

6 

9 

4 

5 

16 

17 

13 

5 

24 

21 

6 

18 

22 

16 

4 

29 

30 

7 

9 

13 

25 

11 

10 

7 

1 

2 

1 

6 

15 

14 

12 

5 

14 

25 

9 

7 

4 

15 

13 

6 

16 

13 

4 

9 

7 

11 

4 

18 

15 

6 

9 

14 

16 

4 

14 

13 

6 

11 

9 

13 

1 

3 

6 

1 

1 

1 

2 

17 

11 

13 

8 

14 

22 

9 

4 

12 

13 

16 

5 

10 

6 

6 

13 

11 

10 

5 

15 

14 

6 

13 

12 

22 

3 

13 

11 

8 

7 

4 

11 

9 

5 

11 

5 

4 

2 

3 

21 

20 

20 

19 

18 

18 

18 

17 

16 

16 

16 

15 

15 

14 

13 

13 

11 

11 

10 

10 

9 

9 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

4 

4 

3 

3 

3 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Turkmenistan 

Iran 

Seychelles 

Solomon Islands 

St. Kitts-Nevis 

Trinidad and Tobago 

Anguilla 

Barbados 

Kiribati 

Marshall Islands 

Nauru 

Niue 

Palau 

Samoa 

Antigua and Barbuda 

Bahrain 

Malta 

Oman 

Saudi Arabia 

Slovenia 

Turks and Caicos Islands 

Tuvalu 

4 

4 

25 

8 

22 

7 

2 

4 

4 

3 

1 

3 

3 

20 

11 

1 

2 

10 

11 

5 

12 

10 

1 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

3 

10 

7 

2 

4 

7 

12 

5 

7 

9 

2 

4 

1 

1 

6 

1 

3 

8 

12 

4 

4 

7 

2 

4 

1 

3 

2 

5 

3 

3 

9 

13 

6 

6 

5 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

4 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

6 

7 

2 

3 

2 

2 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

7 

2 

5 

1 

1 

4 

1 

1 

1 

2 

3 

1 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 7. Glossary 

ACP: African, Caribbean and Pacific states 

AfT: Aid for Trade 

BPC: Building Productive Capacities 

CRS: Creditor Reporting System 

COMESA: Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa 

DAC: Development Assistance Committee (of the OECD) 

DDA: Doha Development Agenda 

EU: European Union 

EAC: East African Community 

ESA: Eastern and Southern Africa 

ECOWAS: Economic Community of West African States 

EDF: European Development Fund 

EIB: European Investment Bank 

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

EPA: Economic Partnership Agreement 

IF: Integrated Framework for trade-related assistance to LDCs 

LDC: Least Developed Country 

MDG: Millennium Development Goal 

MS: EU Member State 

ODA: Official Development Assistance 

OECD: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 

PAPED: Programme APE pour le Développement 

REC: Regional Economic Community 

RIO: Regional Integration Organisation 

RIP: Regional Indicative Programme 

RPTF: Regional Preparatory Task Force 

RSP: Regional Strategy Papers 

TD: Trade Development 

TRA: Trade-Related Assistance 

TRAdj: Trade-Related Adjustment 

TPR: Trade Policy and Regulation 

TRI: Trade-Related Infrastructure 

UEMOA: L’Union économique et monétaire ouest-africaine 

WTO: World Trade Organisation 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
Abbreviations; EU Member States 

BE Belgium 

BG Bulgaria  

CZ Czech Republic 

DK Denmark 

DE Germany 

EE Estonia 

IE Ireland 

EL Greece  

ES Spain  

FR France 

IT Italy 

CY Cyprus 

LV Latvia 

LT Lithuania 

LU Luxembourg 

HU Hungary  

MT Malta 

NL Netherlands 

AT Austria 

PL Poland 

PT Portugal 

RO Romania 

SI Slovenia 

SK Slovakia 

FI Finland  

SE Sweden 

UK United Kingdom 

EN 

57 

   EN