COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 03.05.1995 
COM(95) 160 final 
Communication from the 
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament 
on complementarity between the Community's 
deyelopment cooperation policy and the policies of Member States 
Communication from the 
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament 
on complementarity between the Community's 
development cooperation policy and the policies of Member States 
Introduction 
1. At its November 1994 meeting, the Council requested the Commission to prepare a 
communication concerning the complementarity between Community and Member 
States policies, expressed in Article 130 U of the EC Treaty. Two meetings, one in 
June '94 and March'95, were held by the Directors General responsible for 
Development cooperation of the Commission and Member States, to discuss the issue 
(annex I contains the minutes of the last meeting). Following these meetings, this 
paper describes the present situation regarding complementarity, and makes a number 
of proposals to ensure complementarity in practice. 
The Treaty on European Union and Complementarity 
2. Community development aid has been representing some 15% of the global effort, 
of Community and Member States, in the field of development assistance. It was, 
however, only in 1992 that Member States established, in the Treaty on European 
Union, specific provisions on Community Development cooperation. The Title XVII 
of the Treaty formalises a defacto Community development policy which already 
existed beside those of the Member States, and recognises their interdependence. It 
provides, in addition, instruments to ensure coherence between these policies, so as 
to achieve their greatest possible collective effectiveness. In this framework, Article 
130 U lays down the objectives of Community development cooperation policy, and 
mentions that it shall be complementary to the policies pursued by the Member States. 
A structured approach 
3. The Commission considers that such complementarity of the Community policy to the 
policies pursued by Member States can only be achieved if Community and national 
policies are guided by common objectives ; these objectives are translated and 
implemented at sectoral level and operational level into common approaches ; and the 
effectiveness of both national and Community interventions are evaluated jointly. 
4. In order to achieve this the following structured approach is recommended : 
(i) At the Council level : 
sectoral policies should be defined and/or updated in order to guide 
Community and Member States in their Development practices ; 
2.-
common priorities should be agreed, at a general and/or country level ; 
countries and regions in particular difficulties should be discussed to agree 
mutually acceptable solutions and coordinate respective actions; 
(ii) In the Committees (EDF, ALA, MED) : 
based as necessary on advice from the field, national and regional programmes 
should be established with a view to reaching common country approaches ; 
(iii) In the developing countries : 
cooperation and coordination should take place on the implementation of 
national and Community projects and programmes ; 
(iv) In the expert groups : 
- the implementation of the sectoral policies by Community and Member States 
should be followed; 
the effects of the projects and programmes should be jointly evaluated. 
The State of plav 
5. Whereas the above approach is already put into practice to some extend, it is still 
mainly done on an ad hoc basis. In this respect it is recalled that, in the Councils 
Declaration of November'92, Member States expressed that also their national 
development policies will be guided by the objectives established in Article 130 U 
of the EC Treaty. At the same time they considered that the main instrument to 
achieve complementarity would be coordination. This coordination is specifically 
provided for in Article 130 X of the EC Treaty. Following its November '92 
Declaration the Council adopted in May'93 conclusions on the coordination of 
development policies. Four sectors were chosen for initial increased coordination. At 
the meeting of Directors General the importance of this exercise was again 
underlined. For all four sectors common policy lines have now been adopted. They 
guide the Community and the Member States in their respective actions. 
6. In December '93 the Council also adopted a Resolution on operational coordination. 
Six pilot countries were selected to gain experience. A report on the initial results 
(including proposals for further strengthening of this cooperation) is being submitted 
to Council. The experiences gained should lead to a more effective operational 
coordination in all developing countries. 
7. In November '92 the Council and representatives of Member States declared to 
jtwveasr i- wrdmarton between Member States and Community, as regards the position 
to !c taken in international fora. This declaration was followed by Council 
cor jsions to the same effect in May '94. The Commission notes that, sofar, dûs 
coord "jation in some cases has not gone beyond an exchange of information 
of po iiions already taken, shortly before the event. The Commission 
3.-
considers this insufficient, and urges Ministers to instruct their services to participate 
at coordination meetings well in advance, with a view to establishing common 
positions. The Commission is prepared to take the necessary initiatives in this respect. 
8. Whereas the above shows that progress has been made to ensure complementarity in 
practice, the Commission considers that in a number of areas there is urgent need for 
further action. 
Enhanced coordination in forward planning 
9. Strategy planning takes an important place in the decision making process, in that it 
guides the Community actions and the actions of Member States over a certain period 
of time. If the Community is to be complementary to the policies of the Member 
states, coordination at this stage in the decision making process is of the utmost 
importance. Having regard to the upcoming programming exercise for the Lomé 
countries, the moment is in particular opportune, to make a great leap forward in this 
area. Naturally such enhanced forward planning should also apply to the ALA and 
MED countries. In that light the Commission proposes the following: 
10. Both in the relations with ACP states, and in the cooperation with other partners in 
ALA/MED regions, mechanisms now exist whereby strategies for Community 
cooperation with individual countries may be reviewed. These mechanisms should be 
developed further to enhance coordination on forward planning with a more active 
involvement of the Member States in sharing information on their own strategies and 
perceptions. 
11. For ACP countries, the first step in the programming is the drafting by the 
Commission's Head of delegation in each ACP country of a document setting 
out a strategy for the cooperation with the Community.The objective of this 
document is first and foremost to determine the areas where the Community 
could intervene in order to contribute to overcome the constraints in each ACP 
country, taking into account the interventions of other donors and in particular of 
Member States. 
12. The Commission has instructed its Heads of delegation to reinforce coordination with 
representatives of Member States on the spot in this initial phase of the programming 
for two reasons in particular : 
to establish a common view on the development strategy of the country 
concerned and on the major constraints confronting this strategy; 
to identify the most efficient way in which the Community can intervene in 
order to complement interventions of Member States. 
Where necessary, this coordination will be extended to include other donors. Also the 
national government of the country concerned will be involved, at the appropriate 
moment. 
4.-
13. The Commission considers that this coordination should be supplemented by a 
discussion later on in the process in the programming committee to prepare 
the indicative programme for the Community assistance in each country. For this 
to succeed the following conditions have to be met : 
first, Member States will have to be sufficiently transparent on the spot as to 
their own orientations and activities for the years ahead ; 
second, the EDF Committee should give priority to this "coordination of 
strategy " in the programming phase and not concentrate only on the 
Community's activities. In that respect Member States should inform the 
Commission and each other of their own orientations and proposed 
interventions. In addition, Member States would have to ensure an 
appropriate representation in the committee. 
14. As regards the Mediterranean countries, the new strengthened Mediterranean 
Policy has been developed in harmony with other major players in the region, 
including the World Bank, and has employed the closest coordination 
between the Community and the Member States in setting common policy 
objectives at the global level, and thereby developing complementarity. All 
aspects of relations with this region are covered including those that are the 
competence of the Community and of Member States. This is reflected in 
the highly participatory preparation of the Euro-Mediterranean Conference to 
be held in Barcelona, which covers political and security concerns, economic 
and financial relations, and social and human issues, setting objectives that 
not only reflect fully the perspectives of the Member States but which will 
guide their own cooperation with this region, as well as that of the Commun­
ity. The Barcelona Conference, without establishing a new permanent 
bureaucratic structure, will provide the opportunity to put in place mechan­
isms for permanent coordination in the policy areas of common interest to all 
contracting parties. 
15. Preparatory stages in implementing the strengthened Mediterranean Policy 
offer a particular opportunity to enhance coordination in forward planning at 
the country level. A very structured mechanism of concertation has been 
developed in the context of preparations for Cooperation/Association Coun­
cils and Committees. To improve the efficiency of cooperation, the Commis­
sion proposed on 8th March that the annual meetings of the cooperation 
councils should henceforth be held at technical level, while at political level 
the Community and the body of MNC should hold an annual ministerial 
meeting covering issues of common interest. A more participatory approach 
to cooperation is implicit in the strengthened Mediterranean Policy, and for 
this to prove effective prior coordination between the Community and the 
Member States is required to define a common strategic vision for coopér­
ât ; A with each Mediterranean country. Bearing in mind that even after the 
s .rficant increase in resources proposed for Community cooperation the 
Me iber States will still be a more significant source of finance, it is import­
ai that their own programmes should also be guided by the strategic objec-
5.-
tives set, and that true complementarity should be sought. As far as the 
Peace Process is concerned, enhanced coordination with Member States (and 
with other donors) is showing promise in developing complementary 
approaches. 
16. As far as cooperation with the countries of Asia and Latin America is con­
cerned, mechanisms are to be put in place to strengthen coordination in the 
preparation of Joint Committees over the full range of cooperation agree­
ments. At the country level, participatory approaches have already been 
introduced in developing strategies for Community cooperation with major 
ALA partners These should be exploited more consistently, through a fuller 
and more transparent participation of the Member States, first of all in the 
field but also in the relevant committees, to promote practical 
complementarity in the interventions that ensue. 
Joint evaluations 
17. Another area where the Commission considers there to be a need for further 
action is in the area of evaluation. Evaluation of projects and programmes, be 
they national or community, provide the Union with valuable information 
how to improve their collective effectiveness. The Commission recalls in this 
respect the Councils Resolutions of May '89 and May '92 on Evaluation, and 
of December'93 on operational coordination , where the advantages of joint 
evaluations were also pointed out. In that light the Commission proposes the 
following: 
18. Evaluation services of the Member States and the Commission should con­
tinue to identify subject matter for joint evaluations of Community aid pro­
grammes as well as those of member States and should prepare a programme 
of action for the years to come. 
19. The pilot project reports on coordination in selected sectors and countries 
should be taken into account in identifying joint evaluations. 
20. Joint evaluation should be implemented as pragmatically as possible. Experi­
ence has shown that flexible procedures responding to the needs of the pro­
ject and involving interested parties can be arranged between Member States 
and the Commission to obtain good results with a reasonable input in time 
and resources. 
6.-
Conclusion 
21. As indicated by the Council in its November '92 Declaration, 
complementarity of the Community's development policy and those of the 
Member States should be ensured through a number of coordination mechan­
isms. Over the last 3 years some of these mechanisms have been put into 
practice, but still function on an ad hoc basis. 
22. The Commission considers the time has come for a more structured 
* approach. This requires in particular increased efforts, to define and up date 
sectoral policies, more coordination in the field of forward planning and the 
putting into practice of a system of joint evaluations of national and Com­
munity projects and programmes. Regardmg operational coordination a 
separate report is submitted. 
23. The Council is invited to endorse the conclusions. 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR DEVELOPMENT 
Deveiopmentpolicies 
Sectoral policies ANNEX I 
Brussels, 28/03/1995. 
VIII/ A/ 1/ D(95) 
e :\pol-sec\prosp\comple\reun21 -6\resume3. wpd 
Minutes of the meeting of directors general 
of 20 march 1995 
Agenda 
Two points figured on the agenda : 
complementarity between the Community's development cooperation policy 
and the policies of Member States ; 
coherence between the Community's development cooperation policy and 
other policies. 
Discussion on the first issue was presided by Mr Steffen SMIDT, Director-General for 
Development. The second issue was presided by Mr Juan PRAT Director-General a.t.p. 
for North/South relations. 
Participants 
The list of participants is attached as annex 1. 
Complementarity 
Referring to the first discussion in June'94 and to reactions subsequently received, the 
Commission considered there to be a large consensus on the conceptual frame work : 
that the aim of complementarity is to achieve greater collective effectiveness 
of Community and Member States development cooperation ; 
that the main instrument for it is coordination ; 
that it is an evolutionary process of learning by doing. 
The Commission proposed not to engage again in a theoretical debate on the 
interpretation of the term "complementarity" but to focus, for the time being, on some 
operational arrangements to develop complementarity in practice. If required, at a later 
stage the theoretical debate could be resumed in the light of experience gained. 
Rue de la Loi 200, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium- Office: G12-7/29 
Telephone:direct line (+32-2)299.63.80..exchange 299.11. 1J.Fax: 2992907. 
Telex: COMEU B 21877.Telegraphicaddress: COMEUR Brussels. 
The dutch and UK representatives considered that consensus on the interpretation of 
the term "complementarity" was still lacking, and reserved their position. They did, 
however, agree that at this stage, one should focus on a number of practical measures to 
achieve greater efficiency. 
The 3 proposals made in the joint letter of Mr Steffen SMIDT and Mr Juan PRAT of 8 
march (annex 2) : 
1) enhanced coordination in forward planning ; 
2) joint evaluations ; 
3) concertation 
were discussed. 
adl) enhanced coordination in forward planning 
The Commission referred to the upcoming programming exercise for the 8th EDF and 
underlined the importance of forward planning. It pointed out that, if the Community is 
to take account of interventions of Member States in the developing countries, country 
strategies have to be established in full knowledge of all relevant elements ; i.e. of what 
each the Member States intends to do in these countries. Unfortunately, the present 
mechanisms do not function to provide for these elements to be taken into account. The 
Commission considered that they therefore needed to be improved. It proposed an 
effective coordination by heads of Delegations in the countries concerned in the first 
phase of the programming exercise, when strategy orientations are elaborated. This should 
then be followed, at a later stage, by a discussion in the relevant Committees (EDF, ALA, 
MED) in Brussels, with a view to finalising the Country Programmes. In both instances, 
Member States would have to be transparent on their own orientations and planned 
activities for the years ahead. This would imply, in particular, that the representation of 
Member States in the Committees would have to be of the appropriate level to ensure 
such coordination. 
There was a large support on the Commission's views and agreement that the proposal 
be presented by the Commission to the Council. 
The following more specific observations were made: 
A number of participants considered that coordination in the programming phase could 
also usefully take place with donors outside the European Union (multilateral/bilateral). 
They underlined the importance of the involvement of the Developing Countries in this 
procedure. 
There was a discussion whether the emphasis of the coordination should be in Brussels 
and capitals or on the spot in the developing countries. The political decisions would have 
to be taken in Brussels whilst the information and operational coordination should be 
established in the field. This discussion appeared largely related to different internal 
decision making structures in the respective Member States. 
The importance to continue to establish common approaches on policies in sectors was 
underlined, since this would facilitate to a great extent the operational coordination. Two 
additional sectors on which work could be focused, were mentioned; fisheries and 
agriculture. 
A number of participants, specifically underlined the necessity of a better exchange of 
information on bilateral activities. It was recognised that, for a useful discussion in the 
programming committee, this should be aware of the Member States planned 
interventions, and what they intend to do in financial terms in the individual developing 
countries. A plea to have Committees concentrate in general more on strategies and less 
on individual projects, for example by increasing the present financial threshold of 2 
million ECU for projects, was made by some participants. 
The state of play in the 6 pilot countries, chosen by the Council for re-enforced 
operational EU-coordination, was discussed. It was requested to take due account of this 
exercise in the preparation of the coordination on forward planning. Some participants 
considered that it could be useful to show how Member States and EU disburse their 
funds in these pilot countries, and how the different decision making processes in the 
Member States function. If necessary, common procedures could be proposed. 
The status of the EU Delegates was raised. The Commission pointed out that their status 
was laid down in the different instruments, like the Lomé convention or the specific 
agreements with the ALA and MED countries. 
ad2) Joint evaluation 
To increase the collective effectiveness of Community and bilateral aid, the Commission 
proposed also that work should be stepped up in the field of joint evaluations. Evaluation 
services of the Member States and the Commission should continue to identify subject 
matter for joint evaluations of Community aid programmes as well as those of Member 
States, and should prepare a programme of action for the years to come. 
The proposal was in general positively received and agreed to be presented to Council. 
Reference was also made to the DAC coordination on evaluations and this was considered 
a good example. It was reminded that evaluation has to be done at different levels : 
project by project, sector by sector, country by country, and that operational services have 
to be involved. The results of evaluations have to be reflected in the programming 
exercise. 
ad3) concertation 
The Commission proposed a concertation on aid programmes. It suggested that this 
concertation should take place regularly, and on the basis of a presentation that each 
Member State would be asked to make on objectives and measures within their respective 
aid programme. 
It was considered that the issue required further discussion. 
10 
Coherence 
Afternoon session; the Coherence of Community Policies with the Objectives of 
Development Co-operation Policy. 
The Commission representative began by drawing the attention of participants to the two 
documents made available to the meeting namely, 
i) the Commission services working document of November 1994 on policy Coherence; 
ii) a Room Document giving an up-date statement of the position. 
It was stressed that, whilst every effort was now being made both within the College of 
Commissioners itself, and between the Commission services, to ensure the Coherence 
of Community policies with the Objectives of Development Co-operation policy, 
problems of incoherence still arose. These usually reflect differences of interest. The 
Community was, however, not alone in facing the difficulty of reconciling different 
political objectives. One of the most well known problems in this regard, at Community 
level, was that of the setting up of a common market organisation for Bananas, where 
four Community objectives had to be reconciled i) the completion of the internal market, 
ii) preferential relations with the ACP countries, iii) relations with Latin America, iv) 
the requirements of the GATT/WTO. Another more general example could be given with 
regard to the problem of exchange rates and interest rate volatility and their impact on 
developing countries, particularly the poorest, and those dependant on the export of pri­
mary products. 
Mr Prat indicated that the need for Coherence had been an important consideration in 
the preparation of the proposals for the new Mediterranean policy where an overall 
approach to the Union's relations with the countries concerned will be adopted, with the 
negotiations addressing a wide variety of issues. The approach adopted in the 
Mediterranean proposal suggested that it might be easier to achieve policy Coherence at 
the bilateral and regional level rather than at the global level. 
In the course of the subsequent discussion the following points^were made; 
- whilst it is essential that political choices must be made there is a need for the 
systematic identifi-cation of problems and conflicts of interest (NL, UK, D). It would be 
useful to commission a study to look at ways of establishing a procedure for recognising 
these (NL). 
- whilst being sympathetic to the approach set down in the Commission documents, and 
welcoming the steps taken by the Commission to improve internal Coherence, it was still 
important to establish where major incoherencies are to be found, and which 
incoherencies are unacceptable (UK, B). Indeed there was a need for a study on the 
Coherence of all Development Co-operation instruments. (UK). 
- it was important to distinguish between intended and unintended incoherence, with the 
need for a mechanism to avoid unintended incoherence (DK, S WE). 
u 
- as stressed in the Commission documents the difficulty of establishing an overall 
general approach to the problem of Coherence was recognised (D, ESP, F). This pointed 
to the need to proceed on a case by case basis so building up the necessary methodology. 
- many Member States although by no means all, advocated a joint 
Agriculture/Development Council (NL, DK, B, IRL, SWE, SF) In response to this 
proposal Mr Soubestre said that it would be wrong to assume that only the CAP 
generated problems for Development Co-operation. In reality many other policies were 
also concerned in the search for Coherence (to name but two; environmental issues, 
internal market issues, for example those relating to the cocoa content of chocolate etc.) 
- finally there was a need for comprehensive body of data, developing country by 
developing country, bringing together Community aid spending in all its forms (NL, UK). 
Indeed steps were already being taken in this regard for the presentation of the OECD -
DAC data on aid. Member States appeared inclined to share with the Commission and 
each other the statistics they already prepare themselves, provided it does not cost extra 
work. 
In summing up a very interesting discussion Mr Prat recalled that the question of joint 
Councils must be one to be dealt with by subsequent presidencies. The relevant 
authorities would need to address these proposals. The Commission services would also 
consider the question of the preparation of the appropriate body of statistics. It was 
noted that country strategy papers - already circulated to Member States - were intended 
to bring together all forms of cooperation. 
The plan was now to circulate this short report of the discussion on Coherence to 
Directors General in time for it to be considered at the Development Council of June 1 
next. 
Miscellaneous 
The Commission was asked whether the issue of reform of the international institutions, 
on the G7 Halifax agenda, would be discussed in the EU. The Commission thought that 
the issue would be taken up in COREPER, at some stage. 
The austrian delegation distributed a non-paper on coordination, complementarity and 
coherence (annex 3). 
12. 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(95) 160 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN M m 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-95-194-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-88456-8 
Office for Officiai Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg