Global Review of Aid for Trade 2009

Issues and State of Implementation in Africa Does Supply Meet Demand?

Prepared by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA)

African Development Bank Group

United Nations Economic Commission for Africa

Global Review on Aid for Trade 2009

Issues and State of Implementation in Africa Does Supply Meet Demand?

Prepared by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA)

This paper is extracted from a background study conducted by Stephen Karingi and Michael Fabbroni of the UNECA entitled The Reality of Aid for Trade in Africa: Does Supply Meet Demand? The background study has been prepared under the auspices of the Africa Aid for Trade Working Group comprising of African Development Bank, Economic Commission for Africa and the World Trade Organisation. All citations and references of sources for this analysis are contained in the background paper. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reect those of the members of the Working Group.

African Development Bank Group

United Nations Economic Commission for Africa

Abstract
There is a great deal of data about how trade and aid for trade efforts affect the developing world. The OECD, who makes it available for donors, recipient countries and researchers all over the world, holds a great deal of this information. This database is also the basis of the Global Review of Aid for Trade. This information, while good, is a bit too broad if one wants to draw conclusions for specic areas and issues. As African countries prepare for the second Global Review that is scheduled to take place in the rst half of this year, it is imperative that much thought be put on how the implementation of AfT could be made to optimally address the trade challenges of the region. What this paper has sought to do is to look at AfT in Africa. Much of the information used to undertake the quantitative analysis already exists. The paper makes like for like comparisons across countries and across Regional Economic Communities to elucidate how AfT looks on Africa ground. The paper wanted to tell the AfT story for Africa. And what that story says is both disheartening and hopeful. While there have been fears that AfT would somehow decrease the amount of overseas development assistance already owing into the continent, this paper has found that is not the case. In deed the amount of ODA to Africa has increased by an average rate of 23.6% for the period 2002-2006, a time in which the AfT as an initiative gained most currency. And the amount of AfT that goes to Africa grew by an average 12.8%. However, it is how the money is distributed and who gets it that could be a potential problem. There are very huge disparities in AfT per capita. The paper also highlights that even though there appears to be some sustained positive growth in AfT supplies, there are issues with volatility at the country level, which could affect AfT effectiveness. A further close analysis of the AfT supplies to Africa showed that AfT to African LDCs is not at the detriment of other African countries. An attempt to empirically much supply with demand somehow suggest that the most deserving countriesthe ones that need it most, appear to be the ones that receive the least AfT.

iii

Introduction
1. Three years after the Hong Kong WTO Ministerial Declaration, Aid for Trade has assumed growing importance and a strong commitment to Aid for Trade is emerging from all sides: donor countries, recipient countries, multilateral agencies, civil society and private sector. Paragraph 57 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, clearly provides the mandate for further developments of the Aid for Trade agenda. This was recognition that in the long run, important gains in economic growth can be achieved, especially in Africa, through trade liberalization, yet, drawbacks in the short run must not be forgotten. In addition, although trade liberalization might on its own create opportunities to development, other factors determine the extent to which those opportunities are realized and to enable developing countries to reap full benets from liberalization, huge public investments in infrastructure and institutions, as well as private and public investment in productive capacity, are necessary co-requirements to liberalization that developing countries alone are unable to deliver. Therefore, the core purpose of Aid for Trade is to help developing countries to build trade capacities to get real access to international markets in a competitive way.

What is Aid for Trade?

2. The Aid for Trade task Force recommendations identied the six broad categories to reect the diverse trade-related needs and constraints that developing countries face. At the same time, such categories are thought to be clear enough to establish a sound boundary between Aid for Trade and other development assistance of which it is a part: Trade policy and regulations Trade development Trade-related infrastructure Building productive capacity Trade-related adjustments Other trade-related needs 3. Coherence in the allocation of aid to the Aid for Trade initiative is fundamental for monitoring purposes. However disagreement on the extent of some of the above categories yet remains. It should also be noted that the OECD database includes only concessional lending, thus excluding much trade-related lending by IFIs and regional development banks. It is important to bear this in mind when analyzing the supply side of the AfT equation, remembering that the sum of the OECD proxies only partially capture the totality of ows that in Africa address the continents trade constraints.

Table 1: Total AfT ows (US$ millions, Commitments)

AfT Trade Policy and Regulation Economic Infrastructure Productive capacity building Structural Adjustment Total AfT: Total ODA: 2002 685 7,727 5,829 4,628 18,869 64,721 2003 550 8,907 8,341 5,890 23,688 90,351 2004 477 13,709 9,104 5,239 28,529 98,271 2005 655 12,219 9,042 5,428 27,344 122,851 2006 1,044 12,464 9,906 5,509 28,923 126,801

Source: Computations based on OECD (2008)

4. Currently the OECD CRS database has created four main categories reected in Table 1 that enable the monitoring and tracking of AfT-related funds. These are economic infrastructure, building productive capacities, trade policy and regulations, and trade-related adjustments. In this regard, the rst concern
1

arises on the ability of the above four categories to capture AfT ows and providing the real picture on the ground. In particular, the category trade-related adjustments uses general budget support as the only proxy, and the question is on how general budget support captures development nance sought to assist in trade-related adjustments costs. It is therefore important that the on-going monitoring agenda works towards improvement of the AfT supply ow proxies, so to better capture the reality of AfT.

Where Aid for Trade?

5. As generally agreed, AfT is needed because many of the poorest countries have struggled to obtain global market opportunities due to their inability to produce or export efciently.While trading with other countries is fundamental to achieve high economic growth rates and poverty reduction targets, most African developing countries and the totality of African LDCs have neither the diversity of exportable products nor the production capacity to take immediate advantage from improved market access opportunities. Thus, while it is argued that trade barriers are of concern to trade, poor supply-side conditions have often been a more important constraint on the export performance in various regions of Africa. Many African countries desperately need resources to upgrade ports, telecommunications, customs facilities and institutions. If they cannot send goods in a competitive way to the world market, then the countries stand to gain little from any improved market access resulting from the WTOs current round of negotiations. 6. For instance, some studies have shown that improvements in transportation costs and infrastructure can lead to higher export performance. They estimate that with sound infrastructure, transport costs could be reduced by 40% for coastal countries and by 60% for land-locked countries. They also estimate extent to which transport costs reduce trade volumes. An increase of 10% in transport costs has been estimated to result in a 20% reduction of trade volumes. Same studies show that anticompetitive practices in port services and other transport services increase unit shipping cost hampering countrys exports. Some of these anti-competitive practices lead to time delays in exporting. Studies have further estimated the number of days it takes for the typical 20-foot container to reach the most accessible port. In Bangui, Central African Republic, it takes 116 days for such a container to be moved from a factory in the city to the nearest port in the Gulf of Guinea. It takes 71 days to move such container from Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, to the nearest port. On the contrary it takes 5 days from Copenhagen, 6 days from Berlin and 20 days from Shanghai, Kuala Lumpur and Santiago de Chile. Same studies nd that a delay of one day reduces trade by more than 1%. In terms of trading impact, this has been equated to further distancing countries by an additional 85km. This is especially true for the land-locked countries. Land-locked countries have been found to trade less vis--vis coastal countries.They have also been shown to on average have lower growth than maritime countries. By some estimates, being land-locked reduces average growth by 1.5%.

Aid for Trade:The importance of monitoring

7. Substantially, AfT is about investing in developing countries and it is fundamental for African countries that the initiative reaches full operationalisation as soon as possible, and that ows meet the right needs of beneciary countries. Monitoring in order to track progress in the implementation and impact remains a relevant issue. The following areas of identied during the rst Global Review in 2007 are still open for discussion: how to give greater emphasis to country monitoring, how to capture the regional dimension of AfT and how to expand the scope of the donor and partner-country self-assessments. Currently, the monitoring issue is broken into three elements: Aid for Trade ows: This is the supply side of the equation. Aid for Trade resource use and trade performance: On the demand side of the equation the hypothesis is that building trade capacity is essential but not sufcient. Trade policies and protrade development policies matter as well and its important to understand how a recipient country is successful in attracting AfT and whether the increased trade capacity is used effectively to improve trade performances. Assessing trade development needs, integrating them into the design of national development strategies, and building collaborative partnerships between donors and beneciaries: It is up to each country/ region to make its case for attracting additional ows of AfT to help build up its trade capacity,
2

while international organizations can assist developing countries, LDCs in particular, to play their part in constructing a successful relationship with their donor partners.

Aid for Trade Supply in Africa: A Snapshot of Recent Trends

8. In 2006, total ODA amounted to just over US$ 126bn, roughly up 3% from 2005. The average annual growth rate for the period 1997-2006 was 10.6% as seen in Table 2. Total ODA gures correlate closely to the AfT initiative, since the AfT is a sub-set of the total development assistance, identied by the proxy categories proposed in 2006 by the WTO Task Force. Positive and sustained growth of total ODA increases the scope for trade-related assistance and this could be seen as an encouraging trend for the future of the AfT initiative. Figures from OECD show how long term evolution of what is seen to constitute AfT today has been negative for over 20 years, with trade-related assistance sharply declining since the mid-seventies. This trend has however been reversed since 2000.

Table 2: Ofcial Development Assistance ows1 (US$ millions)

Year ODA Total Growth Rate (%) Total ODA to Africa Growth Rate (%)
Source: OECD (2008)

1997 43949 14074 -

1998 49565 11.33 18296 23.08

1999 55793 11.16 16513 -10.80

2000 56442 1.15 19794 16.58

2001 55147 -2.35 18139 -9.12

2002 64721 14.79 22110 17.96

2003 90351 28.37 31545 29.91

2004 98271 8.06 34815 9.39

2005 122851 20.01 41674 16.46

2006 126801 3.12 50625 17.68

9. In terms of AfT ODA to Africa, there has been a signicant increase since the new millennium with a 2002-2006 average growth of 24% and it may be reasonable to link the AfT initiative with the reversing of the trend cited above. In a broader perspective, the AfT initiative ts in as one of the development tools that can enable the African countries make progress towards reaching the Millennium Development Goals, directly contributing to goal number one. However, AfT should in no way be at the detriment of other aidrelated projects and programmes. In this view, recent trends are quite comforting. 10. At the world level, with respect to the ve years period 2002-2006, total ODA has experienced an average growth of 19%, rising from US$ 64bn in 2002 to 126bn in 2006. While the average growth rate for AfT funds has been 12%, totalling US$ 29bn in 2006, non-AfT funds have grown at a higher average rate of 22% as Table 3 indicates. This is reassuring as it could be an indication that the AfT initiative is not necessarily leading to cutbacks of other aid-related programmes. Indeed, even in Africa a similar picture is observed, with AfT funds growing at an average rate of 13% reaching US$ 10.5bn in 2006. On the other hand, funds that are not AfT related grew at 28%.

Table 3: ODA and AfT in Africa (US$ millions)

Africa Total ODA to Africa: Growth rates (%): Total AfT to Africa: Growth rates (%): Non AfT ODA to Africa: Growth rates (%):
Source: OECD (2008) 1 ODA is expressed in commitments.

2002 22,110 6,541 15,569

2003 31,545 42.67 7,631 16.66 23,914 53.60

2004 34,815 10.37 9,038 18.44 25,777 7.79

2005 41,674 19.70 9,536 5.51 32,138 24.68

2006 50,625 21.48 10,560 10.74 40,065 24.66

Average Growth 2002-2006 (%) 23.55 12.84 27.68

11. Taking a closer provided in Table 4, it is evident that during the period 2002-2006 economic infrastructure and building productive capacities account for over 76% of AfT to the world.With regard to economic infrastructure, major projects and programmes are mostly delivered through the sub-categories of road transport, electrical transmission/distribution, rail transport, energy and transport policies, accounting for 66% of all economic infrastructure-related aid efforts. The most aid-receiving categories for building productive capacities are instead the following: business support services and institutions, agricultural development, agricultural policy, agricultural water resources and small and medium enterprise development, accounting for 45% of all projects and programmes. Trade policy within the trade policy and regulations category, which is very important in helping African countries to structure and implement trade reforms, accounted for 77%.

Table 4: Total AfT by WTO Category2, (US$ millions)

AfT category Description Economic Infrastructure Building Productive Capacities (including trade development) Trade policy and regulations Trade related adjustment Total AfT per Year:
Source: Authors calculations based on OECD (2008)

2002 7727 5829 685 4628 18869

2003 8907 8341 550 5890 23688

2004 13709 9104 477 5239 28529

2005 12219 9042 655 5428 27344

2006 12464 9906 1044 5509 28923

Total 2002-2006 55026 42222 3411 26694 127353

12. In 2006 the average AfT related funds for African countries amounted to 24% of the countrys total development aid (see Table A-1 in the Annex). 13. A point of concern regarding AfT to Africa is the high volatility that characterises the aid efforts to the region. Volatility has been shown to negatively impact aid effectiveness. Although in aggregate terms AfT to Africa has been constantly growing since 2002, Table A-2 in the Annex undoubtedly shows that at the country level, AfT ows to Africa are highly volatile for a large number of countries, oscillating between positive and negative growth rates, and also huge differences in volumes. Patterns are similar across subregions. Although country-breakdown data on AfT ows highlights high volatility from one year to the next, on average, referring to the period 2002-2006, the overwhelming majority of African countries show positive growth. Also in per capita terms, AfT breakdowns shows huge difference among African countries. The weighted average in 2006 was of US$ 10.7, with 28 countries scoring below average. Most of these countries are least developed countries. 14. Donors rationale behind aid allocation is based on many different country indicators. However, the huge disparities in the allocation of AfT may hamper countrys development and as a consequence regional development. Take the case of a landlocked country like Ethiopia, which has to rely on other countries ports and infrastructure. Its development is clearly inter-twined with the rate of development in its transit countries. In this view, it is not encouraging to note how Ethiopias neighbours, namely, Djibouti, Eritrea and Kenya are among the lowest AfT per capita recipients in Africa as can be seen in Table A-3. 15. With regard to the WTO proxies used to identify AfT ows, economic infrastructure, building productive capacities and trade-related adjustment are by far the ones receiving the most funds. As Table A-4 shows, in 2006 for some countries economic infrastructure accounts for up to 90% of all AfT to the country, while the overall average is around 34%. 16. It is worth noting at this stage that by ranking countries by economic infrastructure, only 3 out of 153 African landlocked countries appear in the top 20, and these are Lesotho, Ethiopia and Central African Republic.
2 Please note that currently the OECD-CRS does not have a proxy for the WTO category other trade-related needs and that it is intended to introduce a marker within the CRS to separate Trade Development from the broader category of Building Productive Capacities. 3 These are: Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Niger, Rwanda, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

17. The AfT continental picture is partly reected in the various RECs. In per capita terms, AfT supply ranges between US$ 42 and 55 per person for the analysed RECs of CEMAC, COMESA, ECOWAS, SADC and UMA. Major differences across regions arise in the percentage of AfT WTO categories over total AfT, for instance with UMA allocating up to 66% of its overall AfT budget to economic infrastructure.

COMESA
18. According to the OECD data available as at end of 2008, in the period 2002-2006 the COMESA region received AfT for US$ 17bn of which 33.7% was for economic infrastructure, 31.7% to build productive capacities, 2.8% to trade policy and regulations and 31.8% to the trade-related adjustment category (see Table 5).

Table 5: AfT ows to COMESA (US$ millions)

Recipient Burundi Comoros Djibouti Congo, Dem. Rep. Egypt Eritrea Ethiopia Kenya Libya Madagascar Total AfT 2002-2006 484.32 27.99 87.76 1283.7 2650.26 154.14 3210.55 1613.94 9.72 1583.39 % of AfT on Regional AfT 2.86 0.17 0.52 7.58 15.66 0.91 18.97 9.54 0.06 9.35 Recipient Malawi Mauritius Rwanda Seychelles Sudan Swaziland Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe Total AfT 2002-2006 767.38 223.45 1063.85 13.62 171.38 59.71 2140.08 1344.59 36.2 % of AfT on Regional AfT 4.53 1.32 6.29 0.08 1.01 0.35 12.64 7.94 0.21

Source: Authors calculations on OECD (2008)

19. The average growth rate of AfT nance for the period 2002-2006 is 10.9%, which embeds a positive growth of 50% in 2004 and a negative one of 22% in 2005, reecting at the regional level some of the volatility seen at the country level. For the period 2002-2006, Egypt, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya and Madagascar received roughly 70% of all AfT to the COMESA region. These ve countries account for nearly 60% of COMESA total population.

Table 6: AfT to COMESA by WTO Categories (US$ millions)

2006 2002-2006 Recipient Economic In- Building Pro- Trade Policy Trade- EconomBuilding Trade Policy Trade-related frastructure ductive Capac- and Regula- related ad- ic Infra- Productive and Regula- adjustment ities (including tions justment structure Capacities (Intions Trade Develcluding Trade opment) Development) Burundi Comoros Djibouti Congo, Dem. Rep. Egypt Eritrea Ethiopia Kenya Libya Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Rwanda Seychelles Sudan Swaziland Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe AfT Total by WTO Category 31.32 3.07 0.29 48.89 127.29 0.02 508.49 70.85 0 54.22 39.36 0.19 47.88 0.1 89.61 0.06 52.46 60.35 0.9 1135.35 30.37 5.16 1.4 92.3 503.08 5.21 138.04 220.78 2.35 71.67 65.27 38.52 32.89 3.44 23.52 7.52 50.54 189.1 3.52 1484.68 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.2 70.84 0.07 6.42 1.76 0 0.17 2.89 0.01 0.07 0 0.05 0 0.71 2.05 0.09 85.48 93.26 1.89 0 4.24 0.21 0 9.25 0 0 100.04 88.71 0 223.62 0 4.85 0 165.07 100.44 0.26 791.84 135.73 13.09 67.06 227.61 748.15 98.92 1617.52 739.48 0 759.36 156.52 133.64 197.13 0.15 99.76 18.99 401.19 291.14 3.88 5709.32 76.28 9.97 10.14 285.61 1432.43 55.15 776.45 711.6 9.63 287.06 277.26 76.39 153.49 12.98 56.34 40.62 484.68 575.07 31.15 5362.3 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.21 440.93 0.07 6.81 2.6 0.09 0.64 3.84 13.17 0.08 0.37 0.1 0.1 1.55 3.39 0.55 474.68 272.26 4.88 10.48 770.27 28.75 0 809.77 160.26 0 536.33 329.76 0.25 713.15 0.12 15.18 0 1252.66 474.99 0.62 5379.73

Source: Authors calculations on OECD (2008)

ECOWAS
20. As Table 7 indicates, for the reference period 2002-2006, Ghana, Burkina Faso, Mali and Senegal had a cumulative share of regional AfT of 58%. In absolute terms, Ghana received roughly US$ 2.4bn, Burkina Faso US$ 1.8bn and Mali US$ 1.2bn. Although an oil-rich country, Nigeria that accounts for 52% of total ECOWAS population, it sub-regional AfT share was just 7.5%, while Ghana with 8% of total population in the sub-region accounted for 23% of ECOWAS AfT. Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger are the ECOWAS landlocked countries and together received AfT-related funds of US$ 3.8bn, a regional share of 34%.

Table 7: AfT ows to ECOWAS (US$ millions)

Recipient Benin Burkina Faso Cape Verde Cote dIvoire Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Total AfT 2002-2006 1043.91 1778.81 365.2 507.31 99.6 2453.73 260.9 103.66 % of AfT on Regional AfT 9.33 15.89 3.26 4.53 0.89 21.92 2.33 0.93 Recipient Liberia Mali Niger Nigeria Senegal Sierra Leone Togo Total AfT 2002-2006 54.59 1184.61 890.44 850.06 1074.14 498.46 26.46 % of AfT on Regional AfT 0.49 10.58 7.96 7.60 9.60 4.45 0.24

Source: Authors calculation on OECD (2008)

21. For the period 2002-2006, ECOWAS AfT nance totalled US$ 11.2bn, of which 28% went to economic infrastructure, another 28% to building productive capacities, 2% in trade policy and regulations and 42% was for trade-related adjustment (see Table 8). The average growth rate of the above funds was a positive 11.6%, in line with the COMESA average growth rate.

Table 8: AfT to ECOWAS by WTO categories (US$ millions)

Recipient 2006 Economic InBuilding Trade frastructure Productive Policy and Capacities Regulations (Including Trade Development) 70.56 38.8 168.7 5.93 125.53 0.05 20.25 0.37 2.12 67 30.12 8.99 47.43 8.6 32.87 13.49 90.9 3.33 0.57 402.53 3.1 17.85 13.97 136.66 14.16 9.57 2.83 70 18.29 148.4 101 10.8 2.29 0.11 0.06 0.05 3.14 0.67 0 0.05 0.95 0 16.99 8.33 0.41 0 713.25 Trade-related adjustment Economic Infrastructure 2002-2006 Building Trade TradeProductive Policy and related Capacities Regulations adjust(Including ment Trade Development) 216.71 168.73 318.13 366.49 5.05 944.6 88.2 51.89 27.72 552.48 103.35 43.92 5.67 359.88 214.8 515.57 554.72 92.65 8.52 3202.57 0.74 0.16 16.07 13.63 0.67 0.12 0.05 2.33 0.38 18.43 9.32 0.41 0.03 236.12 72.73 435.38 0.1 1417.12 4.91 10.12 1.26 518.99 501.43 7.99 149.3 240.8 6.44 4629.3

Benin Burkina Faso Cape Verde Cote dIvoire Gambia Ghana Guinea GuineaBissau Liberia Mali Niger Nigeria Senegal Sierra Leone Togo AfT Total by WTO Category:

93.36 145.34 16.09 1.35 0.04 461.85 0 0.64 1.26 93.55 60.67 0 30.38 28.51 3.14

340.34 462.67 203.53 19.88 55.71 470.5 151.97 49.5 47.61 303.41 173.83 308.07 360.8 164.6 11.47

199.51 936.18 3123.89

Source: Authors calculation on OECD (2008)

SADC
22. In the case of SADC, Tanzania and Mozambique show a cumulative share of SADCs AfT of 53%, with Tanzania receiving US$ 4.4bn and Mozambique US$ 2.7bn (see Table 9). Their share of population is just 24%. Also, Madagascar and Zambia rank at the top respectively with US$ 1.6bn and US$ 1.3bn. Lowest sub-region performers are Zimbabwe with US$ 36ml, Botswana with US$ 34ml, Swaziland with US$ 60ml and Lesotho with US$ 77ml. Together these four accounts for 1.6% of SADC AfT funds. It is worth noting that Zimbabwe, Botswana and Lesotho are landlocked countries. Also Angola shows weak performance in terms of supply with just under US$ 90ml, which translates to a sub-regional AfT ows share of 0.7%. Angola, a country in a post-conict situation, and whose state of infrastructure required a lot of attention, is receives among the lowest ows in the continent.

Table 9: AfT to SADC countries (US millions)

Recipient Angola Botswana Congo, Dem. Rep. Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Total AfT 2002-2006 89.55 43.19 1283.7 77.44 1583.39 767.38 223.45 % of AfT on Regional AfT 0.67 0.32 9.63 0.58 11.88 5.76 1.68 Recipient Mozambique Namibia South Africa Swaziland Tanzania Zambia Zimbabwe Total AfT 2002-2006 2684.31 205.76 526.89 59.71 4402.32 1344.59 36.2 % of AfT on Regional AfT 20.14 1.54 3.95 0.45 33.03 10.09 0.27

Source: Authors calculations on OECD (2008)

23. In aggregate terms, SADC was a recipient of US$ 13.3bn for the period 2002-2006, with economic infrastructure accounting for 25%, building productive capacities for 26% and trade-related adjustment for 49%. The average growth was over 16%, and unlike other RECs, SADC has not experienced negative AfT ows. 24. Table 10 shows in which categories AfT is mostly channelled to in the SADC region.As a region, SADC received in excess of US$ 3.2bn for economic infrastructure development.

Table 10: AfT to SADC by WTO categories (US% millions)

Recipient Economic Infrastructure 2006 Building Trade Productive Policy and Capacities Regula(Including tions Trade Development) 16.06 3.82 1.45 0.06 92.3 0.7 71.67 65.27 38.52 144.91 15.39 95.06 7.52 140.37 189.1 3.52 881.84 0.2 0.46 0.17 2.89 0.01 3.74 0.16 2.12 0 2.48 2.05 0.09 18.25 Traderelated adjustment Economic Infrastructure 2002-2006 Building Trade Productive Policy and Capacities Regula(Including tions Trade Development) 57.67 3.86 37.14 0.98 285.61 6.13 287.06 277.26 76.39 549.93 65.92 452.96 40.62 738.08 575.07 31.15 3480.99 0.21 0.64 0.64 3.84 13.17 6.78 0.67 5.38 0.1 9.6 3.39 0.55 49.81 Traderelated adjustment

Angola Botswana Congo, Dem. Rep. Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Mozambique Namibia South Africa Swaziland Tanzania Zambia Zimbabwe Total:

10.04 0.4 48.89 16.66 54.22 39.36 0.19 167.83 88 18.96 0.06 70.11 60.35 0.9 575.97

0.07 0 4.24 0 100.04 88.71 0 253.48 0 0 0 1540.59 100.44 0.26 2087.83

27.53 5.07 227.61 60.35 759.36 156.52 133.64 758.65 139.17 68.52 18.99 636.32 291.14 3.88 3286.75

0.49 0 770.27 10.32 536.33 329.76 0.25 1368.95 0 0.03 0 3018.32 474.99 0.62 6510.33

Source: Authors calculations on OECD (2008)

25. The largest share of AfT in the SADC region was accounted for under the category of trade-related adjustments, with a total amount of over US$ 6.5bn. Tanzania alone received 46% of the SADCs traderelated adjustments funds, while some countries, namely Botswana, Namibia and Swaziland show none. As for the other regions, trade policy and regulation funds account for a negligible share of total AfT.

CEMAC
26. CEMACs AfT supply is indicated in Table 11, the highest share of which goes to develop economic infrastructure. Trade-related adjustments and building productive capacities accounted respectively for 29% and 25%. This translates to US$ 880ml for economic infrastructure, US$ 551ml for trade-related adjustments and US$ 486ml to building productive capacities.Total amount of the regions AfT is just under US$ 2bn. In absolute terms this is much less when compared to other RECs, for a region that remains least integrated to the rest of Africa and the world. However, growth rates of AfT ows are the strongest in the continent, showing an average growth for the period 2002-2006 of 38%, a near doubling of total AfT to the CEMAC region in 2005.

Table 11: AfT ows to CEMAC countries (US$ millions)

Recipient Cameroon Central African Rep. Chad Congo, Rep. Total AfT 20022006 740.55 315 462.51 168.38 % of AfT on Regional AfT 38.58 16.41 24.09 8.77 Recipient Equatorial Guinea Gabon Sao Tome & Principe Total CEMAC AfT : Total AfT 2002-2006 2.52 198.85 31.72 1919.53 % of AfT on Regional AfT 0.13 10.36 1.65 100.00

Source: Authors calculation on OECD (2008)

27. Top recipient is Cameroon with US$ 740ml, followed by Chad with US$ 462ml. For these two countries together, the share of AfT amounts to 63% of regions AfT nance.

Table 12: AfT to CEMAC by WTO categories (US$ millions)

Recepient 2006 Economic Infrastructure Building Productive Capacities (Inlcuding Trade Development) 51.78 6.68 1.94 16.53 0.02 10.96 6.39 94.3 Trade Policy and Regulations Traderelated adjustment 2002-2006 Economic Infrastructure Building Productive Capacities (Inlcuding Trade Development) 214.3 49.18 105.6 21.57 2.06 81.42 12.14 486.27 Trade Policy and Regulations Traderelated adjustment

Cameroon Chad Congo, Rep. Equatorial Guinea Gabon AfT Total by WTO Category:

201.37 0.01 0.19 0 61.25 338.98

0.13 0.05 0.05 0.03 0 0.05 0 0.31

182.72 92.04 0 0 0 0 0 274.76

334.1 154.57 187.26 77.59 0.46 107.64 19 880.62

0.18 0.05 0.05 0.03 0 0.05 0.58 0.94

191.97 111.2 169.6 69.19 0 9.74 0 551.7

Central African Rep. 74.68

Sao Tome & Principe 1.48

Source: Authors calculations on OECD (2008)

UMA
28. Total AfT for the period 2002-2006 amounted to roughly US$ 3.4bn, and in per capita terms, each citizen living in the UMA community received US$ 42 in the ve-year period. The 2002-2006 average growth rate of AfT stood at 11.7%.

Table 13: AfT ows to UMA countries (US$ millions)

Recipient % of AfT on regional AfT 2002-2006 15.16 0.28 42.28 15.01 27.27 100.00 Total AfT 2002-2006 518.13 9.72 1445.28 513.19 932.23 3418.55 2006 200.61 2.35 433.46 125.88 220.36 982.66 2005 132.54 7.37 237.76 94.71 156.26 628.64 2004 35.74 0 293.45 115.41 101.42 546.02 2003 64.53 0 296.4 105.52 57.36 523.81 2002 84.71 0 184.21 71.67 396.83 737.42

Algeria Libya Morocco Mauritania Tunisia Total AfT:

Source: Authors calculations on OECD (2008)

29. Morocco is the largest recipient of AfT ows to UMA community with over US$ 1.4bn for the period 2002-2006. In relative terms it translates to over 42% of total AfT to the region.Tunisia ranks as the second recipient with US$ 932ml and a share of 27% while Algeria is third with US$ 518ml and a share of 15%. Mauritania accounts for 15% of the regional AfT with US$ 513ml and Libya constituted under US$ 10ml and a share of 0.2%. 30. In the UMA community, 66% of total AfT ows relate to economic infrastructure, that is US$ 2.3bn. 27% of AfT nance went to building productive capacities, 5% under trade-related adjustment and a negligible 1.5% to trade policy and regulations as Table 14 shows.

Table 14: AfT to UMA by WTO categories (US$ millions)

Recipient 2006 Economic Building ProTrade Infrastruc- ductive Capac- Policy and ture ities (Including RegulaTrade Develtions opment) Algeria Libya Morocco Mauritania Tunisia AfT Total by WTO Category: 171.02 0 375.08 95.01 76.54 717.65 9.45 2.35 58.05 24.61 73.24 167.7 20.14 0 0.33 0.05 0.14 20.66 Trade-related adjustment Economic Infrastructure 2002-2006 Building Trade Productive Policy and Capacities Regula(Inlcuding tions Trade Development) 119.56 23.64 9.63 271.77 232.76 296.51 930.23 0.09 10.89 0.65 20.33 55.6 Traderelated adjustment

0 0 0 6.21 70.44 76.65

374.93 0 1161.97 272.61 448.01 2257.52

0 0 0.65 7.17 167.38 175.2

Source: Authors calculation on OECD (2008)

Aid for Trade: Demand side

31. This section analyses the demand side of the AfT initiative through some of the WTO proposed macro indicators4. This should help one to see whether the AfT ows are matching the demand side of
4 For further details on the WTO proposed Macro Indicators see the document by the Committee on Trade and Development WT/COMTD/ AFT/W/9 at www.wto.org .

10

the equation. Many of these indicators provide some useful information on a given countrys specic weak points in its economic and trade-related foundations. The rationale used in the selection of the indicators is to try to address the different aspects of trade in Africa, including, institutions, infrastructure, trade policy and productive capacity. A few of these indicators are provided in this section, and hopefully, a critical look at them could give insights as to whether the picture of AfT ows and expenditures discussed in the previous section is matched with where the demand is greatest.

Logistics Performance Index

32. The LPI5 shown in Table 15, and the breakdown of all of its indicators, provides an in-depth cross-country assessment of the logistics gaps among countries and regions of the world. Logistics gap is an important constraint that is a target of the AfT intervention. Therefore, looking at the LPI and its components, it should be possible to see which countries or sub-regions warrant greater focus in the AfT supply. In other words, the LPI is an indicative measure of AfT demand. 33. Countries that top the LPI rankings are key players in the logistics industry, while those at the bottom and as the study shows, many are African countries are often trapped in vicious circle of inefciency and over-regulation, poor quality services, insufcient trade performance and under-investment.

Table 15: Logistics Performance Index for the African Region

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Int. LPI Ranking 24 57 60 62 64 67 76 77 83 84 85 86 89 91 93 94 97 100 101 102 104 105 Country South Africa Sao Tome and Principe Tunisia Guinea Sudan Mauritania Kenya Gambia, The Uganda Cameroon Comoros Angola Benin Malawi Nigeria Morocco Egypt Zambia Senegal Cote dIvoire Ethiopia Liberia LPI Score 3.53 2.86 2.76 2.71 2.71 2.63 2.52 2.52 2.49 2.49 2.48 2.48 2.45 2.42 2.4 2.38 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.36 2.33 2.31 Rank 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Int. LPI Ranking 108 109 110 113 114 116 119 120 121 124 125 126 127 132 134 137 140 142 143 144 145 148 Country Lesotho Mali Mozambique Burundi Zimbabwe Guinea-Bissau Togo Madagascar Burkina Faso Eritrea Ghana Namibia Somalia Mauritius Gabon Tanzania Algeria Chad Niger Sierra Leone Djibouti Rwanda LPI Score 2.3 2.29 2.29 2.29 2.29 2.28 2.25 2.24 2.24 2.19 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.13 2.1 2.08 2.06 1.98 1.97 1.95 1.94 1.77

Source: World Bank

5 The LPI uses a ve points scale aggregating more than 5000 country evaluations. In addition it is complemented by a number of qualitative and quantitative indicators of the domestic logistics environment, institutions and performance of supply chains. The main breakdown of the LPI comprises of the following indicators: Customs, Infrastructure, International Shipment, Logistics Competence, Tracking and Tracing, Domestic Logistics Costs and Timeliness. For further information on the structure of the index please refer to www.worldbank.org.

11

34. From the RECs point of view6, when it comes to the overall LPI, groups seem to be at the same level and considerations made at the country level also reect at the REC level. UMA countries show the highest average score of 2.46, while COMESA and ECOWAS have the lowest average score of 2.30.With regard to the infrastructure sub-index ECOWAS countries show the lowest grade among the selected RECs.

Table 16: LPI average scores by selected REC

REC Int. Customs LPI 2.36 2.30 2.30 2.40 2.46 2.35 2.33 2.11 2.11 2.30 2.26 2.21 Infrastructure International shipments 2.31 2.35 2.32 2.44 2.55 2.36 Logistics competence 2.27 2.31 2.30 2.31 2.30 2.33 Tracking & tracing 2.35 2.28 2.31 2.32 2.48 2.31 Domestic logistics costs 3.36 2.89 2.94 3.00 2.97 2.98 Timeliness

CEMAC ECOWAS COMESA SADC UMA Sub-Saharan Africa

2.10 2.07 2.09 2.23 2.30 2.11

2.80 2.72 2.70 2.80 2.90 2.77

Source: World Bank (2008)

35. It is clear from Table 16 that from a logistics perspective, infrastructure is the main argument for AfT to the African region. Obstacles in infrastructure seem to heavily affect trade logistics and the countries competitiveness, and also they seem to be hardest ones to overcome.The main reason is probably due the high costs that infrastructure development and maintenance requires. The adequate level of investments in infrastructure is out of reach for many African countries, especially for the LDCs, and development assistance is mostly needed, hence the criticality of AfT support.

Trading Across Borders Sub-Index

36. Trading Across Borders is a sub-index of the wider Ease of Doing Business indicator produced by the International Finance Corporation. This particular index puts together information regarding documents, time and costs of exports and imports. The rationale behind the index is that the higher the number of documents required to be lled in order to full import and exports procedures, the more time is needed to handle import and export procedures, as well as the physical container. Which then means the higher are the costs of import and exports operations, the more the difculty to trade across borders, i.e., regionally and internationally. Like in the case of the LPI, coverage for the African region is extensive and there are 51 African countries in the ranking.This sub-index captures the trade facilitation challenges faced by African countries in trade. It is worth recalling that trade facilitation is one of the three main priority areas identied by the African countries where AfT support should rst target for quick and immediate results.

6 The reader should bear in mind that analyzed REC have some country members missing, and that results are affected by the missing data for missing countries.

12

Table 17: Trading Across Borders rankings

Country Rank World Mauritius Egypt Djibouti Tunisia Cape Verde Senegal Morocco Gambia, the Ghana Togo Sao Tome and Principe Seychelles Tanzania Madagascar Guinea Guinea-Bissau Liberia
Source: World Bank (2008)

Country

Rank World Africa 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Country

Rank World Africa 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Africa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Algeria Gabon Comoros Benin Sierra Leone Equatorial Guinea Cameroon Sudan Mozambique Lesotho Nigeria Uganda South Africa Kenya Botswana Namibia Ethiopia

20 24 35 38 56 60 64 73 76 84 88 90 103 109 110 111 115

118 128 129 129 132 133 137 139 140 141 144 145 147 148 149 150 152

Zambia Swaziland Cote dIvoire Mauritania Chad Congo, Dem. Rep. Zimbabwe Eritrea Mali Malawi Rwanda Niger Burundi Angola Burkina Faso Central African Rep. Congo, Rep.

153 154 155 158 159 160 162 163 166 167 168 169 170 172 173 175 176

37. Trade costs on the one hand increase the domestic price of goods and on the other hand restrict the capability of businesses to export abroad. In this regard, Africa remains the region in the world where it is most difcult to conduct trade. 38. Table A-5 in the Annex summarizes for nearly every African country by sub-category with regard to exports procedures. In terms of costs, these are the highest for inland transportation and handling operations, i.e., physically moving the goods, both for import and export, from port to factory and vice versa. With regard to export procedures, worst performing countries are all landlocked. In terms of number of days required to ll-in import/export procedures, documents preparation is on average the sub-category that needs more time to be carried out, and this despite the fact that the physical transportation of goods across African countries is already very difcult. AfT demand to address the software issues that are reected by these numbers is there, and the question is how best to match the supply with this demand. In other words, while it has been seen that infrastructure development is key, there are also challenges in relation to the software elements of trade that must be addressed at the same time.

Export Concentration Index

39. The World Banks World Trade Indicators database provides a large selection of indicators.The indicators are used to try to better understand, despite the trade constraints, the current trade performance of African countries with a regional perspective. Some of the indicators are the real growth rate in total trade, trade integration (openness), total trade share of world market and export concentration index.The export concentration index is what this paper would like to focus on, as it relates to the AfT category of building productive capacities. 40. This indicator reects the degree of export concentration of a country. Concentration of exports, or lack of diversication in exports, is one of the major problems of African economies that too often tend to link their economic development to the export of a few commodities, mainly to fuels and mining products. These few commodities usually provide biggest share of budget resources and foreign exchange revenues for most African governments. But they also exhibit high volatility as revenue and foreign exchange sources, because primary commodities are subject to the vagaries of the international prices. However, by diversifying exports the impact of negative cycles or the sharp decrease of international prices would have a lesser impact on the economy. The AfT support is expected to help address this challenge of lack
13

of diversication by helping African countries build productive capacities that would enable them exploit different segments of the production and supply value chains.
Figure 1 - Export Concentration: Trend by REC
Export Concentration Index
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2002 COMESA 2003 ECOWAS 2004 SADC 2005 CEMAC 2006 UMA

Source: World Bank (2008)

41. Figure 1 shows that for the period 2002-2006 none of the selected RECs has improved its export concentration index; in particular, CEMAC has worsened its index moving from 72.2 in 2005 to 74.3 in 2006. On the contrary, COMESA shows a light improvement passing from 47.7 in 2002 to 43.7 in 2006. The CEMAC region is the most export concentrated region in Africa with a 2002-2006 average of 72.7, along with ECOWAS, which has an average of 53.7. For the same reference period, SADC is the most diversied region with an average of 44.5 in its export concentration index. Table 18 shows the country level performance of the different RECs. The demand for this category of AfT resources if greatest in the CEMAC region, which has the worst export concentration index.

14

Table 18: Export Concentration Index

REC Country Burundi Comoros Djibouti Congo, Dem. Rep. Egypt, Arab Rep. Eritrea Ethiopia Kenya Libya Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Rwanda Seychelles Sudan Swaziland Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe COMESA average: Cameroon Central African Republic Chad Congo, Rep. Equatorial Guinea Gabon Sao Tome and Principe CEMAC average: Algeria Libya Morocco Mauritania Tunisia UMA average: 2002-2006 Ave 61.68 72.68 20.77 50.43 31.45 29.80 41.56 24.72 81.97 24.74 54.09 31.37 47.77 66.32 74.93 42.84 25.90 52.95 21.09 45.11 48.39 49.52 .. 79.40 90.50 78.87 89.86 72.76 57.18 81.97 16.48 74.05 19.02 49.74 REC Country Benin Burkina Faso Cape Verde Cote dIvoire Gambia, The Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Liberia Mali Niger Nigeria Senegal Sierra Leone Togo ECOWAS average: Angola Botswana Congo, Dem. Rep. Lesotho Madagascar Malawi Mauritius Mozambique Namibia South Africa Swaziland Tanzania Zambia Zimbabwe SADC average: Average for Africa: 2002-2006 Ave 60.18 62.94 43.63 36.48 38.14 44.50 59.08 68.02 .. 69.92 48.58 90.88 23.87 75.05 30.07 53.67 93.78 75.42 50.43 41.89 24.74 54.09 31.37 54.40 30.23 13.43 42.84 35.85 52.95 21.09 44.46 51.13

COMESA

UMA

CEMAC

Source: World Bank (2008)

Africa Competitiveness
42. The competitiveness index, ties together many of the AfT demand indicators discussed above. The Africa Competitiveness Report 2007 provides a good source of these AfT demand indicators. The Competitiveness index for 2007 of 29 African countries7 is shown in Table 19. The composition of the nal index is quite broad, based on nine pillars: institutions, infrastructure, macro-economy, health and primary education, higher education and training, market efciency, technological readiness, business sophistication and innovation. Countries that show an extremely low index of competitiveness could benet from AfT to improve their position, especially if the category with poor performance, say infrastructure for instance, is directly related to trade performance.

7 These countries are: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Kenya, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Africa

SADC

ECOWAS

15

Table 19: WEF Global Competitiveness Ranking 2007

Country Tunisia South Africa Mauritius Egypt Morocco Libya Algeria Botswana Namibia Kenya Nigeria Gambia Benin Tanzania Cameroon
Source: World Economic Forum (2007)

World Rank 29 46 58 65 72 73 76 83 88 97 102 104 107 108 111

Africa Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Country Madagascar Lesotho Uganda Zambia Mauritania Burkina Faso Malawi Zimbabwe Mali Ethiopia Mozambique Chad Burundi Angola

World Rank 113 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 126 127 128

Africa Rank 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

43. In the competitiveness index, the infrastructure pillar is a combined value of six sub-indexes: quality of overall supply, quality of railroad transport, quality of port transport, quality of air transport infrastructure, quality of supply of electricity and telephone lines. These sub-indexes range from 1 to 7, i.e., from underdeveloped to as developed as the worlds best, in the opinion of the executives that participated to the 2006 survey. From Table 20, it is interesting to note that railroad transport is perceived as the worst infrastructure in Africa, with extremely low scores at the country level. Yet, many acknowledge that rail transport is one of the most cost-effective means of conducting trade. AfT demand for transport corridors that incorporate rail transport therefore exist in all African countries as the scores shown in Table 20 indicates.

16

Table 20 Competitiveness 2007: Infrastructure pillar breakdown

Country Quality of Overall Infrastructure 3.1 1.9 2.2 4.0 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.5 3.8 2.2 3.0 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.6 1.7 4.5 3.7 2.3 4.8 2.6 4.6 2.9 4.7 2.8 1.9 2.9 2.8 Quality of Railroad Infrastructure 2.0 1.5 1.3 3.3 2.0 1.2 1.7 1.4 3.3 1.3 1.3 1.9 1.4 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.6 3.1 1.8 3.7 1.8 3.5 2.8 4.4 1.5 1.6 2.7 2.1 Quality of Port Infrastructure 3.1 2.5 2.5 2.7 1.8 1.9 2.2 1.4 3.5 1.4 3.9 3.2 1.9 2.3 2.3 1.7 1.4 2.4 4.8 3.8 2.6 5.0 2.8 4.4 3.4 4.8 1.9 1.9 3.0 2.8 Quality of Air Transport Infrastructure 3.5 3.3 2.6 3.8 2.9 2.4 2.2 2.1 4.7 4.5 3.9 5.0 2.2 2.9 3.2 2.8 2.7 2.5 5.3 4.5 3.5 4.9 3.5 5.8 3.7 5.0 3.3 4.6 2.6 3.6 Quality of Supply of Electricity 4.2 2.2 2.8 4.9 3.1 1.8 2.7 1.2 5.0 3.6 2.4 3.1 3.2 4.0 2.0 2.7 3.3 3.0 5.6 5.0 3.4 5.0 1.8 4.1 2.1 5.5 1.5 5.5 2.2 3.3

Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Chad Egypt Ethiopia Gambia Kenya Lesotho Libya Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Morocco Mozambique Namibia Nigeria South Africa Tanzania Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe 29 African Countries Average:

Source: World Economic Forum (2008)

44. The quality of air transportation seems to meet the demand of the executives operating in Africa and the related sub-index is on average the best performer among the considered ones. It comes with no surprises, however, that under quality of port infrastructure all the African landlocked countries rank in the bottom of the list. This is an important point that AfT funds should address as a matter of urgency. Landlocked countries in Africa are among the poorest in the world and infrastructure improvements are needed to raise the competitiveness of countries that have no blame in being far from the coast and the international shipping lanes. 45. The quality of supply of electricity is also a pertinent proxy, the inefcient supply of which affects the productive capacity of a country and its international competitiveness. As noted earlier, many countries are currently employing substantive share of their AfT funds to upgrade their electricity grid, nancing development projects under the electrical transmission/distribution or the hydroelectric power plants captured in the OECD purpose codes.

17

The reality of AfT in Africa Does supply match demand?

46. Analysis in the paper has so far shown that there is demand for AfT in Africa. The paper has also shown the AfT supply situation. In this section, the paper tries to provide answers to the main question put forth in its title: is potential demand for aid for trade in Africa matched by supply? Given the story provided by the AfT demand indicators and accounting for 33 LDCs and 15 landlocked countries, Africa portrays a huge potential demand for AfT funds. And if one was to exclude a few of the mineral-rich and commodity-exporting countries, such as Equatorial Guinea and Libya, that are currently sitting on huge government revenues, all other countries, although presenting different needs, would immensely benet from the AfT initiative. However, aid ows are scarce and to achieve higher returns and benets, it is important to investigate of a more efcient process of aid allocation and selection. Bearing in mind the common struggle for development that the majority of African countries are presently experiencing, in terms of aid effectiveness, it is important to shed light on quantitative and qualitative aspects of the AfT ows to enable monitoring actions to enhance the allocation effectiveness for the benet of the recipient countries. 47. The paper has dwelt largely on a number of selected indicators that being trade-related can be taken to assess countries trade performance and trade capacity. Now the objective of this part of the analysis is to use such indicators to match demand with supply. In general terms, with respect to trade performance, African countries potential users of AfT funds are those with extremely low or negative growth rates of exports, small or shrinking market shares, high export concentration and lack diversied exports. On the trade capacity side potential, consumers of AfT nance will show poor infrastructure levels, low levels of competitiveness, poor trade-related institutions and trade-related policy, poor customs and generally speaking also poor macroeconomic policies. It is reasonable to suppose that countries that show low average scores over such indicators have a higher potential demand for AfT funds.

18

Figure 2 Potential Demand for Aid for Trade (Average Scores)

Tunisia South Africa Morocco Libya Kenya Ghana Equatorial Guinea Mauritius Mozambique Egypt, Arab Rep. Tanzania Uganda Mauritania Sw aziland Angola Gambia, The Senegal Namibia Cape Verde Cote d'Ivoire Nigeria Guinea Madagascar Seychelles Congo, Rep. Zambia Togo Djibouti Lesotho Cameroon Gabon Sao Tome and Principe Botsw ana Sudan Congo, Dem. Rep. Algeria Liberia Benin Ethiopia Mali Malaw i Zimbabw e Burundi Burkina Faso Comoros Chad Eritrea Guinea-Bissau Rw anda Sierra Leone Niger Somalia Central African Republic 0 1 2 3 4 5

Source: Authors calculations based on World Bank (2008)

48. Since the most in need are those countries showing the worst scores across a selection of traderelated indicators, comprising of growth in real trade, export concentration, country policy and institutional assessment, based on some previous work by some researchers at the World Bank, this paper created quintile rankings for each one of the selected indicators and then calculated a nal rank with average scores of each African country. Quintile rankings were built allocating the 20% best performing countries in quintile 1, the second best 20% in quintile 2 and so on. As a result the worst 20% performing countries formed quintile 5. All indicators carry equal weight. As Figure 3 clearly shows, countries that according to the selection of indicators need the most AfT funds are those with highest average scores across the eleven quintile ranks reecting the eleven different indicators.

19

Figure 3 Potential Demand and AfT per capita in 2006

1. Algeria 4. Botswana 7. Cameroon 10. Chad 13. Rep Congo 16. Egypt 19. Ethiopia 22. Ghana 25. Kenya 28. Libya 31. Mali 34. Morocco 37. Niger 40. ST& Principe 43. Sierr Leone 46. Sudan 49. Togo 52. Zambia 2. Angola 5. Burk Faso 8. Cape Verde 11. Comoros 14. Ivory Coast 17. E Guinea 20. Gabon 23. Guinea 26. Lesotho 29. Madagas 32. Mauritan 35. Mozambi 38. Nigeria 41. Senegal 44. Somalia 47. Swaziland 50. Tunisia 53. Zimbabwe 3. Benin 6. Burundi 9. CAR 12. Dem Rep Congo 15. Djibouti 18. Eritrea 21. Gambia 24. Guinea Bissau 27. Liberia 30. Malawi 33. Mauritius 36. Namibia 39. Rwanda 42. Seychelles 45. South Africa 48. Tanzania 51. Uganda

Source: Authors calculations on World Bank (2008) and OECD (2008)

49. The following countries form the worst performing quintile: Central African Republic, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Niger, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Rwanda, Chad, Comoros, Zimbabwe and Burundi. Excluding Zimbabwe, these are all LDCs and six out eleven countries are in the landlocked group. Also in terms of GDP per capita results are in line with expectations. According to the World Bank, in 2007, with the exclusion of Zimbabwe, all of the above countries had below US$ 300 per capita, with Burundi, Guinea-Bissau, Niger and Eritrea not reaching US$ 200 per capita. In the second worst quintile there is Burkina Faso, Mali, Malawi, Ethiopia, Benin, Democratic Republic of Congo, Algeria, Liberia, Sudan, Botswana and Togo. Again results are in line with expectations. Besides Algeria and Botswana, both developing countries, the rest are LDCs, many of them being also landlocked countries. 50. To match potential demand with AfT supply in order to assess whether African countries with the highest AfT demands are actually those receiving the most AfT funds, the study looks at the AfT supply in per capita terms and also as a ratio of nominal GDP - with regard to 2006 values - and how it relates to the countries potential demand measure.The reasoning is that the higher the potential demand the higher should be the level of AfT funds received both in per capita terms and as a ratio on the countrys GDP. 51. Figure 3 shows the relation between a potential demand proxy and AfT supply in per capita terms, and the linear relationship among the two variables is identied by a very low negative correlation value of 0.0706, suggesting an extremely weak relation. In economic terms, it is the same as saying that there is no direct relation between supply and demand and that increasing level of potential demand for AfT does not translate in higher levels of AfT supply.

20

Figure 4 Potential Demand and AfT as a ratio of GDP in 2006

1. Algeria 4. Botswana 7. Cameroon 10. Chad 13. Rep Congo 16. Egypt 19. Ethiopia 22. Ghana 25. Kenya 28. Libya 31. Mali 34. Morocco 37. Niger 40. ST& Princi 43. Sierr Leone 46. Sudan 49. Togo 52. Zambia 2. Angola 5. Burk Faso 8. Cape Verde 11. Comoros 14. Ivory Coa 17. E Guinea 20. Gabon 23. Guinea 26. Lesotho 29. Madagas 32. Mauritan 35. Mozambi 38. Nigeria 41. Senegal 44. Somalia 47. Swaziland 50. Tunisia 53. Zimbabwe 3. Benin 6. Burundi 9. CAR 12. Dem Rep Congo 15. Djibouti 18. Eritrea 21. Gambia 24. Guinea Bissau 27. Liberia 30. Malawi 33. Mauritius 36. Namibia 39. Rwanda 42. Seychelles 45. South Africa 48. Tanzania 51. Uganda

Source: Authors calculations on World Bank (2008) and OECD (2008)

52. In terms of AfT supply expressed as a ratio on the countrys GDP, the AfT supply more or less correlates with the countries potential demand. A positive although not strong correlation was found meaning that country with larger GDP in Africa receive higher AfT funding. This is what you would expect. Among countries at the same level of development, larger economies need larger investments in infrastructure, policy reforms and productive capacity. According to the regression line in Figure 4 correlation is 0,37013 in 2006 a number of African countries received AfT funds below their potential demand. Of course, these are those countries below the red line, and among them are Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Niger, Gabon, Cameroon, Kenya and Ivory Coast. On the contrary, according to Figure 4, there are also a number of African countries that received more AfT funds than those suggested by their potential demand. Among these countries, Burundi, Tanzania, Central African Republic, Rwanda, Ghana, Benin, Liberia, Mozambique, Sao Tome and Principe and Madagascar. As noted earlier, some of these countries including Tanzania, Central African Republic and Mozambique have among the highest shares of AfT on total ODA in Africa. In per capita terms, Sao Tome and Principe is the largest recipient of AfT funds and in absolute term, Madagascar is among the largest recipient. 53. A statistical analysis carried out to empirically identify the determinants of AfT provided very useful information. In per capita terms, African countries receive higher AfT funds when public governance is sound and efcient. There is a high correlation between the World Banks Resource Allocation Index and the actual allocation of funds. As for other sectors for which ODA is a source of nance, non populist macroeconomic management, modern public institutions, sound business environment, strong legal framework, all help to enhance the effectiveness of aid ows. The study investigated in particular whether on average, as one would expect; poorer countries really attract higher AfT efforts. Firstly, as far as the results showed, landlocked African countries receive on average more funding for trade-related investments and there is no doubt that the African landlocked countries are also some of the poorest. 54. However, when interpreting the GDP per capita as a proxy of the level of development, conicting results were obtained. In an ideal world, countries with lower levels of GDP per capita should on average receive more AfT funding, but this seems not to be so.The level of economy openness also seemed to have an inuence on the supply of AfT. For the period 2002-2006, countries with lower ratios of volume of trade
21

on their GDP received more AfT per capita. This is in line with expectations, but it is important to note that the inuence of openness was found to be very small. On the contrary, although not very signicant, the analysis showed that countries with higher growth rates receive slightly more AfT funds. While this is surprising, an argument can be advanced that good performance in growth rates of trade volumes could be a result of higher AfT funds.

Issues for discussion

a. The roadmap for implementing the recommendations of the rst Global Aid for Trade review called upon countries and RECs to prepare AfT strategies and Action Plans. Potential donors say that they have made their intentions to increase AfT supply, but there are no AfT strategies and action plans with bankable projects from recipient countries. What problems are African countries and RECs facingespecially those that this paper shows to be most deservingin attracting AfT resources? The second global review on AfT takes place this year. What are the priorities issues that African countries and RECs see as critical that need to be addressed to ensure that they benet from the AfT implementation? What role do African countries and RECs see for African regional organisations, especially the AU, ECA and AfDB to help them address the problems that limit their ability to attract AfT resources to match their demand?

b.

c.

22

Annex
Table A-1 AfT in Africa: 2004-2006 by Recipient, (current US$ millions)
2006 Recipient Total AfT per Country 28979.58 200.61 29.99 371.42 1.91 276.85 155 436 39.55 173.45 2 10.17 145.63 16.75 19.63 1.74 701.42 0.02 5.3 662.2 72.26 16.18 668.65 44.95 19.2 293.39 17.82 51.57 2.35 226.1 196.23 173.1 125.88 38.72 0.17 433.46 569.96 103.55 111.83 178.88 304.46 7.87 230.61 3.54 % of AfT on Total ODA recevied 22.85 41.83 11.94 46.24 2.46 38.58 26.92 20.48 28.13 69.75 0.75 29.99 7.17 4.10 4.80 2.16 43.80 0.05 4.92 29.85 48.09 24.06 48.74 20.57 24.86 18.62 15.94 14.77 6.42 36.96 28.09 22.96 42.36 50.76 3.02 35.35 42.01 49.38 20.81 1.46 39.31 30.79 23.63 26.09 2005 Total AfT per Country 27345.14 132.54 11.24 199.52 3.17 538.84 58 70.83 233.08 37.72 167.07 8.05 225.89 101.28 9.6 33.68 397.89 0.28 11.1 657.21 3.76 62.44 507.11 21.87 9.37 360.82 2.85 2.25 7.37 417.9 310.53 302.25 94.71 6.82 1.6 237.76 672.06 25.65 320.92 240.24 222.98 2.03 246.42 3.22 % of AfT on Total ODA recevied 22.26 25.92 2.56 37.21 2.81 59.09 18.46 16.00 70.51 33.91 38.90 13.49 11.01 6.49 3.71 38.65 42.84 0.75 3.42 31.44 6.95 66.97 36.72 10.65 10.70 33.37 3.13 1.02 .. 31.64 31.03 32.99 38.35 15.99 41.99 28.38 46.78 24.50 50.87 3.75 41.95 10.40 27.09 32.96 Total AfT per Country 28534.23 35.74 5.47 216.06 1.7 263.65 199.94 27.36 23.7 10.37 56.63 7.25 240.19 45.65 7.45 12.07 561.74 0.31 55.78 921.76 41.88 0.47 475.14 89.66 9.57 700.99 28.5 0.48 0 331.74 166.74 285.22 115.41 0.87 33.78 293.45 627.36 38.99 79.52 216.79 121.35 13.46 305.15 2.64 2004 % of AfT on Total ODA recevied 29.04 9.61 0.51 36.66 4.20 45.11 38.48 2.93 20.56 13.68 19.56 18.69 11.72 23.52 2.45 19.06 41.84 1.03 21.62 41.92 34.31 0.97 19.04 33.11 16.68 49.23 33.17 0.18 .. 28.26 37.93 40.10 35.66 2.43 15.81 25.23 53.39 17.93 17.92 16.12 28.29 30.13 27.32 34.69

World Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Rep. Chad Comoros Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Rep. Cote dIvoire Djibouti Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia Libya Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Morocco Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda Sao Tome & Principe Senegal Seychelles
*

23

2006 Recipient Total AfT per Country 43.05 8.83 116.14 118.03 7.58 1753.55 6 220.36 268.78 351.94 4.77 61.84 458.8 % of AfT on Total ODA recevied 16.86 2.06 13.28 5.73 18.11 65.85 10.37 46.31 21.96 22.03 1.40 25.06 26.07

2005 Total AfT per Country 190.45 2.74 253.65 8.15 11.55 903.78 1.81 156.26 373.4 336.18 6.56 51.39 259.78 % of AfT on Total ODA recevied 48.57 1.46 27.11 0.30 17.62 49.45 2.81 32.77 26.56 16.88 3.01 32.58 20.56 Total AfT per Country 114.88 0.92 29.22 31.78 1.69 708.76 2.47 101.42 796.49 272.43 3.77 44.05 257.98

2004 % of AfT on Total ODA recevied 29.65 0.53 4.78 2.71 11.30 34.88 4.32 20.10 54.39 26.62 2.35 30.40 20.99

Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe North of Sahara, regional South of Sahara, regional

Source: Authors calculations based on OECD (2008) * Countries in italic are below the African average of share of AfT on ODA received

Table A-2 AfT growth rates 02-06 (%)

Recipient Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Rep. Chad Comoros Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Rep. Cote dIvoire Djibouti Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia 2003 (%) -23.82 -44.30 174.61 -85.29 79.88 -84.20 18.12 -35.08 196.35 15.91 -48.19 -73.54 -86.75 -98.75 -39.05 -17.59 7.61 169.69 12.69 -53.72 -89.67 266.82 -26.63 -94.53 923.98 90.84 283.33 2004 (%) -44.61 -64.32 14.72 -63.60 -41.35 1952.77 -75.52 -12.58 -85.16 -55.46 743.02 70.83 8200.00 28.01 -20.85 25.70 -68.69 -6.71 79.47 63.53 -75.52 -24.68 102.90 181.47 197.38 53.64 108.70 2005 (%) 270.84 105.48 -7.66 86.47 104.38 -70.99 158.88 883.46 263.74 195.02 11.03 -5.95 121.86 28.86 179.04 -29.17 -9.68 -80.10 -28.70 -91.02 13185.11 6.73 -75.61 -2.09 -48.53 -90.00 368.75 2006 (%) 51.36 166.81 86.16 -39.75 -48.62 167.24 515.56 -83.03 359.84 -98.80 26.34 -35.53 -83.46 104.48 -94.83 76.28 -92.86 -52.25 0.76 -74.09 31.86 105.53 104.91 -18.69 525.26 Recipient Libya Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Morocco Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda Sao Tome & Principe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa Swaziland Tanzania Togo Tunisia Uganda Zambia 2003 (%) .. 109.25 24.11 74.51 47.23 1764.93 -4.23 60.90 -13.53 -29.54 103.65 -52.53 75.55 -48.00 158.54 16.41 3381.86 11.36 -34.33 -64.17 -17.33 35.90 194.63 -85.55 -16.31 198.13 128.66 2004 (%) .. -19.32 220.72 5.81 9.37 -99.48 176.43 -1.00 66.02 151.06 -68.65 214.51 -54.11 370.63 44.94 16.30 -21.26 -79.14 -42.36 797.74 -90.40 18.73 -79.55 76.81 149.24 -5.27 -74.32 2005 (%) .. 25.97 86.24 5.97 -17.94 683.91 -95.26 -18.98 7.13 -34.21 303.57 10.82 83.75 -84.92 -19.25 21.97 65.78 197.83 768.07 -74.35 583.43 27.52 -26.72 54.07 -53.12 23.40 74.01 2006 (%) -68.11 -45.90 -36.81 -42.73 32.91 467.74 -89.38 82.31 -15.19 303.70 -65.15 -25.54 36.54 287.68 -6.42 9.94 -77.40 222.26 -54.21 1348.22 -34.37 94.02 231.49 41.02 -28.02 4.69 -27.29

1821.81 Sudan

2192.00 Zimbabwe

Source: Authors calculation on OECD (2008)

24

Table A-3 AfT per Capita (current US$)

Recipient Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Rep. Chad Comoros Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Rep. Cote dIvoire Djibouti Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia 2006 6.02 1.81 42.40 1.03 19.28 18.96 23.99 76.27 40.67 0.19 16.57 2.40 4.54 1.04 2.13 9.46 0.04 1.13 8.58 55.13 9.73 29.06 4.90 11.67 8.03 8.93 14.41 2005 4.03 0.70 23.50 1.73 38.67 7.38 3.98 459.90 9.00 16.47 13.41 3.85 28.06 0.52 41.88 5.46 0.58 2.45 8.74 2.91 38.61 22.50 2.43 5.87 10.14 1.44 0.65 2004 1.10 0.35 26.27 0.94 19.52 26.43 1.57 47.86 2.51 5.77 12.33 4.22 12.93 0.41 15.27 7.85 0.66 12.81 12.59 32.97 0.30 21.54 10.15 6.18 20.22 14.50 0.14 2003 2.02 1.01 23.65 2.60 34.36 1.34 6.57 56.05 17.21 13.43 1.49 2.55 0.16 0.32 19.63 6.36 2.14 14.32 7.19 20.50 1.26 29.24 5.10 2.26 6.98 9.51 0.07 2002 Recipient 2.70 1.87 8.90 Libya Madagascar Malawi 2006 0.39 11.80 14.46 14.46 41.36 30.89 0.91 14.21 27.18 50.60 8.14 1.24 32.17 50.73 19.10 41.84 7.50 1.05 2.45 3.13 6.66 44.44 0.94 21.76 8.99 30.09 0.36 2005 1.25 22.42 23.48 26.03 31.96 5.49 8.89 7.89 32.73 12.70 24.19 1.70 24.15 13.30 20.94 38.84 34.09 0.33 5.41 0.22 10.21 23.49 0.29 15.58 12.90 29.29 0.50 2004 .. 18.29 12.93 25.32 40.04 0.71 196.40 9.83 31.25 19.56 6.21 1.57 13.41 89.66 26.60 32.00 21.31 0.12 0.63 0.88 1.51 18.90 0.41 10.21 28.42 24.17 0.29 2003 .. 23.31 4.13 24.66 37.67 137.41 73.61 10.04 19.27 7.89 20.51 0.51 29.67 19.38 18.83 27.42 28.26 0.57 1.11 0.10 15.92 16.33 2.05 5.83 11.78 25.98 1.13 2002 .. 11.46 3.42 14.56 26.34 7.45 .. 6.31 22.84 11.35 10.43 1.11 17.19 37.90 7.48 23.30 0.85 0.53 1.71 0.28 19.56 12.33 0.71 40.57 14.53 8.87 0.50

17.88 Mali 19.73 Mauritania 8.74 5.69 5.90 2.95 9.93 1.23 Mauritius Mayotte Mozambique Niger Nigeria Rwanda

88.40 Morocco 12.03 Namibia

26.27 Sao Tome & Principe 32.80 Senegal 7.86 2.04 5.54 6.55 Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa

45.08 Sudan 12.58 Swaziland 8.15 7.07 0.70 5.03 0.02 Tanzania Togo Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe

42.67 Tunisia

Source: Authors calculations on WB (2008) and OECD (2008)

25

Table A-4 AfT by WTO categories, 2006 (US$ millions)

Recepient Total AfT received Economic Infrastructure* Building Productive Capacities (Inlcuding Trade Development) Value % on total AfT 3.93 5.49 13.39 4.71 14.86 15.17 20.85 19.93 19.55 31.50 7.84 49.84 11.88 3.85 43.80 33.24 63.38 53.55 50.74 25.42 16.36 75.25 31.70 75.92 19.59 33.26 18.80 10.45 73.79 81.19 71.72 53.73 80.46 81.85 10.80 86.34 20.44 38.17 25.09 82.96 94.00 40.44 8.00 97.18 45.34 90.93 98.69 99.21 Trade Policy and Regulations Trade-related adjustment

Value

Lesotho Liberia Morocco Algeria Namibia Gabon Ethiopia Sudan Mauritania Guinea Cape Verde Guinea-Bissau Cameroon Central African Rep. Senegal Tunisia Congo, Dem. Rep. Angola Comoros Mozambique Niger Kenya Madagascar Botswana Burundi Malawi Uganda Benin Zimbabwe Sao Tome & Principe Egypt Zambia Djibouti South Africa Rwanda Gambia Ghana Togo Sierra Leone Nigeria Somalia Mali Tanzania Seychelles Burkina Faso Cote dIvoire Congo, Rep. Swaziland

17.82 51.57 433.46 200.61 103.55 72.26 662.2 118.03 125.88 44.95 39.55 19.2 436 173.45 230.61 220.36 145.63 29.99 10.17 569.96 111.83 293.39 226.1 1.91 155 196.23 268.78 371.42 4.77 7.87 701.42 351.94 1.74 116.14 304.46 16.18 668.65 6 43.05 178.88 8.83 173.1 1753.55 3.54 276.85 19.63 16.75 7.58

16.66 47.43 375.08 171.02 88 61.25 508.49 89.61 95.01 30.12 20.25 8.99 201.37 74.68 90.9 76.54 48.89 10.04 3.07 167.83 32.87 70.85 54.22 0.4 31.32 39.36 52.46 70.56 0.9 1.48 127.29 60.35 0.29 18.96 47.88 2.12 67 0.57 3.33 13.49 0.53 8.6 70.11 0.1 5.93 0.37 0.19 0.06

% on total AfT 93.49 91.97 86.53 85.25 84.98 84.76 76.79 75.92 75.48 67.01 51.20 46.82 46.19 43.06 39.42 34.73 33.57 33.48 30.19 29.45 29.39 24.15 23.98 20.94 20.21 20.06 19.52 19.00 18.87 18.81 18.15 17.15 16.67 16.33 15.73 13.10 10.02 9.50 7.74 7.54 6.00 4.97 4.00 2.82 2.14 1.88 1.13 0.79

Value

% on total AfT 2.58 0.10 0.08 10.04 0.15 0.07 0.97 0.04 0.04 1.49 0.28 0.00 0.03 0.03 3.61 0.06 0.14 12.74 0.49 0.66 0.00 0.60 0.08 3.14 0.03 1.47 0.26 45.42 1.89 0.00 10.10 0.58 2.87 1.83 0.02 0.31 0.47 0.00 0.95 9.50 0.00 0.55 0.14 0.00 0.02 0.31 0.18 0.00

Value

% on total AfT 0.00 2.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 4.11 4.93 0.00 40.68 3.33 41.91 53.06 13.17 31.97 2.91 0.23 18.58 44.47 54.25 0.00 44.25 0.00 60.17 45.21 61.41 25.14 5.45 0.00 0.03 28.54 0.00 0.00 73.45 0.25 69.07 52.33 66.23 0.00 0.00 54.04 87.86 0.00 52.50 6.88 0.00 0.00

0.7 2.83 58.05 9.45 15.39 10.96 138.04 23.52 24.61 14.16 3.1 9.57 51.78 6.68 101 73.24 92.3 16.06 5.16 144.91 18.29 220.78 71.67 1.45 30.37 65.27 50.54 38.8 3.52 6.39 503.08 189.1 1.4 95.06 32.89 13.97 136.66 2.29 10.8 148.4 8.3 70 140.37 3.44 125.53 17.85 16.53 7.52

0.46 0.05 0.33 20.14 0.16 0.05 6.42 0.05 0.05 0.67 0.11 0 0.13 0.05 8.33 0.14 0.2 3.82 0.05 3.74 0 1.76 0.17 0.06 0.05 2.89 0.71 168.7 0.09 0 70.84 2.05 0.05 2.12 0.07 0.05 3.14 0 0.41 16.99 0 0.95 2.48 0 0.05 0.06 0.03 0

0 1.26 0 0 0 0 9.25 4.85 6.21 0 16.09 0.64 182.72 92.04 30.38 70.44 4.24 0.07 1.89 253.48 60.67 0 100.04 0 93.26 88.71 165.07 93.36 0.26 0 0.21 100.44 0 0 223.62 0.04 461.85 3.14 28.51 0 0 93.55 1540.59 0 145.34 1.35 0 0

26

Recepient

Total AfT received

Economic Infrastructure*

Building Productive Capacities (Inlcuding Trade Development) Value % on total AfT 97.00 99.48 98.30 100.00 100.00 100.00

Trade Policy and Regulations

Trade-related adjustment

Value

Chad Mauritius Eritrea Equatorial Guinea Libya Mayotte

2 38.72 5.3 0.02 2.35 0.17

0.01 0.19 0.02 0 0 0

% on total AfT 0.50 0.49 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00

Value

% on total AfT 2.50 0.03 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.00

Value

% on total AfT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.94 38.52 5.21 0.02 2.35 0.17

0.05 0.01 0.07 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: Authors calculation on OECD (2008) * Ranked by % of Economic Infrastructure 2006

27

Table A-5 Nature of Exports Procedures

Countries Documents Preparation Days* Cost** 8 450 25 550 17 110 13 210 30 57 14 160 15 100 6 501 41 800 18 263 32 870 32 813 15 234 11 450 9 85 14 295 34 300 18 550 10 645 9 342 10 105 22 20 12 387 13 600 28 240 9 350 14 200 27 323 17 345 17 182 12 375 6 150 16 285 16 171 36 665 14 283 17 500 22 160 5 5 17 15 21 7 14 17 11 9 36 28 300 77 352 272 750 330 520 294 163 180 216 250 Customs clearence and Ports and terminal hantechnical control dling Days Cost Days Cost 4 100 2 310 8 800 24 400 5 225 6 582 3 50 4 248 3 225 3 650 4 85 4 302 5 246 3 407 2 23 8 483 3 200 3 367 5 16 4 543 5 300 5 337 8 400 4 427 3 81 3 889 2 170 4 300 1 182 2 170 10 97 2 660 6 400 8 481 10 337 7 500 5 500 4 500 3 55 10 139 4 20 3 423 4 150 5 300 2 556 8 370 6 180 6 375 4 125 4 284 6 355 2 127 3 303 3 276 4 150 4 198 4 300 7 550 6 300 9 586 1 150 2 100 2 100 2 350 2 250 4 365 6 285 3 430 3 429 7 582 3 300 4 416 2 100 6 375 2 130 2 200 2 4 6 4 3 4 4 1 2 6 3 4 300 785 550 75 250 84 240 189 100 35 100 180 5 7 2 9 6 4 4 4 2 6 5 4 198 479 258 284 300 284 302 200 230 375 248 248 Inland transportation and handling Days Cost 3 388 11 500 4 320 11 2000 9 1200 25 1600 4 242 3 113 31 4000 3 251 4 1100 6 850 2 700 2 138 2 300 4 359 2 250 11 700 1 300 2 145 2 455 2 250 3 232 4 900 8 900 3 400 3 500 10 1000 10 817 3 452 2 100 4 100 4 300 4 800 13 1869 4 180 17 2300 1 200 2 1 4 2 5 6 2 2 2 18 9 17 280 498 290 814 750 1486 200 257 240 2500 2100 2000

Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Chad Comoros Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Rep. Cote dIvoire Djibouti Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Morocco Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda Sao Tome & Principe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone South Africa Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe

Source: World Bank (2008) Note: * number of days; ** US$

28