ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM (83) 535 
 
 
Vol. 1983/0204 
  
 
Disclaimer  
Conformém ent au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 
concernant l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique 
européenne et de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, 
p. 1), tel que modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) n° 1700/2003 du 22 septembre 2003 
(JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1), ce dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents 
classifiés présents dans ce dossier ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit 
règlem ent. 
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 
concerning the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Econom ic 
Communit y and the European Atom ic Energy Communit y (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as 
amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 (OJ L 243, 
27.9.2003, p. 1), t his file is open to the public. Where necessary, classified documents in this 
file have been declassified in conformity with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation.  
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom  1. 
Februa r 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen  
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Europäischen Atomgem einschaft (ABI. L 43 vom  15.2.1983,  
S. 1), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1700/2003 vom 22. Septem ber 2003  
(ABI. L 243 v om 27.9.2003, S. 1), ist diese Datei der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit  
erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in dieser Datei in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5  
der genannten Verordnung freigegeben.  
COMMISSION O F THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(83) 535 final.
Brussels, 13 September 1983·
SIXTH REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL
on the implementation of the programme of  
financial and technical assistance to non-  
associated developing countries (as of 31  
December 1982).
COM(83) 535 final.

CONTENTS
I GENERAL
a) Introduction
b) Programme objectives and procedures
II THE 1982 PROGRAMME
a) Guidelines
b) Allocation of funding
c) Programme commitments and structure
- principal recipients
- sectoral breakdown  
cofinancing
- other remarks
III PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION DURING 1982
a) General
b) Commitments
c) Disbursements
d) Administrative questions
- project preparation and control
- Framework agreements
IV CONCLUSIONS
ANNEXES :I List of projects included in the 1982 programme
II Allocations by recipient, 1976-82
III The Special Programme for Central America
IV Special provisions for outside expertise

I  GENERAL
I. a. ÎDÎI 2dyçti,on
The Regulation governing theCommunity1 2  3 s programme of financial and  
technical assistance to non-associated developing countries ^calls  
for the Commission to provide Parliament and Council, each year,  
with information on the administration of this programme. The  
present document represents the 6th such implementation report, and  
covers the implementation of alt the annual non-associates programmes  
from 1976 on, during the year ending 31 December 1982 2).
The report includes a comprehensive review of the 1982 programme,  
as well as detailed information on overall commitments and  
disbursements during the calendar year 1982, and comments on other  
significant developments during this period.
It has been suggested that the annual report should also go in some  
detail into the experience gained with particular projects. However,  
it would obviously be impossible to do more than scratch the surface  
of this question within the context of a regular annual report,  
given that already more than 200 separate projects have been financed  
under this programme.
Consequently, the present report is intended only to establish the  
key statistics of programme implementation, and to comment on any  
particularly important issues which may have arisen. For the future,  
though, it may be possible to annex to the report certain occasional  
assessment papers, covering the experience obtained in one  
particular country or with one particular type of project. This  
may provide a more convenient method of making this important  
information available.
I.  b.  Programme_obj_eçt i_ves_and_grocedures
As noted in previous reports, the financial and technical cooperation  
programme with non-associated developing countries began in 1976.
Its basic policy objectives were laid down in Council Regulation  
442/81 3)anc|  these are amplified in the general guidelines  
determined annually by the Council acting on a proposal from the  
Commission and after consulting the European Parliament. Briefly,  
these policy guidelines may be summarised as follows:
- the aid shall be directed to the poorest developing countries and the  
poorest groups in their populations, and shall be aimed essentially at  
developing the rural sector, with particular emphasis on improving  
food supplies;
./.
1) Council Regulation 442/81
2) The 5th report (COM (82) 500) covered the year ending December 1981, while  
the 4th report (COM (81) 691) provided a detailed overview of the first
5 years of the non-associates programme.
3) Although this Regulation was only formally adopted in February 1981, the  
basic policy guidelines set out there had in fact been strictly applied  
from the 1978 programme onwards.

-2-
- a subsidiary part of the funds shall be directed towards  
regional projects (in which case projects outside the rural  
sector may be considered), and a further proportion shall be  
set aside for exceptional measures, particularly post­
catastrophe reconstruction projects;
- the aid shall be in grant form, and may be used to cover  
both foreign and local costs; projects may be financed  
autonomously, or in cofinancement with Member States or  
international organisations;
- the allocation of funding shall help to maintain a Community  
presence in the major regions of the developing world.
The Regulation also' lays down the procedures by which projects  
are decided upon. Since the 1981 programme (when this procedure  
was first applied), the financing decisions for individual projects  
are taken by the Commission after having obtained the opinion of  
a financing committee comprising representatives of the Member  
States and chaired by the Commission.
This Committee meets several times a year, and projects can thus  
be processed in batches as and when they are ready. Five such  
meetings were held in 1982 (the first of which dealt with residual  
1981 projects), with three meetings in the first half of 1983.
II THE 1982 PROGRAMME
11.a. Prggramme_guide.Unes
The annual guidelines for the 1982 programme were formulated by  
the Commission in September 1981 D, and adopted by Council in  
January 1982. In addition to making a brief review of the  
experience gained in previous years, these guidelines reiterated  
the basic policy objectives set out in the Regulation, and  
amplified certain points of detail. In particular, it was  
indicated that:
- the geographical allocation of funds should be broadly similar
to the pattern followed in previous years, with 75% for Asia, 20%  
for Latin America, and 5% for Africa (compared to 73/20/7% under  
the 1981 guidelines). These percentages are calculated after  
deduction of the various general provisions (post-catastrophe,  
projects, international agricultural research, and expert assistance),  
which can not properly be split by continent;
- eligible countries would be the same as in previous years,  
with the possible addition of Bhutan, Colombia and (on an  
exceptional basis) Costa Rica. For regional actions, emphasis  
would continue to be given to ASEAN and the Andean Pact;
- sectorally, the major emphasis would continue to be with the  
rural sector;
- the reserve for post-catastrophe actions would be set at between  
5% and 7% of total funding (compared to 5%—10% in 1981), while
1) COM (81) 536./.

-3-
the special provisions for expertise and control would be set  
at 3% and 1% respectively (compared to 2% and 1% in the 1981  
guidelines).
In addition to these basic guidelines, however, certain special  
guidelines were established later in the year, in connection  
with the Special Action programme for Central America. These  
special guidelines were adopted by the Council in November 1982,  
following a proposal from the Commission in July 1982 ^ , and  
provided that projects to be financed under this heading would  
be essentially concerned with increasing agricultural production  
in the context of existing national programmes of agrarian reform.
II.  b.  A j .  J .  oça t ion_of _f unding
The total funding available for the 1982 programme amounted to  
258.94 M ECU, comprising:
- 15.94 MECU in credits remaining available under the 1981 budget
185.00 MECU initially provided under the 1982 budget
- 58.00 MECU in a supplementary budget approved in October 1982.
In line with the normal budgetary procedures for dissociated  
credits, the 1981 credits (15.94 MECU) had to be committed  
before the end of 1982, while the 1982 credits (185.00 plus
58.00 MECU) could be committed during 1982 or 1983.
Of the overall amount available, a total of 19.2 MECU was set  
aside for certain general provisions:
- 9.7 MECU for four post-catastrophe projects. This is equivalent  
to 5.2% of initial 1982 credits, at the lower end of the 5-7%  
bracket foreseen in the guidelines
5.5 MECU for international agricultural research activities, in  
the CGIAR framework^).This represents 3.0% of initial budget  
credits, compared to 3.7%, on average, over the period 1976-81
4.0 MECU in a special provision for external expert services.
This represents 2.2% of initial 1982 budget credits, compared  
to the 4% foreseen in the guidelines.
The only one of these provisions requiring special comment is the  
provision for expert assistance, since this has been presented in a  
slightly different fashion than in previous years. For simplicity,  
the two separate provisions made under this general heading in  
previous years have now been combined into one global provision,  
covering both expert assistance and small-scale studies. This global  
provision of 4.0 MECU has been split into an allocation of 2.5 MECU  
for shortterm expert services (for project preparation and control  
visits, and small studies and technical assistance actions), and  
an allocation of 1.5 MECU for medium-term expert services (covering
________________  ./.
1)
 COM (82) 481 and COM (82) 257
2) These research activities had previously been included within the geographical  
allocations, depending on the region in which a particular institute was  
located. However, given that their work is genuinely international in scope,  
and not purely regional, it has been felt more appropriate to classify
them as a general provision.

-4-
the installation of development specialists in key recipient  
countries, responsible to the Commission for supervising project  
implementation and providing general guidance to recipients). At  
the same time, the ceiling for studies on technical assistance actions  
to be financed under this provision has been raised from 300 000  
to 500 000 ECU, in line with the similar EDF provision (however,  
the average cost of such studies has been of the order of 50 000 ECU).
After deducting the 19.2 MECU set aside for these general provisions,  
a total of 239.74 MECU remained available for normal projects in  
the 3 geographical regions served by the programme. The initial  
allocation of these funds, following the geographical criteria laid  
down in the guidelines, is shown in Table 1 below.
T. 1  12§2_BI29I§!D!D£z J2§si_c_breakdown_of _f undi.ng
1981
Credits1982
Credits
(initial)1982
Credits
(supplementary)Tota 1
Genera 1 
Provi si ons- 19.2 - 19.2
Asia
Latin America  
Africa
Sub-Total-0.35
6.69
9.60124.35
33.16
8.2921.00 
35.60 
1.40145.00
75.45
19.29
15.94 165.80 58.00 239.74
TOTAL 15.94 185.00 58.00 258.94
Notes: - Residual 1981 credits were allocated so as to complete
the geographical allocation foreseen under the 1981  
programme
- Initial 1982 credits (185.00 MECU) were allocated  
according to the 75/20/5 split foreseen in the 1982  
guidelines, after deducting general provisions (post­
catastrophe, research, expertise)
- Of the supplementary 1982 credits (58.00 MECU), 30.00 MECU  
was allocated to Central America (Special Action), and  
the remainder according to the 75/20/5 split foreseen in  
the 1982 guidelines.
./.

-5-
In the Light of the basic geographical breakdown outlined above,  
individual projects were selected in accordance with the policy  
objectives set out in the Regulation and guidelines, the priorities  
expressed by recipients, and the state of preparedness of individual  
projects. Full account was also taken of the relative needs of  
the eligible recipients, and of the experience obtained in  
implementing projects in these countries in previous years.
Every effort was made to commit the full amount of funding available  
as early as possible. In practice, however, technical problems  
appearing during the appraisal of certain projects, coupled with  
the fact that a relatively large part of the available credits  
was confirmed only in October of 1982, meant that it was necessary  
to carry some 48.7 MECU forward to the 1983 programme D.
This carry-forward is considerably larger than in previous years  
(15.94 MECU in 1981, or 11.0 MECU in 1979), but will be entirely  
absorbed during the second half of 1983. Projects affected included  
actions in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, ASEAN, North Yemen, Peru  
and Nicaragua.
Overall, however, the total volume of funding committed under the  
1982 programme amounts to 210.204 MECU, distributed as in Table 2  
below.
1) This carry-forward from one programme to another is an essentially
artificial arrangement, arising from the need to report on the content  
and coverage of a particular programme some considerable time before the  
period available for committing funds under the relevant budget has in  
fact expired. All funds provided under the 1982 budget will be committed  
during the two-year period fixed in the Commission's financial regulations;  
either during 1982 or early 1983, for projects in the 1982 programme, or  
later in 1983, for projects in the 1983 programme.

-6-
T■2 1982_erogramme_çommitments_(MEÇy)
I Fundi no avai table 1981 credits
1982 credits (initial)
1982 credits  
(supplementary)15.940
185.000
58.000
258.940
II General Provisions Post catastrophe
International agricultural  
Research
Outside expertise9.700
5.500
4.000
19.200
III Normal projects Asia
Latin America  
Afri ca105.620
65.976
19.408
191.004
IV Totals Total committed  
Carried forward210.204
48.736
258.940
Note: The amount carried forward may be broken down into
39.380 MECU reserved for Asia, 9.474 MECU reserved for  
Latin America, and (as a very minor adjustment) -0.118 MECU  
for Africa. These amounts represent the difference  
between the original allocation for each region and the  
amount actually committed under the 1982 programme.
11.  c.  The_cont ent_of _t jie_1282_grogramme
As noted above, total commitments under the 1982 programme amounted  
to 210.204 MECU, covering a total of 33 separate projects or actions,  
and serving 21 different recipients (14 countries and 7 regional  
organisations).
Commitments by recipient are summarised in Table 3 below. A full  
list of individual projects and actions is given in Annex I, and a  
list of recipient allocations from 1976 to date in Annex II. More  
detailed comments on the Special Action programme for Central America  
are given in Annex III.

-7-
T.3 i282_£rogrammeÆ_çommitments_b^_ree igieni_(MEÇU)
India 46.000 Angola 8.750
Bangladesh 23.600 Mozambique 10.658
Bhutan 3.400
Nepal 3.700 Total AFRICA 19.408
Indonesi a 11.670
Thai land 17.220
ASEAN 0.0309.700 Post-
Total ASIA 105.620catastrophe
5.500 Research
Costa Rica 18.000
Dominican Republic 12.000
Haiti 6.600
Honduras 16.900
Nicaragua 9.800
Andean Pact 0.676
CIMMYT 2.000
Total LATIN 65.976
AMERICAExpertise
Total
General
Provisions4.000
19.200
Grand Total 210.204
P£iD£iE§i_£ê£iEÎ£DÏ§
As shown in the above table, the principal recipient under the 1982  
programme was India, with total funding of 46.0 MECU (not including  
the two post-catastrophe projects in that country), equivalent  
to 21.9% of total funding committed under the 1982 programme. Other  
major recipients were Bangladesh <23.6 MECU, or 11.2% of committed  
funding), Costa Rica (18.0 MECU or 8.6%), Thailand (17.22 MECU or  
8.2%), and Honduras (16.9 MECU, or 8.0%).
Together, these five largest recipients accounted for 58% of total  
committed funding (compared to a 55% sharefor the 5 largest recipients  
from 1976-81). The 10 largest recipients in 1982 (the above countries  
plus the Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Mozambique, Nicaragua and  
Haiti) accounted for 82% of total funding (compared to 75%, on  
average, from 1976-81).
Obviously, the relatively large share taken by several Central  
American countries in the 1982 programme is a reflection of the  
Special Action programme mounted this year, and is not otherwise  
a departure from normal funding patterns.
Four new recipients were in luded in the 1982 programme for the first  
time: Bhutan, South Yemen/* and Costa Rica, plus CIMMYT (Centro de  
Investigacion y Mejoramiento c · ·  Maio y Trigo, an international  
agricultural research institute based in Mexico City).
1) South Yemen was included only under the post-catastrophe reserve

-8-
SeveraL recipients figuring regularly in previous years were  
not included in 1982,, either because significant funding had  
been provided in 1981 (Burma, Philippines), or is foreseen for  
1983 (Sri Lanka, North Yemen), or because projects originally  
intended for financing in 1982 could not in fact be fully  
appraised in due time for inclusion in the programme (Pakistan,  
ASEAN). A further action which was not continued in 1982 was  
the technical assistance programme with ADB, where differences in  
procurement rules have made it necessary to seek another form  
of financing if this valuable activity is to be maintained.
As in previous years, the bulk of programme funding continued  
to be directed to the poorest developing countries ^ .  Those  
countries with per capita GNP of t 740 or less (1980 IBRD data)  
accounted for 75.3% of total funding (compared to an average  
of 76.8% for a slightly different group, from 1976-81).
Countries in the World Bank's low-income group (pc GNP of $ 410 
or less) accounted for only 44.7% of total funding (significantly  
less than the 63.0% average of 1976-81), but this reflects  
the temporary impact of the large Special Action projects in  
Central America.
Finally, the share of funding going to countries on the United  
Nations LLDC list rose slightly to 17.8% of total funding (compared  
to 15.0% on average 1976-81). This figure necessarily remains  
low in absolute terms, however, given the small size of the  
countries concerned (with the exception of Bangladesh, which has  
consistently been the second-largest recipient under the  
non-associates programme).
§ectoral_breakdown
The overall breakdown of 1982 commitments by sector is given in  
Table 4 below:
... /. 1
1) The list of countries having received assistance under the non-associates  
programme is as follows:
- in the UN LLDC list: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Haiti, Laos, the  
Maldives, Nepal, North Yemen, South Yemen
- in the IBRD "low-income" group :  the above countries (except the two  
Yemens) plus Burma, India, Mozambique, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Vietnam
- with pc GNP of 8 740 or less :  all those in the low-income group, plus  
Angola, Bolivia, Honduras, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Philippines, Thailand  
the two Yemens, and Zimbabwe
- with pc GNP above 8 740 :  Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador and Peru.

-9-
1976-81 1982
Total committed funding 517.560 210.204
(MECU)
Of which:
Agricultural production 68.3% 61.8%
Agricultural services 18.0 19.7
Uti lities 6.5 14.6
- Social Development 4.6 1.9
Industry 0.8 -
- Expertise and technical 1.8 1.9
assistance
100.0 100.0
As in previous years, the 1982 programme was almost entirely concentrated  
on the rural sector, and continued to give particular emphasis  
to food production. Agricultural production and services (taken  
together) accounted for 81.5% of total committed funding (compared  
to 86.3% in previous years). A further 14.6% was accounted for by  
the utilities sector, but of course the great bulk of this is also  
accounted for by rural-sector activities, in terms of village-level  
water supply and sanitation.
The most important sub-sectors were integrated rural development  
(31.5%), rural credit (14.5%), irrigation and drainage (13.5%), and  
water supplies and sanitation (12.8%). Obviously, the balance among  
the different sub-sectors may vary considerably from year to year,  
depending on the particular projects included in the programme.
Cofi_nancing
Cofinancing with Member States and other aid agencies continued  
to play an important part in the 1982 programme, with a total of  
12 cofinanced projects, accounting for 75.4 MECU in EEC funding  
(35.9% of total programme funding). Cofinancing partners included  
four Member States (5 projects, with total EEC funding of 36.9 
MECU), the CGIAR research institutes(4 projects, totalling 5.5  
MECU), the ADB (1 project, 3.0 MECU), and the IBRD (2 projects,
30.0 MECU) 1).
____________________  ./.
1)
 One of the 5 projects corinanced with a Member State (Bangladesh,
Deep Tubewells II) also included a substantial participation from  
IBRD and Australia), while the two projects cofinanced with IBRD (India,  
ARDC IV and Indonesia, Bank Indonesia TA) also included contributions  
from certain Member States.Sectoral breakdown T.41982 ramme

-10-
T_. 5__Cofinanc2n2_under_the_1_982_grogramme
Partnerno. of 
projectsFunding pattern (MECU)
EECOther Government Total
Member States
C-3IAR
ADB/IBRD
.5
4
336.90
5.50
33.00125.59
15.39
432.233.28
1273.3195.77
20.89
1743.5
TOTAL 1275.4573.18 1311.58 1960.16
The overall share of cofinancing in total programme commitments was  
slightly lower in 1982 than in previous years (35.9% as compared to an  
average of 50.3% from 1976-81) ^ .  However, this decline is not  
particularly significant, since it simply reflects the mix of projects  
coming forward in the pipeline at a particular time. A considerable  
and continuing effort has in fact been made to identify proper and  
effective opportunities for cofinancing (particularly with Member States)  
and the total figure would have been considerably higher if certain  
projects originally considered for cofinancing under the 1982 programme  
had not encountered technical difficulties at the appraisal stage, and  
were thus carried forward to the 1983 programme. There is also one  
project for which EEC financing under the 1982 programme has already  
been approved (Dominican Republic), for which cofinancing possiblities  
are under active consideration.
Further, it should be borne in mind that formal cofinancing is not  
always the most appropriate or practical method of ensuring proper  
donor coordination, and that formally autonomous projects may in fact  
have very close links with related activities funded by other donors.
A collaborative approach of this kind is no less important than formal  
cofinancing in augmenting and coordinating the flow of funding  
available to recipients, and can avoid some of the administrative  
problems frequently associated with formal cofinancing.
The pattern of cofinancing under the 1982 programme is also rather  
different from that of previous years, with Member-State cofinancing  
accounting for a higher proportion of the total, and only one  
relatively small project cofinanced with ADB. It is true that  
particular efforts have been made to strengthen our cooperation with  
Membei— State aid agencies in this respect, but it must be stressed  
that the sharp increase in the number of Membei— State
1) The 50.3% average share of cofinancing given here is slightly higher
than the figure shown in previous reports, following the re-classification
of certain projects already underway.

-11-
cofinanced projects, and the decline in cofinancing with ADB, is  
a purely transient phenomenon, linked with the state c  
preparedness of particular projects in the pipeline. ;he overall  
mix of Member-State and other cofinancing is likely to remain  
fairly stable in the long term even if it can vary considerably  
from year to year.
Finally, it might be noted that cofinanced projects naturally
tended to be larger than the average, and the share of EEC in
total project cost correspondingly lower. Even if one excludes the massive
ARDC project in India, cofinanced projects had an average total cost of
24 MECU, with EEC funding accounting for 18% of the total; for autonomous
projects, the corresponding figures were 7 MECU and 85%. However, the EEC's
share of total project costs was much larger for those projects
cofinanced solely with Member States (50%, with 20% provided
by the cofinancing partners), than it was for projects
cofinanced with ADB, IBRD or CGIAR (where EEC funds covered only 18%
of total project costs, and the other donors 61%).
Other_Remarks
Regional projects accounted for 11.406 MECU under the 1982  
programme, or 5.4% of total committed funding. Principal  
recipients were the CGIAR research institutes (4 projects,  
accounting for 5.5 MECU), and the Andean Pact (1 direct project,  
for 0.5 MECU, plus a 2.0 MECU research programme to be carried  
out by CIMMYT on their behalf). In addition, a project financed  
under the post-catastrophe heading covered the reconstruction of  
a bridge linking 2 Central American countries after this had  
been seriously damaged by floods.
No major projects were included for ASEAN in 1982, due to delays  
in the appraisal of certain proposed projects. As a result,  
the overall share of regional projects in total programme funding  
was rather lower than in previous years (5.4% as opposed to 12.0%  
between 1976 and 1981).
Post-catastrophe projects accounted for 9.7 MECU, with 2 projects  
in India, 1  in South Yemen, and one regional project serving  
Honduras and Nicaragua. Together, these projects accounted for  
4.6% of total programme funding, again rather lower than in the  
past (8.1%, on average, between 1978 and 1981). Obviously,  
however, the call for such funding varies considerably from year  
to year, and it is possible that the share of resources devoted  
to such actions may decline slightly as overall programme funding  
i  ncreases.
Studies and technical assistance accounted for 12.836 MECU, or  
6.1% of total programme resources. This is virtually identical  
to the 6.2% allocated to such actions, on average, between 1976 and  
1981. It should be noted though that this figure does not include  
all technical assistance actions, but only those mounted as separate  
projects. If the various technical assistance components subsumed

-12-
within normal projects were also included, the overall figure would  
obviously be significantly higher.
The average size of EEC grant made under the 1982 programme was  
6.2 MECU, slightly higher than the 5.7 MECU average in 1981.
Obviously, however, this average conceals a wide range of variation  
(from 0.5 MECU to 21.7 MECU under the 1982 programme). Also,  
the inclusion in 1982 of a number of relatively large integrated  
area development projects in Central America, under the Special  
Action programme, certainly helped to increase the overall average.
The total cost of 1982 projects (ie including contributions made  
by other donors and by the recipients as well as the EEC contribution)  
amounted to some 1950 MECU, though this figure is dominated by one  
particularly large project in India, which alone had a total cost  
of some 1670 MECU. If that project is excluded, it may be seen  
that EEC funding generally accounted for about 50% of the total  
cost of the various actions included in the programme.
11.  d.  Summa ry_st at i_s tîçs^_ 1.976-82
Commitments made or foreseen under the 1982 programme bring the  
total of funds committed under the non-associates programme since  
it began in 1976 to some 727 million ECU, covering 211  
separate actions, in 28 different recipient countries (plus 17  
recipient organisations).
The total population of these recipient countries is of the order  
of 1350 million; their average per capita income was 8 310  
(1980 IBRD data), with a range from 8 80 for Bhutan, to 8 1730  
for Costa Rica. The average per capita income of recipient countries  
in Asia was 8 290, in Africa 8 320 (excluding Zimbabwe), and in  
Latin America 8 900. I l l
Ill PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION
111. a. Commitments
As noted earlier, the Community's financial regulations permit  
the credits made available under a particular annual budget  
to be committed either in the year of that budget or the one  
year following D. The rate of commitment achieved under the  
various annual programmes from 1976 to date is shown in Table 5  
below.
1) This was not the case with the 1976 and 1977 programmes, when funds had
to be committed within the budget year.

-13-
T - 5 ÊI29£â5Q!Di_£2!D!I!ii!DÊDÎ§z_12Z6l82
YearBudget 
c redi ts 
(MECU)Commitment rates  
cumulative % of relevant budget
Cuiiim i  l i i i u i  11  s 
(all programmes)  
(MECU)Budget
Julyyear
DecFol lowing 
Julyyear
Dec
197620.0 20.000 100
7745.0 45.000 -100
7870.0 63.100 -9090100
79110.0 86.900 17381100
80138.5 133.900 87593100
81150.0 154.530 148089100
82243.0 132.784 142
Totals776.5 636.214
Note: For 1976 and 1977, commitments were made in Units of Account  
(UA), which differed slightly in composition and value from  
the European Unit of Account or European Currency Unit  
(EUA/ECU) used in subsequent years. For clarity of  
presentation, no adjustment has been made here, with all units  
being taken as equivalent. However, it may be that the  
figures given here can differ very slightly from the exchange-  
rate adjusted figures used for accounting purposes and  
appearing in budget reports.
As shown in the above table, total commitments during the year  
ending 31 December 1982 amounted to 132.784 MECU. This comprised  
14.13 MECU in completion of the 1981 programme (1981 budget credits),  
plus 118.654 MECU under the 1982 programme (of which 15.94 MECU in  
1981 budget credits outstanding, and 102.714 MECU in 1982 budget  
credits).
The balance of 140.286 MECU in 1982 budget credits remaining available  
has been or will be committed during 1983, partly for outstanding  
projects under the 1982 programme (91.550 MECU, committed  
during the first half of 1983), and partly for certain projects  
foreseen under the 1983 programme (48.736 MECU, for commitment  
during the second half of 1983).
It is apparent from the above figures that the overall rate of  
commitment under the non-associates programme declined significantly  
during 1982. Only some 42% of 1982 budget credits had in fact  
been committed by the end of the year, compared to 80% in 1981.  
Further, the absolute level of commitments recorded during 1982

-14-
(132.784 MECU) was rather Lower than that achieved in 1981  
(154.53), ana comparable to the Level of 1980 (133.9 MECU).
This decline in the rate of commitment during 1982, though  
certainty disappointing, can in fact be largely explained by  
the special circumstances prevailing during that year:
firstly, some 25% of 1982 budget credits (58 MECU) was only  
approved in October 1982. While a major effort was made to  
ensure that the bulk of this supplementary funding could be  
committed as quickly as possible (particularly for the  
Special Action projects in Central America), it was not in  
fact possible to absorb the whole of this substantial increase  
in commitment credits before the end of the year;
secondly, a major internal reorganisation of the Commission's  
services was implemented in the autumn of 1982, at the time  
when the majority of programme commitments would normally  
have been prepared. Unavoidably, this reorganisation had  
a temporary effect on the rate of commitment during this 
period.
Further, it must be stressed that the delay in commitments during  
1982 has already been very largely made up during the first half  
of 1983. Taking account of further commitments made under the 1982  
programme during the first half of 1983, a total of some 80% of  
1982 budget credits has in fact been committed by July of 1983  
(compared to 89% of 1981 budget credits committed by July 1982).
Despite this catching-up, however, and despite the special  
circumstances prevailing during 1982, it is apparent that the  
very rapid increase in non-associates credits in recent years  
(from 138.5 MECU in 1980, to 243.0 MECU in 1982) should have been  
accompanied by a realistic increase in the staffing resources  
available. This is an essential prerequisite for maintaining the very  
satisfactory commitment rates achieved in past years.
Il.b. Disbursements
Total disbursements under all the annual programmes from 1976  
to date are shown in Table 6 below.

-15-
T■6 l2£ii_ÎyQds_di.sbursedz_as_of_31_Deçember_1982_(MECU)
Programme FundsFundsdi sbursed Proportion
Committed1976777879808182Totaldi sbursed 
%
1976 20.0-6.13.34.31.31 .91.418.3 91 .5
7745.0 --5.06.912.06.93.234.0 75.6
7863.1 ---9.07.811.16.434.354.4
79105.9 ---0.218.927.118.264.460.8
80145.3--- -1.240.629.170.948.8
81138.26 - - - ---7.07.05.1
82118.654 1) ---- --1.71.71.4
TOTAL 636.214
-6.18.320.441.287.666.9230.5 36.2
1) Not including a further 91.55 MECU committed under the  
1982 programme during the first half of 1983.
During the year ending 31 December 1982, total disbursements under  
all past programmes amounted to 66.9MECU. This brought the  
total amount disbursed to date to 230.5 MECU, or 36.2% of the  
total amount committed.
Total disbursements during 1982 were thus rather lower than in  
the previous year (66.'9 MECU, as compared to 87.6 MECU in 1981).  
However, this decline is not in fact a significant one, since it  
entirely reflects minor variations in the timing of certain  
major payments falling due around the end of the year.
Thus for one major project included in the 1981 programme, payments  
amounting to more than 30 MECU were originally foreseen for  
December 1982, but the request for payment by the recipient was in  
fact delayed for a few weeks. This delay was not at all  
significant as far as the actual implementation of the project was  
concerned, but it obviously had a major impact on the disbursement  
statistics, since the payment was actually made in the first  
quarter of 1983 rather than the last quarter of 1982.
Variations of this kind apart, the overall pace of disbursement  
continues to be a satisfactory one. The ratio of total  
disbursements to total commitments reached 36% (compared to  
33% by the end of 1981), and the cumulative proportion disbursed  
under individual annual programmes ranges from 92% for the 1976  
programme, to 49% for the 1980 programme. For the 1981 programme,  
only 5% of programme funding had been disbursed by December 1982  
(but this figure jumped to around 30% within the first couple of  
months of 1983, with the one large payment referred to above).

-16-
For the '  programme, of course, disbursements are as yet very  
small, ■  T MTCU luring 1982, or just over 1% of commitments made  
to the end of the year). However, this is only natural, given  
that the great majority of projects were committed only during  
the latter part o - the year, and that little or no actual spending  
can normally be expected during the first few months of project  
implementation.
disbursement patterns
Having considered the overall status of programme disbursements, it  
may be useful to examine briefly the pattern of disbursement among  
different types of project and different recipients. The following  
two tables show the ratio of disbursements to commitments as of  
31 December 1982, for all projects included in the 1976 to 1981  
programmes. The first table distinguishes between projects in Asia,  
Latin America and Africa, and between autonomous and cofinanced  
projects, while the second table gives disbursement ratios for major  
individual recipients under the 1976-81 programmes.
Projects committed under the 1982 programme have been excluded from  
the calculation, since disbursements here are still very small.
Also excluded are the special provisions for technical assistance  
and expertise, and the annual grants to various CGIAR research  
institutes, since the pattern of spending here is quite different
T ■  7 2l§bu r sement s_a s_%_of _ comm i_tment s
1976-1981_groj_ectsz_as_of_31_.2iil2§2_ 1
All projects 42%
Projects in Asia 43% Autonomous projects 50%
Latin America 34% Cofinanced projects 30%
Africa 52%
Naturally, such figures can only give  
of disbursement rates, since both thea fairly crude representation  
flow of commitments over time.
and the nature of the projects involved, can differ widely from  
recipient to recipient. With this qualification in mind, however,  
certain interesting comparisons can still be made.
1) Taking together the special provisions for expertise and studies, and the CGIAR  
research grants, the ratio of disbursement to commitments was of the order of  
90%, compared to an average of 42% for normal projects.

The average ratio of disbursements to commitments for all projects  
amounted to 42%. Among the different regions, Latin America seemed to  
be slowest, with 34%, while Asia was on average (43%) and Africa rather  
above-average (52%).
However, it is unlikely that these differences are in fact significant.  
The overall average is obviously dominated by Asia, with more than  
70% of total funding, and within Asia, India alone accounts for  
almost 40% of total commitments. Given that in recent years the great  
bulk of funding for India has been concentrated on rapid-disbursing  
programme aid, this is likely to have a considerable distorting  
effect on the figures. If India is removed from the calculation,  
however, the overall average falls to 36%, and the Asian average  
to 34%, identical to the figure for Latin America.
The rather higher disbursement rate shown for Africa may also be  
a statistical aberration, since the number of projects involved is  
very small. Also, a large part of total African commitments represents  
the reconstruction funding involved for Zimbabwe in the 1980  
programme, and the special nature of these projects may also have  
influenced the average figure for Africa.
Overall, therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that there has  
been no significant difference in the average rate of disbursement  
between the three principal regions served by the programme.
If one considers the type of financing, however, certain significant  
differences do appear. Compared with the overall average of 42%,  
autonomous projects showed an average disbursement rate of 50%, and  
cofinanced projects an average of 30%. (No significant difference  
appeared between projects cofinanced with Member-States and with  
other agencies, the average disbursement rates for these two types  
of project being 32% and 29% respectively).
Again, the influence of large, fast-spending projects in India has  
to be taken into account, but this does not entirely remove the  
difference. After excluding India from the calculations, the average  
disbursement rate for autonomous projects falls to 43%, compared  
with an overall average of 36% and an average for cofinanced projects  
of 30%.
This difference is not large, but it does tend to confirm the  
suggestion that cofinanced projects may require a longer preparatory  
phase of implementation, and may be administratively more complex,  
thus leading to a slower overall rate of implementation and  
di sbursement.
Turning to individual recipient countries, it was not practical to  
make a similar calculation for every single recipient (such a  
calculation would in any case be rather misleading, in the case of  
countries having received aid only under one or two annual programmes).
However, the following table shows the ratio of disbursements to  
commitments as of December 1982, for the 13 largest recipients over  
the period 1976-82 (covering all countries having received more than 
10.0 MECU in committed funding during this period). Together, these  
13 recipients accounted for some 75% of total programme funding  
during this period.

-18-
T 3 D i .  sbu C i2!B20ì_I3ÌÌ2i*_!D2Ì2£_I2EÌEÌ2QÌs^_1976^81
Country!  Total Commitments  
1976-81 
MECUTotal disbursements  
(as of 31.12.1982)  
as % of commitments
India 122.40 57%
Bangladesh 44.70 23%
Indonesia 38.60 35%
Paki stan 36.30 35%
Thai land 22.70 42%
Sri Lanka 21.70 59%
Phi Lippi nes 15.10 21%
Honduras 14.80 51%
Zimbabwe 14.50 52%
Andean Pact 13.63 60%
Haiti 12.90 6%
Burma 11.40 22%
Ni caragua 11.05 36%
TOTAL 379.78 44%
Among these major recipients, the most rapid disbursement rates  
were recorded by the Andean Pact, Sri Lanka, India, Zimbabwe and  
Honduras (all with disbursement ratios over 50%). Countries with  
an average performance included Thailand, Nicaragua, Indonesia  
and Pakistan (all between 35% and 42%), while countries with  
relatively slow disbursement included Bangladesh, Burma, the  
Philippines and Haiti (all below 30%). Of these, Haiti showed by far  
the lowest figure, with only 6% of total commitments disbursed by  
the end of 1982.
Obviously, a crude calculation of this kind makes no allowance for  
variations in the original flow of commitments. If this is taken  
into account, both Burma and the Philippines should better be  
considered as average rather than slow-disbursement countries, given  
that in both cases almost 50% of total funding was committed in  
1981 alone. Also, Nicaragua's disbursement ratio of 36%, close to the  
average, is in fact very creditable when one considers that almost  
75% of commitments for this country were made only in 1981.

-19-
After making due allowance for these distortions, however, the  
general pattern revealed by these figures is rather whc '  one  
would expect. The implementation of development projec· ,  tends  
to be faster in those countries with high per capita incomes or  
particularly strongadministrations, while it is slowest and  
most difficult precisely in those poorest countries where the  
aid is most required.
Ill.d. Admi.n 2strati_ve_guest 2ons
El2i§ct_gregarat2on_and_cgnt roj.
The disbursement data referred to above generally confirm one key  
point which has been stressed in previous reports; given the limited  
absorptive capacity of many developing countries, it is essential  
for donor agencies to provide substantial assistance at all stages  
of project preparation and implementation.
For the poorest developing countries such assistance is absolutely  
imperative if the available funding is to be utilised at all  
effectively. Even for more advanced developing countries, with  
higher incomes or stronger administrations, substantial donor  
activity is still required if projects are to be executed properly  
and without undue delay.
It is for this reason that a small but significant proportion of  
total programme resources has been directed specifically towards the  
recruitment of outside experts for assistance with project preparation  
and supervision (in addition to any technical assistance components  
provided within the framework of a particular project). Since the  
first of these special provisions was made in 1977, the total  
funding set aside for these purposes has amounted to 13.5MECU, or  
1.9% of total programme resources.
In part, these funds have been used for the shortterm recruitment of  
individual experts or consulting firms to assist with project preparation  
or control missions, or to carry out small studies or technical  
assistance actions.
The remainder has been used to establish full-time development
advisors in certain key recipient countries, to help control the
implementation of ongoing projects, and to provide general assistance
to recipient administrations with project preparation and
implementation. Three such advisors are currently in place, attached
to the Commission's regional delegations; one man in Bangkok
(covering South-East Asia); one in Caracas (covering Central and
South America) and one in Dhaka (covering Bangladesh, but administratively
attached to the Bangkok delegation). In addition, a consulting
firm has been used to establish a full-time technical advisory
service in Honduras.
Detailed information on the overall utilisation of these special provisions  
is provided in Annex IV, along with a list of small studies and TA actions  
financed under this heading since July 1981 (updating and completing  
the information supplied in the Fourth Implementation Report for the  
period up to July 1981).

-20-
In summary, it might be noted that of the 9.5 M E C U  m ade available 
under these special provisions from 1977 to 1981, a  total of 8.87 
M E C U  (93% ) had been drawn dow n by December 1982. The balance of 
0.63 M E C U , coupled with the new  credits m ade available under the 
1982 programme > > 4 .0  M E C U , approved in the early months of 1983) 
remained available for utilisation during 1983.
O f the 8.87 M E C U  so far drawn down, som e 3.87 M E C U  (44% ) has been 
used for small studies and T A  actions, 1.74 M E C U  (20% ) for shortterm 
expert visits for project preparation and control, and 3.26 M E C U  (37% ) 
for establishing development officers in regional delegations.
Generally, therefore, one can say that roughly half the funding has 
been used for project preparation, and half for project supervision 
and control. The total funding allocated to project preparation is 
of course m uch greater than the amount shown here, however, since all 
studies above the 300 000 E C U  threshold have been financed as 
separate projects.
These special provisions for outside expertise obviously play an 
essential role in helping to ensure the effective implementation of the 
non-associates programme, permitting both the shortterm recruitment of 
high-level technical expertise to assist with the preparation or control 
of particular projects, and the establishment of a  small number of 
full-time development advisors in the field. Naturally, such outside 
expertise cannot in any sense replace or substitute for the work 
of the Commission's o w n  services, but it does provide an essential 
complement to this work in the specific fields mentioned.
However, it should be noted that the Commission's presence in the field 
is s till far from adequate, in relation to the volume of projects 
being implemented and the geographical coverage of the programme.
Compared to the experience of other agencies, or indeed of the Commission 
itse lf under the E D F, the current establishment of 3  full-time 
development advisors in the field can only be considered as a very 
first step.
Further, reference must again be m ade to the problem of inadequate 
staffing levels within the Commission. In 1982 as in previous years, 
staffing levels in the various Commission departments concerned with 
the implementation of the non-associates programme remained inadequate, 
and the problem has become progressively more serious as the volume 
of funding and the number of projects has grown.
This situation m ay perhaps be partially resolved during 1983, when 
a  small number of new  posts will be m ade available. But if current 
volumes of funding are to continue to be effectively implemented, 
with proper attention paid to project preparation and control, it 
will be essential to keep the staffing question under constant review.

-21-
M!BiQi§i£§tiy£_££§[Q§work_Agreement s
Another significant development during recent years has been the 
signature of "administrative framework agreements" 
with certain major recipient countries. S o  far, such agreements 
have been concluded with Thailand (in October 1981) and with 
Indonesia (August 1982), while Bangladesh and the Philippines 
have also expressed interest in a  similar arrangement.
These agreements are intended solely to facilitate project 
implementation, and do not m ake any financial commitment on the 
part of the Community, or mark any special treatment for the 
signatories as compared to other non-associate countries.
Instead, these framework agreements are intended simply to consolidate 
once and for a ll, with a  particular recipient, the general provisions 
relating to project implementation. The matters dealt with are 
essentially legal or technical, covering such points as disbursement 
procedures, procurement e lig ib ility , taxation and exchange control, 
inspection and audit, etc.
The introduction of these framework agreements has considerably 
simplified the process of concluding project financing agreements 
with the countries concerned. S o far, only the four countries 
mentioned above have requested such framework agreements, but 
there is no reason w h y  the practice should not be extended to 
other major recipients should this be appropriate.

-22-
IV CONCLUSIONS
T h e Com m unity's program m e of financial and technical assistance for 
non-associated developing countries has grow n rapidly since its 
inception in 1976. A  total of 776.5 M E C U  has been m a d e  available 
for this program m e over the period 1976-82, and it has c o m e  to 
represent an important com ponent of the Com munity's overall 
development cooperation policy, and one w hich is very m u c h  appreciated 
b y  the countries to w hich it is addressed.
T h e  1982 program m e has recently been finalised, and follows the sa m e  
general lines as in previous years, with a  continued emphasis o n  
rural development projects in the poorest developing countries.
U nder this programme, a  total of 210.204 M E C U  has been committed 
for so m e  30 separate projects in Asia, Latin A m erica and Africa.
T h e allocation of resources a m o n g  the major recipients has been 
broadly similar to the pattern followed in previous years, with the 
exception that a  special effort w a s m a d e  this year for certain 
Central A m erican countries, drawing o n  the additional credits m a d e  
available for the Special Action program m e for this region. T h e  
breakdown by sector and type of project also followed a  similar pattern 
to that established in previous years, and cofinancing continued to 
play an important role (with substantial resources devoted to 
cofinancing with E E C  M e m b e r States).
Program m e implementation continues to be generally satisfactory. 
Cumulative com m itm ents and disbursements (as of 3 1  D ecem ber 1982) 
reached levels of 636.2 M E C U  and 230.5 M E C U  respectively.
C om m itm ents and disbursements during 1982 (132.8 M E C U  and 66.9 M E C U  
respectively) show ed a  slight decline from  the record levels reached 
in 1981, but this w as very largely compensated for in the early 
m onths of 1983.
How ever, it is clear that the staffing problem referred to in previous 
reports has grow n progressively m ore serious as the volum e of 
resources devoted to this program m e has grown.

SIXTH IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
A N N E X E S
I List of projects included in the 1982 programme
II Allocations by recipient, 1976-82
III The Special Programme for Central America
IV  Special provisions for outside expertise

ANNEX I
NON ASSOCIATES PROGRAMME 1982  
LIST OF PROJECTS COMMITTED
RECIPIENT AND TITLE SECTOR TYPE OF 
FINANCINGTOTAL COST  
(MECU)EEC GRANT 
(MECU)
!
!  I ASIA
I  ^  ,  ,  ,ê ir‘ 9,L .â!2êâi}
Co.istruetion oy fertilizer godowns Agri culture  
(storage)Joint cof. 
NL4.00 2.00
Development of seed production Agriculture
(general)Parallel cof.  
D8.80 3.60
Fertilizer supply  
counterpart project:  
Deep tubewells II Agri cultural  
(i rrigation)Parallel cof.  
UK/ADB(15.00)
152.60(15.00)*
15.00
Bhola irrigation project Integrated area  
developmentParallel cof.  
ADB44.40 3.00
Thai land
Oil seed crop development programme Agri culture  
(general)Autonomous 4.20 3.30
Sukhothai groundwater development Agri culture  
(i rrigation)Parallel cof.  
UK25.60 13.40
Preliminary crop development  
(supplementary provision)Agri culture  
(general)Autonomous — 0.52*
India
Fish farming pilot project Fi sheri es 
(general)Autonomous 1.40 1.00*
Ferti li zer supply (45.00) (45.00)*
counterpart projects:
Drinking water Tamil Nadu Water supplies  
and sanitationAutonomous 17.00 17.00
Drinking water Punjab Water supplies  
and sanitationAutonomous 6.30 6.30
ARDC IV Rural credit Joint cof.  
IBRD 8 others1 669.00 21.70
ASEAN
Timber study (supplementary provision) Forest ry Autonomous - 0.03*
Bhutan
Plant protection services Pre-and post-  
harvest servicesAutonomous 3.40 3.40

gage_2_ANNEX_I
RECIPIENT AND TITLE SECTOR TYPE OF 
FINANCINGTOTAL COST  
(MECU)EEC GRANT 
(MECU)
Indonesia
Pilot project for artisanal fisheries Fi sheri es 
(general)Parallel cof.
I4.77 2.90
TA to Bank Indonesia for SEDP II
Bank Indonesia SEDP II first phase  
(supplementary provision)Rural credit  
Rural creditParallel cof.
IBRD & others  Autonomous23.50 8.30
0.47
Negal |
Village water supplies Water supplies  
and sanitationAutonomous j 4.80 j
13.70*
SUB TOTAL ASIA!
1969.77105.62
II LATIN AMERICA
j  Andean Pact
Energy Cooperation Energy Autonomous 0.66 0.50
Wood technology research  
(supplementary provision)Forestry Autonomous 0.14
Technical cooperation programme  
(supplementary provision)Industry Autonomous " " 0.04
Dominican Republic
Agrarian reform and integrated  
rural developmentIntegrated area  
developmentAutonomous 13.60 12.00
Haiti
Integrated development of Jeremy  
regi onIntegrated area  
developmentAutonomous 7.40 6.60
Honduras
Agrarian reform and integrated  
rural developmentIntegrated area  
developmentAutonomous I  17.70 16.90
Nicaragua
Agrarian reform and integrated  
rural developmentIntegrated area  
developmentAutonomous 12.00 9.80
Costa Rica
Agrarian reform and integrated  
rural developmentIntegrated area  
developmentAutonomous 25.80 18.00
CIMMYT
Applied agricultural research Agri cultural  
researchAutonomous 2.00 2.00
SUB TOTAL LATIN AMERICA 79.16 65.98

Ëâ9§_2_ANNEX_I
!  REC1PILNT AND TITLE
i|SECTOR TYPE OF 
FINANCINGTOTAL COST  
(MECU)EEC GRANT 
(MECU)
III - AFRICA
Angola
Rehabilitation of fish processing  
p U'ntFi sheri es 
(processing)Autonomous 2.25 2.25
ircegrated development of fisneries  
aid fish processing in NaraibeFi sheri es 
(general)Autonomous 8.01 6.50*
orjvi nee
Mo?ambigue
Artisanal isi,cries development Fi sheries 
(general)Autonomous 2.96 2.96
Seel potato produttlon plant Agriculture
(general)Autonomous 8.18 7.10*
Beira fish-canning plant  
(supplementary provision)Fi sheries 
(processing)Autonomous 0.60
SUB TOTAL AFRICA 21.40 19.41
===== =====
IV POST CATASTROPHE RESERVE
South Yemen
Flood damage reconstruction Dhalla Agri culture  
(general)Autonomous 2.50 2.50
India
Cyclone protection shelters  
Andhra PradeshEmergency 
servi cesAutonomous 3.00 3.00
Cyclone protection shelters  
Tamil NaduEmergency 
servi cesAutonomous 1.00 1.00
Honduras/Ni caraqua
Bridge reconstruction T ransport 
infrastructureAutonomous 3.20 3.20*
SUB TOTAL POST CATASTROPHE 9.70 9.70

2age_4_ANNEX_I
RECIPIENT AND TITLE SECT0R TYPE OF 
FINANCING—
TOTAL COST  
(MECU)EEC GRANT 
(MECU)
V AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
CIAT (Colombia) Agricultural
researchParallel cof.  
CGIAR9.27 1.60*
CIP (Peru) Agri cultural  
researchParallel cof.  
CGIAR1.75 0.90*
IRRI (Philippines) Agri cultural  
researchParallel cof.  
CGIAR8.17 1.70*
ICRISAT (India) Agri cultural  
researchParallel cof.  
CGIAR1.70 1.30*
SUB TOTAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 20.89 5.50
■■a·
VI SPECIAL PROVISIONS
Services of external experts - - 4.00 4.00*
TOTAL COMMITTED 210.20 (2) TOTAL COMMITTEDriQ 9?210.20  (2)
Notes; 1) An asterisk beside the EEC grant amount indicates that the project
was approved during the early part of 1983. All other projects were  
approved during 1982.
2) All figures have been rounded to two decimal places. For two projects,  
the precise amount granted was slightly different from that shown  
above (Andean Pact, technical cooperation programme, 0.036 MECU;  
Mozambique, artisanal fisheries, 2.958 MECU). Total committed  
funding amounted to 210.204 MECU.

ANNEX II
ALkQCATION_OF_FyNDING_BY_RECIPIENTi .  1976-1982 (MECU)
TOTAL
197619771978197919801981198276/82
I. NORMAL PROJECTS
Afghani stan -1.00- - --_1.00Bangladesh 2.505.006.608.0010.6012.0023.6068.30Bhutan -----3.403.40
Burma 1.00 4.90-5.50-11.40
India 6.0012.0015.4025.0028.0036.0046.00168.40
Indonesia 1.002.005.50I  9.90 8.2012.0011.6750.27Laos 2.00!  2.10 ---4.10
Maldives '  “ - i  _| 0.50- -0.50
Nepa l “-3.00 2.20-3.708.90Paki stan 3.004.004.806.705.8012.00 -36.30
Palestine (O.T.) -----1.65-1.65
Philippines ---4.503.507.10-15.10
Sri Lanka 2.002.002.000.3015.40 --21.70
Thai Land “1.000.305.7013.50!  2.20 17.2139.91
Vietnam -2.40 -- -2.40
Yemen (North) -2.00 1.10“5.20-8.30
ADB 1.500.401.201.20-1.00-5.30
ASEAN -“0.600.30-7.100.038.00
Mekong Committee -“ 0.40 0.40
Sub-total ASIA 16.0032.8041.4070.1087.70101.75105.61455.36
Bolivia 2.001.801.903.00 8.70
Costa Rica ------18.0018.00
Dominican Republic -- --12.0012.00
Ecuador -- 2.90-3.00-5.90
Haiti - 2.405.005.50-6.6019.50
Honduras 1.002.403.208.20-16.9031.70
Ni caragua --- 2.808.259.8020.85
Peru - 2.00 -2.00
Andean Pact-3.602.700.302.005.030.6814.31
BCIE-1.800.430.500.50--3.23
CATIE- 0.571.100.20--1.87
CFAD - 1.80- - 1.80
CIMMYT ------2.002.00
IDB -- 2.00- 2.00
IICA -----1.60-1.60
INCAP -1.80 »“--1.80
OLADE ““0.60-0.600.53-1.73
Sub-total LATIN AMERICA 2.0010.0012.8018.0021.8018.4165.98148.99
Angola- -0.500.90- -8.7510.15
Mozambique -3.00---10.6613.66
Zimbabwe — — “ * 14.50 14.50
Sub total AFRICA --3.500.9014.50 -19.4138.31
TOTAL NORMAL PROJECTS 18.00+2.8057.7089.0024.0020.16 191.00642.66

gage_2_ANNEX_II
1976197719781979198019811982TOTALI 76/821
II POST CATASTROPHE
PROJECTS
Dominican Republic - -- -4.80- -4.80
India--2.004.504.407.004.0021.90
Ni caragua ---2.50--1.604.10
Paki stan “ ---2.70-2.70
Peru ----1.50--1.50
Sri Lanka ---3.00---3.00
Zimbabwe ----4.00--4.00
Central America ---1.10---1.10
Honduras ---“““1.601.60
Yemen (South) ------2.502.50
Total Post-Catastrophe --2.0011.1014.70 9.709.7047.20
III AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH
CIAT - -0.801.001.151.401.605.95
CIP --0.400.500.600.800.903.20
IRRI -1.000.801.001.201.501.70■  7.20
ICRISAT 2.001.000.800.800.951.201-30I  8.05
Total Research 2.002.002.803.303.904.905.5024.40
IV SPECIAL PROVISIONS
i
Services of externalÌ
experts 0.200.602.502.703.504.0013.50
Total Committed
Funding (I+II+III+IV) 20.0045.0063.10105.90145.30138.26210.20727.76
Note; Figures have been rounded to two decimal places.

ANNEX III
T H E  S P E C IA L  :  P R O G R A M M E  F O R  C E N T R A L  A M E R IC A
1. Given the relatively large share of total 1982 programme funding 
devoted to the various projects in Central America, 
it w as felt that it would be useful to provide a special report on 
the preparation and implementation of this additional programme. 
The following comments outline the manner in which the programme 
w as decided, the scale of funding and the nature of the projects 
involved, and the current status of programme execution.
2. The Community's concern with the increasingly unstable situation 
prevailing in Central America led it to oropose a number of new  
initiatives in this field. JAfter fulL debate in Parliament and 
Council, the latter agreed on 22 November as follows:
"Further to the statements made by the European Council in M arch 
and June 1982, the Council agreed to increase the Community's 
technical and financial assistance to Central America in 1982. F rom  
the additional funds recently m ade available for aid to the non- 
associated developing countries, 30 M E C U  will be used for this 
purpose. The aid increased in this w ay will mainly be devoted to 
measures designed to increase agricultural production in the 
countries concerned by means of the existing agricultural reform 
programmes".
3. While this discussion was taking place, the Commission had, since July 
1982, been undertaking various investigations aimed at concretising 
the particular actions which could be implemented under this pro­
gramme, in line with the objectives outlined above. These investigations 
were carried out as a matter of the utmost urgency, and required an 
exceptional effort both from the Commission services concerned and 
from the outside experts recruited to help with this task.
However, after final negotiations with the authorities of the 
recipient countries, and after having obtained the opinion of the 
Financial Committee, the Commission was able on 22 December to 
formally approve 4 specific projects within the Special Action 
programme.
Total Com munity financing for these projects amounted to 56,7 M E C U , 
representing 26,7 M E C U  from normal credits available under the 1982 
Budget, and 30 M E C U  in supplementary credits made available in October 
1982. The following
table gives an outline of the 4 projects concerned.
(1)For example, the conclusions of the European Council of 29 and 30 
M arch 1982, the various resolutions of the European Parliament, 
and the Commission's proposal to Council in June 1982 ( C O M  (82) 257)
~ » / i

page 2 ANNEX III
CountryE E C  grant (M E C U )
Foreign Local(Government  
Tota t|C .nt ri but i on  
(MECU)Total
cost
(MECU)
Costa Rica 
Dominican Republic 
Honduras 
Nicaragua4.4
3.5 
5.3 
2.913.6 
8.5 
11 .6 
6.918.0
12.0
16.9
9.87.8
1 .6
0.8
2.225.8
13.6
17.7
12.0
TOTAL 16.1 40.6 56.7 12.4 69.1
A  further integrated area development project was approved at the sam e time 
for Haiti (with an E E C  grant of 6.6 M E C U ).
Note : The E E C  contribution to project local costs is m ade in the form of
certain essential imported commodities. The counterpart funds 
arising from the sale of these commodities is then used for local- 
cost expenditures required for the projects.
The four projects approved share the following key characteristics:
all are linked with existing agrarian reform programmes, and are aimed 
at helping with the installation of small farmers in new  settlement 
areas specifically designated for each project
all programmes are concerned with integrated rural development; 
agricultural development is the main objective of each project, but 
proper attention is given also to the project's social impact and to 
the possibilities of diversifying local agricultural production, thus 
improving nutritional levels. With this in mind, the financial and 
technical support will include associated actions in the field of 
infrastructure, health, education etc.
apart from their medium-term impact on the agrarian structures of 
these countries (each project will have an implementation period of 
5  years), the projects also provide a direct short-term support to 
the balance-of-payments situation. Part of the E E C  grant is used to 
cover the import of certain essential commodities of European origin 
(fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides e tc .), and the counterpart 
funds generated by the local sale of these commodities is then used 
to cover the local-cost expenditures of the Community-funded 
integrated development programmes. Special arrangements have been 
institued here to ensure proper management of these counterpart funds 
in each country

page 3 ANNEX III
finally, it should be noted that these projects have been designed 
to have an important demonstration effect. While the volume of 
funding for each project is very limited compared to the overall 
needs of the country concerned, the demonstration effect of these 
projects, and their consequent impact on the effectiveness of 
other government programmes, should be an important additional bene­
f i t .
4. The implementation of these projects is already well advanced. In almost 
all cases, financing agreements had already been signed during the first 
quarter of 1983, the firs t concrete works will begin during the sum m er of 
1983, and the supply of commodity inputs foreseen under the projects 
should generally take place during the second half of 1983.
Given that projects of such size and complexity require careful attention 
to implementation procedures and to supervision and control, the 
Commission has already taken the necessary steps to establish in each 
country a team of technical experts w ho will be responsible for assisting 
the recipient authorities in the implementation of these projects.
Generally, the preparation and commencement of these projects has been 
achieved in record time. While this is only appropriate, given the 
seriousness of the problems to which the projects are directed, it has 
still  required a very major effort on the part of the Commission's 
services and the authorities of the recipient countries.

ANNEX IV
§B§£iâi_Ë£2yi§i2DI_Î2£_2ül§i^ê-Ë2E®rïi§ê  
Overall utilisation and list of actions
I Overa.LL.yt H i.sati.on
Between 1977 and 1980 a total of 6.0 M E C U  had been m ade available 
under these special provisions. A s of 3 1  July 1981, som e 3.52 M E C U  
of this had been drawn down, leaving a balance of 2.48 M E C U . O f 
the amount drawn dow n roughly 1.89 M E C U  had been used for small 
studies and technical assistance actions, 1.15 M E C U  for short 
project supervision and control missions, and 0.48 M E C U  for the 
in itia l establishment of full-time development advisors in 
Commission regional delegations. A  full breakdown of these figures, 
along with a complete list of the small studies and technical 
assistance actions, w as provided in the 4th Execution Report 
( C O M  (81) 691).
A  further 3.5 M E C U  w as provided under the 1981 programme, which 
with the balance of 2.48 M E C U  from previous years gave a total 
available amount of 5.98 M E C U . O f this, som e 5.35 M E C U  had 
been drawn dow n as of 3 1  December 1982, leaving a balance of 
only 0.63 M E C U .
N e w  credits provided under the 1982 programme (approved only in 
the early months of 1983) amount to 4.0 M E C U . Together with the 
previous balance of 0. 63 M E C U , this leaves a total of 4.63 M E C U  currently 
available for such actions.
O f the 5.35 M E C U  drawn dow n since the Last report, 1.98 M E C U  
has been used for small studies and technical assistance actions, 
a full list of which is given below. Shortterm supervision and 
control v isits accounted for 0.58 M E C U , and 2.78 M E C U  w as used 
for the development officers established in certain key recipient 
countries.

page 2 ANNEX IV
II Small studies and technical assistance actions; list of actions 
 yndertaken_sj_nce_31__July_1981_________________Small studies and technical assistance actions; list of actions
undertaken since 3 1  July 1981
Country Title Cost
(000 M E C U )
S A D C C  1) Evaluation of energy sector 38
Andean Pact Preparation of regional project (wood) 18
N . Y em en Evaluation of consequences of earthquake 1 4
Haiti Rural development situation report 1 2
India Afforestation and conservation 28
Paki stan Baluchistan water resources 17
Bangladesh Improved cereal seeds - production and 
di stribution 26
Honduras Improved cereal production 68
North Y em en Rural' roads study 1 5
Asean
HispaniolaFisheries resource evaluation 
Hurricane surveillance programme3 1
9
South Y em en National seed production 57
Honduras Integrated artisanal fisheries 6
Thai land Cassava action plan 50
Asean Potential for non-conventional energy 5
Thai land Oilseeds development study 1 1
Dominican Rep. 
Thai landProject identification 
Action Plan project elaboration35
48
N i caragua Production of ethyl alcohol 29
Philippines Dairy development 70
India Village trout-farming design 38
Central America Regional cereals reserve 59
Haiti T A  for Jeremy rural development project 102
Asean Container terminal operations 43
Zim babwe T A  to Planning Ministry 115
Peru Drainage and irrigation 30
Ecuador Staff training for water conveyance tunnels 185
Costa Rica Rural development programme identification 118
1) Southern Africa Development Coordination Conference
2) Dominican Republic and Haiti

page 3 ANNEX IV
Country Title Cost
(000 M E C U )
Honduras Production and distribution of cereals 88
Honduras/ Cyclone damage report 17
N i caragua
N i caragua Waslala integrated rural development 64
Bangladesh Cereal seeds development 103
Asean Aquaculture (supplement) 8
India High technology storage 3 1
Haiti Jacmel IR D  II (supplement) 9
Angola Tombera fishing industry 119
Maldives Hydrological survey 266
T O T A L 1982
Adding to this the small studies and T A  actions listed in the 4th 
report (1.891 M E C U ), a total of 3.87 M E C U  has been used for such 
actions since 1978.
This covers a total of 70 such actions, ranging in size from
3000 E C U  to 267 000 E C U , but with an average cost of only 55 000 E C U
(compared to the ceiling of 300 000 E C U , now  raised to 500 000 ECU ).
S om e 3 8 %  of this funding has been used for actions in Asia, 5 4 %  
for Latin America, and 7 %  for Africa. The relatively high share 
accorded to Latin America essentially reflects the large amount 
of preparatory work required for the various Special Action projects 
in Central America (this sub-region accounting for 4 3 %  of total 
small-study funding).
The sectoral distribution of such actions has followed broadly the 
same lines as the programme as a whole, with 8 1 %  of total funding 
being concerned with agricultural projects (production and support 
services). K ey sub-sectors were integrated rural development (21%), 
agricultural support services (18%), livestock, forestry and 
fisheries <16%), general agriculture (14%), irrigation (12% ) and 
water supplies and sanitation (12%).
In interpreting these figures, however, it must be remembered that 
these small actions account for only a part of the total programme 
funding allocated to project preparation, given that studies 
costing more than 300 0 C L  E C U  (500 000 E C U  from 1983) are financed 
separately, as normal projects, and do not appear in the present 
figures.