The name is absent

compliance higher border rejections. Unfortunately, since very few data is available it is
not possible to analyze country specific data over a certain timeframe.

Following, Table 7 depicts the investment of the STDF in different countries. The table
considers, both, the fruit/ vegetable and the meat cluster. It separates the countries in
"loser in both commodity groups", "winner in both commodity groups", "winner in one
commodity group ", and "loses in the fruit/ vegetable sector; not included in the meat
sector". Again, emphasis is put on both, the differences between groups, but also
homogeneity within groups.

Table 7 depicts a very heterogeneous picture of STDF investments between as well as
within the groups. Consequently, no clear order of investment can be found. The table
depicts, that those countries which were winners in the fruit/ vegetable market, but not
included in the analysis of the meat market have with investments of $ 257 million in
average the highest total amount of investment. Nevertheless, the picture within the
group is extremely divers. The high total amount of investment of this group is very
much determined by the high investments in single countries. Kenya e.g. received a total
amount of more than $ 3 billion and thus is an exceptional case for the total group of
developing countries. Within the group it is followed by Nigeria and Zambia which
received investments of around $ 300 million. In the same group e.g. Ghana and Malawi
receive amounts between $ 20 and 30 thousand and Madagascar or Trinidad and Tobago
hardly receive any investments.

The group which ranks second on the level of STDF investments is, with an average
amount of $ 137 million the group of countries which are losers in both sectors. Again,
this value is strongly influenced by single countries, especially Iran (that received about
$ 650 million) and Mauritius (316) while Venezuela, Panama, Bahrain, and Mauritius
received less than $ 25 thousand.

Third rank winners in both sectors. Within the group the structure is again very divers.
While Morocco and China received investments of around $ 270 million, other countries,
e.g. like Brazil or Chile of Côte d'Ivoire received only around $ 20 thousand. Similar
situations are found for the three other groups.

Coming back to the question from the beginning of the section, it can be summarized,
that neither in terms of export performance nor in terms of export quantity it seems to
exist a specific order of STDF investments. Rather, averages are dominated by extremely
high investments in few countries, with no clear pattern of losers (Iran) of winners (e.g.
Kenya), small (Nepal) or large (China, Morocco) exporters is prevailing.

Overall, it must be noted that none of the questions of the beginning of the section was
answered positively. The two indicators chosen do not provide a clear picture of a
countries export performance within a trading environment which is largely determined
by grades and standards. For border rejections it is rather the case that well performing
countries with a large export orientation show particularly high rejections even though
one might think that these countries are already very well adapted to the international
food safety requirements. Nevertheless, the total amount of rejections gives an idea of
how important rejections are for some countries and that large amounts of trade losses
occur because of border rejection. The STDF investment underlines this finding, since
the total investment of the STDF in individual countries is tremendously high, taking
into consideration, that e.g. Kenya received around $ 3 billion from the STDF while the
total GNI in 2004 was slightly more than $ 14 billion or that of Nepal with an GNI of
$ 6.5 billion and with STDF investments of nearly $ 400 million ^{[22, 19]}.

16

<<   <   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   >   >>