I. Introduction

1. In accordance with the Aid for Trade (AFT) Task Force’s Recommendations [note 1], the WTO established an AFT monitoring and evaluation mechanism on three levels:

1. Global monitoring. To assess additionality and transparency on pledges and disbursements using data compiled by the OECD-Development Assistance Committee (DAC).
2. Donor level. To be based on self-evaluations that identify areas for improvement and that increase the transparency of commitments.
3. Country and regionalself-assessments. These are meant to provide the on-the-ground perspective regarding needs, provision of resources and AFT effectiveness.

2. The self-assessments of the prospective recipients are particularly important because they provide the starting point of AFT, of which key elements are the needs and the perspective in the field. Regretfully, it is at the national and regional level that the monitoring and evaluation process seems to have stalled. Indeed, in June 2007, two different self-assessment questionnaires were sent out by the OECD: one to donor countries and multilateral agencies and another to partner (hereafter “recipient”) countries. The purpose was to collect the necessary quantitative and qualitative information regarding AFT needs and flows. The response rate was high for the donor countries and multilateral agencies. However, only eight[note 2]prospective recipient countries provided inputs to the process.

3. The 2008 AFT Roadmap[note 3] indicates that the AFT questionnaire should be made simpler (especially for recipient countries), more user friendly, and more relevant to national planning.

4. This note is issued on the occasion of a workshop on 7 April 2008 organised by AITIC in collaboration with the OECD to discuss the AFT Questionnaire. It aims to zero in on the relevant issues that will be discussed at the workshop whose objective is to assist in meeting the goals of the 2008 AFT Roadmap by an increased national and regional self-assessment response rate. This note does not provide any answers. Rather, it poses a number of questions (perhaps too many!) that need to be resolved to enable all stakeholders in the AFT process to advance on a sounder basis. The note speculates on whether it would be convenient and/or expedient to have more focussed questionnaires for each group of stakeholders: donors, agencies (both multilateral and regional), prospective recipients (least-developed countries and developing countries) and the private sector? One caveat: this note does not focus on the private sector as the workshop is organised for only one group of stakeholders: the prospective recipients. Although some questions in this note inevitably involve regional agencies as the regional dimension is part and parcel of the design of the strategies of the prospective recipients of the AFT initiative.

II. Review of the Questionnaire

5. A number of questions arise in light of the questionnaire’s low response rate. The following elements could serve as a basis for the discussions at the AITIC/OECD workshop:

A. Why did the questionnaire meet with such weak response from those who stand to benefit from AFT?

6. One of the questionnaire’s aims is to create incentives, through enhanced transparency, scrutiny and dialogue, to provide more and better AFT. Least-developed countries (LDCs) and other developing countries stand to benefit from the AFT initiative. However, only a handful of these prospective recipients replied to the questionnaire. What are the possible reasons for this low response rate, and what can be done to improve it?

1. What are the concrete objectives expected to be achieved through the questionnaire?
2. Is the aim of the questionnaire clear to all respondents?
3. Is the terminology in the questionnaire understood in the same way by all concerned, i.e. those posing the questions as well as those supposed to reply to them? For instance: is the concept of AFT similarly understood by donors and recipients?
4. Should the terms used be defined beforehand?
5. Who should the questionnaire be sent to (e.g. Geneva Mission, Ministry of Trade, other Ministries, AFT focal point, if any)?
6. Was the questionnaire too complicated to reply to?
7. Was the cost, in terms of time and resources, too high to warrant a response?
8. Should the respondents be asked to indicate the time spent replying to the questionnaire?
9. Is assistance to recipients for replying to the questionnaire needed?
10. Would a questionnaire contact point at the WTO/OECD, giving respondents the possibility to raise questions and obtain complementary information, be useful?

B. Should LDCs and other prospective recipients be sent different questionnaires?

7. LDCs already have the Integrated Framework (IF) for channelling trade-related assistance. The IF gives LDCs the opportunity to identify all their trade-related needs in a single list, and to submit an inventory of priority activities requiring external funding to donors. The IF provides a platform to receive assistance, which can also be used by donors and recipients alike to channel AFT. Such a standardised platform has not been set up for other developing countries.

1. Should two different questionnaires be sent (taking into account that one size does not fit all) one for LDCs and another for non-LDCs to provide more focused replies, taking into account their different characteristics/circumstances?
2. Should the questionnaire sent to LDCs seek to establish a link between the IF and AFT?
3. Regarding non-LDCs, would certain groups of developing countries need assistance in replying to the questionnaire (e.g. establishing an AFT coordinating structure similar to that of the IF)?

C. Are there any additional issues to be addressed in such a questionnaire?

8. The questionnaire raises a number of important issues. It requests quantitative information on issues central to the AFT process. It may be that respondents do not have this information, which could explain the low rate of replies. In addition, are there any other more practical questions that should be raised in the questionnaire and that would be more useful and easier to answer? Below are a few examples:

1. Who, if any, is the national AFT focal point? For LDCs, is it feasible that the AFT focal point is the same as the IF focal point?
2. Would recipient countries require assistance in evaluating their AFT needs and/or to initiate the procedure of establishing an AFT committee/structure?
3. Has the regional aspect been sufficiently addressed in the questionnaires sent to individual recipients?
4. Should the regional dimension also be tackled through sending a specific questionnaire to the existing regional organisations?

D. Other considerations

9. The structure of the questionnaires for donors and recipients are similar. Could a differentiation or a review of the structure facilitate the response process? Are the questions formulated in a way that is comprehensible for all respondents?

1. Could a questionnaire structure that follows a chronological order of the AFT strategy preparation, from the establishment of an AFT committee to the evaluation of projects, facilitate responding to the questionnaire as well as assisting in national planning?
2. Would a multiple-choice questionnaire be more convenient?
3. Would an introduction highlighting the aim of the questionnaire (explaining the principles of the Paris Declaration, sketching the expected outcomes of the questionnaire) set the focus of the exercise?
4. Could more focused and reader-friendly questions that provide hints on the range of information that is expected in the answer, possibly using examples, facilitate the response process?
5. Could the language used be made more straightforward?
6. What is the right balance between technical terms and reader-friendly language?
7. Would simple definitions ensure that the scope of the question is clear? As an example “trade development strategy” could be seen as either a specific category under AFT as defined by the Task Force recommendations – thus limiting the scope of the reply – or as the overall AFT strategy, which would open for a broader reply.
8. The terminology could be standardised. As an example, in the questionnaire the donor countries and organisations are referred to as “external partners” and “donors”, while recipient countries are referred to as “partner countries” and “developing countries”.

III. Conclusion

10. The questions raised above could be used as a basis for further discussions among prospective AFT recipients, donors and multilateral agencies. It would be important to refine the questions by first determining what is the information sought. A starting point could be what are the needs and are the national conditions appropriate for launching AFT projects? The ideal would be to contribute to finalising a multi-purpose monitoring tool that is user-friendly and that facilitates the compilation of vital information on national and regional needs and conditions, while at the same time laying down the institutional mechanisms for permanent monitoring and assessment of the AFT process.

Note 1: See Recommendations of the Task Force on Aid for Trade, WT/AFT/1, 27 July 2006. (return to text)

Note 2: Cambodia, Colombia, Malawi, Mauritius, Panama, Peru, the Philippines, and Uruguay. (return to text)

Note 3: See http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/a4t_e/a4t_roadmap_feb08_e.doc. (return to text)