COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EU Accountability Report 2011 on Financing for Development   Review of progress of the EU and its Member States   Accompanying document to the  COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  Enhancing EU Accountability on Financing for Development towards the EU Official Development Assistance Peer Review   VOL IV
Date: 2011-04-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: climate change, developing countries, development aid, development plan, development policy, distribution of EU funding, international cooperation

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 30.9.2011 
SEC(2011) 503 final/2 

CORRIGENDUM 
Annule et remplace le SEC(2011) 503 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

EU Accountability Report 2011 on Financing for Development 
Review of progress of the EU and its Member States 

Accompanying document to the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 
Enhancing EU Accountability on Financing for Development 
towards the EU Official Development Assistance Peer Review 
VOL IV 

{COM(2011) 218 final} 
{SEC(2011) 500 final} 
{SEC(2011) 501 final} 
{SEC(2011) 502 final} 
{SEC(2011) 504 final} 
{SEC(2011) 505 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
Annex 6 

AID FOR TRADE MONITORING REPORT 2011 

CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Main messages ............................................................................................................. 2 

The rationale of Aid for Trade ..................................................................................... 3 

EU and its Member States strategic efforts.................................................................. 5 

Trade Related Assistance (TRA): EU and Member States make progress.................. 6 

4.1. 

Strong increase of TRA commitments towards Africa ................................................ 9 

5. 

Total 'wider' Aid for Trade: sustaining high levels .................................................... 10 

5.1. 

EU AfT share in total ODA substantial and stable .................................................... 11 

5.2.  Wider Aid for Trade: commitments translating into disbursements.......................... 12 

5.3.  Wider Aid for Trade: mainly grants........................................................................... 12 

5.4. 

5.5. 

AfT by Member States; levels stabilised ................................................................... 13 

Aid for Trade by category; considerable increase in Building Productive Capacity. 14 

5.6.  Wider Aid for Trade geographical distribution.......................................................... 18 

5.7. 

Aid for Trade to LDCs – stable share of total............................................................ 19 

6. 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

7.3. 

8. 

9. 

Increasing TRA and Aid for Trade to the ACP– particularly through regional 
programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa ........................................................................... 20 

Effective delivery of Aid for Trade............................................................................ 23 

Ownership .................................................................................................................. 23 

Joint AfT operations and harmonisation moderate progress...................................... 28 

Regional dimension of Aid for Trade ........................................................................ 29 

LDCs and EU AfT ..................................................................................................... 33 

AfT monitoring & evaluation..................................................................................... 37 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
 
1. 

MAIN MESSAGES 

The  outcome  of  this  year's  AfT  monitoring  exercise  demonstrates  that  both  the  EU  and  its 
Member States are substantially advancing in implementing the EU AfT Strategy. The results 
point to a strengthening of EU engagement in AfT, both in terms of volume commitments as 
well as on enhancing the impact of AfT delivery on the ground: 

The  EU  combined  annual  AfT  reached  EUR  10.5  billion  in  2009,  maintaining  the  all-time 
high registered the year before and a substantial  increase was reported for EU TRA, bringing 
the collective amount to nearly EUR 3 billion, well above the target to spend (as from 2010) 
EUR 2 billion per year on TRA.  

Reports  from  the  EU  Delegations  and  Member  States  Embassies  point  to  moderate 
improvement in the  processes  that  underpin both the volumes  and the effectiveness of AfT, 
such  as;  addressing  trade  in  the  partner-donor  policy  dialogue;  improved  coordination  to 
develop  and  implement  trade  strategies;  availability  of  trade  needs  assessments;  joint 
operations  and  harmonisation;  and  the  inclusion  of  strategic  economic  regional  integration 
priorities in national development plans. 

In order to sustain this advance of the EU AfT agenda and to further strengthen its impact on 
the world's poorest, enhanced endeavours by the EU and Member States are essential in the 
following key areas: 

-  Enhancing  AfT  support  to  the  LDCs  by  increasing  attention  to  the  capacity  of  LDCs  to 
formulate and implement trade development strategies in support of inclusive growth and 
to further capitalise on the potential of the Enhanced Integrated Framework in this respect; 

- 

Improve the effectiveness of AfT identified at country level, including by making better 
use  of  trade  needs  assessments,  enhancing  the  effectiveness  of  platforms  intended  to 
support  the  development  of  trade  related  strategies;  and  acting  on  opportunities  for 
increasing joint operations; 

-  Step up support for regional integration, building further on existing initiatives such as the 
EU  Aid  for  Trade  packages  for  the  ACP  countries  and  increasing  attention  to  regional 
issues in assistance provided at the national level; and 

Support  partner  countries'  own  monitoring  of  results  and  impact  of  Aid  for  Trade  and  the 
progress of their trade development strategies 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
2. 

THE RATIONALE OF AID FOR TRADE 

Increased participation in world trade has the potential to be an engine for growth and poverty 
reduction  in  developing  countries  by  generating  revenues  and  employment,  lowering  prices 
on  essential  goods  and  promoting  technology  transfer  and  increased  productivity.  Market 
opening and strengthened international trade rules provide new opportunities, but are not on 
their own sufficient to generate trade, especially in the poorest countries. Many countries face 
internal "behind the border" constraints such as a lack of productive capacity, , excessive red 
tape  and  inability  to  meet  standards  in  high  value  export  markets  -  all  of  which  impact 
negatively on the competitiveness of developing country exports and undermine the potential 
benefits of increased imports. Trade-related development assistance- known as Aid for Trade 
(AfT)  -  targets  these  “supply-side”  constraints.  It  also  strengthens  countries’  capacity  to 
negotiate  and  implement  trade  agreements  to  reap  the  most  benefit  from  increasing  trading 
opportunities.  

EU  and  EU  Member  States  adopted  a  joint  AfT  Strategy  on  15  October  2007  that  aims  at 
supporting  all  developing  countries,  particularly  the  Least  Developed  Countries  (LDCs),  to 
better integrate into the world trading system and to use trade more effectively in promoting 
the overarching objective of eradicating poverty in the context of sustainable development.  

The  strategy  embraces  the  full  AfT  agenda,  as  identified  by  the  2006  WTO  AfT  Taskforce 
(Box 1).  

Box 1: 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/DAC, who collects the data, 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 all their 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:  includes  all  support  aimed  at  stimulating  trade  by  domestic  firms  and 
encourage  investment  in  trade-oriented  industries,  such  as  trade-related  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.  This  Category  is  the  trade-related  subset  of 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
Category 4 (which includes all building productive capacity of a trade-related and non-trade-related nature - see 
below). 

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. (for further details see Annex 5) 

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.  

Every  year  since  the  adoption  of  the  EU  AfT  Strategy,  the  Commission  prepares  a 
comprehensive  monitoring  report  in  order  to  assess  progress  in  implementing  the 
commitments taken on by the EU and its Member States as regards sustaining high volume 
and increasing results and effectiveness. 

Box 2: Key sources of data for the report 

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

-  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);  

-  The responses to an EU questionnaire provided by 89 EU Delegations in Developing Countries. In 61 cases, 
the responses were prepared jointly with EU Member States providing bilateral Aid for Trade in the partner 
country in question;  

-  EU  Member  States'  responses  to  the  "Monterrey  questionnaire"  on  which  the  EU  Accountability  Report 

2011 on Financing for Development is based; 

-  OECD/WTO AfT questionnaire for EU Member States. 

This is done in close coordination with the AfT reporting that is carried out by the WTO and 
the OECD, in the context of the monitoring of global AfT (Box 2). This year’s report is the 
fourth EU monitoring report and is, in contrast to last year's self-standing Commission Staff 
Working  Document,  integrated  in  the  EU  Accountability  Report  2011  on  Financing  for 
Development. It should be noted that the methodology of reporting on TRA is complex and 
has changed over time (Box 3). 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Box 3: Reporting TRA remains complex 

The  change  in  methodology  from  the  Doha  Trade-Capacity-Building  Database  to  CRS  in  2007  and  the  new 
definitions create some limitations in the comparisons of figures over time. The amounts captured in the former 
database  as  "Trade  Policy  and  Regulation"  (cat.  1)  and  "Trade  development"  (cat.  2)  are  nowadays  split  into 
three categories, namely categories 1 and 2 and 6 "Other trade-related needs". Due to the definitions of codes in 
the  CRS,  it  is not possible  to  continue  counting  some  activities  as  TPR or TD,  since  they  have different  CRS 
purpose codes and so they are captured in category 6. 

It is therefore not possible to compare figures post-2006 directly with previous years, but it would be correct to 
compare  the  evolution  of  the  Trade-related  assistance  (categories  1,  2  and  6)  globally,  whereas  TRI  and  BPC 
numbers  can  be  compared  individually.  As  regards  total  Aid  for  Trade,  figures  prior  to  2007  do  not  include 
Category 5 and 6, which at the time did not exist. Therefore AfT comparisons before and after 2007 need to be 
taken with caution. 

How is TRA and Aid for Trade counted before and after 2007? 

Until 2006 

TRA =  Category 1 (TPR) + Category 2 (TD) (note that Category 6 did not exist at the time) 

Source: Doha Database (ad hoc reporting by donors)  

Aid for Trade = Category 1 (TPR) + Category 3 (TRI) + Category 4 (BPC) (note that Category 5 and 6 did not 
exist 

at the time, limiting the possibility of comparing figures pre-2007 with those used from 2007) 

Source: OECD/CRS (regular reporting by OECD members) 

From 2007 

TRA = Cat 1 (TPR) + Cat 2 (TD) + Cat 6 (Other Trade-Related Needs) 

Source: OECD CRS + ad hoc questionnaire for Category 6 

3. 

EU AND ITS MEMBER STATES STRATEGIC EFFORTS  

This  year’s  report  is  set  in  the  aftermath  of  the  economic  crisis,  in  a  climate  generally 
concerned  with  economic  recovery  and  growth.  The  past  year  has  seen  the  pursuit  of 
multilateral negotiations as well as the advancement of bilateral trade negotiations in several 
regions.  Together  with  the  continued  negotiations  of  EU  ACP  economic  partnership 
agreements  these  two  processes  help  to  generate  interest  in  trade  related  policies,  trade 
development strategies, and Aid for Trade. Two important international conferences are also 
in the making with important links to the AfT agenda: the Fourth UN LDC Conference and 
the  Busan  Aid  Effectiveness  conference.  The  G20  is  establishing  itself  on  the  international 
arena and is manifesting a will to engage in making trade work for low income countries, both 
through  trade  and  aid  and  cooperation  measures.  These  factors,  multiplied  via  partner 
countries’ own direct interest in the same issues converge towards a continued high EU and 
Member States engagement in the Aid for Trade agenda. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
Whilst the EU AfT strategy is a joint strategy to which EU Member States have signed up, 
several  Member  States  have  also  adopted  specific  AfT  strategies  in  line  with  their  national 
development  policies  as  shown  in  previous  years’  reports.  This  year  Member  States  have 
undertaken  further  strategic  AfT  efforts,  both  to  strengthen  national  AfT  policies  and 
implement AfT strategies. 

Sixteen Member States1 and the EU responded to the OECD/WTO AfT questionnaire which 
is  intended  to  acquire  information  on  the  progress  by  individual  donor  countries  with  a 
particular  focus  on  outcomes  of  AfT  strategies  and  programmes.  This  year's  responses 
demonstrated  that  Member  States  and  the  EU  generally  continue  their  engagement 
without  significantly  altering  their  strategy.  Yet,  six  Member  States  adjusted  their  national 
AfT strategy since 2008 (DK, LU, ES, FR, UK, FI), enhancing the focus on a range of areas, 
such as regional integration’ and ‘economic growth’ and with enhanced engagement with the 
private sector reported by DK, FI and the UK. In parallel, six Member States, (SE, NL, IT, 
DE,  FI)  foresee  further  changes  in  their  strategies  in  the  near  future.  Although  the  specific 
future thematic focus is not sufficiently clear yet in these cases, AfT clearly remains a priority 
in overall Member States Development policies as well as for the EU.  

4. 

TRADE RELATED ASSISTANCE (TRA): EU AND MEMBER STATES MAKE PROGRESS  

Trade-Related Assistance comprises of three categories as set out in Box 1: 'trade policy and 
regulation';  'trade  development'  and  'other  trade  related  needs'.  By  the  end  of  2005,  the  EU 
made  specific  financial  commitments  in  relation  to  these  two  areas,  pledging  to  strive  to 
increase  its  collective  expenditures  on  them  to  EUR  2  billion  per  year  from  2010  –  EUR  1 
billion  by  the  EU  and  EUR  1  billion  in  bilateral  aid  from  the  Member  States.  Last  year's 
monitoring  report  showed  that  the  EU  and  Member  States  already  met  their  EUR  2  billion 
target  for  TRA  in  2008.  In  2009,  the  EU  as  a  whole  continued  to  increase  its  TRA 
commitments  substantially,  reaching  almost  EUR  3  billion,  compared  to  EUR  2.4  in 
2008.  

The  figure  1  below  illustrates  the  substantial  overall  increase  from  2001  onwards,  with  a 
relatively moderate increase for the 2001–2005 period. It is clear that the substantial increase 
over  the  2005-2009  period  can  be  mainly  attributed  to  commitments  coming  from  Member 
States, which increased from EUR 0.47 billion in 2005 to EUR 2 billion in 2009. Compared 
to 2008, TRA allocated by EU Member States increased by 50% in 2009 – an annual increase 
of EUR 0.693 billion.  

1 BE, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LI, LU, NL, PT, SE, UK 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 1 – Trade Related Assistance (EU and EU Member States, EUR billion) 

3.500 

3.000 

2.500 

2.000 

1.500 

1.000 

500 

-

2.964 

2.366 

911 

1.874 

1.579 

1.007 

867 

592 

276 

954 

566 

388 

1.215 

1.110 

1.168 

733 

482 

811 

299 

695 

473 

1.032 

902 

677 

841 

2.052 

1.359 

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Source: OECD CRS Database, Doha Development Database, Monterrey Questionnaire 2011 

EU Member States

EU

Grand Total

Table  1  shows  that  the  level  of  individual  TRA  Member  State  commitments,  while 
increasing, varied substantially from year to year since 2001. It also demonstrates that only a 
few  Member  States  make  up  the  lion  share  of  overall  commitments:  Four  Member  States 
make  up  76%  of  total  commitments  in  TRA  provided  by  Member  States  in  2009: 
Germany (34%), the UK (17%), Spain (15%) and Belgium (10%).  

Table 1 Level of individual TRA Member State commitments 

(EUR million) 
Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Czech Rep. 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 

2001  2002 
2 
11 
- 
- 
0 
13 
- 
3 
31 
91 
4 
0 
0 
7 
- 
- 
- 
- 
43 
- 
1 
- 
- 

1
8
-
-
-
5
-
6
129
81
6
-
0
9
-
-
0
-
67
-
15
-
-

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

8
28
-
-
0
28
-
15
83
81
0
-
0
4
-
-
0
-
81
-
2
-
-

5
52
0
-
0
48
0
33
106
31
4
-
5
6
0
0
0
-
196
-
1
-
-

14 
33 
0 
- 
0 
48 
0 
2 
215 
238 
6 
- 
8 
15 
0 
0 
0 
- 
126 
- 
0 
0 
- 

24 
58 
0 
- 
0 
73 
0 
51 
16 
680 
4 
- 
16 
29 
0 
0 
0 
- 
62 
0 
2 
0 
- 

18
204
0
-
0
97
-
91
84
700
5
-
0
38
0
0
-
-
73
-
4
-
-

0
52
-
-
-
35
-
9
100
89
2
0
0
1
-
-
0
-
128
-
2
-
-

2
46
-
-
-
4
-
0
65
64
1
-
0
8
-
-
0
-
61
-
1
-
-

7 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
2005 

2004 

2003 

2009 
(EUR million) 
2 
1 
Slovenia 
0
212 
73 
Spain 
315
36 
29 
Sweden 
75
92 
32 
United Kingdom 
347
841  1 359  2 052
EU Member States
1 032  1 007 
EU 
911
Grand Total 
1 874  2 366  2 964
Source: OECD CRS Database, Doha Development Database, Monterrey Questionnaire 2011, EU 

2001  2002 
- 
1 
8 
59 
276 
592 
867 

2006 
1
57
25
106
677
902
1 579

-
2
9
36
299
811
1 110

-
7
46
90
473
695
1 168

-
3
18
41
482
733
1 215

-
1
5
54
388
566
954

2007 

2008 

Table 2 distinguishes the TRA breakdown by categories and shows that the strong 2008/2009 
increase  of  Member  States  commitments  can  be  explained  by  a  strong  increase  of  TRA 
category 2 "Trade development" which represents close to 80% of total Member States TRA 
commitments. 

As  far  as  the  EU  is  concerned,  TRA  commitments  slightly  declined,  reaching  EUR  0.91 
billion in 2009. In contrast to Member States commitments, the EU TRA commitments since 
2001  have  been  three-quarters  for  TD  and  one  quarter  for  TPR,  although  they  were  much 
more evenly split in 2008 and 2009 (one third for each category). 

Table 2 Trade Related Assistance by Category: 2001-2009 (EUR million) 

EU 

1. TPR 

2. TD 

6. Other 

Total 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

26 

566 

- 

122 

444 

- 

191 

543 

- 

98 

713 

- 

123 

572 

- 

328 

575 

- 

212 

570 

250 

238 

317 

452 

316 

263 

332 

592 

566 

733 

811 

695 

902 

1 032  1 007  911 

EU Member States  2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

1. TPR 

2. TD 

6. Other 

Total 

42 

72 

45 

48 

233 

316 

437 

252 

- 

- 

- 

- 

106 

367 

- 

157 

518 

- 

130 

709 

- 

220 

293 

1 058  1 615 

79 

143 

275 

388 

482 

299 

473 

675 

840 

1 357  2 052 

EU + EU Member 
States 

1. TPR 

2. TD 

6. Other 

Total 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

68 

799 

- 

194 

760 

- 

236 

979 

- 

146 

964 

- 

229 

938 

- 

485 

343 

458 

609 

1 093 

1 279 

1 375 

1 878 

- 

250 

530 

476 

867 

954 

1 215 

1 110 

1 168 

1 578 

1 872 

2 364 

2 963 

Sources: OECD CRS, Doha Development Database, Monterrey Questionnaire 2011 (for Cat.6), EU 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Trade  Development  (TD)  makes  up  the  bulk  of the  combined  EU  and  Member  States  TRA 
commitments  since  2001  (80%  on  average  between  2001  and  2009)  and  has  more  than 
doubled since 2001.  

Trade Policy and Regulations (TPR) also increased, from EUR 458 million in 2008 to EUR 
609 million in 2009 (+33%). Other Trade Related needs (Category 6) amounted to EUR 476 
million in  2009,  with  contributions  from  three  Member  States  (IT,  NL,  ES  and  the  UK); 
commitments in this category 6 represented only 16% of total TRA in 2009. 

4.1. 

Strong increase of TRA commitments towards Africa  

EU  and  Member  States  TRA  volumes  towards  Africa  have  increased  substantially 
compared to 2008, having overtaken Asia as the region receiving the largest share of EU 
TRA  as  shown  in  Figure  2.  EU  commitments  in  2009  towards  Africa  reached  EUR  1.1 
billion, representing 40% of all TRA (compared 25% in 2008).  

Asia received the second largest share of TRA (EUR 0.67 billion), followed by Latin America 
(EUR  0.47  billion),  Europe  (EUR  0.14  billion)  and  Oceania  (EUR  0.02  billion).  A  large 
amount  (EUR  0.43  billion)  is  classified  as  "unspecified"  and  includes  programmes  with  a 
regional  and  global  coverage.  Further  details  are  given  in  Annex  5  which  shows  the  top  20 
receiving  countries  and  regions  of  EU  and  Member  States  TRA.  The  annex  demonstrates 
increasing  TRA  commitments  in  regional  programmes  on  the  African  continent  (EUR  577 
million) and bilateral programmes in India (EUR167 million) and China (EUR 142 million). 
Other significant recipient countries with 2009 TRA commitments exceeding EUR 50 million 
are Bangladesh, Ghana, Peru and Tunisia. More detailed information for each 'EU configured' 
region2, broken down by TRA category and at country level is provided in Annex 5. 

Figure 2  Trade Related Assistance by OECD Region 
 (bilateral & regional programmes, EU + EU Member States, in EUR million) 

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

South of
Sahara

Asia

America

Africa

North of
Sahara

Europe

Oceania Unspecified

2008

2009

Source: OECD CRS 

2 EU regional configurations vs OECD regional configurations 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
5. 

TOTAL 'WIDER' AID FOR TRADE: SUSTAINING HIGH LEVELS 

The  AfT  concept  has  widened  over  the  years  to  include  more  general  support  for 
infrastructure  and  productive  sectors,  whereas  the  original  scope  of  AfT  did  not  stretch  far 
beyond TRA, i.e. supporting beneficiaries to formulate and implement trade policies.  

Last  year's  report  indicated  an  all-time  high  of  total  EU  and  Member  States  Aid  for  Trade 
commitments in 2008; the latest data for 2009 (Figure 3) show that this high level was not an 
isolated event: The commitments increased slightly (+1.4%) in 2009 and reached a total 
of  almost  EUR  10.5  billion  -  EUR  7.1  billion  from  EU  Member  States  and  EUR  3.3 
billion from the EU (Figure 16).  

When looking at the trend over several years by comparing the total AfT 2007 – 2009 average 
with  the  2004-2006  average,  total  AfT  increased  from  EUR  6.270  billion  to  EUR  9.286 
billion (+48%). 

Figure 3  Aid for Trade (EU and EU Member Staes, in EUR billion)   

12.000 

10.000 

8.000 

6.000 

10.335  10.482 

7.538 

7.120 

3.056 

3.345 

6.501 

4.599 

5.154 

5.210 

5.272 

4.770 

2.117 

2.563 

2.436 

4.000 

1.277 

1.741 

2.036 

1.903 

1.444 

7.279 

7.137 

3.322 

3.413 

3.175 

3.369 

3.327 

4.384 

4.975 

4.685 

2.000 

-

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

EU Member States

EU

Grand Total

Source: OECD CRS Database, Doha Development Database, Monterrey Questionnaire 2011 

The  EU  and  its  Member  States  accounted  for  about  37%  of  AfT  from  the  world’s  major 
bilateral and multilateral donors in 2008-2009 and is together the world's largest provider 
of  AfT  as  shown  in  Figure  4.  This  is  a  substantial  increase  compared  to  2004-2005,  when 
their share was 30% of the total. The EU on its own is after Japan the world largest donor of 
AfT, representing 11.4% of the world's total. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4 Aid for Trade by all major donors in EUR billion 

30.000 

25.000 

20.000 

15.000 

10.000 

5.000 

-

Others CRS Countries

United States

Japan

Multilateral

EU+EU Member States

31%

30%

31%

34%

25%

 34%

39%

33%

37%

36%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Source: OECD CRS, Monterrey Questionnaire, EU 

5.1. 

EU AfT share in total ODA substantial and stable  

Providing  AfT  remains  a  priority  in  EU  development  support.  EU  and  Member  States 
AfT,  as  a  share  of  total  EU  and  EU  Member  States  ODA,  was  at  its  lowest  in  2006  (14%) 
(Figure 5). Since then, the share of AfT in total ODA has been regularly increasing, and in 
2009,  it  accounted  for  22%  of  total  aid,  above  the  previous  peak  recorded  in  2001.  When 
examining the EU and Member States share of AfT in ODA separately, the increasing share 
of  EU  AfT  as  part  of  overall  EU  ODA  becomes  evident,  reaching  28%  in  2009  after  a 
stable increase since 2007. Data for EU Member States show a lower AfT share (20%), albeit 
significantly higher than the period before 2008. 

Figure 5  Aid for Trade in Total ODA (EU and EU Member States, in EUR billion  

45.000 

40.000 

35.000 

30.000 

25.000 

20.000 

15.000 

10.000 

5.000 

-

21%

22%

15%

14%

14%

17%

14%  20%  12%  23%

12%  26% 15%  24%

20%

 20%

25%

 28%

2004

2005
EU MS Total ODA

2006

2007

2008

2009

EU MS AfT
EU+EU MS AfT in EU+EU MS ODA (rhs)

Source: OECD CRS, Monterrey Questionnaire, EU 

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5.2.  Wider Aid for Trade: commitments translating into disbursements   

This report mainly looks at commitments, since AfT reporting at global level in multilateral 
fora  is  primarily  done  in  commitments,  as  well  as  AfT  pledges  made  in  the  WTO  context. 
However, one of the reasons for the change to using the OECD CRS is that it also provides 
data  on  AfT  disbursements.  Figure  6  compares  combined  EU  and  Member  States    AfT 
volumes measured as commitments and disbursements. It shows that EU AfT disbursements 
have  increased  steadily  since  2003.  Since  disbursements  include  expenditure  for  on-going 
programmes committed in previous years, it can be misleading to compare commitments and 
disbursements  for  a  given  year.  However,  as  was  the  case  in  last  year's  data,  the  level  of 
disbursements in 2008 and 2009 is comparable to the amount committed in the previous two 
years (2006 and 2007). This suggests that, as is usual, commitments are being translated into 
actual disbursements with a slight lag. 

 Figure 6 – Aid for Trade Disbursements & Commitments (EU +Member States, EUR billions) 

12.000 

10.000 

8.000 

6.000 

4.000 

2.000 

-

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

5.3.  Wider Aid for Trade: mainly grants  

Disbursements

Commitments

Source: OECD CRS 

ODA grants represent the largest part of AfT provided by EU and EU Member States (70% in 
2009), followed by ODA loans (23%) and Equity investments (7%) (Figure 7). In addition, 
ODA  grants  increased  in  2009  (EUR  7.0  billion  against  EUR  6.0  billion  in  2008)  at  the 
expense of ODA loans (minus EUR 0.5 billion). 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7 – Aid for Trade by type of flow (EU+Member States, EUR billions) 

12.000 

10.000 

8.000 

6.000 

4.000 

2.000 

-

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

ODA Grants

ODA Loans

Equity Investment

Source: OECD CRS 

5.4. 

AfT by Member States; levels stabilised 

Interestingly  in  2009,  while  EU  AfT  commitments  almost  maintained  its  increasing  trend, 
albeit at a slower pace (+25% in 2008 compared to +9.5% in 2009), AfT from Member States 
practically stabilised (after having increased by 50% in 2008). This slowdown is largely the 
result of lower commitments in 2009 by FR and DE, as shown in Table 3. Yet they remain 
the  largest  Member  States  donors  of  AfT;  together  with  the  UK  accounting  for  more  than 
60% of total AfT from EU Member States 

2001 

Table 3 Amounts of AfT by Country: 2000-2009 
2004 
17
178

2005 
27
155

2003 
21
135

2002 
63
186

15 
114 

18 
86 

2007 

2008 

2009 

(EUR million)  2000 
Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Czech Rep. 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 

495 

29 
301 
613 

18 
152 

221 

23 

2006 
26
156
0
-
3
189
0
64
744
1 495
22
-
29
239
0
0
12
-
686
-
7

44 
209 
0 
- 
3 
255 
0 
84 

51 
221 
0 
- 
0 
173 
0 
135 
1 017  1 738 
1 213  2 036 
10 
- 
52 
186 
0 
1 
28 
- 
466 
0 
13 

11 
- 
30 
111 
0 
0 
27 
- 
510 
- 
47 

58
389
0

0
251

256
1 090
1 889
13

44
202
0
0
22

515

66

81 

206

188

367

410

31 
635 
962 

19 
105 

41
329
816
6

19
164

38
466
776
4

22
187

43
527
889
12

26
70

100
755
1 138
14

20
310

3 

2

15

14

11

343 

463

303

461

384

30 

17

8

41

61

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(EUR million)  2000 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
United 
Kingdom 
EU MS 
EU 
Grand Total 

225 
143 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

253 
192 

306
135

366
170

247
150

135
200

-
-
1
561
259

0 
- 
1 
474 
267 

0 
- 
2 
701 
225 

0
757
247

998 

631 
422
3 322  3 413  3 175
1 277  1 741  2 036
4 599  5 154  5 210

670
3 369
1 903
5 272

286
3 327
1 444
4 770

665
4 384
2 117
6 501

480
4 975
2 563
7 538

380  1 240 
1 335
4 685  7 279 
7 137
2 436  3 056 
3 345
7 120  10335  10 482

Source: OECD CRS Database, Doha Development Database, Monterrey Questionnaire 2011, EU 

More detailed information on the AfT development in each Member States is presented in the 
EU  Member  States  Donor  Profiles  in  Annex  7,  which  also  contains  the  breakdown  by  AfT 
category.  Specific  details  on  major  EU  and  Member  States’  AfT  project  commitments 
exceeding EUR 50 million are provided in Annex 3. 

In terms of the financial sources that the EU has at its disposal, the European Development 
Fund (EDF) contributed the largest amount of EU AfT in 2009, (EUR 1.8 billion in 2009, or 
59%  of  the  total  EU  AfT),  followed  closely by the EU  budget (CEC) with  EUR 1.2 billion 
(41% of the total EU AfT) (Figure 8). It should be noted however, that this report does not 
include  2008  and  2009  amounts  of  ODA  projects  funded  through  the  "own  sources"  of  the 
European  Investment  Bank.  A  discussion  is  still  ongoing  between  OECD  and  European 
Commission on the relevance of including certain types of loans as ODA. 

Figure 8 Aid for Trade by EU source (EUR billion) 

3.500 

3.000 

2.500 

2.000 

1.500 

1.000 

500 

-

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

CEC

EDF

EIB

Source: OECD CRS 

5.5. 

Aid  for  Trade  by  category;  considerable  increase  in  Building  Productive 
Capacity 

Figure  9  illustrates  the  trend  for  total  EU  and  Member  States’  AfT  for  each  AfT  category. 
Commitments  for  building  productive  capacity  (BPC  in  the  Figure)  have  increased 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
considerably  in  recent  years,  and  reached  a  record  high  of  EUR  5.6  billion  in  2009, 
representing 56% of total AfT. This covers support to agriculture, fisheries, banking, business 
industry  etc.  The  second  biggest  category—trade-related  infrastructure  (TRI),  which  covers 
transport, storage, communication and energy—has  followed  a  much  more  fluctuating  path; 
commitments  decreased  from  EUR  4.9  billion  in  2008  to  EUR  3.8  billion  in  2009,  after 
having increased by 76% in 2008. This can be explained by the fact this category covers large 
infrastructure projects for which substantial commitments are made on an irregular basis. 

Due  to  the  nature  of  the  support  –  institution  building,  technical  assistance,  training  etc, 
commitments for trade policy and regulations (TPR) are on a much smaller scale (6% of total 
AfT in 2009). They increased by about 33% in each of 2008 and 2009, a clear indication of 
the  continued  attention  to  EU  And  Member  States'  support  to  the  capacity  of  developing 
countries to formulate and implement trade policy. Activities in the trade-related adjustment 
(TRAdj)  category  have  only  been  reported  for  ACP  countries,  and  in  limited  amounts  (in 
2009 the total for this category was EUR 11.3 million), because the relevant sector code was 
added to the CRS only in 2008. As a consequence, TRAdj commitments are not shown in the 
graph.  Most  programmes  under  category  6  'other  trade-related  assistance'  are  in  EU 
Neighbourhood countries and Europe as in these regions programmes more often cover areas 
that go beyond the sectors covered by Aid for Trade. They can be part of broader government 
advice or public reform projects in several sectors and as such reported as “Multi-sector Aid”. 
A total of 67 projects were included in this category in 2009 representing a total amount of 
333 million Euros.  

Figure 9 Aid for Trade by Category (EU + EU Member States, in EUR billion) 

6.000 

5.000 

4.000 

3.000 

2.000 

1.000 

-

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

1. TPR

3. TRI

4. BPC

5. TRAdj

6. Other

Source: OECD CRS, EU 

A total of 67 projects were included under Category 6 in 2009 representing a total amount of 
333 million Euros (Box 4).  

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
Box 4: Reporting on categories 5 and 6 

Many of the programmes under the Other Trade-related Assistance category were reported as “Multi-sector Aid” 
(EUR 253 million), mainly in countries covered by the EU's enlargement policy and European Neighbourhood 
Policy  as  they  are  part  of  broader  government  advice  or  public  reform  projects  in  several  sectors.  The  main 
reason is that the programmes more often cover more areas than the sectors covered by Aid for Trade in these 
regions and are therefore reported as “Multi- sector Aid”. In 2009, 20 Category 6 programmes were reported as 
“Multi-sector  Aid”,  of  which  16  in  the  Neighbourhood  or  Europe.  Examples  are  the  Integrated  Border 
Management project in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (EUR 3.5 million) and the Support to the 
implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  programme  in  Jordan  (EUR  20  million),  which  includes  specific  trade 
components  such  as  capacity  building  for  the  improvement  of  the  customs  services  and  simplification  and 
modernisation of customs procedures. Annex 6 provides the overall list of programmes under Category 6 for the 
year 2009 

The  following  charts  show  the  trend  in  Member  States  and  EU  contributions  for  the  three 
main AfT categories. Trade Policy and Regulations has been increasing since 2007 for both 
EU and EU Member States, with a simultaneous growth of 33% in 2009 (Figure 10). In 2009, 
TPR  represented  a  more  important  category  in  total  AfT  for  the  EU  than  for  EU  Member 
States countries (10% against 4%). 

Figure 10 Support to Trade policy and Regulations (EU + EU Member States, in EUR million)   

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

-

316 

328 

238 

212 

122 

191 

18 
72 

26 
42 

72 

45 

98 

48 

123 

106 

157 

130 

293 

220 

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

EU MS (only OECD CRS countries)

EU

Source: OECD CRS, EU 

Overall  EU  and  Member  States  commitments  in  the  area  of  Trade  Related  Infrastructure 
(TRI)  decreased  from  EUR  4.9  billion  in  2008  to  EUR  3.8  billion  in  2009  (minus  22%) 
(Figure  11).  This  decline  can  be  attributed  to  both  the  EU  (-33%)  and  its  Member  States, 
albeit to a lesser extent (minus 17%). Yet, TRI remains important, representing respectively 
37% of EU and 38% of Member States' AfT. Figure 12 shows that transport & storage is the 
largest sub-category for the last decade followed by Energy. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Figure 11 Support to Trade-related Infrastructure (EU + EU Member States, in EUR billion)   

6.000 

5.000 

4.000 

3.000 

2.000 

1.000 

-

885 

903 

1.010 

759 

567 

1.349 

1.417 

1.366 

1.541 

1.407 

1.284 

1.312 

2.120 

2.124 

1.112 

1.640 

1.661 

1.118 

3.189 

2.655 

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

EU MS (only OECD CRS countries)

EU

Source: OECD CRS, EU 

Figure 12 Aid for Trade by sector in Trade Related Infrastructure (EU+Member States EUR billion)  

3.000

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

500

0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Transport & Storage

Communications

Energy

Source: OECD CRS, EU 

Building  Productive  Capacity  (BPC)  is  the  largest  AfT  category  both  for  EU  (52%)  and 
Member  States  (58%).  Commitments  are  significantly  larger  for  Member  States  (EUR  4 
billion  in  2009)  than  for  the  EU  (EUR  1.6  billion  in  2009)  (Figure  13).  The  BPC 
commitments  from  the  EU  more  than  doubled  between  2008  and  2009,  whereas  Member 
States  BPC  commitments  increased  by  7%  in  the  same  period.  Figure  14  shows  that 
agriculture  has  consistently  been  the  largest  sub-sector,  with  a  substantial  increase  in  2009, 
Banking & Financial is the second largest sub-sector, growing almost to par with Agriculture 
in 2008.  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 13 Support to Building productive capacity (EU + EU Member States EUR billion) 

6.000 

5.000 

4.000 

3.000 

2.000 

691 

830 

1.010 

702 

586 

709 

1.000 

1.901 

1.954 

1.737 

1.783 

1.872 

2.159 

1.567 

702 

923 

862 

3.788 

4.044 

2.690 

2.910 

-

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

EU MS (only OECD CRS countries)

EU

Source: OECD CRS 

Figure 14 Aid for Trade by Sector in Cat 4 BPC (EU + EU Member States, in EUR billion) 

3.000

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

500

0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

5.6.  Wider Aid for Trade geographical distribution 

Source: OECD CRS 

Banking & Financial
Services

Business & Other Services

Agriculture

Forestry

Fishing

Industry

Mineral Resources &
Mining

Tourism

Efforts  under  the  EU  AfT  strategy  cover  all  developing  country  regions,  as  reflected  in  the 
Figure 15. Compared to the 2000-2004 average, 2009 EU AfT commitments increased for all 
regions.  Comparing  with  the  2005-2009  average,  2009  commitments  only  decreased  for 
Europe and North of Sahara (between 2008 and 2009 from EUR 1.3 billion to EUR 0.7 billion 
in Europe and from EUR 1.5 billion to EUR 0.8 billion in North of Sahara.  

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Africa  accounted  for  the  largest  share  of  AfT  from  the  EU  and  its  Member  States; 
commitments amounted to EUR 4.1 billion corresponding to 41% of total AfT in 2009. Last 
year's  report  indicated  that  the  relative  share  of  Sub-Saharan  Africa  was  decreasing  to  the 
benefit  of  North  Africa.  However,  the  2009  data  demonstrates  a  reverse  trend  with  almost 
stable commitments in North of Sahara and substantial increases in Sub-Saharan Africa. The 
South of Sahara region received by far the largest amounts of AfT of all regions. 

Asia received the second largest share of AfT (22% of total in 2009), followed by America 
(11%),  Europe  (7%)  and  Oceania  (1%).  As  for  TRA,  the  AfT  classified  as  'unspecified' 
(which includes programmes with global coverage) increased substantially in recent years and 
reached almost EUR 1.9 billion in 2009 representing 19% of total TRA. This is mainly due to 
three  large  global  commitments  to  the  EU  Food  Facility  which  were  reported  as 
geographically “unspecified” (global coverage). 

 Figure 15 Aid for Trade by OECD Region (bilateral & regional programmes EU + EU Member 
States EUR billion) 

3.500 

3.000 

2.500 

2.000 

1.500 

1.000 

500 

-

South of
Sahara

Asia

America

North of
Sahara

Europe

Africa

Oceania Unspecified

Annual Average 2001-2004

Annual Average 2006-2009

2009

Source: OECD CRS 

Detailed  information  on  the  distribution  by  sub-regions,  recipient  countries  and  AfT 
categories  is  given  in  Annexes  1.  Annex  4  lists  AfT  commitments  by  the  top  20  receiving 
partner  countries,  which  include  Morocco  (EUR  438  million),  India  (EUR  425  million), 
China  (EUR  359  million),  Afghanistan  (EUR  273  million),  Kenya  (EUR  255  million)  and 
Uganda  (EUR  217  million).  Regional  programmes  represent  14%  of  total  EU  and  Member 
States  AfT  in  2009,  led  by  “South  of  Sahara,  regional”  (EUR  423  million)  and  “Africa, 
regional” (EUR 391 million). 

5.7. 

Aid for Trade to LDCs – stable share of total  

Special attention to the situation of LDCs is merited ahead of this year's conference on Least 
Developed  Countries  (LDC  IV).  Moreover,  the  EU  Strategy  on  AfT  explicitly  refers  to 
supporting  LDCs  to  better  integrate  into  the  rules-based  world  trading  system  and  to  more 
effectively use trade in promoting the overarching objective of eradication of poverty in the 
context  of  sustainable  development.  This  section  is  about  the  EU  quantitative  commitments 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
made towards LDCs, whereas chapter 8.4 will address in detail the challenges of AfT delivery 
in LDCs. 

The share of AfT to LDCs as percentage of total AfT from EU and EU Member States 
remained relatively stable at 22% in 2009, down from 24% in 2008, as shown in Figure 16. 
LDCs  accounted  for  EUR  2.3  billion  in  2009,  compared  to  EUR  7.8  billion  to  non-LDCs. 
Interestingly, the figure also demonstrates that the LDC share of EU AfT (30% in 2009) has 
been continuously higher than the LDC share of Member States AfT (19% in 2009), despite a 
decreasing LDC share of EU AfT as compared to 2008. 

 Figure 16 EU Aid for Trade to LDCs EU + EU Member States EUR billion 

12.000 

10.000 

8.000 

6.000 

4.000 

2.000 

-

46%

43%

41%

42%

35%
32%

26%
23%

22%
22%

21%

19%

26%

34%

16%

30%

19%

24%

21%

17%

 34%

 22%

 24%

 27%

 29%

 32%

22%

 22%

 24%

 22%

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

EU+EU MS AfT to LDC

EU+EU MS AfT to non LDC

EU: % LDCs in AfT

EU MS: % LDCs in AfT

Source: OECD CRS  

6. 

INCREASING  TRA  AND  AID  FOR  TRADE  TO  THE  ACP–  PARTICULARLY  THROUGH 
REGIONAL PROGRAMMES IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 

ACP countries receive specific attention in the EU AfT strategy, including in relation to their 
ongoing  regional  integration  efforts.  The  assessment  of  progress  in  implementing  the  AfT 
agenda  for  this  group  is  therefore  a  key  issue  in  each  EU  AfT  report.  This  section  includes 
data  on  both  TRA  and  the  wider  AfT  to  ACP  countries.  2009  showed  a  very  important 
increase  in  both  AfT  and  TRA  to  ACP  countries.  Total  EU  TRA  commitments  reached 
EUR  1.16  billion,  almost  triple  the  2008  level.  The  ACP  share  of  total  recipient  countries 
increased 17 percentage points to 40% of the total. There was a particularly strong increase in 
regional  programmes  from  both  the  EU  as  well  as  Member  States  which  were  up  six  fold 
compared to 2008, almost entirely allocated to Africa. 

As regards wider AfT, commitments to ACP countries increased 18% in 2009, reaching a new 
all-time high of EUR 3.6 billion (Figure 17). The ACP share of total AfT delivered by the EU 
and  its  Member  States  increased  four  percentage  points  to  36%  in  2009.  Again,  the  overall 
increase can mainly be attributed to increasing commitments in regional programmes (more 
than doubling from EUR 0.4 billion in 2008 to EUR 0.9 billion in 2009), while commitments 
to bilateral programmes remained stable (EUR 2.7 billion).  

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Table 4 sets out the total EU TRA commitments to ACP countries which accounts for EUR 
1.16 billion in 2009. The EU commitments to ACP increased substantially in 2009, both 
in  absolute  figures  (+  EUR  740  million)  as  well  as  in  share  of  total  recipient  countries 
(+17%  percentage  points).  This  strong  increase  can  be  seen  in  bilateral  commitments,  but 
even  more  so  in  regional  programmes,  from  both  the  EU  as  well  as  Member  States,  which 
were up six fold when compared with 2008, almost entirely allocated to Africa. 

Table 4 Trade Related Assistance dedicated to ACP countries 

EU+EU Member States (million) 
ACP countries (bilateral) 
ACP (Regional) 
  - ACP (Africa, Regional) 
  - ACP (N&C America, Regional) 
  - ACP (Oceania, Regional) 
  - ACP (South of Sahara, 
Regional) 
Total ACP 
Non ACP 
TOTAL 
% ACP 

2008 

2009 

333
86
57
5
0

24
419
1 414
1 833
23%

570 
590 
240 
37 
16 

297 
1 159 
1 772 
2 932 
40% 

Source: OECD CRS 

As  regards  wider  AfT,  the  2009  data  for  ACP  countries  point  to  a  strong  increase 
compared to 2008 of 16%, reaching a new all-time high of EUR 3.6 billion. In turn, the 
ACP share of total AfT delivered by the EU and its Member States increased to 36% in 2009 
(Figure 17). As AfT commitments to ACP bilateral programmes remained stable (EUR 2.7 
billion),  the  overall  increase  can  mainly  be  attributed  to  the  increasing  commitments  in 
regional  programmes  as  noted  above  for  TRA.  Commitments  in  wider  AfT  regional 
programmes more than doubled, from EUR 0.4 billion in 2008 to EUR 0.9 billion in 2009. 

Figure 17 – Aid for Trade ACP Countries (EU+Member States EUR billions) 

43%

39%

41%

44%

34%

35%

35%

36%

33%

32%

12.000

10.000

8.000

6.000

4.000

2.000

0

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

ACP countries (bilateral)

ACP (Regional)

non ACP

% ACP (rhs)

Source: OECD CRS 

Figure 18 Aid for Trade to ACP Countries by Region 
(bilateral programmes EU + Member States EUR millions)   

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

East Africa

West
Africa

Central
Africa

Caribbean Southern

Pacific

Africa

Asia
(other)

2009

Annual Average 2005-2009

Source: OECD CRS 

Figure 18 shows that the increase in EU and Member States commitments through bilateral 
programmes is particularly relevant in East Africa and the Caribbean and to a lesser extent in 
Central  Africa.  The  increase  in  regional  allocations  is  already  demonstrated  in  previous 
sections. Figure 19 illustrates that these very substantial increases are mainly taking place in 
regional  programmes  classified  under  'South  of  Sahara'  and  'Africa',  which  both  represent 
90%  of  regional  programmes  in  the  ACP.  Detailed  information  on  the  distribution  by  ACP 
sub-regions and AfT categories are given in the Annexes. 

Figure 19 – Aid for Trade to ACP Countries by Region  
(regional programmes, EU + Member States , EUR millions)   

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

South of Sahara,
Regional

Africa, Regional

N&C America,
Regional

Oceania, Regional

2009

Annual Average 2005-2009

Source: OECD CRS 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
7. 

EFFECTIVE DELIVERY OF AID FOR TRADE 

As in last year's monitoring exercise the European Commission submitted a questionnaire to 
EU Delegations and invited them to provide a reply jointly with EU Member States present in 
the country and active in sectors covered by AfT. In addition to collecting important feedback 
from  the  field  on  how  the  AfT  agenda  is  progressing  at  country  and  regional  level,  this 
exercise also helped catalyse and facilitate a discussion on AfT matters in the partner country 
in question.  

This year's Field questionnaire aimed at deepening the understanding of a series of key issues 
that emerged from last year's analysis, namely the indications that:  

-  As  regards  Aid  effectiveness,  great  potential  for  more  joint  EU  and  EU  Member  States 

- 

work on AfT in the partner countries was signalled (a doubling appeared possible). 
In the majority of countries where the EU and Member States deliver AfT comprehensive 
trade needs assessments had been carried out recently, but there were still countries where 
EU and Member States appeared to provide AfT in the absence of such analysis. 

-  The share of EU and Member States ODA that LDCs allocate to AfT was smaller than is 
the case for developing countries on the whole, and has not increased much over the past 
three years, despite the apparent trade related needs of these countries. 

-  Regional integration was increasingly seen as a priority at headquarter levels, but in many 
partner countries there appeared to be much room for strengthening the support to these 
processes.  

EU  delegations  and  EU  Member  States’  embassies  in  89  partner  countries  across  the 
developing world completed the Field questionnaire – up from 77 responses last year. 50 
of the respondents are based in the ACP States, 17 in Asia, 12 in Latin America and 10 
in the Neighbourhood country group. 36 of the total responses came from field offices in 
LDCs.  Most Member States significantly involved in AfT in the partner countries provided 
input to the questionnaire (almost 70% of cases).  

75% of last year's respondents participated in this year's exercise as well. Of those who did 
not,  three  are  in  Africa,  three  in  Latin  America,  two  in  Oceania,  one  in  Asia  and  one  in 
Neighbourhood  regions.  22  new  countries  from  Africa,  Latin  America,  Asia,  the  Caribbean 
and the Neighbourhood group were covered by the exercise this year.  

The feedback received from the questionnaire has been cross-checked with the EU Member 
States and the EU headquarters’ responses to the WTO/OECD AfT questionnaire, used by the 
OECD to collect information ahead of the third WTO Global AfT Review 2011. In most cases 
there is quite good correlation between the field reports and the headquarter assessments. 

As  a  point  of  caution,  it  should  be  noted  that  several  of  the  WTO/OECD  questions  explore 
whether  there  has  been  progress  on  various  issues  since  2008.  A  negative  response  to  that 
question need not necessarily indicate that the present situation is bad - it could simply mean 
that the state of affairs was good already in 2008 

7.1. 

Ownership 

Improvement in addressing trade in the EU donor – partner policy dialogue 

AfT volumes depend largely on the extent to which partner countries mainstream trade related 
issues into their development strategies, in turn dependent on their capacity to formulate trade 
development strategies. One measure of the demand, or potential demand, for aid for trade is 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
the degree to which donors and partners address trade related issues in their policy dialogue. 
This section explores how the nature of policy dialogue has changed since 2008.  

In  44  out  of  89  partner  countries,  EU  Delegations  and  Member  States  representations 
report  that  trade  is  a  regular  topic  in  their  policy  dialogue  with  the  partner  country. 
This accounts for almost 50%, which is a considerable improvement compared to the 33% of 
positive  responses  to  last  year’s  questionnaire.  However,  in  37  partner  countries  trade  is  a 
topic of policy dialogue only to a limited extent, and in eight cases not at all.  

The Member States responses to the OECD/WTO questionnaire confirm these findings - half 
of  the  EU  Member  States  report  significant  to  moderate  improvements  since  2008.  Perhaps 
not  surprisingly,  trade  appears  as  a  more  regular  topic  in  policy  dialogues  between 
donors  and  regional  communities  (reported  by  eight  Member  States)  as  compared  to  the 
policy dialogue between donor and partner countries (reported by five Member States).  

The  Caribbean,  Oceania,  Neighbourhood  and  Asia  stand  out  in  the  inclusion  of  trade  as  a 
topic in the donor-partner policy dialogue (Figure 20). Several regions in Africa appear to lag 
behind. 

In 9% of partner countries, EU donors indicated that civil society was always included in the 
dialogue. In 40% of cases, civil society was sometimes included in the policy dialogue. This 
corresponds to the EU and Member States responses to the OECD questionnaire. Similarly, 
nine Member States out of 16, and the EU, report that private sector is sometimes involved in 
the policy dialogue (eight in relation to policy dialogue with the regional communities). Two 
Member  States  report  that  the  private  sector  is  always  involved  in  their  dialogue  with 
partners. 

Figure 20 - Dialogue on Aid for Trade 

SADC

Central Africa 

EAC 

ESA

Latin America

West Africa

Asia

Neighbourhood 

Oceania

Caribbean

0% 20% 40%  60% 80% 100% 120%

% respondents

Trade a regular topic in
policy dialogue with partner
country

Improvement since 2008

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
Increasing partner country demand for AfT 

Compared  to  2008,  an  increasing  demand  for  AfT  is  reported  in  about  50%  of  partner 
countries.  Of  these  8%  report  a  significant  increase.  The  Member  States  responses  to  the 
OECD questionnaire support these in-country findings and also report on increasing demand 
for specific regional integration programmes. Five donors (FR, UK, SE, DE, BE) attribute this 
increasing demand to the ongoing EPA negotiations.  

A particularly strong increase of AfT demand is indicated for neighbourhood countries 
(70%).  Explanations  given  for  this  increase  relate  to  the  partners'  WTO  agenda  (Ukraine 
accession,  accession  process  Lebanon,  Yemen,  defining  Trade  policy  Palestinian  authority), 
launch  of  EU-Ukraine  FTA  negotiations,  financial  crisis  impact'  on  trade  (Kyrgyzstan)  and 
increasing  emphasis  on  the  need  for  increased  market  access  to  the  EU  (Pakistan  following 
the floods' impact on the textile export sector).  

In other regions, in addition to such external factors, EU actions are also cited as leading to a 
higher  prioritization  of  trade  in  the  partners'  development  agenda.  For  example,  high  level 
bilateral  contacts  in  area  of  Trade  in  the  context  of  ASEAN-EU  dialogue  (EU  Trade 
commissioner visit to region) are said to have contributed to the increasing demand for AfT 
by the Philippines.  

Actions  at  operation  level  can  further  stimulate  trade  being  taken  up  in  the  policy  dialogue 
with  the  country.  In  Laos,  for  example,  an  ongoing  EU  funded  development  programme  is 
said to have facilitated a regular policy dialogue on trade with the government. Internal donor 
resources also play a role in limiting or improving dialogue on trade with the partner country, 
as  in  Malaysia  where  the  EU  delegation  has  a  full-time  trade  officer  since  late  2009  to 
coordinate dialogue with the partner.  

It is interesting to note that the Field responses do not actually support the notion that there 
would be a clear link between the inclusion of trade issues in the policy dialogue and demand 
for Aid for Trade. On the contrary, there appears to be rather little correlation between these 
two  elements  and  more  in-depth  analysis  appears  necessary  to  understand  fully  the 
interlinkages.  

Coordination processes to develop and implement trade strategy in place in small majority 

Effective  and  sustainable  delivery  of  trade-related  support  requires  effective  ownership  by 
partner  countries.  This  is  another  reason  why  trade  policy  and  trade  development  strategies 
needs to be embedded in the partner’s own development strategies.  

One measure of effective ownership can be the existence of national coordination processes to 
develop  and  implement  trade  strategies.  With  regard  to  this,  almost  half  of  the  EU  Field 
responses report that the partner country has effective national coordination processes 
in place to develop and implement an integrated trade strategy (Figure 21). 47% refer to 
the active existence of an intra-ministerial/institutional committee to coordinate trade issues. 
50%  of  partner  countries  are  said  to  have  active  platforms  in  place  for  the  inclusion  of 
stakeholders in the process (in particular the private sector). And in 45% of partner countries 
covered,  EU  donors  report  on  the  active  existence  of  government-donor  coordination 
mechanisms  in  specific  intervention  areas  (such  as  agriculture  or  other  productive  sectors, 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
 
transport etc) where trade issues are addressed. The other half of the countries are said either 
not to have such coordination processes, or to have them formally but not use them actively. 

Figure 21  National coordination processes 

SADC 

ESA

West Africa

Neighbourhood

Oceania

Central Africa

Latin America 

Asia

Caribbean 

EAC 

0% 20% 40%  60% 80% 100% 120%

% respondents

Existence of an intra-
ministerial/institutional
committee to coordinate trade
issues

Platform for inclusion of
stakeholders (in particular private
sector)

Government-donor coordination
mechanisms in specific
intervention areas where trade 
issues are addressed (e.g.
Agriculture or other productive
sectors, transport…)

Responses received from Field offices point to a many challenges that need to be addressed in 
order  to  enhance  the  effectiveness  of  such  coordination  processes.  Passiveness  and 
fragmentation of the private sector is cited as an obstacle to the functionality of a platform for 
inclusion  of  private  sector.  In  other  cases  the  processes,  although  existing  formally,  are  not 
always operating fully, face difficulties in leading to concrete decisions and follow-up actions 
or are confronted with challenges enforcing decisions made. Reasons are generally related to 
lack of capacity, understaffing and difficulty in organized private sector representation due to 
different interests among the private sector players. 

Box 5 Trade Related Assistance success story in Vietnam 

The EU co-financed Multilateral Trade Assistance Project III (MUTRAP) in Vietnam supports the capacity of 
the Ministry of Industry and Trade to deliver on its core policy making responsibilities in the areas of trade and 
competition  policy.  The  involvement  of  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders  such  as  the  private  sector, 
universities/research  institutes,  as  well  as  line  ministries  has  been  crucial  for  the  success  of  the  project.  Other 
factors that contributed to effective delivery include the strong alignment to the country's strategies and plans, 
strong  ownership  by  the  partner  government  and  in-built  flexibility  which  permitted  to  adapt  the  project  to  a 
rapidly changing trade environment. In short, the project has accompanied Vietnam in its vision to fully integrate 
in  the  global  trading  and  economic  system.  Vietnam  is  now  an  important  player  in  defining  trade  policy  at 
regional level and it fully participated in all multilateral trade fora. 

Slight  improvement  in  trade  needs  assessment  but  findings  not  always  reflected  in  trade 
strategy 

Effective  AfT  needs  to  be  based  on  a  sound  country  trade  strategy,  based  in  turn  on  a 
comprehensive  trade  needs  assessment  (TNA).  The  strategy  needs  to  be  mainstreamed  into 
the national development plan, and followed by the formulation of more detailed action plans 
in specific sectors where priorities and resources needed (to achieve the expected results) are 
clearly defined, and preferably translated into the country expenditure framework. Last year's 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
field  replies  show  that  in  practice  this  is  not  always  the  context  in  which  the  EU  and  its 
Member  States  provide  AfT.  In  fact,  one  third  of  the  replies  to  last  year's  questionnaire 
highlighted a lack of country ownership in the sense of a sound country trade strategy based 
on a comprehensive TNA. 

This year's exercise showed that in half of the partner countries a comprehensive trade needs 
assessment has been undertaken in the last 5 years (or partially in 17% of partner countries). 
This is a modest improvement compared to situation signalled in the 2008 responses, but still 
seems  to  imply  that  in  at  least  one  third  of partner  countries  EU  and  its  Member  States  are 
providing AfT on the basis of an out of date or non-existent trade needs assessment. However, 
going  one  step  further  it  appears  that  even  if  a  recent  comprehensive  trade  needs 
assessment  is  available,  findings  are  only  fully  reflected  in  the  trade  strategy  of  the 
country in about 60% of the cases. 

Two regions stand out in the number of TNA undertaken in the last 5 years: EAC (80%) and 
West  Africa  (71%).  However,  only  in  40%  and  30%  of  cases  are  TNA  findings  said  to  be 
reflected in the partner' trade strategy.  

Key  challenges  reported  in  this  domain  include  questionable  quality  of  the  TNA  and  large 
time lapse between carrying out the assessment and issuing the report resulting in out of date 
recommendations.  The  absence  of  a  coherent  and  sufficiently  thorough  trade  strategy  in 
which  to  reflect  TNA  findings  is  reported  to  be  a  difficulty  in  a  number  of  countries,  even 
though the TNA findings may feed the creation of a trade strategy. On a positive note, several 
partner  countries  are  currently  in  the  process  of  developing  a  trade  strategy  in  which  TNA 
findings are likely to be fed in. 

In follow up to last year’s findings that much of EU aid for trade appeared to be provided in 
the absence of an up-to-date trade needs assessment, this year's questionnaire explored further 
what  alternative  methods  were  used  to  define  AfT  priorities  where  a  comprehensive  trade 
needs assessment is not available. One field office indicated that the design of the EU-funded 
export development project was based on a specific request of government and a consensus 
between government and private sector on priority needs. It takes also account of the broad 
development  goals  outlined  in  the  partner  country's  national  development  plan,  and  the 
specific experience of EU support to private sector development and exports under a project 
implemented from 2004-2009. Another field office would then rely on consultation of sector 
groups  covering  private  sector  and  regional  integration,  as  well  as  consultation  of  relevant 
ministries. Yet others referred to the existence of clear public policies on trade, commerce and 
competitiveness.  And  others  reported  relying  on  specific  country  reports  in  individual  trade 
related  areas  (such  as  SPS).  Some  indicated  that  the  older  needs  assessment  was  not 
questioned.  Yet  others  reported  having  engaged  in  very  substantial  consultation  processes 
with groups of public and private stakeholders - the latter was cited for several countries for 
which official consultations platforms as discussed above were not active.  

Even though it is in all likelihood possible to pin down country priorities through other means 
that a written trade needs assessment, this year’s responses seem to indicate that effectiveness 
and  efficiency  could  be  much  increased  through  support  for  a  more  systematic  tackling  of 
trade  issues  in  many  partner  countries,  through  strengthened  support  for  institutionalised 
national consultation processes and regular updating of trade needs assessments around which 
donors and other stakeholder could align their support 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
7.2. 

Joint AfT operations and harmonisation moderate progress 

Last year's replies highlighted important potential for more joint work on AfT programming 
and  delivery.  No  joint  assistance  programmes  were  reported  in  more  than  two  thirds  of 
countries,  but  71%  of  respondents  said  there  is  potential  for  more  joint  work.  The  report 
suggested that "there is room for at least doubling the number of countries in which EU joint 
AfT activities take place". It also showed that in 2008 alone, the number of new EU and EU 
Member States AfT projects was significantly high in many countries (for instance, more than 
200  new  AfT  projects  were  registered  for  India,  Vietnam,  China,  Peru,  Bolivia,  Tanzania, 
Mozambique, Morocco, Brazil, Nicaragua respectively). This section aims at understanding in 
more detail recent trends and possible actions that could be taken to improve on joint work, at 
least between the EU and EU Member States. 

This  year’s  field  responses  indicate  that  in  21%  of  partner  countries,  EU  donors 
significantly improved their donor coordination compared to 2008 (in terms of joint needs 
assessments, joint implementation, joint monitoring/evaluation etc). Moderate improvement is 
reported by 43% of respondents.  Coordination with other non-EU donors also improved, but 
somewhat less - 14% reported a significant improvement and 43% a moderate one.  

The responses to the OECD questionnaire support this finding - nine out of 16 Member States 
indicate that harmonisation of AfT strategies between Member States  have been progressing 
at a moderate pace. No Member State characterized the overall improvement as ‘significant’ – 
so their "aggregate" response "hide" the important progress experienced by some field offices.  

As  regards  the  particular  areas  which  have  seen  improved  harmonisation,  Member  States 
most often referred to co-financing and joint implementation (nine and eight Member States, 
respectively) and to a lesser extent to joint needs assessment. An area in which a coordinated 
joint approach is less frequent appears to be monitoring and evaluation.  

Figure  22  shows  that  improved  EU  donor  coordination,  compared  to  2008,  is  particularly 
reported in EAC, Caribbean, Oceania and Neighbourhood partner countries. 

Figure 22 - Joint operations and harmonisation 

Central Africa

SADC

Latin America
Asia 
West Africa 

ESA

Neighbourhood

Oceania

Caribbean

EAC

Significantly more coordinated
approach with EU donors
compared to 2008

Significantly more coordinated
approach with other non-EU
donors compared to 2008

0% 10%  20% 30%  40% 50% 60%

% respondents

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
The  main  constraints  reported  for  realising  joint  operations  include:  The  absence  of  a  clear 
and  effective  partner  counterpart  (at  the  national  or  regional  level)  leading  the  agenda  and 
holding  donors  to  account.  Differences  in  procedures  (different  programming  cycles)  and 
strategic  approaches  of  the  EU,  its  Member  States  and  other  donors  is  emphasised  as  an 
important obstacle for enhanced joint operations (Barbados/OECS, Guyana, Tunisia). The EU 
delegation in Jamaica highlighted that the fact that the majority of Member States have trade 
projects at regional level poses difficulties for national level donor coordination.  

Nevertheless, EU Delegations and Member States representations also reported several good 
examples to improve joint work on AfT: 

-  The establishment of  a thematic group  on  agriculture will  enhance the harmonization of 
donors (EU and non-European) in the Moroccan agricultural strategy "Plan Maroc Vert". 

-  Owing  to  regular  meetings  of  present  EU  donors'  Heads  of  Cooperation  and  numerous 
formal and informal technical meetings taking place between the 6 EU donors in Burundi 
(EU, NL, BE, UK, DE, FR), intra-EU coordination is effective.  

-  The  EU  delegation  in  Azerbaijan  reported  that  now  that  the  legal  framework  for  joint 
cooperation  exists  (e.g.  Memo  of  Understanding  between  GTZ  and  the  EU),  there  is  no 
formal  constraint  other  than  the  good  will  of  both  parties  and  demand-driven  requests 
from the partner side. Several donor coordination meetings with EU Member States, non 
EU donors and other development partners (loans providers) are planned in 2011. 

Box 6 A joint donor public private partnership in Côte d’Ivoire 

The project Market-oriented Promotion of Certified Sustainable Cocoa Production (PPDC) in Côte d’Ivoire was 
designed  as  public-private  partnership  between  the  German  Development  Cooperation,  US  Agency  for 
International Development (USAID) and private partners Kraft Foods and the cocoa trader Armajaro. The main 
objective  of  the  project  was  to  improve  the  living  conditions  of  cocoa  farmers  through  the  production  of 
sustainable ‘Rainforest Alliance Certified’ cocoa. The public-private partnership secured that cocoa production 
followed the direction needed by the market. In addition, market access could be assured beforehand, given the 
commitment made by the private partners to purchase output, provided it was of the required quality. This gave 
farmers  the  security  to  invest  their  time  and  money  in  improved  production  technology.  Due  to  the  project's 
positive results, its model is subsequently applied in Ecuador (Rainforest Alliance certification) and in Ghana, 
Côte d’Ivoire, and Nigeria (Certification Capacity Enhancement). 

7.3. 

Regional dimension of Aid for Trade 

Support  for  regional  integration  has  been  a  cornerstone  of  EU  development  cooperation  for 
decades.  The  regional  level  is  therefore  important  for  the  delivery  of  AfT,  in  particular  for 
regions deeply engaged in regional integration efforts. This is fully recognised in the EU AfT 
strategy  which  underlines  the  EU's  commitment  to  applying  aid  effectiveness  principles  at 
regional  level  by  supporting  regional  partners’  capacity  to  own  and  lead  AfT,  coordinating 
programming,  pursuing  more  streamlined  delivery  modes  and  enhancing  cooperation  with 
other donors. 

However,  certain  difficulties  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 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
mechanisms at regional level. Despite these stumbling blocks, there is an increasing interest 
in support for regional integration as part of the EU Aid for Trade agenda. 

The EU support to regional integration has traditionally largely been focussed on the regional 
integration organisations, such as CARICOM, SADC, ECOWAS etc. In past years there has 
however  been  a  realisation  of  the  necessity  to  support  regional  integration  also  through 
activities  at  the  national  level,  and  build  capacity  of  national  actors  to  pursue  the  regional 
integration  efforts  effectively.  In  line  with  this,  this  year's  field  questionnaire  sought  to 
identify the degree to which regional integration was an element of the national aid for trade 
agenda.  

As  a  result,  the  field  responses  indicate  that  in  54%  of  partner  countries  EU  donors 
supported (of which 40% partially) the partner country in strengthening the inclusion of 
strategic  economic  regional  integration  priorities  in  the  national  development  plan  or 
trade strategy. 64% of responses report that this is an improvement compared to 2008 - (54% 
reported some improvement against 10% considerable improvement).  

When grouping the responses by sub-region, a strongly diverging picture emerges, again. EU 
donors appear particularly to have supported the inclusion of regional economic integration in 
national  development  plans  or  trade  strategies  in  EAC  and  the  Caribbean  (60%)  and  to  a 
somewhat lesser extent in Latin America and Neighbourhood (50%) (Figure 23). In the first 
two regions this is reported as some or considerable improvement since 2008.  

In the case of the Caribbean, EU donors have focused their attention on regional integration in 
the  framework  of  the  Economic  Partnership  Agreement  (EPA)  implementation.  The  EU 
directed  commitments  mainly  through  the  EDF  Regional  Indicative  Programme  aiming  to 
link up to a roadmap developed by CARIFORUM. This roadmap aims to specify the strategic 
orientations  and  priorities  of  the  regional  policy  agenda  to  which  Caribbean  members  have 
been  involved  to  secure  a  higher  ownership  of  regional  activities  at  national  level.  Other 
regional priorities supported by EU donors at national level include the CSME (CARICOM 
single  market  and  economy  in  Haiti,  and  the  EU  private  sector  development  programme 
PSDP in Jamaica. 

The  EU  support  for  regional  integration  also  has  a  strong  EPA  component  in  EAC,  where, 
contrary to the Caribbean, the EPA is still to be concluded. EU support to regional integration 
in  EAC  partners  may  be  provided  following  the  finalisation  of  the  Development  matrix 
prepared by the EAC countries in the framework of the EPA negotiations 

EU  donors  also  referred  to  the  Trade  Mark  East  Africa  Programme  which  is  a  regional  aid 
delivery mechanism to provide a platform for scaling-up of AfT to East Africa and supported 
by  several  EU  Member  States  donors.  The  programme  has  among  others  supported  the 
Ugandan  Ministry  of  EAC  affairs  to  promote  regional  economic  integration  in  the  national 
development plan. 

Note-worthy is the relatively low score of other African regions where donors are supporting 
regional  integration  initiatives  at  national  level,  such  as  ESA,  SADC,  Central  and  West 
Africa.  Although  regional  integration  is  more  advanced  in  some  regions  than  in  other,  this 
would however not fully explain the diverging responses from the EU field offices. 

Supporting regional integration at national level is however accompanied by numerous 
challenges as reported from EU donors in SADC and ESA partners: 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
- 

In Botswana, trade is not part of the EU donor - partner government dialogue.  

-  The absence of a national Trade Strategy, as is the case in Swaziland, impedes EU donors 

to support regional economic integration priorities. 

-  For one country, respondents from EU field offices reported very little genuine regional 
concern from  the partner  in  the policy dialogue with donors  and indicated that  having a 
constructive dialogue in itself is already a challenge.  

- 

In  the  case  of  the  EU  Delegation  in  Madagascar,  raising  awareness  in  defining  a  clear 
strategy  for  regional  integration  remains  a  priority.  However,  following  the  difficult 
political  situation  EU  cooperation  is  currently  suspended.  When  cooperation  with 
Madagascar will resume, the regional component and the implementation of regional AfT 
packages  will  be  among  the  priorities,  as  Madagascar  multiple  RECs  membership 
(COMESA, SADC, IOC) does not yet allow for benefiting from regional markets as trade 
within the region is still marginal.  

-  Malawi is an encouraging example, where EU Technical Assistance (e.g. legal experts) is 
helping to ensure that national frameworks can meet regional and international standards; 
and supporting regional dialogue. 

Figure 23 - Regional dimension of Aid for Trade 

ESA

SADC 

Asia

Oceania

Central Africa

West Africa

Latin America 

Neighbourhood

Caribbean 

EAC 

Supported partner in
strengthening inclusion of 
strategic RI priorities in national
development plan / trade strategy

Considerable or somewhat
improved since 2008 

0% 20% 

40% 60% 

80% 100% 120%

% respondents

From the donor side an important limiting factor is that conditions attracting additional funds 
from other donors, including EU Member States that have bilateral development programmes, 
are often not met, in particular for reasons of lack of capacity of the recipient countries and 
regions to prioritise their needs and objectives within well structured and realistic strategies. 
While  in  Western  Africa,  the  PAPED  (the  EPA  Development  Programme)  is  an  attempt  to 
overcome  this  obstacle,  the  effective  donor  responses  for  West  Africa  so  far  indicate  that 
support  has  been  given  to  the  partner  to  strengthen  the  inclusion  of  strategic  economic 
regional integration priorities in the national development plans or trade strategies only in 8% 
of cases.  

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
EU donors present in West Africa also reported on what they see as key priorities that need to 
be addressed at national level in order to help economic regional integration to advance.  

Various priorities are mentioned, but some general priorities applicable to the region can be 
observed: 

- 

Improvement  and  reinforcement  of  trade  related  infrastructure,  as  well  as  facilitation  of 
movements  of  goods  and  people  (simplification  of  customs  formalities  etc.)  are 
recognized as critical to facilitate the movement of people and goods across the borders 
and  make  regional  integration  a  more  tangible  objective  for  most  West  African  partners 
(Burkina Faso, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Liberia, Mali and Nigeria).  

-  The  need  to  fight  corruption  in  order  to  advance  the  regional  integration  agenda  is 

reported.  

-  Reports from Ghana consider the diversification and increase of production capacities and 
intra-regional trade development and facilitation of access to international markets, as key 
regional priorities that are to be reflected in the national plan. 

-  Donor  responses  from  Benin  and  Sierra  Leone  emphasize  the  importance  of  raising 
awareness  of  partner  government  officials  and  politicians  about  ECOWAS'  political 
objectives  and  implementation  of  its  legislation  in  fields  as  (finance,  trade,  food  safety, 
competition, services and transport). 

Strengthen  political  dialogue  on  economic  development  and  regional  trade  in  general 
(Burkina Faso) and raising awareness of the potential for trade in the region (Liberia) are also 
reported  as  key  priority  to  address  at  national  level.  Political  will  from  the  partner  side  is 
essential 

EU  donors  are  actively  supporting  regional  integration  also  at  regional  level,  through  the 
dialogue  with  the  Regional  Economic  Communities.  Throughout  the  programming  process 
the EU has pointed to a need to strengthen trade related programmes.  

-  Regional  economic  integration,  in  particular  in the  field  of  trade  related  areas,  is  one  of 

DE focal points of co-operation with the SADC Secretariat.  

-  The  UK/DFID  TradeMark  Southern  Africa  agenda 

(trade, 
infrastructure,  trade  related)  and  feeds  directly  into  the  Tripartite  agenda  (EAC,  SADC, 
COMESA). 

is  comprehensive 

Box 7 A regional approach of the Caribbean Trade and Private Sector Development programme 

The  EU  funded  Caribbean  Trade  and  Private  Sector  Development  Programme  CTPSD  –  Caribbean  Export 
Component aims to strengthen the capacity of Caribbean Export to provide export development and investment 
support  services  both  directly  through  activities  for  the  benefit  of  firms  in  the  Caribbean  region  which  are 
currently  involved  in  export  or  have  export  potential,  and  indirectly  via  public  or  private  Business  Support 
Organisations.  EU  support  is  channelled  via  regional  organisations,  in  order  to  take  better  advantage  of 
economies of scale in the provision of services for increased export capacity, building regional knowledge and 
networks.  Whilst  the  regional  character  of  the  programme  was  part  of  its  strength,  it  also  entailed  some 
challenges, such as tailoring the regional call for proposals to country specificities (language issues for instance). 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
8. 

LDCS AND EU AFT 

The 2010 EU AfT monitoring report noted that in LDCs, a smaller share of overall EU ODA 
is allocated to AfT than is the case for developing countries in general. The reasons for this 
were explored with the EU field offices in this year’s data collection exercise3.    

Trade related policy dialogue in LDCs 

13 of the 37 LDC donor respondents (35%) reported that Trade issues were a regular element 
of policy dialogue in their  partner  countries.  18  (49%)  said  that it was  so only to  a limited 
extent.  6  said  that  trade  was  not  part  of  the  dialogue  at  all.  The  other  respondents  had  not 
noted any important changes, except for in one case where it had worsened. These responses 
are at least partially consistent with the findings of last year's report, where 60% (17 out of 
31) of EU donors in LDCs indicated that the EU and its Member States regularly address the 
issue of AfT in their policy dialogue with key state and non-state actors.  

Interestingly, in 12 countries (32%), the policy dialogue was considered to have improved on 
as compared to the situation in 2008. This should be compare with the 'total sample' for which 
45 % had noted an improvement. As the baseline situation was better in the total sample, this 
would suggest that despite progress, LDCs are not catching up with the other developing 
countries on this front. 

Comments relating to the reasons for changes or lack of changes in the LDC policy dialogue 
related  often  to  either  progress  or  stagnation  in  multilateral,  regional  or  bilateral  trade 
negotiations – when these were advancing, trade was, logically, of greater importance in the 
policy dialogue. Other reasons cited was that several countries were in a crisis or post crisis 
situation, leading to a generally scaled down dialogue or a focus on basic constitutional and 
socio-economic issues. In some cases, catalytic effects of international meetings were cited, or 
workshops  organised  in  the  context  of  programmes  such  as  the  EU  Trade.Com.  In  one 
country  there  had  been  the  introduction  of  the  Donor  Group  on  Trade  and  Private  Sector 
Development- a platform for coordinating the engagement of donors with the government in 
the area of trade and private sector development, but this had not yet had the time to reflect in 
intensified dialogue. One Delegation reported that in general, there is more policy dialogue on 
the wider aid for trade agenda then on Trade Related Assistance as such (2 first categories of 
AfT).. 

AfT demand in LDCs 

As many as 19 joint responses (more than 50%) considered that demand for Aid for Trade had 
increased  since  2008.  11  said  it  had  not.  Three  said  it  had  increased  significantly.  When 
comparing these responses with the general sample, there is no striking difference. 

The reasons given for increased demand, relate to regional and multilateral trade negotiations 
affect  demand  for  AfT  positively  or  inclusion  of  trade  and  private  sector  into  the  national 
development strategy. The existence of a Trade Related Project was considered a good entry 

3 37 responses were received from EU Field offices in LDCs (i.e. 42% of the total, 31 from ACP, 6 from Asia). 
In 25 out of the cases, the response was prepared jointly by all the EU donors active in the country in 
question. In of the countries, EU and/or EU Member States  have programmes that can be considered as 
falling under an AfT category (list examples). In 6 further cases, the EU only (i.e. no Member States ) is 
providing AfT.  

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
point for further dialogue and demand. The Enhanced Integrated Framework was mentioned 
in some instances as a positive contribution, through its help to clarify trade related needs. 

National coordination mechanisms in LDCs 

In 11 of the 37 LDCs (30%), EU field offices considered that there were national coordination 
mechanisms  in  place  to  coordinate  a  trade  policy:  (featuring  inter-ministerial  and  inter-
institutional  coordination).  A  further  16  (43%)  said  that  such  mechanisms  existed  formally, 
but were not actively used. In 9 countries, such mechanisms were said not to exist. This can 
be  compared  with  the  2009  responses,  when  in  26  out  of  31  cases,  EU  donors  in    LDCs 
considered that the  partner  country owned the process of trade  and  AfT  policy  formulation, 
although only  six of  these  (21 %) ‘considerably’. The questions  were not asked  in the same 
way  as  before,  but  at  least  do  not  seem  to  be  contradicted  with  the  findings  of  last  year’s 
report.  

It should be noted that LDCs responses indicate a lower degree of availability and use of 
trade  policy  coordination  mechanisms  in  LDCs  as  compared  to  the  total  sample  (Here 
50% indicate that such mechanisms are available and used, and another  27 % indicates that 
they are available but not used). 

For some countries, the coordination may work well in one area (agriculture), and less well in 
others (industry and trade), due to sensitivities of the partner government. One response cited 
the lack of representative private sector structures as one problem. Yet another explained that 
whilst  there  are  coordination  mechanisms  organised  around  related  sectors  or  programmes, 
such as Agriculture, Reconstruction, infrastructure and land issues, energy, there is, however, 
no donor coordination group linked to the more narrowly defined trade issues, nor linked to 
the  broader  aid  for  trade  agenda  or  the  Enhanced  Integrated  Framework  (EIF)  Secretariat. 
Trade is sometimes addressed but the issues are not sufficiently linked to those strategies and 
vice  versa.    Other  countries  reported  on  attempts  to  build  linkages  between  such  existing 
groups,  in  order  to  better  capture  trade  related  support  efforts.  Some  countries  had 
Interministerial committees in context of EPA negotiations, WTO and Integrated Framework 
in  place,  with  civil  society  participation to some extent. For several countries private sector 
coordination  groups  including  government  and  donors  were  being  in  place.  Other  countries 
were referring to the EIF as something about to start and expressed hopes that this would help 
improve the platforms. There were also quite a number of reports on EIF not using fully its 
potential  in  this  regard.  One  country  reported  of  relatively  sophisticated  coordination 
processes  which  nevertheless  did  not  result  in  concrete  decisions  and  follow-up  actions  and 
considered that monitoring and pro-active coordination of A4T needed to improve. 

Yet another country explained that there was no effective coordination process in place (e.g. 
absence  of  a  comitology)  as  a  result  of  a  weak  institutional  framework  and  insufficient 
capacities  in  terms  of  trade  knowledge  and  staff  resources.  Despite  political  willingness  at 
ministerial  level  to  push  forward  the  trade  policy  dialogue,  an  effective  policy  formulation 
and  dialogue  remains  a  considerable  challenge without  a  strong  administration  in  place  that 
can accompany the process at technical level. An on-going EU grants contract was providing 
a small contribution to improve this situation. Another response highlighted that coordination 
mechanisms existed but enforcement of decisions was difficult to pursue, but that this specific 
aspect  would  be  addressed  in  an  upcoming  Competitiveness  Strategy.  Finally,  it  was  also 
mentioned  that  a  forum  had  existed,  but  that  its  effectiveness  had  been  reduced  recently  in 
view of the fact that it was developed to support the previous political party in power.  

Trade needs assessments in LDC 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
It  was  again  explored  whether  the  LDCs  had  carried  out  a  comprehensive  trade  needs 
assessment in the past 5 years: There were 21 positive answers (57%), 14 negative (38%), 
and 2 said partially. This indicates if anything a potential worsening on earlier year when 22 
out of 31 (79%) LDCs were said to have undertaken a comprehensive trade needs assessment 
in the last 5 years. The score is relatively comparable to the total sample, in which 44/89 (50 
%) said they had, and 30/89 (34%) said they had not, and 15/89 (17%) said they had done so 
partially.  

Out of those having indicated that a trade needs assessment had been carried out in the past 
five  years,  seven  responded  that  findings  had  been  incorporated  fully  in  the  national  trade 
strategy; eight said that the country did not have a trade strategy; and seven said that that was 
partially the case. 

All  in  all,  this  seems  to  indicate  a  strong  need  to  continue  to  work  with  LDCs  on  their 
strategic priorities in trade, closely linked to overall efforts to enhance inclusive growth. 

Within the total sample, 24 out of 44 (54%) said their needs assessment was incorporated, of 
another 14 (31%) it was so partially. 11 (of which eight LDCs) respondents said there was no 
trade strategy.    

For those whose needs assessment was older than five years, the mode of operation would be 
to  use  other  sources,  ad  hoc  coordination  with  the  government  or  other  actors,  using 
consultants  for  identification  missions,  or  simply  considering  that  the  existing  needs 
assessment,  even  if  old,  was  still  relevant.  In  other  cases,  support  was  aligned  on  the 
governments  trade  priorities  directly  (even  if  no  needs  assessment  was  available).  Other 
approaches  have  been  to  encourage  the  government  to  update  its  needs  assessment.  Several 
appear  to  be  awaiting  the  DTIS  update.  In  one  case,  alignment  on  a  regional  strategy  was 
cited.  

EU  donors  in  LDCs  were  also  asked  whether  their  host  country  in  their  opinion  should 
increase  attention  to  trade  related  issues.  Out  of  the  37  respondents,  28  considered  that  the 
country should do so, seven further indicated that they should do so partially. Two said that 
they  should  not.  They  commented,  respectively,  that  Trade  was  already  an  implicit  and 
important  policy  objective;  and  that  attention  is  already  high.  The  same  field  offices  also 
commented, however, that the policy objective could be better defined in a clear strategy; and 
that the commitments made under regional agendas rarely appeared in policy, and that trade 
procedures could be simplified cheaply and easily, thus somehow contradicting the statement 
that attention was sufficient 

Main LDCs constraints to increasing attention to trade 

In  terms  of  main  constraints  to  increasing  attention  to  trade,  21  responses  consider  that  this 
was   the country’s low capacity to identify needs and priorities. Eight said this was important, 
and six said it was less important or not important. 

Eight responses considered that the most important or important was insufficient availability 
of donor resources; but 25 considered that this was not important or less important. 

Low absorption capacity was considered the most important or an important constraint for 33 
respondents. Two said it was less important or not important. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
“Other more pressing priorities" were mentioned by 15 respondents as important, (no one said 
very important), but a whole 15 said that they were not sure about the answer to this question. 

Taken  together  this  indicates  a  need  to  focus  more  on  the  LDCs  partner  countries 
capacity  to  position  trade  issues  in  their  development  strategy  to  identify  more  clearly 
the trade related needs, and to place more attention to the issue of absorption capacity. 
Whilst the first issues is one linked to training, studies, institution building etc with relatively 
known "recipes", the second is more complex. 

Finally,  a  series  of  questions  were  asked  about  the  contribution  of  the  Enhanced  Integrated 
Framework, the special multi-donor programme in support of LDC trade capacity. Compared 
to the past year, eight respondents saw an increased contribution but another eight did not. 20 
said it was too early to assess/they were not sure/ or it was not applicable.  

One  response  indicated  that  relevant  institutional  framework  (including  National  EIF 
Implementation  Unit)  was  only  slowly  falling  into  place.  Another  indicated  that  there  was 
very little information on the programme in the country, despite the fact that it had started in 
2004.  In  one  country,  training  for  officials  of  the  Trade  Ministry  and  for  private  sector 
representatives was planned, but other activities had not yet been seen. For another country, 
there  was  a  reported  effort  to  revitalise  the  Enhance  Integrated  Framework,  which  would 
foresee the update of an old (2003) DTIS. This had however been delayed due to weaknesses 
of the involved consultant and due to the restructuring of the Ministry. In once country, the 
process  should  enter  into  its  active  phase  early  2011,  but  was  delayed  due  to  the  electoral 
process.  Another  response  referred  to  an  EIF  project  being  approved  in  January  2010  but 
could not provide information about its implementation or impact.  

In  one  country  the  Action  matrix  was  considered  vague  and  overloaded.  In  another,  a 
programmes supported by Sweden in the area of rehabilitation of rural roads and investment 
climate  reform  was  said  to  have  substantially  contributed  to  creating  a  more  enabling 
environment in terms of regulatory and physical infrastructure, including in the area of trade 
facilitation, whereby trade capacities have been enhanced. In one country, implementation of 
EIF tier 1 project activities was yet to roll out in-country. One field response argued that the 
process was still too slow for the donor facilitator being able to perform well its role. For the 
moment, reviving the process was the priority. In yet another country the preparation for the 
Enhanced  Integrated  Framework  tier  I  project  was  finished  and  the  project  proposal  was 
submitted to the WTO committee for approval. In one country IF Window 2 project continued 
to be implemented during 2010 and were useful. A negative aspect, was that a lot of time was 
spent managing some smaller projects, at the expense of using the limited resources to get a 
trade  sector  program  in  place  and  use  the  several  funding  options  already  available  in  the 
country.  

In one country, the EIF was reported as a work in progress. The DTIS had made an impact on 
actions in the trade sector, but had not yet effectively delivered. One country had received the 
first batch of Tier 1-funding half-way through 2010, but was still in the process of setting up 
the national implementation unit which is resourced through this funding. There was concern 
that  EIF  in  this  country  would  remain  ineffective  before  the  implementation  unit  is  fully 
operational.  In  one  country,  there  have  been  a  few  new  projects  that  are  going  to  be 
implemented and coordinated by the national EIF structure.  

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
9. 

AFT MONITORING & EVALUATION 

In the context of the difficult economic crisis that Europe experienced and resulting austerity 
plans,  there  is  a  growing  pressure  for  enhanced  accountability  as  regards  the  results  of 
development spending. This is particular valid for AfT where concrete output is less visible 
and difficult to measure as compared to some other aid sectors. Together with the OECD and 
WTO,  the  EU  is  placing  increasing  attention  on  the  improvement  of  monitoring  and 
evaluation of AfT. This issue was addressed with specific questions in the AfT survey to EU 
field  offices,  in  order  to  receive  feedback  from  the  field  on  the  main  challenges,  on  good 
practice, and on the focus of future work on monitoring and evaluation. 

Asked about the difficulties that donors encounter in assessing AfT programmes and projects, 
EU field offices considered the difficulty in obtaining in-country data as the most important 
challenge (69% of respondents). The difficulty in identification of quantifiable objectives for 
intervention  was  rated  as  another  important  hurdle  (67%).  To  a  slightly  lesser  extent  the 
difficulty in defining suitable indicators is considered as an important challenge (57%).  

A  key  aim  of  monitoring  and  evaluation  is  to  feedback  results  into  the  government's  trade 
development  strategy  for  which  specific  process  need  to  be  in  place.  From  the  responses  to 
the  EU  field  office  questionnaire  it  appears  that  this  is  not  often  the  case.  Only  3%  of 
respondents report that this 'significantly' applies and 37% 'moderately'. This is clearly an area 
where further work is required.  

Monitoring  and  evaluation  was  also  addressed  in  the  OECD  questionnaires:  Nine  Member 
States responses indicate that AfT Monitoring has moderately improved.  

As  regards  owning  of  the  monitoring  process,  Member  States  reported  that  they  use  a 
combination of own monitoring, partner countries’ monitoring processes and joint monitoring 
arrangements. 

In the evaluation of AfT strategies, programmes and projects, Member States report a number 
of  challenges  they  face  in  decreasing  order  of  importance:  'Difficulty  of  assigning  trade 
outcomes to the programme' considered by seven Member States as most important (DK, FR, 
SE, NL, DE, FI, BE), followed by ‘difficulty in identifying quantifiable objectives’ which is 
considered ‘most important’ by four Member States (IE, FR, FI, CZ). 

On  the  relevance  of  monitoring  AfT  at  the  global  level,  replies  from  the  OECD/WTO 
questionnaire  showed  that  a  strong  majority  (13  out  of  16)  of  Member  States  consider  this 
useful (LU, IE, FR, UK, NL, LI, IT, HU, DE, FI, CZ, BE, ES). Seven Member States report 
the  main  challenges  in  global  monitoring  as  the  collection  of  data,  the  development  of 
indicators  and  attribution  of  results  (IE,  FR,  UK,  PT,  NL,  DE,  FI).  The  broad  definition  of 
AfT is considered as problematic by three Member States (FR, DK, SE). 

These elements confirm that whilst monitoring and evaluation remain an important element of 
the  Aid  for  Trade  initiative  and  of  the  implementation  of  the  EU  AfT  strategy,  there  is  a 
growing  and  stronger  need  for  improved  guidance  and  more  focused  work  with  donors  and 
partner countries on mapping how Aid for Trade brings good or bad results, and how well the 
support by donors fits with the partner countries strategies. This work requires a more focused 
analysis,  at  country  level,  in the  specific  sub-sectors  of  AfT  projects  and  programmes,  with 
the objective of improved quality of design and result-oriented monitoring by including more 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
systematically  appropriate 
programmes. 

indicators  and  well  defined 

intervention 

logics 

in  AfT 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
Aid for Trade sub-annexes 

•  Detailed sub-regional AfT breakdown 
•  Detailed sub-regional TRA breakdown 
•  List of 2009 EU + Member State Aid for Trade programmes > EUR 50 million 
•  20 countries and regions receiving most of EU and Member States AfT in 2009 
•  20 countries and regions receiving most of EU and Member States TRA in 2009 
•  Category 6 in EU AfT 2009, EUR thousands 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Detailed sub-regional AfT breakdown 

WEST AFRICA 

(EUR million) 

2000  2001  2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

1.TPR 
3.TRI 
4.BPC 
5.TRAdj 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

Source: OECD CRS 

4.4

2.1

1.9

4.5

0.4 

2.7 

14.4

44.9
222.5  119.2  165.8 388.3 259.5 557.6 230.4 273.7  668.4  271.1
261.1  268.7  244.9 250.9 240.9 297.0 279.6 332.4  283.1  355.9
0.0
5.6
483.9  390.6  412.9 641.1 504.8 859.1 524.4 612.9  954.2  677.6

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.6 
0.0 

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

6.7 

2.1 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
 
CENTRAL AFRICA 

(EUR million) 

2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008 

2009 

1.TPR 
3.TRI 
4.BPC 
5.TRAdj 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

Source: OECD CRS 

0.0

0.2

0.0

0.1 

0.4
0.0 
79.3  164.2  155.5
92.6
46.9 
40.7 
0.0
0.0 
0.0 
0.0
0.0 
0.0 

29.1
56.3 184.7 304.9 111.0  198.0  233.2
49.6
49.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
120.1  211.1  248.6 158.8 105.8 251.3 388.3 207.1  258.6  311.9

0.0
83.2
75.6
0.0
0.0

90.5 
0.0 
0.0 

58.4 
0.0 
0.0 

66.6
0.0
0.0

83.1
0.0
0.0

5.6 

2.3 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EAC (East African Community) 

(EUR million) 

2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009 

1.TPR 
3.TRI 
4.BPC 
5.TRAdj 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

Source: OECD CRS 

0.6

0.0

3.1

0.6

9.5

1.1 

0.9 
229.7  182.0 
144.1  124.3  123.8 108.9 126.4 116.3 159.1
0.0
0.0

27.3
99.8 106.5 138.2 331.8 183.1 182.4  122.9  565.5
98.6  230.1  225.0
0.0
0.4 
0.0
0.0 
374.9  307.2  223.7 216.0 265.2 457.6 345.3 283.4  360.9  817.8

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0

2.4 

7.5 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
 
 
East Africa (excluding EAC)  

(EUR million) 

2000  2001  2002

2003  2004

2005 

2006  2007  2008  2009

1.TPR 
3.TRI 
4.BPC 
5.TRAdj 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

Source: OECD CRS 

3.6 

0.5
0.2 
94.8  113.6  183.4
234.0  112.4  116.7
0.0
0.0
332.4  226.3  300.6

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.5

0.6
280.3 206.3
186.4 113.3
0.0
0.0
467.2 320.2

0.0
0.0

2.3
388.9
174.6
0.0
0.0
565.7

8.8

1.0 

5.4 

2.3
316.0 200.6  510.4  135.8
188.0 151.7  167.3  327.7
0.3
0.9
512.9 357.7  680.9  467.0

0.0 
0.0 

2.2 
0.0 

0.0
0.0

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
 
 
SOUTHERN AFRICA 

(EUR million) 

2000  2001  2002

2003  2004

2005  2006 2007  2008  2009

1.TPR 
3.TRI 
4.BPC 
5.TRAdj 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

Source: OECD CRS 

0.4 

0.1
0.5 
102.4 
80.4  127.1
94.4  193.1  143.6

0.2
148.7
84.0

3.9
41.7
69.3

0.0 

0.0 

0.0
197.3  273.9  270.8

0.0

0.0
232.8 114.9

4.3

1.9 

3.0
1.8
244.6
86.7 121.2  228.8  82.8
240.1 157.2 158.8  158.9  115.4

18.3 

0.0

0.0

0.0
0.0 
486.5 248.2 282.0  405.9  201.2

0.0 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
CARIBBEAN 

(EUR million) 

2000  2001  2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008  2009 

1.TPR 
3.TRI 
4.BPC 
5.TRAdj 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

Source: OECD CRS 

0.1 

0.0
0.3 
81.5  69.6  21.6
182.8  110.0  82.0
0.0

0.0 

0.0 

0.0
53.5
26.9
0.0

0.1
62.9
97.2
0.0

1.6
38.9
73.3
0.0

5.0
17.6
73.9
0.0

0.8
26.9
94.8
0.0

0.1 

0.1 
26.7  193.2 
67.3 
94.9 
10.9 
0.8 

264.4  179.8  103.6

80.4 160.1 113.7

96.5 122.4 122.4  271.6 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
PACIFIC 

(EUR million) 
1.TPR 
3.TRI 
4.BPC 
5.TRAdj 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

Source: OECD CRS 

0.0 

2000  2001  2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008  2009 
0.0 
0.1 
0.7  23.4 
8.8 
0.0 

0.0
0.0
9.0 10.1
5.0  55.6 11.7
0.0
0.0
0.0 

0.0 
13.3  14.6 
14.7 
0.0 

3.2
2.3
7.2 10.4 
0.0 
0.0

0.0
11.4
13.5
0.0

0.0
10.2
8.6
0.0

0.0
0.1
8.0
0.0

28.0  19.6  64.6 21.8

18.8

24.9

8.1

12.7 11.1  32.2 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
(EUR million) 

2000  2001  2002 

2003 

2004  2005

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

NEIGHBOURHOOD 

1.TPR 
3.TRI 
4.BPC 
5.TRAdj 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

Source: OECD CRS 

6.0 

77.3
1.9 
167.5  94.7  329.0
296.8  200.5  297.2
0.0 
0.0
0.0
0.0 
470.4  297.2  703.4

0.0 
0.0 

63.4
334.3
223.9
0.0
0.0
621.6

1.1

22.2
342.0 393.4
130.8 244.5
0.0
0.0
473.8 660.2

0.0
0.0

24.0 

16.8
453.9
354.3
0.0
0.0

3.3
78.7 
692.5  1316.5  632.9
315.2  435.7  410.7
0.0
0.2
825.1 1031.7  1830.9  1047.1

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
 
ENLARGEMENT 

(EUR million) 

2000  2001  2002 

2003  2004

2005 

2006  2007  2008 

2009 

1.TPR 
3.TRI 
4.BPC 
5.TRAdj 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

Source: OECD CRS 

3.9 

0.1
0.2 
128.0  130.8  301.7
96.1  124.1  319.7
0.0
0.0 

0.0 

17.0

8.9
313.8 167.3
91.3 125.2
0.0

0.0

8.5
169.1
202.6
0.0

3.8 

45.7

66.4 

30.2
460.1 218.7  484.8  229.1
131.8 209.1  493.7  258.8
0.0

0.0 

0.0 

0.0

228.0  255.0  621.6

422.2 301.3

380.2

637.6 431.6  1044.9  518.1

SLOVENIA

MALTA
STATES OF EX-YUGOSLAVIA
UNSPECIF.

   MONTENEGRO

   ALBANIA
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF
MACEDONIA

CROATIA

   BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA

   SERBIA

KOSOVO*

   TURKEY

* under UNSCR 1244/1999 

1.TPR

3.TRI

4.BPC

0

50

100

150

200

EUR million
Source: OECD CRS

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
LATIN AMERICA 

(EUR million) 

2000  2001  2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008  2009 

1.TPR 
3.TRI 
4.BPC 
5.TRAdj 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

Source: OECD CRS 

14.0  14.0 

60.2 
17.0 
9.2
116.1  181.2  154.0
82.8  168.0 
169.3  236.7  292.9 206.5 209.7 211.9 174.8 317.9 260.2  347.3 

18.7
15.5

16.0
7.3

39.5
95.1

5.1
89.1

6.0
35.0

0.0 

0.0 

0.2 
299.3  432.0  456.1 300.7 344.3 235.2 209.0 358.9 360.0  575.7 

0.0 

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
SOUTH ASIA 

(EUR million) 

2000  2001  2002

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

1.TPR 
3.TRI 
4.BPC 
5.TRAdj 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

Source: OECD CRS 

8.5 

0.6 

0.8
235.5  309.6  167.9
248.8  163.3  167.1

28.5
177.9
266.9

5.0
179.3
97.7

4.4
342.2
192.0

17.8
196.3
280.8

1.2 

2.0
30.6 
147.2  354.7  244.8
304.7  402.0  377.3

492.8  473.6  335.8

473.3

282.0

538.7

495.0

453.2  787.3  624.1

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
MIDDLE EAST 

(EUR million) 

2000  2001  2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008  2009 

1.TPR 
3.TRI 
4.BPC 
5.TRAdj 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

Source: OECD CRS 

0.5 

0.2 
20.2  12.8 
0.3 
10.5 

7.0
0.1
4.3

0.0
36.9
5.5

0.0
44.5
55.9

0.0
79.1
22.2

6.5
6.8
1.2

0.0
22.5
1.2

0.3 
29.3 

0.0 
10.9 
5.4  136.5 

31.2  13.3  11.4

42.5 100.4 101.3 14.4

23.7

35.0  147.4 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
CENTRAL ASIA 

(EUR million) 

2000  2001  2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008  2009 

1.TPR 
3.TRI 
4.BPC 
5.TRAdj 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

Source: OECD CRS 

0.0 
0.1 
2.1  31.1 
5.2  17.1 

0.0
0.0
6.0

1.2
0.0
12.6
3.0
17.1 12.0

0.1
39.7
14.5

0.0
0.1
16.5

0.6
66.7
42.9

0.0 
0.1 
47.8 
9.6 
27.0  47.6 

7.4  48.2 

6.1

29.6 16.2

54.2

16.6 110.2

74.9  57.3 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
ASEAN 

(EUR million) 

2000  2001  2002 2003

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007  2008  2009

1.TPR 
3.TRI 
4.BPC 
5.TRAdj 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

Source: OECD CRS 

7.2 

0.9 

12.2
0.1
129.3  240.6  168.5
46.4
140.9  182.7  159.3 196.9

8.8
133.1
210.7

4.1
161.4
234.1

7.9
239.1
189.6

26.1  20.8 

0.5
175.5  74.8  178.6
290.7  187.4  152.3

277.4  424.1  328.0 255.4

352.7

399.7

436.6

492.4  283.1  331.3

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
ASIA (other) 

(EUR million) 

2000  2001  2002

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006  2007  2008 

2009 

1.TPR 
3.TRI 
4.BPC 
5.TRAdj 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

Source: OECD CRS 

2.0 

1.9  22.6
67.5  256.3  103.2
157.6  106.2  62.1

0.3
232.5
129.9

4.8
180.2
128.5

21.7
179.3
104.7

13.4
340.4
63.2

0.6 

47.9
63.7 
93.8  298.0  263.9
87.1  276.5  333.9

227.1  364.3  187.9

362.7

313.6

305.8

417.0 181.5  638.1  645.7

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
REGIONAL 

(EUR million) 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

1.TPR 

3.TRI 

4.BPC 

5.TRAdj 

6.Other TR Needs 

42.4

43.5 

73.8

106.3

67.2

132.5

321.9

254.1 

149.7 

226.8

301.2 

282.7

236.3

246.3

274.6

585.4

381.5 

405.1 

358.1

530.2

495.3

892.9 

579.1

602.8

782.4

660.2 1451.1 1269.2  1398.5 

2397.8

0.0

0.0 

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 

0.0 

0.0

TOTAL 

764.5 1237.7 

935.5

945.4 1095.9 1067.3 2358.5 1904.8  1953.3 

3286.2

Source: OECD CRS 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
Detailed sub-regional TRA breakdown 

WEST AFRICA 

 (EUR million) 

2008 

2009 

1.TPR 
2.TD 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

2.1
49.8
0.0
51.9

44.9
154.0
5.6
204.5

Source: OECD CRS 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
CENTRAL AFRICA 

(EUR millon) 

2008 

2009 

1.TPR 
2.TD 
6.Other TR Needs
TOTAL 

2.3
16.8

19.1

Source: OECD CRS 

29.1
14.1

43.2

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EAC (East African Community) 

(EUR million) 

2008 

2009 

1.TPR 
2.TD 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

7.5
94.2

27.3
98.7

101.8

126.0

Source: OECD CRS 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EAST AFRICA EXCL. EAC 

 (EUR million) 

2008 

2009 

1.TPR 
2.TD 
6.Other TR Needs
TOTAL 

1.0
41.9
0.0
42.9

Source: OECD CRS 

2.3
83.1
0.9
86.3

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
SOUTHERN AFRICA 

 (EUR million) 

2008 

2009 

1.TPR 
2.TD 
6.Other TR Needs
TOTAL 

18.3
23.5
0.0
41.7

Source: OECD CRS 

3.0
58.7
0.0
61.7

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
CARIBBEAN 

 (EUR million) 

2008 

2009 

1.TPR 
2.TD 
6.Other TR Needs
TOTAL 

0.1
74.3

74.4

Source: OECD CRS 

0.1
49.3

49.4

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
PACIFIC 

 (EUR million) 

2008 

2009 

1.TPR 
2.TD 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

0.0
8.1

8.1

0.1
6.5

6.6

Source: OECD CRS 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
NEIGHBOURHOOD 

 (EUR million) 

2008 

2009 

1.TPR 
2.TD 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

78.7
203.6
0.0
282.3

3.3
167.0
0.2
170.5

Source: OECD CRS 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
ENLARGEMENT 

 (EUR million) 

2008 

2009 

1.TPR 
2.TD 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

66.4
95.5

161.9

Source: OECD CRS 

30.2
48.4

78.7

   CROATIA

   ALBANIA

STATES  OF EX-YUGOSLAVIA UNSPECIF.

FORMER  YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

   MONTENEGRO

KOSOVO

   BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA

   TURKEY

   SERBIA

0

5

10

15

20

25

1.TPR

2.TD

Source: OECD CRS  

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
LATIN AMERICA 

(EUR million) 

2008 

2009 

1.TPR 
2.TD 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

17.0
124.5
0.0
141.6

60.2
190.7
0.2
251.1

Source: OECD CRS 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
EN 

66 

   EN 

 
SOUTH ASIA 

 (EUR million) 

2008 

2009 

1.TPR 
2.TD 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

30.6
124.8

2.0
265.2

155.4

267.2

Source: OECD CRS 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MIDDLE EAST 

 (EUR million) 

2008 

2009 

1.TPR 
2.TD 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

0.3
1.4

1.7

0.0
18.0

18.0

Source: OECD CRS 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CENTRAL ASIA 

 (EUR million) 

2008 

2009 

1.TPR 
2.TD 
6.Other TR Needs
TOTAL 

0.1
9.0

9.0

0.0
38.7

38.8

Source: OECD CRS 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
ASEAN 

 (EUR million) 

2008 

2009 

1.TPR 
2.TD 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

20.8
58.5

79.4

0.5
46.1

46.6

Source: OECD CRS 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
ASIA (other) 

 (EUR million) 

2008 

2009 

1.TPR 
2.TD 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

63.7
134.5

47.9
134.7

198.2

182.6

Source: OECD CRS 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
REGIONAL 

 (EUR million) 

2008 

2009 

1.TPR 
2.TD 
6.Other TR Needs 
TOTAL 

149.7
314.4

358.1
942.3

464.1

1300.4

Source: OECD CRS 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of 2009 EU + Member State Aid for Trade programmes > EUR 50 million 

Donor 

Recipient 

Unspecified 
Unspecified 
Haiti 
Unspecified 

EU Funds 
EU Funds 
EU Funds 
EU Funds 
United Kingdom  Africa, regional 
EU Funds 
France 
Spain 
France 
Germany 
Italy 
Spain 
Belgium 
Germany 

Uganda 
Unspecified 
Tunisia 
Morocco 
Brazil 
Iraq 
Morocco 
Unspecified 
America, 
regional 
Kenya 
EU Funds 
Turkey 
EU Funds 
India 
Germany 
India 
Germany 
China 
Germany 
Tanzania 
EU Funds 
Netherlands 
Unspecified 
United Kingdom  Afghanistan 
EU Funds 
United Kingdom  India 
EU Funds 
EU Funds 
Germany 
France 
France 
Portugal 
EU Funds 

Turkey 
Liberia 
China 
Morocco 
Kenya 
Cape Verde 
Congo, 
Rep. 
South 
of 
Sahara, regional 

Ukraine 

Spain 

Dem. 

United Kingdom  Zimbabwe 

AfT 
category 
4 
4 
3 
4 
4 
3 
4 
3 
3 
3 
4 
3 
4 
4 

TRA 
category
0 
0 
0 
0 
24 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
2 

Purpose 

Agricultural policy & admin. mgmt. 
Agricultural policy & admin. mgmt. 
Road transport 
Agricultural policy & admin. mgmt. 
Formal sector financ. intermediaries 
Road transport 
Agricultural research 
Power generation/renewable sources 
Rail transport 
Power generation/renewable sources 
Agricultural policy & admin. mgmt. 
Solar energy 
Informal/semi-formal fin. intermed. 
Formal sector financ. intermediaries 

Commitment 
(EUR million)
313.9 
262.0 
145.0 
131.8 
123.5 
122.0 
107.0 
105.0 
104.0 
100.3 
100.0 
100.0 
95.0 
94.9 

3 
4 
4 
3 
3 
3 
3 
4 
3 
4 
3 
3 
4 
3 
3 
3 
3 

4 

4 

0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 

2 

0 

Road transport 
Agricultural policy & admin. mgmt. 
Formal sector financ. intermediaries 
Electrical transmission/distribution 
Water transport 
Road transport 
Power generation/renewable sources 
Financial policy & admin. management 
Transport policy & admin. management 
Formal sector financ. intermediaries 
Transport policy & admin. management 
Road transport 
Formal sector financ. intermediaries 
Road transport 
Electrical transmission/distribution 
Road transport 
Water transport 

88.2 
85.5 
85.0 
70.0 
70.0 
70.0 
68.0 
67.3 
65.0 
60.6 
60.3 
60.2 
60.0 
60.0 
60.0 
60.0 
60.0 

Business support services & institutions 

55.0 

Agricultural development 

51.1 

Source: OECD CRS 

4 Classified in category 2 by OECD CRS but not included in TRA in Monterrey Questionnaires 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
EN 

74 

   EN 

 
 
 20 countries and regions receiving most of EU and Member States AfT in 2009 

(EUR million) 

Unspecified 
Morocco 
India 
South of Sahara, regional 
Africa, regional 
China 
Afghanistan 
Kenya 
Uganda 
Congo, Dem. Rep. 
Turkey 
America, regional 
Tunisia 
Tanzania 
Viet Nam 
Haiti 
Brazil 
Ukraine 
Rwanda 
Mali 
Sub-Total 
Others  
Total 

2000 
384 
108 
149 
158 
42 
205 
2 
61 
74 
4 
64 
12 
141 
236 
104 
5 
26 

2001 
557
54
228
145
253
348
3
121
73
18
24
88
96
109
220
3
100

3 
65 

4
24
1 844  2 468
2 755  2 686
4 599  5 154

2002 
592
127
100
90
42
115
39
16
78
86
212
61
315
87
66
3
28

41
20
2 119
3 091
5 210

2003 
451
239
236
239
99
280
64
111
22
17
162
19
48
69
110
2
28

12
19
2 228
3 044
5 272

Source: OECD CRS 

2004 
742
222
63
146
37
186
103
34
78
15
2
19
81
96
146
36
17

15
138
2 174
2 596
4 770

2005 
559
120
234
190
30
228
63
190
117
34
102
20
32
125
168
11
35
60
20
69
2 408
4 093
6 501

211 
223 
298 
229 
317 
76 
150 
61 
69 
187 
83 
116 
62 
324 
7 
23 
93 
45 
32 

2009 
2008 
2007 
2006 
1 881
1 036  1 045  1 065
438
789
167 
425
391
255 
423
126
149 
391
243
161 
359
461
106 
273
161
62 
255
39
116 
217
76
35 
199
68
73 
199
554
149 
182
113
115 
172
332
40 
166
185
41 
162
52
317 
150
5
6 
144
33
67 
138
171
122 
138
49
61 
124
189
109 
6 434
3 641  3 196  5 106
3 893  3 670  4 696
3 578
7 533  6 866  9 802 10 012

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
20 countries and regions receiving most of EU and Member States TRA in 2009 

(EUR million) 

Unspecified 
South of Sahara, regional 
Africa, regional 
India 
China 
America, regional 
Bangladesh 
Ghana 
Peru 
Tunisia 
Kenya 
Guatemala 
Nicaragua 
North of Sahara, regional 
Nigeria 
Asia, regional 
North & Central America, regional 
Ukraine 
Afghanistan 
Egypt 
Sub-Total 
Others  
Total 

2008 
209
24
57
87
96
36
45
17
12
29
4
4
8
3
1
91
5
54
99
5
886
947
1 833

2009 
434
297
240
167
142
121
67
66
60
51
49
47
40
40
39
37
37
34
33
30
2 031
901
2 932

Source: OECD CRS 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
 
Category 6 in EU AfT 2009 

Commitment (in Euro million) 
10.000 

Country 
BELIZE 

BELIZE 

Region 
Caribbean 

Caribbean 

N.&C. AMERICA, REGIONAL 
ERITREA 

N.&C. AMERICA, REGIONAL 
East Africa 

NAMIBIA 
TURKEY 

Unspecified 

NORTH OF SAHARA, REGIONAL 
EUROPE, REGIONAL 

BOLIVIA 
EUROPE, REGIONAL 

NORTH OF SAHARA, REGIONAL 
EUROPE, REGIONAL 
Unspecified 
Unspecified 
JORDAN 

Southern Africa 
Enlargement 

Unspecified 
NORTH OF SAHARA, 
REGIONAL 
EUROPE, REGIONAL 

Latin America 
EUROPE, REGIONAL 
NORTH OF SAHARA, 
REGIONAL 
EUROPE, REGIONAL 
Unspecified 
Unspecified 
Neighbourhood 

LEBANON 
EGYPT 

NORTH OF SAHARA, REGIONAL 
THAILAND 
CENTRAL ASIA, REGIONAL 
GEORGIA 

Neighbourhood 
Neighbourhood 
NORTH OF SAHARA, 
REGIONAL 
Asean 
CENTRAL ASIA, REGIONAL 
Neighbourhood 

EN 

1.800 

3.000 
1.300 

1.500 
54.800 

2.000 

60.000 
25.000 

12.000 
9.521 

11.601 
10.782 
3.136 
1.893 
20.000 

8.000 
20.000 

4.000 
4.500 
8.000 
8.400 

77 

DAC Code name 
Rural development 
Public sector policy and administrative 
management 
Public sector policy and administrative 
management 
Strengthening civil society 
Public sector policy and administrative 
management 
Multisector aid 
Environmental policy and administrative 
management 

Multisector aid 
Multisector aid 
Employment policy and administrative 
management 
Multisector aid 

Multisector aid 
Multisector aid 
Multisector aid 
Multisector aid 
Multisector aid 
Public sector policy and administrative 
management 
Multisector aid 

Research/scientific institutions 
Multisector aid 
Security system management and reform 
Multisector aid 

EN 

 
  
ALBANIA 

BOLIVIA 
ALBANIA 
CROATIA 
CROATIA 
The former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia 
The former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia 

TURKEY 

Enlargement 

Latin America 
Enlargement 
Enlargement 
Enlargement 

Enlargement 

Enlargement 

Enlargement 

TURKEY 
SOUTH AMERICA, REGIONAL 

Enlargement 
SOUTH AMERICA, REGIONAL 

1.627 

10.000 
460 
6.444 
1.112 

2.910 

3.570 

13.340 

950 
10.850 

Multisector aid 
Employment policy and administrative 
management 
Multisector aid 
Multisector aid 
Multisector aid 
Public sector policy and administrative 
management 

Multisector aid 
Public sector policy and administrative 
management 
Public sector policy and administrative 
management 
Multisector aid 

EN 

78 

EN