ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEE DES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM (80)239
Vol.1980/0075

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement (CEE, Euratom) n°354/83 duConseil du1erfévrier 1983
concernant l'ouverture aupublic des archives historiques delaCommunauté économique
européenne etdelaCommunauté européenne del'énergie atomique (JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telque modifié parlerèglement (CE, Euratom) n°1700/2003 du22septembre 2003
(JO L243du27.9.2003, p.1),cedossier estouvert aupublic. Lecaséchéant, lesdocuments
classifiés présents dans cedossier ontétédéclassifiés conformément àl'article 5dudit
règlement.
Inaccordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No354/83 of1February 1983
concerning theopening tothepublic ofthehistorical archives oftheEuropean Economic
Community and theEuropean Atomic Energy Community (OJ L43,15.2.1983, p.1),as
amended byRegulation (EC, Euratom) No1700/2003 of22September 2003 (OJ L243,
27.9.2003, p.1),thisfileisopen tothepublic. Where necessary, classified documents inthis
filehave been declassified inconformity withArticle 5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr.354/83 desRates vom 1.
Februar 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI. L43vom 15.2.1983,
S.1),geändert durch dieVerordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr.1700/2003 vom 22.September 2003
(ABI. L243vom 27.9.2003, S.1),istdiese Datei derÖffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit
erforderlich, wurden dieVerschlusssachen indieser Datei inÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel 5
dergenannten Verordnung freigegeben.

COMMISSION OFTHE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(80)239 final
Brussels ,12th May 1980
COMMISSION REPORT TOTHE ACP-EEC
COUNCIL OFMINISTERS
ONTHE ADMINISTRATION OFFINANCIAL
AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION IN1979 ,
UNDER THE LOME CONVENTION

CONTENTS
, Pa9e
INTRODUCTION 1
v
CHAPTER I-FINANCING 3
1.1 . Commitments 3
1.1.1 . Aggregate commitrfients ,3
1.1.1.A. Aid administered by the Commission 3
I.1.1.B. Aid administered bythe EIB ,4
1.2. Disbursements 5
1.3. Breakdown bysector 6
1.3.1 . Development ofproduction 6
1.3.1 .A. Industrialization 6
-Development banks ... 6
-Manuf actur ingindustry 7
-Agri-industrial complexes 7
-Metalworking * 8
-Chemicals - 8
-Energy 8
-Extractvve industries 9
-The useofrisk capital
for industrialization 10
1.3.1.B. Tourism ' 10
1.3.1.C. Rural production 11
-Agcicultural production ' ~ • 11
-Stock-f arming - 14
-Fisheries 14
-Forestry • 14
1.3.2 . Economic infrastructure 15
-Roads and bridges . - 15
-Civil aviation 16
-RaiIways 16
-Ports and waterways '17
-Télécommunications "17

-2-
Page
1.3.3 .Social development 17
-Education andtraining 18
-PubIichealth 20
-Water engineering -urban infrastructure
and housing . 21
1.3.4 .Multisector programme ofshort-term aid
toUganda 21
1.3.5 .Other commitments 22
1 «
CHAPTER II-APPLICATION OF THE INSTRUMENTS OF
COOPERATION AND CERTAIN SPECIFIC
PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION 23
11.1. Trade promotion 23
11.2. Stabex 24
11.3. Exceptional aid . - 25
11.4.Technical cooperation 25
11.5. Regional cooperation 26
II.6.Microprojects 27
\ ».\II.7. Special measures infavour of
the least .developed ACP States 1 27
11.8.Specific measures infavour ofsmall
and medium-sized national enterprises *29
11.9.Assistance andtransfer oftechnology 30
11.10 .Industrial cooperation agencies 31
11.11 .Co-financing 32

-3-
Page
CHAPTER III -ADMINISTRATION OFAID ,EVALUATION
OFRESULTS ,INFORMATION 33
III.1. Admini stration ofaid 33
-Updating ofindicative programmes 33
-Invitations totender * 34
-Financing agreements \ ' 34
-Preparation ofconditions ofcontract 35
-Commission Delegations -35
-Coordination and harmonization ofaid '35
36
36
,37
40
40 •
4*1-III .2. Evaluation ofcompleted projects
III .2.1 .Working methods
- I
III .2.2.Principal lessons tobelearned
'from the evaluations completed „
III .3. Information
-"The Courier "
-Further information
»

ANNEXES
Tables Iandla-Breakdown :ofcommitments -atend 1979 bycountryand bysector .
Tables IIandHa-Breakdown ofcommitments atend 1979 bysector
and method 5offinancing .
Tablesr III andIlia -Financing situation atend :1979 bymethod offinancing ,and byadministrative body .
Tables IVand IVb-Financing situation atend 1979 bymethod of
financing /-byadministrative body and ;by .sector -
Tables Stand' \la~Sector atsummary ,end ?979y showing %.,method offinancing andadministrative body »
Table VI~Subsidized ,.loans andrisk capital committed bythe EIBin1979 .
Table VIT –Stabex-
Table Vin –Exceptional aid.
Table IX-Small !and medium-sized enterprises .
Table X-Breakdown ofcontracts - •;
Table XI–Cost ofthe Delegations - -
Table XII–ComTrftmentst .and payments asat 12,1979 byACPState .

INTRODUCTION
The Commission report onthe administration offinancial and technical
cooperation in1979,drawn up-where appropriate incollaboration with
the European Investment Bank ,isintended toenable the Council of
Ministers toreview the extent towhich the objectives ofthe cooperation
have been achieved .Article 41ofthe Lome Con 1,"■•■Hon provides that
the Commi ssion .shall submit anannual report ;the present report is
the fourth since the entry into force ofthe Convention on 1April .1976 .
At31December 1979 commitments bythe Commission and the Bank since
the Convention 'sentry into force were inexcess of 2500 million units
ofaccount (including over 688 million units ofaccount in1979 alone ),
orover 73 %ofthe funds available .The percentage isslightly higher
for programme aid taken onits own than for th-:nngregate ,which includes
Stabex ,exceptional aid and EIB contributions , i,,-commitment percentage
for national indicative programmes isalso app^ec ;ihly higher than that
for regional projects .But these figures obviousl-' represent anaverage ,
and further analysis indicates abreakdown ofthe ACP States ,into three
major groupings :
-thirty-eight countries where 70 %-100 %ofthe indicative programme
has been financed ;
-eleven countries where the proportion isbetween AO %and 70 '
-seven countries where the proportion islower than 40 %.
%
: I
The low level ofcommitments for the last ofthese groups is .explained
either byaccession tothe Lome Convention after its entry into force
orbysome particular set ofcircumstances .
ByFebruary 1980 the grand total ofdisbursements from the fourth EDF
came toalmost 1000 million units ofaccount ,374 million <38%)-of
this being for 1979 alone .Procedural improvements and streamlining /
coupled with abetter understanding born ofthe experience gained by
those concerned ,have brought about considerable progress inthis
field ,asthe 1978 report predicted .

Inthe resolution itadopted InSuva (Fidji )on14April 1977,the Council
called onthose responsible for devising and implementing technical
cooperation between the ACP States and the Community totake stock of
all financial and technical cooperation activities .
Inthe 1978 report the Commission indicated that nosuch meeting had
taken place .Itwas notpossible tohold ope in1979 either ,thenegotiations
for the renewal ofthe Convention having claimed the full attention of
the ACP and Community staff concerned .Experts from both sides finally
met inBrussels on25and 26February 1980,before the expiry ofthe
Convention ,bywhich time this report had been more or.less completed .
The meeting provided further confirmation that afrank ,direct dialogue
helps produce more positive results and better guideline for the imple­
mentation offinancial and technical cooperation inthe future .The timing
ofthe meeting gave the experts aclearer view ofwhat was been accomplished
under the first Lome Convention .
i -
Inthe course ofthe year Tuvalu ,Dominica ,StLucia andKiribati acceded
tothe Convention ,bringing the number ofACP States at31December to
58 (originally they had numbered 46).

-3-
CHAPTER I
FINANCING
1.1.Commitments
1.1.1 .Aggregate commitments -
Commitments bythe Commission and the Bank for the year totalled
68»7.9 million EUA.Inall,2513.9 million EUA has been committed
since the entry into force ofthe Convention ,i.e. 72.2 %ofthe
total 3464.4 million EUA available .(The original figure of
3390 million EUA was updated totake account offurther accessions
tothe Lome Convention ,byvirtue ofArticles 89and 90which stipul­
atethat accession shall not adversely affect the advantages accruing
totheoriginal signatories ,inter alia from the provisions onfinan­
cial andtechnical cooperation .
Itmay reasonably beassumed that most ofthe remaining funds will
becommitted inthe course of1980 .The transition between ,the two
Conventions should therefore besmooth . . "
Inthe year under review the Commission ,with the approval ofthe
relevent Community bodies (Article 54ofthe Convention ),took .150
financing decisions plus 203 decisions ontechnical cooperation ,and
17financing decisions relating tomicroproject programmes were
taken bythe Chief Authorizing Officer ofthe European Development
Fund . • »
1.1.1.A. Aid administered bythe Commission
Commission-administered aid committed totalled 588.8 million EUA,
9%above the preceding year 'sfigure .
The total can bebroken down asfollows :
-400million EUA foraid under national and regional programmes
down slightly -by54.3 million EUA-on1978),comprising
342.2 million EUA or85.6 %ingrant form and 57.8 million EUA
or14.4 %inthe form ofspecial loans ;

-L-
-24.6 million EUAforexceptional aid,which remained stable ;
-164.2 million EUA under Stabex ,representing anappreciable increase
(up103.3 million EUA). x
Although the system forthestabi lization ofexport earnings does not
strictly speaking come under the heading offinancial andtechnical
cooperation ,the money istaken from the European Development Fund .
Toget acomplete picture ofthe use made ofthe Fund itistherefore
necessary tolook at"the Stabex results .
I.1.1.B. Aidadministered bythe EIB r
Financing undertaken bythe EIBtotalled 86.4 million EUA :
73.2 million EUA inthe form ofsubsidized loans
13.2 million EUA inthe form ofrisk capital
bringing EIB financing under the Lom6 Convention toatotal of347.4
million EUA (1),orover 71 %ofthe resources administered ,bythe Bank
during thelifetime ofthe Convention .
-Subsidized loans
The EIBgranted 11subsidized loans totalling ,73.2 million EUA,bringing
thetotal for subsidized loans toACP countries since theentry into
force ofthe Convention to272.6 million EUA at31December ,i.e. 70 %
oftheceiling .In1*979,loans were used tofinance industrial ,energy ,
m.ining andtourism projects inseven ACPcountries .Oneoftheprojects
isregional ,concerning Ghana andIvory Coast .The terms ofJhe loans
were fairly uniform :from 10to15years duration ,with interest rates
ranging from 5.95 to7.40 %taking into account interest rate subsi­
dies of3%from EDF resources which represent atotal of10.7 million
EUA discounted topresent values .
(1)Minus 1i'lmillion EUArepresenting thepartial cancellation
ofrisk capital accorded form 1976 to1978 . /

-5-
-Risk capital
Thethirteen risk capital operations forwhich documents were signed
in1979 total 13.2 million EUA andbring financing accorded inthis
form upto74.8 million EUA,or77%ofthemaximum provided for
under Article 42ofthe Convention .Operations inthe least developed
ACP States (under Article 48ofthe Convention )account fornearly
half ofthis type ofaid .Risk capital operations areanalysed more
fully below (see p.13).
1.2 .Disbursements
Disbursements offunds made -bythe Commission totalled
374million EUA,anincrease of16.5 %onthecorresponding figure
for 1978 (321 million EUA).This calls for two comments .
* i.Asregards thetrend oftotal disbursements ,theyear 'sresults
confirm andconsolidate theacceleration which only started to
materialize inthe last quarter of1978 :total disbursements
.forthe first quarter of1979 aredouble the volume forthe
.corresponding period in1978 .To;cope with this ,theCommission
/brought forward byamonth the second call forMember' States' <•
..contributions tothe EDFandrequested a.supplementary contri - •
bution forthe final quarter ofthe year .
•'•..ii.Table XII,"setting outthecomfflitment /dvsbursement'rati-bS ,ipr
/v'th^ACPStates ;'at ;--'30 ;-Novemb'e »>.shows considerable ..dif v
' .-'v..between ,thesituations ofindividual countries ,'For ,certain ;
/^States (Congo ,Dominica ,Gabon ,Guinea Bissau ,Mauritania ,"-
■'':;; :rNiger ,Senegal ,Togo ,Tuvalu andUpper Volta )the>ateof > *
r •Useoffunds -vshigh ,,whileforothers (Grenada ,Guyana ,Guinea ,
'"Sao .Tome and Suriname )itremains fairly low.It^.possible *> •
:': that forthe 1latter group of'tountr^esy -wiit seeproject '
\ 'implementation speeded upaswas ::the casevi.n Ivory Coast 197!?;1 ,
.·*ν* "''* '''■ ·:>' '1 ''·* ''**'* ■' -1**·Α*-- '·"*' "·~■' ■·'·«*"*·.'"*■*^ ·'■ : 'V'*''**'■"
;■>if..However /theacceleration ismore orMessuMvers^l ]andat •'k/vv*v \
./December theaverage rate ofdisbur s<m£at s:Jbj>'the*jfeiwri $sion'W «
^-1·^Υ .]ι ··· *»'·»Γ*^ ' ". .^'
.v ;a'percentage o,f^osmitment swas ,4V3 .*
ϋν^·· .''.ν.Γ."»' ·· '?;^..'νϊ··-''»<Ί\ ·"·.■.· ''νν'^,/Λν#.,- ·'ί#.· *ν'"
i.,..* •'-i: >■; >*■?. --4• -v'- .•.tf

-6-
Thus after aslowish start ,nearly all the ACPStates have achieved
the necessary familiarity with the administrative pro-cedures laid
down bythe Lome Convention .These procedures have been described
atlength elsewhere and are well known :their structure isnot
novel ,but they display anewpolitical purpose inthefar-reaching
transfer ofresponsibility tothe beneficiary countries' adminis­
trations and decentralization ofthe powers ofthe central adminis­
trative bodies . <
1.3.Breakdown bysector
1.3.1 .Development ofproduction
This sector ,comprising industrialization ,tourism and rural production ,
remained the largest ,with commitments totalling 223.9 million EUA,
down slightly (by86.4 million EUA)onthe preceding year .However ,
ashas been the case since the Convention came into force ,with
atotal of 1118.3 million EUA going toit,the development of
production isstill way ahead ofthe other major sectors (taking
57.4 %ofcommitments onprojects and programmes todate).(1 )
I.3.1 .A.Industrialization '
In1979 financing for industrialization amounted to114.6 million EUA,
bringing thetotal at31December to663.6 million EUA (including
177 million EUA for the agricultural and food industries and agri-
industrial complexes directly concerning rural communities ).
Development banks
With regard todevelopment banks ,the EIB has continued toaccord global
loans aimed above all atpromoting small and medium-sized enterprises
(SME);three operations inAfrica and the Caribbean were arranged
in1979,for atotal of8million EUA.
The Commission financed three operations for credit lines to SME
involving atotal of4.3 million EUA.
(1)Table V-item III-a .

-7-
Manufacturing industry
Manufacturing industry inthe ACP States also ,received direct aid from
the Bank totalling 9.33 million EUA.Twoprojects inCameroon (textiles -
and cement works )took 9.1million EUA from the EIB'sown resources ,
while the remaining 0.23 million EUA took the form oftworisk capital
loans tofinance studies ,onerelating to'thecreation ofaship repair
yard inCape Verde ,andothers tovarious industrial projects in
Swazi land . ' ,
The Commission 'scontributions inthis field ,while relatively small
involume ,are mainly for the financing ofstudies and should achieve
solid pratical results .
.Agriculture and food industries andagri-industrial complexes
The EIB financed twoprojects inthis sector ,for atotal of6.9million
EUA.InIvory Coast ,.a4.6million EUA loan wasgranted tofinance
increased latex processing capacity ,and 2.3million EUAinthe form
ofrisk capital went toGambia tofinance themodernization ofgroundnut -
processing plant .
Inaddition toseveral studies ,1.9 .million EUA wasprovided from the
resources administered bythe Commission tofinance aproject inthis
sector :the renovation ofthe Pretsea agri-industrial complex inGhana ,
consisting ofa4500 haindustrial oil-palm plantation (tobeincreased
to4900 ha)and anoilmill,which istobeoverhauled (capacity 4500
tonnes ofoiI). . ^
This project ism'line with the international consensus -andparticularly
recommendations from theInternational Monetary Fund -onthe need to
upgrade orrenovate earlier schemes facing difficulties before under­
taking newprojects .

Metalworking
There were three EIBfinancing operations inthis sector ,involving
atotal sumof8.79 million EUA .Twoofthem concerned theextension
andmodernization ofanaluminium plant inCameroon ,which received
aloan of5.3million EUAfrom theBank 'sownresources and2.3mil­
lion EUAintheform ofrisk capital .Aconditional risk capital loan
of1.19 million EUA ,went toMadagascar ,tobuild apilot works for
processing chromium ore .
Chemicals
InIvory Coast the EIBmade available atotal of5.7million EUA for
*theextension ofafertilizer factory ,intheform of5.2million EUA "
from ownresources and0.5million asrisk capital .
The Commission granted aspecial loan of2.95 million EUA fortheconstruc­
tion ofanasphalt works inTanzania .
Energy '
There were five EIBoperations inthis sector ,totalling 14.6 million EUA.
Twoloans ,each of6million EUA,went toIvor/Coast andGhana forlinking
their electricity grids .Aconditional loan of1million EUAwasgranted ,
asrisk capital for th,efinancing ofathermal power station inDjibouti .
Risk capital wasalso used tofinance astudy onabituminous sandstone
deposit inMadagascar ,andtohelp finance thedevelopment ofsolar
energy inSenegal . * ■
Grants orspecial loans from thefunds administered bytheCommission
inthis sector totalled over 12million EUA.Inaddition toanumber
ofstudies ,they concerned thefinancing oftwomajor projects :
one forgeothermal research inEthiopia (4.1million EUA)andtheother
forelectricity supplies tosixprovincial towns inUpper Volta .
*
Asupplementary grant of4.2million EUA forthe construction ofthe
Selingue dam inMali wasalso accorded .

Onageneral level ,one ofthe ACP States major concerns inthe energy
sector continues to«be thedrive towards self-sufficiency .Itisthere­
fore necessary :
i >
(a)torationalize non-commercial energy consumption (mainly wood )
byimproving combustion yields ,backed upbyreafforestation
programmes and the introduction ofnew types ofappropriate
technology inthe domestic and industrial sectors (ethanol ,
biogas ,gas production ,direct solar energy conversion ,etc...)
«•• • _ À
(b)tocut imports ofpetroleum products (petrol ,fuel oil )byintro­
ducing more appropriate plant designed toexploit local resources
(solar energy ,wind,hydro-electricity ,biomass ,agri-industrial
waste ,etc...) and encouraging the optimum use ofenergy production
faci lities . ~
Energy cooperation therefore involves both conventional projects
producing established types ofenergy (mainly hydro-electricity )and
the promotion ofresearch onand exploitation ofalternative energy
sources . • •
At31December total Community investment inenergy had attained the
sizeable sum of194million EUA,broken down asfollows :
.hydroelectric energy '' 69 %
thermal energy 7%
<transportation energy .' 20 %
alternative energy sources 4%
Obviously ,projects harnessing the hydroelectric potential ofthe ACP -
States continue to'spearhead the Community 'sactivity inthis sector .
These include inparticular the construction ofmajor dams such as
those over the Ruzizi (Rwanda ,Burundi ,Zaire ),Kpong (Ghana ),
Mukungwa (Rwanda )Song-Loulou (Cameroon ),Tana River (Kenya )andViti
Levu (Fidj i).69 %
7%
20 %
4%
Extractive industries
The EIB financed twoprojects inthis sector ,for atotal sum of
26million EUA.Aloan of25million EUA wasgranted for working iron
ore deposits inMauritania ,and aconditional loan was granted as
risk capital tofinance astudy oniron oredeposits ineastern Senegal

-10-
TheCommission ,foritspart,financed mining studies ,which are
avital means ofobtaining abetter knowledge ofthe scope for
development inthis sector .Thetwomost important ofthese ,
carried outinBenin (1.6million EUA)andCameroon (1.2million EUA)
were geological mapping andmineral prospecting studies which should
enable anassessment tobemade ofthepotential oftheareas involved .
The useofrisk capital forindustrialization
Itisinteresting tonote that the EIB'sthirteen risk capital
operations involved financing projects which,owing totheir particularcharacteristics ,itwould probably nothave been possible tofinance
solely with loans from theBank'sresources .Ofthese operations in
theindustrial ,mining andtourism sectors ,seven were financed directly ,
while theothers involved thefinancing ofspecific studies ;oneof
them,accorded toadevelopment bank,alsoprovides forthepossibility
offinancing minority holdings .
Half ofthetotal forrisk capital operations went tosixoftheACP
countries classed asleast developed under Article 48of-theConvention .
Theremaining half wasdivided among five countries ,mainly toincrease
firm'sownresources .Intwoinstances therisk capital operations were
supplementary toloans from theBank'sownresources .
Risk capital wasused inseveral different ways ;direct acquisition
ofholdings bytheBank onbehalf oftheCommunity inthecapital of
enterprises ,direct 'aidtowards theconstitution ofownresources viaconditional loans tothe ACPState ,orquasi-capital aidtoenterprises
inthe form ofconditional loans .-
Aidtowards theconstitution ofownresources ,initsvarious forms ,
isthemain objective ofriskcapital operations andaccounts foralmost
three quarters ofthetotal amount accorded .
I.3.1.B. Tourism
TheEIBgranted three loans totalling 7.1million EUAinthetourismsector .Aloan from theBank'sownresources (4.5million EUA)will
helptofinance thebuilding ofahotel inNiger andtworiskcapital
operations willhelptofinance ^hotels inMali (2.5million EUA).and
astudy inJamaica . v

-11-
The Commission ,foritspart,provided atotal of0.9 million EUA
tofinance studies onthetourist potential ofGuyana and the CARICOM
countries and atechnical assistance scheme inZambia .
1é3.1.C. Rural production '
Commitments for increasing rural production continued atasteady rate
which waspractically indentical tothat ofthe preceding year .
Financing decisions taken inthis sector totalled 101.3 million EUA,
thereby raising to436 million EUA the amount ofCommunity a>d earmarked
forthis type ofproduction since implementation ofthe Lome Convention ,
started . .,
i /
Tocover the full range ofrural development schemes (operations of
particular relevance torural communities ),the following should be
added tothis total :
i. 177 million EUA committed foragri-industrial projects and
theagricultural and foodstuffs industries asnoted above ;
ii. 33.6 million EUA forvillage water engineering operations ;
iii. 79.3 million EUA for social development projects directly
affecting' rural communities (training ,and health and education
infrastructure ). , - .
Inall,these variou 'sschemes relating torural -development inthe
broad sense ofthe term represented atthe end ofthe year ,almost
38.6 %ofthe aggregate amount committed forprojects and programmes
(Table N° V,item Ill-a ).
Agricultural production
Oftheprojects financed from the resources administered bythe
Commission ,19concerned agricultural production .Details ofall of
them will not begiven ,but certain trends which seem tobeof
particular interest will beindicated .
First ofall,almost all these projects directly affected small
family farms .Their impact isconsiderable ,since the holdings in
question provide aliving for over 1300 000 people ,farming atotal
ofover 320 000 hectares .

-12-
The main products covered bytheprojects arecereals ,paddy rice,
vegetables *oleaginous fruits and cotton .The additional production
expected asadirect result oftheprojects (when fully operational )
should amount toover 73000tofcereals ,10000tofpaddy rice,
23000tofgroundnuts and 20000tofseed-cotton ,thus representing
aclear predominance offood crops ,irrespective ofwhether they are
intended forfamilies' own consumption orformarketing .Furthermore ,
with regard tocrops grown inrotation ,aproduction surplus may be
expected inthe case ofproduce notdirectly affected bythe proposed
improvements incultivation methods but used aspart ofthe crop
rotation ,notably owing tocertain residual effects offertilizers .
The basic objective ofanumber ofprojects ,such asthethird phase
ofthe Segou rice operation (Mali),was the achievement ofself-
sufficiency infood,and consequently food security .
Inthe case ofprojects involving products for industrial processing ,
»the objective was inmany cases tosupply local factories (e.g. cotton
project inGuinea ).
Anumber ofprojects were ofthe "pilot "type,the aim being toprepare
for the future byseeking the products orproduction methods most suited
tothe local context (e.g. :grain production inBelize )..Others were
aimed atapplied research ,especially inaregional context ,which ,is
ofparticular value since ,the results will then benefit anumber of
countries (e.g. cocoa project inthe Carribean ,the results ofwhich
may beused inGhana ,Ivory Coast ,Cameroon ,Nigeria ,orZa'ire ,which
are major cocoa producers ).
Anumber ofoperations include asection onsoil protection ,and one
entire project was even devoted tothis problem ,which iscrucial for
the area concerned ,asthe constant decline ofthe soil potential is
-causing the bottom tofall out offood production while the food
situation has already reached dramatic proportions (Nioumakelie project
inthe Comoros ).
Most ofthe projects aimed atboosting production are based onan
•increase inproductivity rather than area,and attention isfocused
onthe yield per hectare inthese cases .The Nuba mountains project
inSudan aims toachieve the following increases (inKg/ha):
^ . situation with project
E–^ (when fully operational )
Sorghum 786 '1 357
Cotton 321 857
Sesame 357 624

-13-
The non-quantifiable "effects ofprojects sometimes play amajor role
inthecommitment decision :this would apply ,forexample ,tf>aproject
involving aregion where fewother productive projects arepossible and
which seems atadisadvantage compared with the rest ofthecountry
(e.g. savannah project inTogo )ortoaproject bringing about asigni­
ficant improvement inthe standard ofliving ofthe local population as
aresult offactors which arenotdirectly productive such aswells ,
tracks ,training ,etc... (this has often been true ofintegrated rural
development projects ,such astheMono project inBenin ).
Cofinancing wasused tofund anumber ofprojects .The total amount of
9.13 million EUArequired for aproject inMalawi ,forexample ,wasfound
bymeans ofthe following contributions -:
million EUA
2.4
2.792
0.55
0.716
2.672EDF
CDC (1)
ODA (1)
Malawi
Self-f inancing
oftheproject
Four oftheagricultural projects forwhich commitments were made were
regional projects toback upexisting structures (e.g. WARDA inWest Africa ).
Although theamounts put upwere relatively lowtheir impact mayeventually
beconsiderable owing tothenumber ofcountries involved (inthe case of
WARDA ,15countries :Benin ,Gambia ,Guinea ,Guinea Bissau ,Ghana ,Ivory
Coast ,Liberia ,Mali ,Mauritania ,Niger ,Nigeria ,Senegal ,Sierra Leone ,
Togo ,Upper Volta ).
Itshould benoted ,lastly ,that themultisector programme ofaid for
Uganda includes 4million EUAforagriculture (see1.3.4 .below ).
(1)CDC :Commonwealth Development Corporation
ODA :Overseas Development Administration
(two UKbilateral aid bodies )

-14-
Stock-f armi ng
The financing decisions taken inthis sector during the year amount to
5.7 million EUA.This amount isrelatively small butitwill beremembered
that for stock-farming the national context isoften too restricted ,
particularly ifahealth scheme isinvolved .Regional projects aretherefore
the most fruitful but they are also the most complex toprepare and implement
Forthis reason ,while continuing the appraisal ofnational projects where
such projects prove -appropriate ,the Commission 'sdepartments ,working
inconjunction with regional bodies ,particularly inWest Africa ,are
preparing regional animal health schemes (interdependence ofsahelian and
Sudanese stock-farming ).
Inaddition ,the short-term aid programme for Uganda includes ascheme
costing 3.5 million EUA for improvements tostock-farming (see 1.3.4 .below ).
Fisheri es
Inthe sphere offisheries ,the financing decisions taken in1979 amount
toanoverall figure of4million EUA.
Aregional study covering five Gulf ofGuinea States should benoted ;
another ,requested bycertain Indian Ocean states ,isbeing prepared .
Forestry .*
Only oneproject was concerned exclusively with forestry :the .deforestation
ofthe site ofthe Selingue dam reservoir inMali .Inacountry where there
isanacute shortage .ofwood forfuel andconstruction (hence the need for •
expensive imports ),itwould have been regrettable ifthe wood inthe area
which will beflooded once the Selingu£ damisbuilt (17900haofforest )
had been completely lost .This wood will therefore berecovered and
processed onthe spot into charcoal (38000t)and rough timber for.sawing
(1600 m3)which will besold inthe area orinBamako .This will make it
possible to slow down the overexploitation ofalmost 50000 haofforest
inthe Bamako belt,until 3400 haofnew forest financed bythe World Bank
becomes productive .
Itshould bepointed out that inaddition tothis major forestry project ,
small "reafforestation "operations are sometimes included inagricultural
projects ,especially where integrated rural development isinvolved .

-15-
f
1.3.2 . Economie infrastructure
Commitments inthis sector totalled 137.8 million EUA,which was .well'
upon1978 (93.7 million EUA).Irvall ,atyear end,455.1 million EUA
had been given over tothis sector ,which ,with 23.3 %ofthe commit­
ments entered into under the indicative programmes ,comes second to
the development ofproduction (Table V,item Ill-a ). >
tRoads and bridges '
This isthe area inwhich most progress has been made,with 'financing
decisions amounting to115.6 million EUA (98.1 million EUAingrants
and 17.5 million EUA inloans )asopposed to55.2 million EUA in1978
(+109 %),-.These amounts donot include money spent onbuilding rural
tracks inthe context ofagricultural projects .
Eighteen road projects were financed .:eleven inAfrica ,four inthe
Pacific and three inthe Caribbean .
These are mainly projects involving thebuilding ofmajor road links
with aview toopening upregions which aredifficult ,oreven impossible
toreach during the rainy season .This isthe aim ofthe largest
projects financed inSierra Leone ,Za'ire ,Tanzania and Burundi .Service
roads are also included ,asinFidji ,Gambia and Zambia .The building
ofthe access road tothe Manantali dam isapreliminary tothebuilding
ofthe dam,which will not only enable avast area tobeirrigated ,but
will also make the Senegal navigable inall seasons .This project ,
which covers Senegal ,Mauritania and Mali,isaregional one,asis
theproject forbuilding aroad thrpugh Botswana toopen upZambia .
Major studies have been initiated for aroad linking northern Somalia
toDjibouti (regional project )andfor roads inMadagascar (Sambava -
Ivongo ),Rwanda (Cyangugu-Butare )and Somalia (Einabo-Er igavo-Lasquoray ).
Asageneral rule,the EDF financed the road projects intheir entirety
(including supervision ).Incertain cases ,the works were exempt from
customs duties and charges (Mali,Ethiopia ).InSierra Leone ,aproject .
was cofinanced with German bilateral aid.

Civil aviation
Inthis sector ,three runways for smalt planes have been financed inFidj
Raitways
\
The railway provides access toregions previously cut off .The cost
ofbuilding railway lines issuch ,however ,,that existing lines should
first beimproved and anattempt should bemade tofind anumber of
sources offinancing forany oneproject .This dual requirement lies
behind Community operations inthe railways sector inthe course of
the year ,covering southern and central Africa .Community aidhelped
bring about cooperation between theAfrican countries concerned and
the suppliers offunds for financing the rebuilding ofthe Lobito
line ,linking Zambia and Shaba totheAtlantic Ocean (port ofLobito )".
The Community contribution is8miltion EUA forthe first phase ofthe
project ,which costs 26.1 million EUA and isbeing cofinanced with
the United Nations ,ABEDIA and the OPEC Special Fund ,andBelgian ,
Dutch andSwedish aid .Asecond phase costing 37million EUA isbeing
examined bythe various suppliers offunds ..
Tothe east ,the Community isparticularly involved inthe Kigcfma -
Dar-es-Salaam line ,where itispreparing operations toimprove the -
port ofKigoma onLake Tanganyika andtheKigoma-Tabora section for
which studies have already been financed .Furthermore ,following the
events inZimbabwe-Rhodesia ,which resulted ihthedestruction of
twobridges over theTazara ,linking Zambia toDar-es-Salaam, the
Community committed &r\amount of1.7million EUA inDecember for
reparing theShambesti andLunsemfwa bridges ,the first cofinanced
with China .All these operations were financed with regional cooperation
funds .
InCameroon ,the Community financed ageotechmcal study toprepare
thetechnical specifications forthe last section oftherealignment
ofrailway between Pouala andYaounde (1.5million EUA).Anamount of
3.7 miIlion EUAwas committed assupplementary financing forthe
realignment ofthe Congo-Ocean railway .

-17-
Ports and waterways
There were fewCommunity operations inthis sphere ,with atotal of
2.8million EUA,butthey were designed tomeet well-established
priority objectives ,asinTonga (Vava'u wharf )orconstitute preparation
forfuture action , >such asthefinancing ofthe study onthedevelopment -
ofpost infrastructure onthesouth-eastern coast ofLiberia ,and
thetechnical study ontheport ofKigoma onLake Tanganyika .
ι %Télécommunications
There were fewtelecommunications operations ,but they constitute what
issometimes adecisive factor inthedevelopment ofacountry .This is
true ofthe inter-island telecommunications project inthe Comoros
(Community contribution of2.3million EUA),which will provide the
country with basic infrastructure ;this project isbeing financed with
ABEDIA (contribution of1.1million EUA),InUganda ,anamount of1.6
million EUA was committed for telecommunications under the mult isectora I
aidprogramme .
1*3.3 . Social development ■
Commitments inthis sector amounted to86million EUA,which reflects
avery stable level ofcommitments .At31December ,thetotal amount
was 329.1 million EUA,i.e. 16.9 %ofthe commitments entered into
inrespect ofprogrammes andprojects .
Inthe social sphere ,irrespective ofwhether itiseducation ,health
orhousing ,itisimportant tocarry outnotrandom andisolated projects
butoperations linked with other development schemes inorder to
increase their impact and scope .
Efforts have been made tomove inthis direction but itwould be \
desirable forthis concept togain -widespread acceptance infuture .
Furthermore ,even ifthese projects areundertaken inaspecific
sectoral context ,such asconstruction ,itisadvisable notto
confine action tobuilding andthesupply ofequipment ,buttomake
provision also forthetraining orfurther training ofstaff ,without
omitting those responsible formanagement andmaintenance .
Thepractical experience acquired inthis sphere comes from operations
undertaken inthefield inalarge number ofACPcountries .Itwill be
valuable inthe future . .

-18-
Asforproject implementation ,inorder toapply appropriate techniques
andtake into account theburden ofoperating costs carried bythe
budgets ofthe countries concerned ,anattempt was made touse more
local resources than inthepast inconstruction ,with regard tothe
choice ofmaterials andtheskills ofthe labour employed .
Operations ofthis type arestill rather rare however ,foralthough
thetechnique istried andtested ,forvarious reasons they have not
been fully accepted andthis prevents them from being more widespread ,
despite their undoubted value .
Education and training " \
-Education infrastructure
Over theyear ,14projects ,including two regional ones ,were financed
inthe sphere ofeducation .
Inthe national projects the emphasis was placed onvocational and
technical establishments for the training ofmiddle management and
technicians ,who areurgently needed intheACP States ,andoncentres
fortraining instructors totake over from technical assistants apd
thus place training entirely inthe hands ofnationals .
Itisofinterest tonote that cetain specialized training facilities
are increasingly being set upin.a regional context .Thenational
framework issometimes relatively small forthese proj ects , .which '
arecostly both interms oftheoriginal outlay andrunning costs .
-Multiannual training programmes
With the adoption during theyear ofsixmultiannual training
programmes atacost of12million EUAthenumber ofACP States with
such programmes attheir disposal isnow 49,involving anoverall
total ofalmost 90million EUA .
These programmes contribute tothe attainment ofthebeneficiary
ACP States' priority training objectives .They encourage inparticular
the training ofinstructors andvocational andtechnical training .
Under these programmes study andtraining grants are awarded ,training
orfurther training sessions ,areheld ,instructors andteaching material :
are provided ,etc... -

-19-
Out ofatotal ofabout 4300 awards made bythe end ofthe year,
about 950 were fortraining inthe Community countries and the remainder ,
around 78 %,were fortraining inthe ACP countries .The ACP States
and the Community give priority totraining onthe spot orinother
ACP States ,innational orregional establishments ,notably for
technicians ,middle ^management ,administrative andpublic service staff .
Generally speaking ,award holders are sent toEurope only for short
training courses orvocational training ,,orifitisascertained that there
are no specialized establishments onthe spot which could provide
the specific training sought .
The percentage breakdown ofstudy andtraining grants bysector is
asfollows :
Economics Agr iculture Sciences /
TechnologyHealth Educat ion Other Total
40 % .15 % 27 % 2% 7% 9% 100 %
Anumber ofseminars were organized ,notably toprovide further training
for civil servants ormanagement infinance management ,the preparation
ofprojects ,technical programming ,etc... The sending ofinstructors
orexperts toprovide training was continued ,bringing uptotal technical
assistance inthe various fields oftraining to 1300 men/months .
Other training schemes ,totalling about 20million EUA,were also
financed tomeet specific needs ortocarry out regional training
programmes (e.g. :Higher Management Training Centre inMadagascar ;
National V ocational Training Institute inZaire ;training schemes for
technical staff atthe ports ofMogadishu and Djibouti ;assistance for
the 0CAM statistics college inKigali ;regional telecommunications
training centre inMalawi ,etc...
-Project s_w2th_a_tra2!21!22_£i£[[!£[]£ '
The ACP/EECjoint meeting orvthe evaluation ofwater engineering projects
held inBamako inNovember fully confirmed the result ofhealth the
experiment already observed inFreetown ,which shows that the share
oftraining inthe cost ofprojects isVery little compared with
beneficial consequences for the operation asawhole .

-20-
Special attention hastherefore been paid toproject-linked training ,
either aspart ofindividual projects orunder multiannual programmes
where training schemes have tostart before aproject isexecuted owing
tothenature ofthe skills required .
-Seminars_and_adv ancedtraining courses
»
ι
Asumof800000 EUAdrawn from the regional appropriations enabled
previous activities forthebenefit ofACPofficials andcadres to
bestepped upandextended .
Theseminars were attended inBrussels ,Luxemburg andStrasburg bysome
600 students ortrainees from theACP States and comprised 24sessions
oftwo days toone week .Matters ofspecific interest toeach ofthe
groups were dealt with inaddition tothegeneral aspects ofthe
Community 'sdevelopment policy . -
Also ,twofurther training sessions (one inEnglish andone inFrench )
were held inBrussels ontheplanning ofhuman resources andtraining
seen from thedevelopment policy angle .These seminars enabled ACP
States' officals tocompare notes andfamiliarize themselves with the
techniques forevaluating management andskilled labour requirements .
Lastly ,twomore regional seminars were held forACP senior officals
andcadres :one inLome ontechnology ,andtheother inAbidjan on
banking techniques .These twoseminars were organized inconjunction ,
with the UNand OCTAM .
-Public health
Total finance provided forhealth projects was 15.2 million EUA .
The overall amount committed since the outset is44.9 million EUA .
Asinthepast ,theemphasis wasplaced onprotecting thehealth of
thepoorest sections ofthepopulation ,particularly inrural areas ,
bysetting uporimproving small health units .

-21-
The seven projects financed involved theextension ofarural hospital
using local materials ,thereby avoiding the need toimport part ofthe
materials from abroad ,and creating small-scale industries and new
jobs inthe region .There isalso another project aimed mainly at
scientific research :specialized equipment istobesupplied inorder
toempirical data onmedicinal herbs derived from traditional medicine .
Once the pharmacological potential ofthese herbs has .been determined
allextracts intended for export will beproduced ,followed bythe
manufacture offinished products intended above all for domestic
consumption ,butalso forexport .
-Water_en22neer2ng z_urban_2nf £§structure_and _hous2nc [
Commitments inthis sphere amounted to9.1million EUA,bringing total
commitments asatyear 'send upto82.3 million EUA.
Among thecapital projects financed andtechnical assistance operations ,
projects for theprovision ofwater supplies for the rural population
inparticular still take precedence over building orhousing projects .
i . *
Aswill beseen below (1.3.4 .),Uganda also received short-term aid
forwater supplies (2million EUA)and the same amount forelectrifi­
cation .
»
Adrainage project andfive water *supply operations now being appraised
will befinanced in1980 .
1.3.4 . E3yil2sector_grogramme_of_short;term_a2d_to_y2anda
•
Since the change ofregime inUganda inApril ,the Commission has
endeavoured togive this country every possible assistance toenable
ittoreturn tonormal ,anditwas able totake prompt and useful action
inthe very first weeks following the establishment ofthe new regime .
1 »
First ofall,between the endofApril and the beginning ofJune,
immediate humanitarian aidof500 000 EUA was granted under the fourth
EDF.

-22-
Inaddition ,950 tofmilk powder ,300 tofbutteroil and400 tof
cereals were supplied asfood aid from the Commission budget .
Then ,following close contacts with the Ugandan authorities and
avisit byaCommission team toKampala ,afinancing decision was taken
on5July under the Lom6 Convention onashort-term programme costing
18.5 million EUA (asanindicative programme item ,notexceptional aid).
This programme wasdesigned toensure the rapid return tonormal of
essential public services andtocover themost urgent needs inthe '
main social andeconomic sectors .Theoperations cover agriculture
(4million EUA),stock-farming (3.5million EUA),water supplies
(2million EUA),electricity (2million EUA),telecommunications
(1.6million EUA),road repairs (2million EUA),education
(0.5 million EUA )and various forms oftechnical assistance
(1.6 million EUA).
Very considerable progress has already been made with the implemen­
tation ofthis programme .
1.3.5 . Other commitments
1Various other commitments were entered into inspheres which donot
relate directly tothemajor branches oftheeconomy noted above ,viz .:
i. trade promotion (6.5million EUA); •
il. Stabex (164.2 million EUA);
* '
iii . exceptional aid (24.6 million EUA). -
Details ofthese commitments aregiven inthe following chapter .
*

CHAPTER II
II.APPLICATION OF THE INSTRUMENTS OF COOPERATION
AND CERTAIN SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION
II.1.Trade promotion .
In1979 two features ofimplementation ofthe'acti vities provided for
inArticle 13ofthe Lom4 Convention were anincrease inprojects
financed inthe context ofnational programmes and the effort made
toimprove the administration ofassistance through cooperation
between the Commission 'sdepartments andbilateral and multinational
aid . '
National programmes
The organization ofmissions toindentify trade promotion schemes has
resulted inthe establishment and implementation intwelve ACP States
ofprogrammes representing afinancial commitment of6.5 million EUA.
Inaddition tospecific schemes relating toagiven sector ,the
programmes have covered others atthe production (development of
know-how andorganization ofbusiness management )"and marketing stages
(research into new product lines and new markets ).
Improvement ofcooperation between business
inthe ACP States and inthe Member States
Community -help for two trade associations enabled the Federation for
the Development *ofUtilitarian Artisanat (FEDEAU )toorganize four
missions in1979 toselect items suitable for the European market in
terms ofquality and price and afforded the Liaison Committee for
the Production and Marketing ofTropical Fruits and Out-of-season
Vegetables (COLEACP )520 days ofpromotional sales inEurope whi-h ,
inter alia,made itpossible for Mali todouble its exports ofmangoes
and achieve in1979 the export tonnage target fixed for 1980 .

-24-
Participation intrade events
I . -
The Community programme forparticipation bythe ACP States ininter­
national trade events in1979 covered thirteen general trade fairs
and nine specialized shows with atotal of151 appearances .
Community aid went to43ACP States and two regional bodies
Cthe Liaison Committee for Producers-Exporters ofACP Fruits and
Vegetables (COLEACP )and the African Groundnut Council )for
exhibiting samples oftheir agricultural ,artisanal and industrial
products ,with aview toimproving and developing their tr^de
relations .
Inthe second half ofthe year,the Commission 'sdepartments
examined new measures for providing aid inconnection with trade
promotion events inorder tomeet the wishes ofthe ACP States more
closely . ;
II.2.Stabex
The transfers relating tothe 1978 year ofapplication which were
decided in1979 (and atthe beginning of1980 inthe case oftwo
transfers concerning Sudan and Swaziland )are given inTable VII
together with thetransfers also decided in1979 for years of
application 1977 and 1975,thus providing anoverall picture of
the decisions taken during the period under review .
For thefirst time since the system was introduced ,the ACP-EEC
Council ofMinisters decided on31October ,onthe basis ofArticle
18(2)ofthe Lom£ Convention ,todraw inadvance onthe financial
instalment for the 1979 year ofapplication .
The overall results for the financial year confirm that the system
offers double protection .Three ofthe products involved (iron ore,
pyrethrum andsisal )were affected bythe poor economic situation ;
the corresponding transfers amounted toone-third ofthetotal
transferable .The remaining two-thirds were accounted for byvarious
local circumstances ,such aspoor rainfall ,drought ,plant disease
and typhoons .
Only Senegal ,which with atransfer of65.1 million EUA received
43.6 %ofthetotal ,isrequired toreplanish the resources made
available under the system .The remaining 56.4 %went tosome of
the least-developed countries .
\

II.3.Exceptional aid
Asinthe past,exceptional aid under Article 59ofthe Lome
Convention has enabled ACP States todeal with the consequences
ofnatural disasters andother "comparable extraordinary circumstances "
producing similar effects .Commitments under this heading in1979
amounted to24.5 million EUA,which brings tonearly 111million EUA
tothetotal amount ofexceptional aid accorded since the Convention
entered into force .
Asignificant proportion ofthis exceptional aid (around 7million EUA)
has been used tofinance airlift operations toassist landlocked
countries cutoff from their sources ofsupply (Burundi ,Malawi ,
Rwanda).' Large amounts ofaid (likewise totalling 7million EUA)
were also decided forcountries affected byhurricames orflooding ,
such asFidji ,Mauritius ,Dominica ^Sudan and Jamaica .
Other aid (approx .5million EUA)has been accorded torefugees in
various regions (Southern Africa ,Sudan )through the United Nations .
Inaddition ,small schemes were financed inthepublic health field
inRwanda ,Mali ,-Ghana and Uganda . .
Inall,in1979 exceptional aid wasgranted totwenty-six countries ,
sixteen ofwhich are among the toost disadvantaged (Table VIII).
II.A. Technical cooperation
The Commission has continued toprovide technical cooperation in
accordance with Chapter 3ofProtocol N°2.Financial commitments
under this heading decided upon in1979 amounted to43.5 million EUA,
bringing thetotal since the Lom6 Convention entered into force to
over 162million EUA. ,
General technical cooperation
Aid accorded inthis sector in1979 amounted to24.3 million EUA,
bringing the sumtotal to109.7 million EUA.These commitments
mainly covered the -following :

-26- y
(i)thegrant ofscholarships forstudies ,training courses and y
postal tuition andtheorganisation ofspecific training
programmes inthe ACP States (see Chapter 1.3.3 .above );
(ii)atthe request ofthe ACPStates ,theprovision -ofexperts ,
advisers ,technicians andinstructors forspecific missions
andforlimited periods ,
v '
Techni-cal cooperation linked with investments
In1979,financing decisions totalled 19.1 million EUA,brfnging to
nearly 53million EUA thetotal volume ofcommitments since the
Convention entered into force .
This cooperation chiefly comprises : ■
(i)aidintheprepration ofdossiers ,andinthe execution and
supervision ofworks ;
(ii)temporary aidforthe establishment ,launching andoperation
ofaspecific investment ;
(iii)meeting the cost oftechnicians temporarily andproviding "•goods
necessary totheproper execution ofaninvestment project .
II.5.Regional cooperation
The funds setaside forregional cooperation under the Lome Convention
amount to some 10 %ofthetotal volume offinancial resources .
The Commission hasaccordingly programmed asumof300million EUA
intwo instalments :aninitial instalment of209.3 million EUA was
adopted inMarch 1977 and asecond instalment of90.7 "million EUA
proposed inSeptember 1978 was adopted atthe beginning of1979
after examinisation bythe relevant Community and ACPauthorities .
The Commission hasreceived financing applications jorover 140
projects andoperations .Most ofthese applications have ledtoa
financial commitment .'flt 31December commitments amounted to176
million EUA,which corresponds to59 %oftheavailable sum adminis­
tered bytie Commission (exclusive ofrisk capital andinterest rate
subsidies ).
Also tobetaken into account are the regional operations financed
from resources administered bythe EIB;commitments under this heading
amounted at31December to35million EUA.

-27-
With regard tothegeographical distribtuion oftheregional aid
programmed todate,quite asatisfactory balance has been established
between the main regions ofAfrica ,the Caribbean and thePacific .
Asignificant proportion ofthetotal availabte resources has been
allocated togeneral activites (trade promotion ,budget ofthe Centre
forIndustrial Development ,schemes embracing several regions or
the whole ofthe ACP States ,etc...).
Λ*-
Roughly 60 %ofthetotal suminvolves projects orprogrammes in
favour ofthe least developed ,ACP States ,which have also benefited
from other provisions oftheConvention such aspayment of'thetotal
costs ofaregional project ,financing ofstudies andtechnical
assistance sothat dossiers may beprepared infull and maximum
advantage bederived from the new instrument ofregional cooperatitin ..
\
Lastly ,theactivities ofACP regional andinter-State bodies have
been encouraged with regional aid money ,notably inthefield of
technical assistance andtraining and,ingeneral ,anyother action
toboost their role ofpromoting and economic integration .
II.6.'Microproiects
At31December ,theceiling fixed bythe Lome Convention for micro -
projects (20million EUA)had been virtually reached atthe program­
ming stage :19.2 million EUA had been programmed ,ofwhich over
15million EUA had been committed ,corresponding tothefinancing
of45annual programmes in29ACP States (out of33States whose
indicative programmes included mic-roprojects ).These 45annual
programmes included 1827microprojects ,ofwhich 639social infra­
structure projects ,643operations todevelop production ,374rural
water engineering schemes and 171tracks .The average EDFcontribution
to>the cost ofmicroprojects wasoftheorder of45 %.
In1979 alone ,19annual programmes concerning 18countries were
committed for atotal ofnearly 6million EUA.'
II.7.,Special measures infavour ofthe least-developed
ACP States
Article 48ofthe Lom6 Convention expresses aclear policy decision
togive preferencial treatment and support tothe least-developed
ACP States and Chapter 5ofProtocol N°2sets out indetail the
practical means bywhich this policy isputinto effect .

-28-
t ' '
The least-developed ACP States ,ofwhich there were 24atthe time
ofthe signing ofthe Lome Convention ,numbered 34at31December
1979 .With 137million inhabitants they represent 42 %ofthetotal
population ofthe ACP States .
The manner inwhich account istaken ofthespecific needs ofthe
least-developed ACP States isparticularly evident inthedistribution
ofprogrammable resources -approximately 64 %fornational and
60 %for regional purposes .
The methods andterms offinancing arealso more favourable :grants
represent overall 91 %ofthe aid received bythe least-developed
ACP States butonly 65 %inthe case ofthe remaining ACP States .
With regard toEIBfinancing inthe form ofrisk capital ,63.9 %
has been channelled tothepoorest ACP States .In1979,sixofthe
countries listed inArticle 48accounted forhalf the sumapportioned
forrisk capital operations .
Certain instruments and measures ofcooperation have been used
specifically for thebenefit ofthe least-developed ACP States ,for
example : .
(i) technical assistance andtraining schemes toimprove their
administrative capacity .In1979 alarge number ofexperts
worked inthe least-developed ACP States asadvisers to
thevarious ministries ,asconsultants during the execution
v ofEDFprojects ,orastraining instructors ;
Cii) the temporary financing ,onadiminishing scale ,ofrunning
costs ormajor reparis which cannot becovered bynational
resources.'
Other instruments which usefully supplement these measures infavour
ofthe least-dev /feloped ACP States are : .
.the encouragement foregional cooperation ;
.the promotion ofmicroproj ects ;
.the special provisions ofthe Stabex system
infavour ofthe least-developed countries .
/
The Commun tyhasalso given special attention tothe least-developed
ACP States outside the Lom6 Convention ,notably inthe form offood
aid andcontributions toprojects cofinanced with non-governmental
organizations inthe Member States .

-29-
II.8.Specific measures infavour ofsmall and medium-sized
national enterprises
Thedevelopment ofsmall andmedium sized enterprises (SME )inthe
ACP States was "one ofthe innovations ofLome Convention I.Toassist
SMEs financially andtechnically andtofacilitate economic diver­
sification andjob creation ,theConvention provides for anumber
oftypes ofaction including credit lines andglobal loans for
financing bodies acting inanintermediary capacity between the
Community and SMEs . -
In1979 theCommission approved three ;financing proposals totalling
4.3million EUA for special loans toJamaica ,Benin and Suriname ;
since the Convention entered into force ,thirteen decisions have
been taken forcredit lines totalling 12million EUA .
With orwithout such credit lines ,technical assistance has been
provided atthe request ofthe ACP States for anumber ofintermediary
financing oradvisory bodies inorder tostrengthen their capacity
tocounsel ,promote and assist SMEs .
One ofthe major innovations ofLome Iwas the emphasis onefforts
bytheACP States towards industrialization ,which toalarge extent
involves small andmedium-sized enterprises .Some countries have
requested help tostrengthen their institutions which provide
investment promotion services ,while others have asked that organi -'
zations beset uptoassess proposals byinvestors andoffer national
firms avaried programme ofassistance . ^
The increasing attention devoted bytheACP States totheproblems
ofthe transfer oftechnology hasbegun toproduce practical results ,
forexample the creation ofaTechnology Centre and the reinforcement
ofbodies specializing inpatents .Community assistance has also
been sought forthedrawing-up andsupervision ofindustrialization ■
programmes (list ofthe various schemes administered bythe Commission
Table IX). - *
TheBank ,for itspart ,hascontributed bygranting global loans to
intermediary financing bodies ;itisthus able totake advantage of
their experience ofthe local economy .Theproceeds ofthese loans
areallocated tosmall' andmedium-sized projects .
This formula ,already successfully employed bythe EIBwithin the
Community and intheMediterranean countries ,hasproved particularly
effective inthe ACP countries .

-30-
Small andmedium-sized enterprises aregenerally best suited tomeet
the diversified requirements ofmarkets which areoften limited and
they play animportant role injob creation .
At31December 1979 the EIB hadgranted 15global loans intwelve
ACP States totalling 67.05 million EUA (three ofsuch loans in1979
accounting for 8million EUA).Bythis date ,asaresult ofthese
loans ,53small andmedium-sized enterprises had received atotal
of24.9 million EUA .These figures naturally give only apartial
picture ofthe EIB'srole inassisting small andmedium-sized
enterprises ,since most oftheglobal loans were granted only recently
and,attheendof1979 ,asubstantial proportion ofthefunds were ;
stiU intheprocess ofallocation .
II.9.Assistance and transfer oftechnology
Asin1978 ,inthetechnological sphere (assistance and the transfer
oftechnology )attention was focused notably onalternative sources
ofenergy (independently ofvarious training andtechnical assistance
intended forthe same purpose ).
Projects which utilize new sources ofenergy cover quite abroad ,
range ofactivities feasible inthis sphere .The relevant operations
consist forthemost part ofdemonstration projects andpreliminary
assessment studies required inorder toinform theACP States
satisfactorily ofthepossibilities .Thebreakdown ofoperations
isasfollows :
\
(i) overall assessment :1study ;
ν
(ii) solar energy (direct conversion ):9integrated projects ;
(iii ) biomass development :3studies -4projects including
3integration studies ;
(iv) marine thermal energy conversion plant :2feasibility
studies ;
(v) micro-water engineering :1integration study ;
(vi) geothermal energy :1exploratory project .
Inaddition ,theestablishment ofa"biogas regional project co-financed
with theNGOs (EDFandbudgetary aid )demonstrates the value ofsuch
aprocedure ,which ensures that these newtechnologies will have a
greater impact onrural communities .

The increase inschemes involving alternative energy sources illustrat
clearly thedesire ofthe ACP States and the Community todevelop
the new sources ofenergy rapidly .However /specific operations to
achieve these objectives eire inacategory oftheir own because
they presuppose promotional action .The reasons are asfollows :
(i) since most ofthe equipment needed toexploit newenergy s
sources isstill undergoing research and development ,
the introduction ofsuch equipment necessitates substantial -
adaptation and adetailed knowledge oftheopportunities -,
which the technology inquestion can provide ;
(ii) the current fascination with this new technology calls for
prudence inorder toavoid ill-suited ,ill-considered and
sometimes even wrong action ,-which could result int-ejection
asaresult ofunfortunate experience ;
(i.ii) the development ofnew forms ofenergy sources ,particularly
when integrated with projects ,necessitates acontinuous
process ofobservation ,verification ,review ,and monitoring -
ofthe -operations inquestion ;
(iv) the introduction ofnew forms ofenergy must always be
accompanied byatransfer oftechnology and know-how .
The experience gained bythe ACP States and the Community inthe'
development ofnew forms ofenergy isimportant for planning ,
implementing and evaluating future operations .
Inthis context ,Community bodies such asthe Joint Reasearch Centre
can make animportant contribution inthe form ofadvice and'trairiing .
The EIB inaddition tofinancing three studies .inindustry and tourism
has provided aid for twoprojects inthis field :inSenegal for a
solar energy project and inMadagascar for astudy onthe feasibility
ofdeveloping bituminous sandstone .
11.10 .Industrial cooperation
During the year the centre for Industrial Development (CID)pursued ,
and broadened ,its promotional activities for the benefit ofACP
industries inaccordance with the brief ithad received from the
Committee onIndustrial Cooperation <CIC)along the lines followed
inthe past .
This Committee completed itsguidelines for-the CID'sfuture activities
and assumed its supervisory function ,.notably inthe matter offinance

-32-
11.11 .Co-financing
Increasingly numerous sources ofaidareinvolved inassisting the
development ofthe ACP States .Inthelast fifteen years ,the range
offunds donors which hadhitherto been limited tothetraditional
providers ofbilateral aidtothe ACPcountries andtoCommunity
aid,has been broadened toinclude other bilateral aid,notably
from the Federal Republic ofGermany and from international finance
agencies such asthe World Bank .Likewise ,theoil producing countries
have engaged inanactive policy ofdevelopment aid which ,particularly
inAfrica ,has meant agrowing involvement ofArab banks and funds .
Thepractice ofco-financing isanatural result ofthis situation
andthere has been more intensive useofthis instrument ofcooperation
during thelife ofthe Lome Convention ,sothat there isreference
toitinTitle VII (Financial andTechnical Cooperation )Chapter 2
(Financial Resources and Methods ofFinancing )Article 96ofthe new
Lome Convention .As aresult ofthe "links established between the aid
administered bythe Commission andtheother sources ofaid,over
20 %oftheproject appropriations under thefourth EDF have been
used for co-financing .Thetotal used forco-financing amounts to
466million EUA,which has enabled 47projects costing inall 3200
million EUA (including nine projects costing 606million EUAin1979 )
tobecarried out.Under the Lome Convention ,the EIBprovided funds
for 22projects being co-financed .Inthis way 177million EUA has
been contributed towards investments totalling 1736million EUA.
Arab financing bodies asagroup have overtaken the World Bank by
arelatively large margin inbecoming the Community 'schief partner
inthese operations .
\ . s
The Community 'sexperience inproject appraisal and execution has
frequently enabled ittoplay aprime role inarranging co-financing ,
notably inthe form ofjoint financing .Experts from the ACP States
and the Community meeting on25and 26February this year t'otake
stock offinancing andtechnical cooperation "noted the advantages
ofjoint financing ascompared with parallel financing ".
 
* *

CHAPTER III
III.ADMINISTRATION OFAID,EVALUATION OF RESULTS ,INFORMATION
III.1 .Administration ofaid
.Updating of'indi cati veprogrammes
»
Article 51ofthe Lome Convention specifies that the indicative
programmes drawn upbythe EEC and the ACP States atthe beginning
oftheperiod covered bythe Convention may bereviewed ifneed be,
i.e. toenable account tobetaken ofchanges occurring inthe
economic situation oranymodifications oftheinitial priorities ,
ofthe ACP State concerned .
Sofar adjustments have been made to49indicative programmes ,of
which 6in1977,22in1978 and 21in1979 .The indicative programmes
amended in1979 wiere those for Benin ,Botswana ,Cape .Verde ,Comoros ,
Djibouti ,Equatorial Guinea ,Gabon ,Gambia ,Guinea ,Ivory Coast ,
Lesotho ,Malawi (twice ),Mauritania ,Sudan ,Suriname ,Swaziland ,
Tanzania ,Togo and Uganda .Adjustments were also made tothe Caribbean
regional programme .All such adjustments (whether tonational or
regional programmes )were adopted bythe Community authorities .
Four newly independent States -Tuvalu ,,Dominica ,StLucia and
Kiribati -acceded tothe Lome Convention inthe course ofthe year .
StVincent ,which gained its independence on27October ,has since
deposited its instruments ofaccession tothe Convention .
•'
EDF resources have been adjusted accordingly and nowtotal 3074.4
million EUA (2178million EUA asgrants and 981million EUA asloans
onspecial terms ,risk capital ,Stabex transfers ,etc...).

-34-
Invitations totender
Atotal of95invitations totender were issued for ACP States under
the fourth EDF,i.e. somewhat fewer than forthe preceding year (125).
However ,this quantitative decrease isoffset byanincrease inthe
overall value ofthe contracts awarded :197million EUA compared
with 194.5 million EUA in1978 .Theise results show that,inpractice ,
invitations totender issued related tolarger individual contracts
than inthe preceding year,the average being approximately 2million
EUA,compared with only 1.5million EUA .in1978 .
This phenomenon wasparticularly apparent inthe case ofsupply
contracts :54invitations totender issued (asopposed to-69in1978 )
for contracts with atotal of49.9 million EUA (44.6 million EUA in
1978),making anaverage of924 740 EUA per contract (646.137 EUAin
1978 ).
Asregards works contracts :
(i) invitations totender issued under the normal procedure
increased both innumber (23,compared with 17in1978 )
and intotal volume (133.8 miLlion EUA,compared with
128.7 million EUA in1978);however ,the average value
per contract was lower <5.8million EUA)than in1978 *.
(7.6million EUA);
(ii) invitations totender were issued under the expedited
procedure for 18contracts inall (39in1978 )with a
total of13.2 million .EUA (21.2 million EUA in1978),i.e.
anaverage of735 674 EUA (543,598 EUAin1978 )percontract .
ι
With implementation ofthefourth EDFgetting into full swing in
theyear under review,' the above results show that themedium-sized
contracts typical ofthis phase have now superseded thesmall
contracts accompanying therunning-in period andthe large works
contracts ,most ofwhich were awarded in1978 .
From theoverall figures forcontracts concluded upto31December
(Table X),itcan beseen that 30 %ofthetotal went toACPStates'
firms ,i.e#a5Zincrease ontheposition at31December 1977.
Financing agreements
During theyear 116financing agreements involving grants
loans were concluded bythe Community andthe ACP States ,
of317.8 million EUA.orspécial
for atotal

Article 22ofProtocol N°2tothe Lom6 Convention specifies that
contracts financed bythe Fund shall bethesubject ofcommon rules ;
Forthis reason the Community ,onaproposal from the Commission ,
transmitted totheACP States draft general conditions ofcontract
for works (March 1978),services (July 1978 )and supplies (March 1979).
These texts will benegotiated with the ACP States andformally
adopted bythe ACP-EEC Council ofMinisters ."Needless tosay,they ;
wi11beapplicable tocontracts concluded during thelife ofthe
second Lome Convention ,pursuant toArticles 131 and 142thereof ,
theapplication ofdsingle setof'"rules 'inthis field will bea'
further factor inuniting the English-speaking and French-speaking
ACP States ,andwill also make for even broader competition inthe
common interest . "■ >. .'■
' Commission Delegations / .
There have been Commission Delegations inthe ACPStates since the
eartiest months ofthe Convention 'slife,andtheir internal structure
wasfurther improved during the year . .•
Accordingly ,tntheinterests ofmore efficient orgamzation >there "
was some geographical redistribution oftheresponsibilities exercised
bytheindividual Commission Delegates;' for instance ,itwas thought
tobeoperationally more expedient forthe Delegate inMauritius toact
asCommission representative tothe Republic ofDjibouti r'atherthan
the Delegate inMadagascar . .•;// i."
The Commission appointed its Delegate inBarbados toact asits
representative toDominica and StLucia ,two newly independent states
which have acceded tothe Convention . ; .
Inresponse toanACP-EEC Council ofMinisters resolution ,Table X
provides information onDelegation costs from 1976 to1978 and in1979
Coordination and harmonization ofaid '
Asbefore ,the Commission pursued activities inthis sphere ata
number oflevels : ,*■-i.■ .":■ v _r .
(i); the Community assuch .:exchanges ofviews were held with'
- the Member States tomake anoverall assessment of Commu -
inity cooperation withvtheACP States ;-;v\;

–36-
(ii) international agencies providing financial aid :meetings
'todiscuss matters of.common interest were arranged with
,such bodies astheAfrican Development Banky the World
.Bank,USaid' andthe Canadian International Developement
... Agency;- /'
(iii) cofinancing :the community carried onactively pursuing its
policy inthis field -,asstated above (Chapter 11.10 )*
III.2 ,Evaluation ofcompleted projects
•III.2.1.Working methods
The Commission embarked onanevaluation ofCommunity-funded road '•
^projects' andmicro-projects ;ofdifferent kinds ,-inconjunction with :
independent consultants and theauthorities ofthe ACP States ..'y .' . v , '. *' . •'
•■"' * • ,• -.•/ '
" •*v , ' ' *•
Asinother years ,the purpose ofevaluation must betodraw conclu­
sions from theprojects already completed inthe sectors concerned
sothat similar schemes tobefinanced inthe future can bemade ,
more efficient .It"puts .into practice theprinciple embodied in'the
first Lom6 Convention ,-whereby completed development schemes aretabe -
evaluated jointly bythe Community andthe ACPStates (Articles 50;
..and 57).
Inthis connection consultations ,took place.during 1979 onthe
conclusions ofasectoral evaluation ofurban andvillage water >
supply projects .Atameeting ofACPand EECconsultants organized
bythe Commission inBamako (Mali )from 5to8November ,agreement
was reached onajoint Vbasic principles "text,which the Commission
took theresponsibility ofpresenting'to theappropriate jqint ACP-EEC
bodies.' ' •. •' ::V,-
•· .■ Λ
Parallel tothis sectoral approach ,the Commission 'sdepartments
continued their overall revaluation ofall Community financing on
acount ry-by-countr/ basis .This "wasinresponse toaraquest byPariiamen
inJuly 1977 that the Commission should look atthe impact of :,
Community financing onthe economic andsocial development ofthe -
recipient countries .The Government ofSenegal gave itsapproval
for such anevaluation tobecarried out byEuropean andnational
consultants .Thepreliminary results ofthis overall approach are
summed upinparagraph 2.below . .. ^, .

-37-
III.2.2."Principal Lessons tobelearned from the evaluations completed
Theprovisional conclusions drawn bythe Commission from the evaluation
ofall Community aidtofour ACP States (1)inrespect ofthe aggregate
results offinancial andtechnical cooperation and the keyfactors
involved are summed upbelow :
Impact ofCommunity aid
Theeffects ofprojects normally correspond closely tothe economic
development requirements ofthebeneficiary countries and have made
asubstantial contribution tosuch development ,particularly by
improving economic andsocial infrastructure ,extending watet *supply
networks anddiversifying production .
Onthe whole projects can besaid tobesatisfactorily geared to
requirements andobtaining immediate results ,buttheir success is
somewhat more qualified asregards adjustment tolocal capacities
and conditions ofutilization .
Generally speaking aid has strengthened theposition ofthe Community 's
partners ,inparticular byboosting their financial andtechnical
resources andimproving economic andsocial conditions .However,"'
incertain cases ,ithas generated cumbersome and expensive adminis - .
trative machinery which subsequently hastbbetaken over bythe .State ,
concerned ,resulting inrecurrent expenses beyond its means .Further ,
Community aid has done little tbincrease theproductivity ofthe
recipient countries *inhabitants -orfirms .
Key factors
" ' •
(i)Roles_g Ia^ed_b^_the_various_gartners :
f . 4 •
AsStated usually serve notonly asthe channels through which aid
passes butgenerally also have sole responsibility forimplementation ,
there isadanger that quite anumber ofeconomic operations -whole
populations ,smaller communities andfirms -will berelegated toa
somewhat passive role inthedevelopment process .
C1)Namely Niger ,Rwanda and Senegal ,plus Cameroon ,where astudy
wascarried out byaUnited Kingdom Institute ,the ODI,inconjunc­
tion with the Commission . ''

-38-
The wide variety offorms such aid can take aggravates the Load on
theauthorities ofthe recipient States .and encourages them toconcen­
trate onprocuring such aid increasing local resources
andeffort .Nevertheless ,inview ofits acknowledged effectiveness ,
Community aid often acts asanincentive toother aid donors to
cofinance schemes ,which isvery useful even ifcofinancing procedures
are sometimes not conducive tospeed .-
The Community aims at,and usually gets ,excellent immediate results
from itsprojects since thetechnical assistance itprovides isgeared
tosatisfying the requirements ofthe recipient States .However ,
technical assistants donot usually doenough towards training and
must not besubstitutes fornational ,managerial staff orhold up .
the transfer ofresponsibility tothem .
(n)liie.dec ision^mak2ng_grocess :
Although national planning andsectoral programmes theoretically ensure
that aidties inwith other development schemes andpolicies ,care must
betaken toseethat projects really are consistent with such plans or
programmes .Moreover ,even now there isoften nocoherent long-term
policy underpinning regional development schemes .
Indicative programming has made Community aid more effective ,especially
byreinforcing the role ofnational planning asaguide tothe selection
ofthe schemes tobefunded ,inthe light ofanoverall long-term
approach tothe development requirements andpotential ofthe countries
concerned .However ,this role has not always been given full play
because certain States seek from the outset toapportion the indicative
aidappropriation between projects which' have not yet been properly
identified orstudied . ,
Ciii )Proiect_des22D :
Here the effectiveness ofaid seems todepend primarily on :
(a) <■ .adjusting projects tothe human ,natural andtechnical context ,
which presupposes avery thorough knowledge ofthe environment
concerned and howitislikely toevolue ;
(b) theinternal cohesion ofprojects ,i.e. the close interrelation­
ships between the various operations andaid instruments consti­
tuting each individual project ;

-39-
<c) participation bythetarget populations inproject design ,
wherever possible ,andinimplementation and management ;
(d) attention being paid tothe long-term conditions ofutilization \
tobeeffective ,projects must beplanned insuch away asto
take account both ofthe requirements ofthe phase actually
being financed and,most important ,the subsequent phases when
they will have toberunentirely bynational staff with national
funds .
(iv)Execution : ,
Asfar asmethods offinancing are concerned ,ithas been seen that :
(a) the dual financing and management structures ofCommunity aid
make itnecessary totake care tointegrate industrial schemes
into other operations ;
(b) the "soft"terms onwhich aidisprovided are avaluable
back-up topublic finance but every effort must bemade to
ensure that priority isgiven tothe needs ofthe most deprived
sections ofthepopulation .
Asregards methods ofimplementation ,theevaluations carried out .
have brought twopoints tolight :
(a) where thetechnical andfinancial content ofaproject isdefi­
ned inexcessive detail ,,inflexibility and even wastage may
occur during implementation ,especially where the local
population istoplay aleading ;
s
(b) asaresult ofdecentralization giving the Commission Delegations
responsibility forsupervision ,schemes are now geared more
satisfactorily tolocal situations and procedures have been
speeded up.
(v)Project utilization :
Inmany cases aproject 'seffectiveness declines once the implementation
phase isover because insufficient attention has been given tostaff
training and the funds needed tosustain full utilization and normal
upkeep orbecause the State anddirect beneficiaries donot have the .
required resources .This point hasalready been made inthesectoral
evaluations .

-40-
Inconclusion ,the impact ofCommunity aid onthe economic andsocial
development ofarecipient country isparticularly favourable where :
(a) the schemes concerned areclosely geared togeneral develop­
ment aim,viz.inthefirst instance growth and reinforcement
ofthe economy andgreater prosperity for the various sections
ofthepopulation ;
(b) such schemes aredesigned tobepermanent andextensive ,even
after aid has ceased ;
Cc) national orlocal structures andundertakings arereinforced
toequip them toachieve further progress through self-
development ; - '
(d)>'costs are kept within reasonable limits and the least possible
disturbance (beiteconomic ,social ,ecological ,etc...)
iscaused .
The decisive factors are :
the adjustment ofprojects and schemes tolocal surroundings
sothat they can beprogressively "appropriated "and run by
local communities ,firms andbodies ;
1 '»
*• consistency ofthe schemes financed with :
.other completed orproposed development operations ,
regardless ofthe source offinancing ;
.theresources available locally forutilization and
maintenance ;
* t
coordination ofthe various -resources deployed toobtain
the awaited results ,with emphasis oncombining aid inthe
form ofcapital orplant and assistance with staff training
and management .
III.3INFORMATION
"The Courier "
The magazine 'sreadership continued togrow both inthe ACPcountries
andinEurope .This magazine ,with itsvarious items inwhich leading
ACP and EECfigures canairtheir views ,isincreasingly helping to
provide ACPnationals and those concerned with cooperation issues in
Europe with comprehensive information onthevarious aspects ofthe
Lome Convention .Particular emphasis isplaced ontheactivities of
the European Development Fund,agreements between the Community and
thedeveloping countries ,and,more generally ,the European Community 's
cooperation policy forthe economic andsocial development oftheThird
World .

-41-
Italready has avery wide circulation inthe Trench-speaking ACP
States andits readership isrising steadily inthe Engli sh-speaking
countries too.Itisalink between the Community and the ACP States
and isalso becoming alink between the ACP States ,allofwhich now
recognize theusefulness and importance ofthe magazine .At-the
request oftherepresentatives ofthe Member States and ACP States
efforts arecurrently being made toexpand circulation progressively
andselectively inEurope .Since the beginning of1979,ithas included
asection onEurope .
The ACP-EEC Courier still appears every two months .The number ofpages
has increased slightly toanaverage of130 andtheoverall print run
iscurrently about 68000 copies . - '
During the past year the Dossier column has continued todeal with
special subjects :health inthe ACP States ,major African road
projects ,science andtechnology for ^development ,thefuture ofACP '
raiIways ,-agrarian reform andrural development ,and the new Lom£
Convention (special edition ).The key theme isstill Community and EDF
operations under the Lome Convention .
Owing tothe workload caused bythe Lome IInegotiations ,the usual
meetings between the ACP States *andthe Member States' representatives
were suspended bymutual agreement for most ofthe year ,resuming
only atthe end. v •
Further information
» -
During the year,inwhich the signing ofthe second Lome Convention
was amajor landmark ,the Commission 'sinformation departments carried
ontheir various activities tomake the Convention known to'the general
public ,enlisting the cooperation ofthe ACP Governments andSecretariat
wherever possible !
Documentary material published during the year included special papers
onthe implementation ofthe Convention inSudan ,Mauritius and Ivory
Coast ,papers onsugar andsolar energy and anextensive "dossier "
onthe interdependence ofEurope and the Third World . >
The Commission also arranged anumber ofvisits forthe press especially
inconjunction with thesignature ofthe second Lome Convention ,when,
besides thethirty accredited journalists who came from Brussels to
cover theactual ceremony ,groups ofjournalists visited Sierra Leone ,
Liberia ,Cameroon and Togo tosee'onthespot what theConvention had
achieved .

-42-
Inaddition ,anumber ofvisits were made toCommunity headquarters
byACP journalists ,either ingroups (e.g. students from schools of
journalism )orindividually (from Liberia ,Lesotho ,Nigeria and
Ivory Coast ).
Audio-visual activities were continued ,and wherever possible stepped
up>using the following media :
Ci) radio ,bycooperating with European shortwave stations
and supplying programmes inEnglish and French toACP
broadcasting companies ("dateline Brussels "and "Ducote
del'Europe "); .
(ii) film,through "Europe Pictorial /Images d'Europe ",aweekly
magazine programme made available inEnglish ,French and
Arabic totelevision stations and cinema distribution
» networks aswell asfor non-commercial viewing inover
seventy developing countries .These programmes are compiled
\ from information provided bythe Member States with the
Commission 'sassistance .Six special programmes were produced ,
one ofthem on Lome II.
Anumber ofCommission Delegations have also participated ininformation
activities such ascooperation with the Caribbean News Agency ,now
starting upatthe suggestion ofthe Commission Delegate inBarbados ,
and thepublication ofabooklet onCongo-Community relations bythe
Commission Delegate inthe People 'sRepublic ofthe Congo .
Lastly ,aware ofthe need toacquaint the .European public with
development inits various forms ,the Commission 'sdepartments
continued tocooperate with European non-governmental organizations
specializing inthis field .Aseminar onLom£ was specifically
arranged for NGOs during the negotiations with both Community and
ACP spokesmen taking part,inorder' to ,foster discussion ofthis
subject among the general public .

TABLE I:Breakdown ofcommitments atend 1979 bycountry and bysector (4th EDF and EIB ordinary loans )
(million EUA)
Ν ■ *
Development ofproduction I' . I
Trade Economic Social I Excep -IOther + iBlocked I
IIndus - I IRural |Iinfra - ||develop-i promotion |tional |Stabex ove r­ |appropri-i Total
triali - Tourism produc - Istructura Iment I aid heads ations
Isation |
I IItion
I I_JI I
L_ LI I
L_: i
Bahamasi
I 0,7 |I
0,05 I 0,2 II I
I0,4.1 1,4
Barbados I 2,9 0,1 1,1 I 1,2 0,1 1,3 | -I. 6,7
Bénin 3,- 9,- | 15,5 I 1,9 0,02 II 20,- | 1,9 ! il.3
Botswana 2,6 0,05 *6,7 5,- I 3,4 -- 0,7 2,7 .1,1 I 22,2
Burundi 17,0 I 3,2 7,6 10,4 I 2,1 1,5 2,3 ! 44,1
Cameroon 47,3 3,1 9,1 ! 15,8 I 4,7 0,4 4,1 3,8 | 88,3
Cape Verde 0,1 I 0,7 | 1,5 '1,4 !I 0,8 0,02 j 4,5
Central African Republic 2,4 Iir,9 I 8,- 4,5 1,- 4,- "2,6 | 34,4
Comoros f 2,9 2,6 II 0,5 I 2,6 I 1,9 ! 0,4 10,9
Congo 0,03 ,3,2 1,-5 | 10,2 I 8,5 0,09 0,3 7,3 | 2,2 i 3J.3
îvory Coast 40,3 1,9 9,4 | 1,5 I14,3 22rI 15,- 1 3,4 ! 8®,-
Djibouti I 1,- '0,5 | 0,3 |I 1.9 0,7 ! 0,2 ! 4,6
Dominica ' 0,03 I 2,3 I :3,3 5,6
Ethiopia . •4,1 30,7 | 22,1 21,1 0,6 2,7 | 14,4 1,9 ! 91,6
Fiji 14,6 '0,7 | 7,1 1," 2,5 | 2,1 0,8 I 28,8
Gabon •. 1,7 II 5,5 0,4 0,04 6,7 I 1,6 î I 15,9
Gambia . 2,3 I I 3,- I 4,- 2,2 I 0,7 | 2,5 I I," ' 15,7 ,
Ghana , 29,6 5,7 12,8 I 2,2 1," 2,4 ! 5,2 2,1 61,-
Grenada 0,2 ! 1,5 0,3 I . 0,03 2,-
Guinea 30,5 I 16,5 0,4 I 6,4 I I 3,0 I 1,6 ! 58,4
Guinea Bissau 6,5 I 5,1 I 4,2 I 0,5 8,8 I 1,1 ! 26,2
Equatorial Guinea 0,08 0,07 I 0,03 0,3 I 0,2 j 0,7
Guyana 9,2 0,05 I'2,-| I 3,7 | 0,6 | I 1," I I 16,5

I
• ' IIDevelopment ofproduction |
1 : : !
Indus - Rural 1
triali -Tourism .produc -j
satlon tion |
L : l
I
Upper V olta I! I
I 5,8 II I
I",4 |
Jamaica I 0,07 I 9.-
Kenya 80,4 0,1 |I33,7 |
Kiribati 0,2
Lesotho 1,8ι·
I 6,- I
Liberia * - II18," I 0,3 |
Madagascar 2,7 I19,1
Malawi I22,6 I23,1
Mali I27,5 I 2,5 .23,8
Mauritius I 6,6 I 0,3
Mauritania 28,6 I 8,4
Niger 2,6 ,5,3 15,1
Nigeria . I29,-|
Ouganda * '0,4 0,4
Papua New Guinea :9,8 I- –I 0,2
Rwanda 30,6 0,5
St *Lucia 1,2
Solomon Islands * -0,6
Samoa 2,6 I 1,5
Sao Tome ePrincipe 0,5 0,2
Sénégal 2,3 I I15,6
Seychelles .0,6 I 0.1
Sierra Leone 1,- 6,9 I
Somalia 0,3 I 1,9
Sudan 6,9 I ' ' I29,2
SurinameII 2,7
Swaziland I15,5.| I 2,6 IEconomie |
infra - |
structurelSocialI . ITrade I! I
IExcep - |1 J
Ia.<IOther +•I . I
Blocked
develop-i promotion |tional |Stabex (over- Iappropri -!iTotai -
ment |
_Jaid heads ations
8,- !I 'I
I 7,2 |I 1
I 3,3 II • -
I 50,5
5,6 2,8 I 0,3 1,8 | I 19,S
8,1 I 0,4 |
I II 0,3 |
I II I
I 2,3 II 2,5 |
I " II125,5
I 2,5
4,2 I 1,2 1.1 19,8
5," 0,3 7,6 |I 1.7 I 38,4
92J9 1,5 I -1,7 2,9 3,3 I 46,8
11,5 0,6 I '' I 1,5 75,-
3,9 I 1,- 5,9 3,6 81-,8
0,7 0,02 •3,7 I 1.2 , 18,3
9.2I 1,3 37,- •2,7 | 87,2
13,3 I 9,6 22,6 3,4 I 96,8
1,9 '0,3 1,2 I 32,4
2,9 0,5- 13,7 19,9 38,-
1,2- 0,5 U,7
4,7 I 6,4 I•0,6 2,2 I 68,2
0,2 ■2,3
0,7 .2,2 3,6
0,1 2,9 0,3 7,4
0,6 I 0,3 0,07 2,"*'
19,7 0,8 II 3,7 65,1 II 3,9 122,7
1,7 0,01 2,6
7,6 4," I■1,3 ! ■ I 30,9
9,5 I3,4J 1,9 I 2,6 40,-
13,8 I 0,1 I 1,5 II 12,- I 3,- I 83r2
2,9 I 0,5 I 1,4 I I 7,6
4,5 I 8,9 |I 0,5 I 33,-*

3.
IDevelopment ofproduction r i
Economic |Social ITrade |Excep - |Other +IBlocked
IIndus - IRural lnfra - |develop -!Ipromot iorj Itional |Stabex I|over­ |appropria |Total
triali -Tourism |produc -Istructura ImentIaid |Iheads ations I
sation j
I I|tion . I
I II ,IL_ JI
I
Tanzania 35,7 Ir i
I19,2 II I
I •28,6 II I
I .1,2 II I
I0,4 |I' I
I 20,7 |I I
I 2,4 II
108,2
Chad 1 I14,9 I22,5 2,9 I 4,6 I0,3 | 4,6 3,1 I 52,9
Togo , ; 5,9 I 7,9 12,9 I 9,4 I 0,05 I 3,6 | 2,- II . I 41,8
Tonga , '' I II 0,1 2,6 | 0,02 |I 0,04 | 0,2 | 1,1' I 0,2 I ,4,3
Trinidad &Tobago -*,-· I 1,7 I 3,1 0,7 | M 12,9
Tuvalu 0,2 0,2
Zaire 22,6 I I18,5 .19,1 II27,1 0,04 19,3 ,3,5 ! 110,1
Zambia 7,4 . 0,1 18," -3,7 I12,5 0,5 |I17,- 2,2 | 61,4
Non-alloc .projects 0,2 I'9,3 | 14,8 | 24,3
Regional projects •
. : II69,4
L_ ^ II 0,2 |
I II 8,9 |
I . II 83,4 |
I : HI ■29,- |I "18,1 |
I I7,1 j
II216,1
I
- I
Total II
I665,-I I
I 16,7 -II I
|436,6 II I
I455,1 II I
I329,1 II ■•I
I'■-32,- I110,9 II ■ I
I322,- |I ■■I
130,6 |I
2.498 ,-
Blocked approps .
- - II .3,9 |
L II . - I
I __]I .I
L_ : II' . I
I II 12," |
L : iI 15,9
1
GRAND TOTALI I
1665,- |
i : !I •I
I 16,7 |
L !I440,5' I
I ' II' I
I455,1 |
1 JI I
|329,1 |
1 jI .• I
I 32,- |
I' II ■ I
j110,9 I
I !I I
I322,- ]
I__JI I
I130,6 |
I !I
I 12," |
I II
|2.513,9
I
V

TABLE la :Breakdown ofcommitments in1979 bycountry and bysector (4thEDFandEIBordinary loans ) "
(million EUA)
Development ofproduction I
: IEconomic |
infra - j
structure !
ISocial
develop -
mentI I
jTrade j
Ipromotion !Excep -
tional
aidI
I
IStabexI I I
jOther +{Blocked (
jover- jappropri -^Total
heads (ations j
I I
I !_Indus -
triali -
sation|Tourism|Rural |
jproduc -|
|tion |
I I
I
Bahamas \ II I
I 0,2 IIl I
I0,04 1 I 0,2
Barbados •2,9 1.0 I 0,6 0,06 4,6
Bénin . 1,7 I II 5,3 0,02 I0,2 I 4,6 |0,04 | |11,8
Botswana 1.9 I - . I0,02 I 0,7 0,2 | | 2,8
Burundi 0,7 I 0,8 I 7,5 I 2,- I0,05 11-
Caméroon 20,2 I 0,3.1 1.7 II 2,5 I 0,3 0,2 J |25,2
Cape Verde 0,09 I 0,1 0,3 1.3 I 0,4 I . 2,2
Central African Republic 0,7 I •6,1 0,5 I 2,8 I 3,1' |I-0,01 ") |14,2
Comoros 0,7 2,4 I 0,2 I I I 3,3
Congo I0,3 I0,01 I I 0,3
Ivory Coast H.7 I I 3,8 I 1.5 I 0,3 I " " I0,2 I 17,5
Djibouti I1,-1 0,3 I0,3 I"0,051 | 1,6
Dominica 0,03 I 0,3 '3,3 I 3,6
Ethiopia f 4,1 I 0,6 22,- I 0,5 I0,1 27,3
Fiji I 2,3 I 2,5 I-0,2 I 4,6
Gabon 1," I 0,1 1,1
Gambia 2,3 I I Or,2 I 4,- 0,1 I 2,5 I0,2 9,3
Ghana■-2,- I 0,2 I 0,3 I0,2 I 2,7
GrenadaI II 0,01 0,01
Guinea 0,1 I 2,2 I 0,2 Ii i
I " I I"0,02 2,5
Guinea Bissau 0,1 I I 0,4 I I ,3,6 I0,04 1 I 4,1
Equatorial Guinea 0,08 1 0,07 I 0,3 I0,2 0,7
Guyana I0,1 II 0,05 |
••IM II 3,5 |I0,04 | I0,06 | | 4,9

2.
IDevelopment ofproduction |
L ' : _J Economie
infra­
structureSocial
develop -
mentTrade
promotionExcep -
tional
aid
I|Stabex
IjOther +
jover­
headsBlocked |
appropriH
ationsTotal
/Indus -
triali -
sationTourismIRural
jproduc­
tion
■ •■ I
Upper V olta |I ' ■I
I ;1.3 II I
I. < II ;I
I 1,3 II I
I 0,06 II I
I 5,3 II I
I0,3 II
I 8,4
Jamaica . I 0,07 1,9 | 1,-1 ! 0,3 0,01 1 .3,3
Kenya I 5,8 IM I 0,1 I 7,7
Kiribati 0,2 0,2
Lesotho ' ■1I 0,6 2V9 I2,4 | 5,9
Liberia - 0,7 I 7,6 | 0,2 I 8,5
Madagascar |I 2,4 I I 0,02 1,8 | 3,- .M ' J 8,6
Malawi 0,1 11,7 2,9 1,4 0,6 2,5 I-0,021 19,2
Mali 4»2 2,5 II. 4,5 | 0,2 3,9 | 0,08 I 15,4
Mauritius ■0,7 0,05 '■ I 0,8
Mauritania 1 28,6 I P,1 5,4 I 33,4 | 0,1 I 67,6
Niger , ' ■ | '5,4 | 0,2 I I5,6 | 0,2 | 11,4
Nigeria • II 0,9 M II o,i I0,1 I 2,5
Uganda |I0,2 I I 0,1 I'0,5 |Ih- 118,6 I! ' ■ ! 26,4
Papua New Guinea I 0,1 -0,03H 0,07
Rwanda'0,01 I 2,3 |I 0,6 | 0,4 | 3,3
St»Lucia ' ■ I.P.°*II 0,1 0,2 I■ 0,3
Solomon Islands I V I
Samoa I 0,2 I. 0,8 |I 0,01 I I-
Sao Tome ePrincipe I 0,2 I 0,3 I 0,02 | 0,5
Sénégal I 8,9 |I 0,8 | I 65,1 | 0,05 | 76,3
Seychelles I 0,1 | I . I
I 0,03 |0,1
Sierra Leone I 0,07 10," .2,1 12,2
Somalia 0,3 I I 0,08 I 7,- I0,3 .| 7,7
Sudan • II17,3 I 0,3 6,3 I. 1,3 I 9,3 |I-o.i-i I 34,4
Suriname I 2,7 .0,1 I 0,4 I' ■ I *0,2 J 3,4
Swaziland 0,1 I I • I 2,5 |I , ■ I I..5,5 |I"0,02" 8,1

3.
Development ofproduction ■- ■ - I I
Economic Social ITrade Excep - I IOther +Blocked
Indus - I IRural infra - develop -]promotionl tional Stabex over - appropriH Total
triali -ITourism |produc - Istructure ment I aid Iheads Iations
|sation |
I II Ition |
L_! JI . ;I
I I
Tanzania 2,9I
I M 0,5I
I 0,3 5,5 I-0,04 I-
I 16,3
Chad 0,3 0,3 I 4,7 I 0,03 .5,3
Togo | 5,- I 0,9 | 0,3 I 6,2
Tonga • I I 1>- 0,2 | 1,2
Trinidad &Tobago _ 0,08 I 0,2 0,06 | 0,3
Tuvalu 0,05 | I Q,05 i
Zaire , I13,- 19,- 5,3 I 0,07 | I37,4 j
Zambia 0,8 0,02 12,2 II 3,8 II 8,3 0,5 |r0,2 i I-o,i"| 25,7
Non-alloc .projects I 5,- | 4,1 I 9,1 |
Regional projects |I17,5 |
I II 0,03 |
I II 3,6 |
1I 40,7 I
I II17,2 |
I II 0,05 |
I II 2,5 |
L_ I| 81,6
1 !
I
Total I114,6 8,-I
I101,3 137,8 I 86 6,5 24,6 164,2 29,- II
I«72,- '
Blocked approps . I I
1I 3,9 |
I II 12,- |
I II15,9 ;
I 1
GRAND TOTAL |
/ II I
I114,6 |
I II I
I 8,-|
I J\ I
I105,2 |
I_lI I
I137,8 |
1 !I I
I.86,- |
I II ■ I
I 6,5 |
| |I I
I24,6 |
I II• ■ I
I '164,2 |
I _lI I
I29,- |L II I
I 12," |
I _JI
687,9
Adjustment ofFunds commited for overheads

TABLE II:Breakdown ofcommitments atend 1979 bysector and
, - >>
I.PRODUCTION OFDEVELOPMENT
1.Industrialisation
General
Extractive industries
Metal-working industries
Chemical industries
Manufacturing Industries
Agricultural and food industries
Projects based mainly onenergy
Infrastructure combined with
industrial projects x
Artisanat
Integrated proejcts based mainly on
industrial &agri-indust .operations
2.Tourism
3.Rural Production
General -
Plantations
Hydro-agricultural schemes
Agriculture
Stock-farming
Fisheries
Forests
Microproject s
Integrated projects based mainly on
agricultureGrants
22,1
7,7
0,7
■1.7
16,9
4,5
73,1
2,4
1,4
50,9
2,1Spécial
loans
22,4 12,4
54,8 20,9
47,4 13,3
67,2 0,4
34,5 I 1,8
11,5 I 2,1
3,6 I 1,"
15,9
I
123,8I .
I■: 3,6method offinancing
(million EUA)
StabexContribution |
torisk
capital j
formation I|EIB ordinary |
loans I
I| Total |
L_ _JI
I 2
I 7~
I L.
I
■II I
j 1.118,3 |
I II •
I44,5
i
I
iI I
I 665,- |
i iI
I26,4
4,4 I 63,5I I
I 92,4 II
IV
4,- 1 25,- . I 36,7 I1,4
3,5 I 5,3 I 9,5 0,4
1,6 I ,H,1 I 17,4 0,7
19,8 I 29,6 123,3 4,9
6,3 I 4,6 I 15,5 0,6
2,6 |
i II 77,9 |
II 197,4 ,|7,?
ι
I I 2,4 I0,1
ι ■"'·■!I 1,4 I|0,05
i
I
26,8 |
iI .A6.8 |
I I169,- 'II6,7
■
■ . I
'5,8 .|
Ii
I 8,8 |
I II 16,7 II0,7
| 436,6 I
II17,4
I ^
I -V • I
I I 34,8 II
I1,4
I 75,7 |3,"
l
I 60,7 I2,4
ι
I 67,6 |I2.7
- I 36,3 1.5
I 13,6 |0,5 .
I 4,6 |0,2
I 15,9 |I0,6
I 127,4 |
I -II5,1
I

Grants Spécial
loans
II.F.r.QNOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE
4.Transport and'communications
General
Roads and bridges
Railways
Ports and inland waterways
Airports
Telecommunications
Meteorological stations
III.SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
5.Education and training
General
Education infrastructure
Specific projects ,vocational trai "
ning and provision ofinstructors
Study and training grants
6.Health
General
Infrastructure
7.Water engineering ,housing and
urban infrastructure
General
Village general water supply
Urban water supply
Urban drainage
Urban improvement schemes0,5
325,1
11,7
12,6
0,9
12,5
0,3
6»"
95,3
11,2
88,8
0,8
44,1
2,6
23,9
12,5
8,3
11,"2.
StabexContribution
torisk
capital
formationEIB Ordxnary
loansI
j Total I
I ^
L I
455,1 |
118,1
I455,1 j
i18,1
I
0,5 !I
|0,02
372,2 14,8
44,5 1,8
19,1 0,7
1,7 0,07
16,8 I0,7
0,3 !
I0,01
329,1 |
II -13,1
i
I
201,9 |
iI
i
I
6,- II
I0,2
95,9 I3,3
11,2 0,4
88,8 ,|
II3,6
I
44,9 |
II
j1,8
I
0,8I
I0,03
44,1 |
I|M
i
82,3I
|3,3
I .
7,5 II
|©,3
33,3 M
15,1 0*6
12,1 0,5
14,3 |
II0,6

3.
Grants
/ I
_JSpécial
loansStabex
mContribution
torisk
capital ■
formation|E1B Ordinary
loans
' 1Total 2
IV.TRADE PROMOTION J
. ιI I
I 30,3 |
i iI
I
1,7 I
ιI
I
I > 32,-I'3
I .1.3 '
I._ .h.*
■■
V . EXCEPTIONAL AID
• ιl l
I 11.0,9 |
i ii i
I.^ I
i i' 1
I H0,9 II '
I4,4
i i
ι
'VI.STABEXI
iI I
I 322,- |
i iI
I 322,- II
I12,8
I *.- Ν
VII .OTHER
···I I
I• I
l _ iI
I 130,6 I
ιI
I5,2
••; 1Mischellaneous I
Multi-sector programmes |
Overheads ■*' I[ H,9
I 18,5
100,2>'J
I
.1
i11,9 |
18,5 |
100,2I0,5
t0,7
I
VIII .BLOCKED APPROPRIATIONS
I
: _ji i
I 13,9 |
I ... I
I Il l
I I
!- !i i
I ..: ' I
I I
1 Ii
2," I 15,9 , I
I ·. - I
I 1I0,6
I -
I
••'j I
:GRAND TOTAL . ... |
« ] - ^ |1.518,4 |
- ' II
I.324,1
...I • .1
!322,-' |
I 1 , !76,8 272,6 I 2.513,9 |
_j _J100,

TABLE Ila :Breakdown ofcommitments in1979 bysector and method offinancing
•• / (million EUA)
I . IContribution
Grants ISpécial ' Stabex torisk , IEIB Ordinary | Total 2
Iloans ' ■ IIcapital loans
formation I:
I. DEVELOPMENT OF PRODUCTION I I
I II 223,9 |
ι32,6
I
1.Industrialisation I
i114,6 16,7
■ . , " 'IGeneral II I
I 5,4 II Ir ii i
I 0,5 II I
I 7,5 .1l i
I 13,4 ' |2."
Extractive industries 7,2 I I 1.- 25,- I 33,2 |4,8
Metal-v^drking industries 0,7. I - I 3,5 5,3 | • ■ 9,5 |M '
Chemical industries 0,6 II 3,- I 0,5 5,2 I 9,3 |M
Manufacturing industries 2,- 0,2 9,1 | 11,3 |1,6
Agricultral and food industries 1,9 II 0,1 I 2,3 II 4,6 |I 8,9 1.3
Projects based mainly onenergy 12,2 I I 2,6 I 12," !I~ .26,8 |3,9
s'Infrastructure combined with
industrial projects 0,1 0,1 0,01
Artisanat I-
Integrated projects based mainly on " v I
industrial &agri-indust .operations
!0,2 II 1,9 ,|
I II •. I
I II 2,1 |0,3
2.Tourism I
' II 0,9 . |
I II 2,6 |
I II I
I "4,5 |
I I8,0 I1.2
I
3.Rural production I 101,3 |14,7
General II I
1,8 II I
I 7,5 II I
I 9,3 II
I1,3
Plantations I 6,7 I 9,7 I I 16,4 2,4
Hydro-agricultural schemes I 3,4 I ■3,4 0,5
Agriculture ~ I 11,9 I I 11,9 1,7
Stock farming I 5,7 I 5,7 0,8
Fisheries I 2,5 | 1.5 I I 4,0 0,6
Forests1 1,4 1ι
I I 1,4 0,2
Micropro jects 5,3 I " I I 5,3 0,8
Integrated projects based mainly on I' - I
agriculture j
II 43,9 I" I
I / 'I
'0I I
1' I
vI I
I ■ II 43,9 |
II6,4

-x - !
iI • .
IGrants |
I I
1 : II . , I
ISpécial |
Iloans |I I
|Stabex |
I - I
I '- I|Contribution
|torisk
|capital
|formationI
IEIBOrdinary |
Iloans
I I|Total !I
I %
I
I
II.ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE
II -.. I
I . I
l I137,8 II
I20,-
I
4.Transport andcommunications . |
: Iι ι
ι: I
ii i
I . M
i iI •'137,8 I20,-:
General
Road and bridges
Railways
Pors and inland waterways
Airports
Telecommunications ,
vMeteorological stationsι
0,2
98,1
7.3
2.4
0,3
2,6
0,217,5
8,"
0,4
0,8i
».
• * ii
V
I II I
0,2
115,6
15,3
2,8
1,1
2,6
0,2I i
0,03
16,8
2,2
0,4
0,1,
"0,4
0,03
III .SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT1,-1
I . I I «6,- |
I iI12,5
I
5.Education and trainingI 61,7 II9,-
i
General I
Education infrastructure |
Specific projects ,vocational trai-|
ning andprovision ofinstructors |
Study and training grantsi • I
3,7
38,4
7,-
12,"
i i- . I
0,6
i1 1
•0
I II I
I MI
3,7 |
39,- |
7.- I
12," I
ιI
I0,5
I5,7
I
I 1>-
I1,8
i
6.Health
" ■ II 15,2 . |
I II
I2,2
i
I
General ( |
■Infrastructure j
iI I
I 0,8 I
I 14,4 I
II ' I
I ' 9 I
I ■ I
ιi
I
Ii•
I
I '
t II I
I 0,8 |
! .14,4 |
I II
I.0,1
I2,1
I ' »
7;Water engineering ,housing and
1urban infrastructure
•I I
I 9,1 I
I II
I1,3
i
I
General I
Village water supply
Urban water supply
Urban drainage
Urban improvement schemes0,2
1,2
0,4
'0,3
0,24,8
2,"I ' I
I' ■ •' II ' I
I I5,"
1,2
2,4
0,3
0,2I
0,7
I0,2.
0,3 :
0,04
0,02

II' I
IGrants |
I - !
I J! '• ■ " ■ I
|.Special |
Iloans |
: II . - I
|Stabex |
I .' I
I I|Contribution |
jtorisk ,|
jcapital I
formation I|EIBOrdinary |
|loans I
• II I
j Total |
I ' I
I I| ■% .
I
I
IV.TRADE PROMOTION . 6,5 I 6,5 |
I0,9
V.EXCEPTIONAL AID 24,6 |I
24,6 II
I3,6
I
VI,STABEXI I
I164,2 |
i iI 164,2 |
I23,9
VII .OTHERI
I' 29,- |
II
I4,2-
Miscellaneous
Multi-sector programmes
Overheads, 4,6
18,5
5,9
II
I ιi
I 4,6 I
I 18,5
I 5,9 II
I0,7
I2.7
I0,8
ÎI
VIII .BLOCKED APPROPRIATIONSl I
13,9 |
I! •2-" !
I II 15,9 I
I
II
I2,3
I
II
I
!
'j
GRAND TOTAL
/! 377,5 . |
I57,8 |
II
j164,2
I15,2 |
II -j
I 73,2 I
1 1I
j 687,9 I
L_I
j100,-
I a

(million EUA) ν
I .■· · !
|Total volume |
I(Art.42ofthe ConHΓ-
Commitments
I'
atend 1979!
I
Total |
tion )
Aid administrated
bythe CommissionIAidadministrated
|bythe EIB
: :
I I
|Amount |
II ■■■ I
I * .!
L_ !I ■ I
IAmount |
I : II ' I
I '■* !
I II, I
|Amount |
I II I
I % !
I • II
|Amount
1 II I
I * I
1 _!
I
IEDF Resources 3.074,43551l I
[88,7 II
I2.121,9I
100I I
I119,4 |I
I 30,5I
2.241,3I
89,2 I
I ■
-Grants
ofwhich :microprojects ,
Interest rate subsidies
exceptional aid2.149,8503
(20,-) |
(110,-) |
(150,-) |
i i62,-I
1.475,8 j
(15,9 )
|(110,9 )|
ι ι69,5
(0,7)
(5,2)42,6
(42,6 )10,9 |
(10,9 ) j
J|1.518,4 |
I (15,9)
| (42,63 |
|(110,9 )|
I II
60,4 |
(0,6)|
(1,7)|
(4,4)|
I I
I-Special loans |
.445,585
I * I12,9 I 324,1 |
i ii ■ i
I 15,3 |
i • iI 324,1 |
I I12,9 |
I
j-Risk capital " |
i - - • II . I
I 99,- |
I II I
I 2,8 iI I
!■ !1 ■ *
I,76,8*|
i Ii i
I'19,6 !
I I1 *
I-76,8 *|
I II 3,1 |
I I
-Stabex 380,-" I
11," 322,-l • i
I 15,2 |
I ■ " * I322,-| 12,8 |
I
1
I T?TTÎ T> 'IEIB Resources ' |I I
I390^ |
I II ' - I
I11,3 |
I272^6 |
I II "- !
I 69,5 |
ι■ ' I
I 272,6 1
l' II I
I 10,8 |
I I
I
I-Loans from EIBresources |
II390,- |
I ' II - I
I'11,3 I
I -II · I
I :■ I
i. iI
272,6 I69,5 |
I II 272,6 |
I !I 10,8 i
I !
I ■,
ITotalI I
I3.464.4353t- !
100 II J
I2.121,$ |I !
100 II ' . I
I392^- II100 II I
2.513,9 |I I
100 I
I ' ■ : I
I : Ii' •iI• ■ I
1 !
including appropriations 2million EUA pending utilization from theoverall authorization forstudies

TABLE Ilia :Financing situation in1979 ,bymethod offinancing and byadministrative body
(million EUA)
|Total volume
I(Art.42ofthe Con­«
Commitments atend 1979 IΓ ί
Total I
tion ) I
Aidadministrated |
bythe Commission jAid administrated
bythe EIB II
I
I
|Amount
II % !
L_ _JI
|Amount
I II
% !
II
|Amount I
I ; II
| % I
I_!Amount
iI I
I ^I
L I
.
jEPFResources Iμ3.074,4355 |
ι ι88,7 |
ι . .ι|588,8 |
l lI
I100 I
II -I
I25,9 |
l iI
I26,1
iI
I L I
iI t
I89,4 |
I I
j-Grant 8
ofwhich :microproject s
j interest rate subsidies
I exceptional aid2.149,8505
(20,-)
(110,-)
(150,-)
II62'" I
I Î366,8 |
(5,3) |
(24,6 ) |
I !62,3 |
(0,9)
(4,2)10,7
(10,7 )10,8 I
(10,8 )377,5 |
(5,3)
(10,7)
(24,6 )
' I54,9 I
(0,8)|
d,6)|
(3,6)1
1
j-Special loans
a •|445,585 |
I- II12,9 I
IN57,8 |
II9,8 |
Il I
I57,8 |
II I
iM |
i i
...j-Risk capital II 99,- |
I I2,8 I I '-I
I !! ala I
I15,2* |
I !I15-3 .!I !
I15,2* |
i ii I
I2,2 ,
I I- I
|-Stabex ' 380,-
I I164,2I I
I27,9 |
I II I
! I Ii
164,2 II ï
I23,9 l
I. I
IEIBResources I
■ – –– I I ■I
à 'I 390^- I
lI
I11,3 |
II
I,. ·ι
ι ' ιI
21A I
i iI73,9 I
ιI I
I22*1 |
i i! I
I10,6 t
i i
-Loans from EIB resources |.390,- I
I . •!I11,3' Î
I •I73,2 |
I II !
73,9 Il I
I73,2 |
I Il I
I10,6 |
I I
i
ITotalI ' ' !
|3.464,4355 |
I . "I
1 I-ι
loo ., j
I . I
I " II I
|588,8
r i
L_ II' I
Ii°° I
I II I
I99,1 |
I ' ■I
I100! I
j687,9 |
I '- I
II *
\
[100
I I
]
including appropriations of2million EUApending utilization from theoverall authorization forstudies .

TABLE IV:Financing situation atend 1979 ,bymethod offinancing ,byadministrative body and bysector
(million EUA)
I
I •'Development of
Iproduction *' .. I
Economic |
infrastructureI • I
Social j
developmentI
|Trade
promotion
Indus - I RuralX­
I : ■" ' S . I
I ,''I
I ' : _JjtrialiH
jzation I
L !Tourism Ijproduc -|
jtion |
L _J| x-
I . !
1 : II ' " I
I %/I
I _JI ■ I
I *-I
L _!I •I
i I *
I I __r ■• i
I 1.Aid administrated bythe CommissionI .
I291,1 |I ■■ I
I 0,6 II- . I
I436,6 II I
I65,1 II I
I455,1 II I
I 100 II I
I329.1 II I
I .100 II I
I 1^-1 100
I * . !
| 1.1.Non-repayable aid •!
1 • I140,3 II 0,6 |
I I381,1 |
I46,7 I|363,6 |
I II . I
I 79,9 |
I II ■ I
ι ολλε I|304,5 |
i iI I
I92,5 |
i i| 30,3
ι ι94,7
I!- Programmable grants . (ofwhich microproje I (ofwhich microproject s) |
i i140,3 j
!i i
I 0,6 I
I381,1
(15,9 )
.46,7 363,6
ι ι79,9 |
1 I
i - iI l
I304,5 1l l
92,5 |
■ Il i
30,3 |
I94,7
ι .
I -Exceptional aid I
■ ' . ■iI I
I ■ I
• I
| 1.2.Special loans I
I II150,8 |
i i55,5 II ■ I
I18,4 -II I
IM.5 I
i iI I
I 20,1 |
i ' ■ iI l
I 24,6 |
l II I
I 7,5 |
ιι
I -1,7 I
ι5,3
I- 1.3.Stabex
iI - I
I • -I
I II I
I ' I
I II s I
I •- ..I
I 1
I : "
I 2.Aid administrated bythe EIBI I
I373,9 II I
I16,1 II - I
I34,9 ■I
I
I 2,1.Loans from EIB resources
lI. ■I
|263,8 j
I II I
I8,8 |
I I24,4 |
I - I
I 2.2.Interest rate subsidies
iI I
I 41,1 |
I II I
I 1.5 I
I I■ I
3,8 |
I • II I
I - I
I II II' I
I I
. _
j 2.3.Risk capital
II I
I 69,0 |
I ' •'Ii ■ i
I5,8 |
I 1I - I
I'■6,7 |
I II I
I ■ I
I I
I 3*Grand total j
| ofwhich : I
I -from EDFresources
| (1.,2.2.,2.3.) I
lI ■ I
I-665,-1
401,2I: I
16*1 I
I
I
7,9 |
* 1I
h436,6
! ''
j436,6
I ■ II
100 I
■-75,6 |
I' I455,1
455,1
1l
100 j
100 ]
I329,1 |
329,1 j100
100 | 32,-
l100 (
100
I –from EIB resources
I (2.1.)L__I263,8 |
L_ Iι
I I
I8,8 |
L_Ji . i
I *' I
I _Ji i
I ' I
I24,4 |
L_ I

2.
Exceptional aid Sta
L_bexI
Other Blocked approps.j
II
j Total
\ , -
1.Aidadministrated bythe Commission |I I
IU°A \I I
100I I
I32V :!I I
I100 II
I130^6 II
I 100 Iiiitii I 87,4 II I
I2.121,9 ]I I
i 84,4 |
1.1.Non-repayable aidI
I110,9
i iI
100 I
I II I
I130,6 I
I I100
I II I
I 13,9 I
I II I
I 87,4 |
I . II I
j1.475,8 |
I II I
I .58,7 |
I I
-Programmable grants
(ofwhich microprojects )|130,6 |
I - I
l lI ioo |
L I
i iI 13,9 |
I I
ιI 87,4 |
I I|1.364,9 |
I (15,9 )|
I II 54,3 |
I I
1
«'–Exceptional aid 110,9i i
I 100 I | 110,9 I
I II I
I I
1.2.Special loans I ^ I
iI 3-24,1 |
I ■ II 12,9 |
I I
1.3.Stabex I
il
I322." I
I Ii100 I
I II 322,- I
I II 12,8 |
I I
Aid administrated bythe EIB
*– " ιI I
I ■M
i iLzI
| 12,6 I
I II 322– |
I II 15,6 |
I I
2.1.Loans from EIB resources I
rI II' • I | 272,6 |
I II 10,8 |
I !
2.2.Interest rate subsidiesI 42,6 |
I II 1.7 |
I ,I
I
2.3.Risk capital
II
I
Iι
I 2."
I■ ι
I 12,6
I76,8 |
I3.1 I
I
- I
3.Grand -totalI
Ilio*!!i
I100 I32V - ]Iioo |I13M .|I 100 I I 100 II2.513,9 |
l II 100 I
I I
ofwhich :
-from EDF resources
(1.,2.2.,2.3.) II . ' I
IH0,9 |
i iI I
I100 II I
I322,- I
i iI ■ I
I100 I
I II I
I130,6 I
i lI 100 I
I II
I 15,9 I
I II 100 I
I II I
I-2.241,3 ]
I II il
I 89,2 (s
I \
-from EIB resources
(2.1.)I
I_!/i
I
272,6 |
II I
I 10,8 |
I-•••• ■I

TABLE IVa :Financing situation In1979 ,bymethod offinancing ,byadministrative body and bysector <
i ^ " (million EUA )
j »
Development ofproduct Ion Econom Ic
InfrastructureSocl al
deve IopmentTrade
promot Ion
Indus- Rural
trial I-
zatlonTour 1sm produc -
tIon%
i f t
I 1.Aidadministrated bythe Commission 25,4 0,1 101,3 56,6 137,8 100 86,- 00 1*5 100
«I
» - j
1'il•Non-repayable aid 20,4 0,1 82,6 46,- 111,1 80,6 78,6 91,4 *6,5 100
-Programmable grants
(ofwhlch mtcroproj ects )20,4 0,1 82,6
(5,3 )46,- 111,1 80,6 78,6 91,4 6,5 100
J -Exceptional aid
1.2.Special loans 18,7 10,6 26,7 19.4 7,4 8,6
I-1»3.Stabexι
I 2*Aidadministrated bytheEIB | 89,2 1 7,9 43,4
2.1 .Loans from EIB resources 68,7.\
4,5 32,7
2.2.Interest rate subsidies 9,9 0,8 4,8
-2.3.RIsk cap Ital . 10,6 2,6 5,9
3.Grand total /
of whIch : ,
-from EDF resources
(1.,2.2.,2.3.)114,6
45,98,-
3,5 .101,3
101 .3100
67,3137,8
137,8100
100 -86,-
86,-100
100tîl
6,5100
100
-from EIB resources
(2.1 .) 68,7 4,5
l•32,7

2.
Exceptional aid Stabex » Other Bocked approps. Total
1*Aid administrated bythe Commission 24,6 00 164,2 00 29,- 100 13.9 87,4 588,8 85,6
1*1 *Non-repayable aid 24,6 100 29,- 100 13,9 87,4 366,8 53,3
-Programmable grants
(ofwhlch mlcroprojects )29,- 100 13.9 87,4 342,2
(5,3 )49,7
I -Exceptional aid • 24,6 100 24,6 3,6
|1.2.Special loans 57,8 8,4
I1.3.Stabex 164,2 100 164,223,9 j
I 2.Aidadministrated bytheEIB 2,- 12,6 99,1 14,4
2.1.Loans from EIB resources73,2 10,6 !
J2.2.Interest ratesubsidies> 10.7 1.6
2.3.Risk capital2,- 12,6 15,2
3.Grand total
of whlch :
•from EOF resources
(1*>2a2*|2«3 «)24,6
24,6100
100164,2
164,2100
10029,-
29,-100
10015,9
15,9100
100687,9
614,7100
89,4
-from EIB resources * -
(2.1.)73,2 10,6

TABLE V:Sectoral summary ,atend 1979 ,showing %9method offinancing and administrative body
(mil Mon EUA)
1 I2 3 4 5
Development ofproduction
Econom le Socl al Trade Mutl- To+«(
Industry Tour ism IRural InfrastrucH deve Iop- promot Ion secto (1 a5>)
product Ion ture ment (1)
I.Aid administrated bythe Commission
a*Programmable grants I 140,3 0,6 381 ,1I
363.6 304,5 30,3 18,5 (1.238,9 )
I b.Spec !alloans I 150,8 55,5 91,5 24,6 1,7 ( 324i,1)
I c.Exceptional aid
I d.Stabex I
I e.Total 1to5 I 291,1 0,6 436,6 455,1 329,1 32,- 18,5 1.561,-
I Breakdown 1to5In K '.>■ I 18,6 0,04 28,- 29,1 . 21,1 2,- 1,2 1ffids
I f.Total de 1a6 ! 291,1 0,6 436,6 455,1 329,1 18,5 ,
I Breakdown !•to5In K 17,4 0,04 26,1 27,2 19,6 1,9 1,1
g.GRAND TOTAL 291,1 ■0,6 436,6 455,1 329,1 32,- 18,5
I Breakdown oftotal In5C I,13.7 0,03 20,6 21,4 15,5 0,9
III.Aid administrated bythe EIB1
I a.Loans from EIB resources 263,8 8,8
I b.Interest rate subsidies 41,1 , 1,5
I c.RIskcap Ital 69,- , 5,8 ,
d.GRAND TOTAL 373,9 16,1
III .Grand Tota I 665 ,- 16,7 436,6 455,1 329,1 32,- 18,5 (1.953 ,-)
a.Breakdown Ito SInI 34,1 . 0,9 22,4 23,3 1Ç,8 ■ 1,6
b.Breakdown 1to 6In % 32,2 0,8 21,2 22,- 16," 1,5 0,9
c.Breakdown oftotal In % - 26,4 0.7 1.7,4 18,1
./' 13,1 ' 1,3 0,7 I
! ■ ■■ .
(1)commitments under projects and programmes

2.
6 7 8 ô I
Other and
overheadsTôt aI
(1à6)φ
Exceptlonal
ald StabexBIocked
approps.TOTAL
!• Aid admTn fstrafed bythe Commission
a*Programmable grants
b*Spec !alloans
c*Exceptional aid
d.Stabex
e.Total 1to 5
Breakdwon 1to5In$
f.Total tto 5
Breakdown Ito6InJ
g.GRAND TOTAL
Breakdown of ,total In %112,1
\
112,1
6,7
112,1
5,3(1.351,0)
«V,.
1.675,1
100Ï110,9
110,9
5,2322 ,-
322 ,-
15,213,9
13,9
0,71.364,9
32*,1
110,9
322.-
2.121,9
109$
II.Aid administrated bythe EIBI
I
a.Loans from EIB resources
b.Interest rate subsidies
c.Risk capital
d.GRAND TOTALι
 %
2,"
2,"272,6
42,6
76,8
392,-
III.Grand Tôt al 112,1 (2.065,1 ) 110,9 322 ,- 15,9 2.513,9
a.Breakdown Ito 5InJ
b.Breakdown 1to6In K
c.Breakdown oftotal In % ■ I5.4
4.5100* !
4,4 2,8 0,6100%

TABLE Va:Sectoral summary ,In1979 ,showing %$method offinancing and adm InIstratIvebody
(million EUA)
1 2 3 4 5
Development ofproduction
Econom le Socl al Trade MuItl- Tota
[IndustryITour Ism Rural Infrastru cH deve Iop- promot Ion siecto (1 a5)
product Ion ture ment <11
i :
I.Aid administrated bythe Commissioni
I a.Programmable grants 20,4 82,6 111,1 78,6 6,5 18,5 (317,8 )
I b.Special loans 5." tr 18,7 26,7 7.4 (57,8 )
I CmExceptional aid
I d.Stabex
I e*"Tota I1to5 25,4 0,1 iai,3 137,8 86,- 6.5 ,18,5 375,6
I Breakdown 1to5In$ 6,8 0,03 27,- 36,7 22,9 1.7 4,9 100*
f.Total 1to 6 25,4 0,1 101,3 137,8 86,- 6,5 18,5
I Breakdown 1to6InJ 6,6 0,03 26,2 35,7 22,3 1,7 4,8
g.GRAND TOTAL 25,4 0,1 101,3 137,8 86,- 6.5 18,5
I "Breakdown oftotal In % 4,3 0,02 17,2 23,4 14,6 1,1 3,1
II*Aid administrated bythe EIB
m
I a*Loans from ElB resources 68,7 4,5
I: b.Interest rate subsidies 9,9 0,8
I-c.RIskcapltal 10,6 2,6
d.GRAND TOTAL 89,2 - 7,9
III *Grand Tota I 114,6 8." 101,3 137,8 86,- 6,5 18,5 (472,7 )
I a*Breakdown Ito5InJ Ii
I 24,2 1:7 A 21,4 29,2 18,2 1.4 3,9 100%
I b®Breakdown 1to6!n% I 23,7 1,6 28,5 17,8 1,4 3,8
c.Breakdown oftotal In % 16,7 .1.2 14,7 20,- 12,5 0,9
(1)commitments under projects and programmes

2.
I : : : " 6 7 8 9
Other and
overhead sTôt aI
(1à6)– »
Except lonal
aId StabexBIocked J
approps . ITOTAL
I. Aid administrated bythe Commission
a*Programmable grants
b«Spécial loans
c.Exceptlonal ald
d.Stabex "
e«îota I1to 5
Breakdown 1to 5In%
f.Total 1to6 ■*
Breakdown 1to 6In^
g.GRAND TOTAL
Breakdown oftotal In %10,5
10,5
2.7
10,5
1.8(328,3 )
.386,1
100124,6
24,6
4,2164,2
(
164,2
27,913,9
13,9
2.4ι
324,2
57,8
24,6
164,2
5B8,8
10®*
II.Aid administrated bythe EIB
a*Loans from EIB resources
b*Interest rate subsidies
c.Risk capital
d.GRAND TOTAL«
2."
2,"73,2
10,7
15,2
99,1
lll «Grand Tota 1 10,5 (483,2 ) 24,6 164,2 15,9 6B7,9
a.Breakdown 1to5In% I
b.Breakdown 1to6In% I
c.Breakdown oftotal In % I2,2
1.5100%
3,6 23,9 2,3 100*

TABLE VI iSUBSIDIZED LOANS AND RISK CAPITAL COMM ITED BY THE EIB IN1979
BREAKDOWN BY COUNTRY (million EUA)
Loans from the Riskcapttalfrom I
EIBresources EOF resources Total
COUNTRY
Amount % Amount Amount %
Barbados 2.5 3,4 2,5 2,9
Burundi 0,5 3,8 0,5 0,6
Cameroon 14,4 19,7 •2,3 :17,4 16,7 19,3
Cape Verde 0,08 0,6 0,08 0,1
Ivory Coast 9,8 13,4 0,5 3,8 10,3 11,9
DJIbout I 1,0 7,6 1,0 1,1
Gamb Ia 2,3 17,4 2,3 2,7
Jama Ica 0,07 0,5 0,07 I 0,1
1Kenya 5,0 6,8 5,0 5,8
Madagascar 2,29 17,4 2,29 I 2,7
-«a 2,5 19,0 2,5 2,9
Maurl tan la 25,0 34,2 25,0 28,9
ΝI9ΘΓ 4,5 6,1 4,5 .5»2
Senega I 1,5 11,4 . 1,5 1,7
Swaz IIand 0,15 1,1 0,15 0,2
Reglonal
(Ghana /1vory Coast ) 12,0 16,4
I12,0 13,9
Tota 73,2 100,0
I13,19
I100,0 86,39 - 100,0
BREAKDOWN BY SECTOR \
Loans from the (Risk capital from I/
IEMBresour ces IEOF resources Total
SECTOR
I
JAmount .% ■ I
iAmount %A
1Amount %
Development banksI
7,5 10,2 0,5 3,8 J 8,0 9,2
Energy 12,0 16,4 2,6 19,7 14,6 16,7
Agricultural and food
Industr Ies 4,6 6,3 2,3 17,4 I 6,9 ! 8,0
Extractlve Industries 25,0 34,2 1,0 7,6 26,0 30,1
Met aI-work Industr Jes .5,3 7,2 3,49 26,5 8,79 I 10,2
Chemical Industries 5,2 7,1 0,5 3,8 5,7 I 6,6
Manu factur Ingindustries 9.1 12,4 0,23 1.7 9,33 10,8
Tour 1sm
I ?4,5 6,2..::2,57:'9,5 |7,07
t8,2
Tota I 73,2 100,0 13,19 100,0 86,39|100,0

TABLE Vft:STABEX -Results of 1979 operations (for the year of
application 1978 )by ACPState
(In EUA )
Ben In
Cape Verde
Central African Rep <
6ambIa
6uInea BIssau
Upper-V o Ita
LIber la
Mal I
Maur Itan Ia
Uganda
Rwanda
Samoa
Sénégal
Tanzan Ia
Chadcotton i 880.982
palm nut &kernel 3.728^394
oil
bananas
cotton429.500
3.079.660
groundnuts with or
without shells - 2.488.664(1 )
groundnuts ,shel led
or not 3.591 .506
cotton ,not carded
or ,combed 2.340.590
groundnuts ,shel led
or not 2.890.160
Iron ore 7.586.943
groundnuts ,shel led
or not
Iron ore
tea
cotton
pyrethr um
cocoa3.893.256
33.394.848 (2)
3.882.924 .
3.125.543
608.802
780.625
groundnut oil (3)49.882»295
groundnut oil-
cake (4) 15.224.094
crude slsal
cotton5.472.645
4.671 .608
(1)Including anadvance of 1.510.000 paid In1978
(2)Including anadvance of 7.000.000 paid In1978
(3)Including anadvance of16.000.000 paid In1978
(4)Including anadvance of 3.000.000 paid In1978

2
Togo
Tong acof fee
bananas (5)946.290
244.91 9149.144.248
Twofinancial transfers were carried outaspart ofthis operationatthe beginning of1980 :
Sudan
Swaz IIandgroundnuts
Iron ore9.325.91 1
5.490.459
Former OCTcontinuing tobenefit from the OCTappropriation
Comoros
Tuvalucopr a
cIoves
copra39.253
180.299
48.771
Tota I268.323
164.228.941
(5)Including anadvance of160.000 paid In1978

3.
Transfers carried out In1979 (for the year ofapplication 1977 )
Cape Verde bananas 347*712
Uganda cotton 1.287.985
Sudan groundnuts ,shelled
or not 968.825
2.604.522
Transfers carried In1979 (for the year ofapplication 1975 X1)
»
Gabon wood Inthe rough 6.703.311
Mall cotton 496.501
7.199.812
Former OCT continuing to benefit' from OCT appropriation *
Transfers carried out for the year ofapplication 1975(1 )
Kiribati copra 1*200*321
Solomon Islands wood Inthe rough 761.245
copra 138.502
Tuvalu copra 61.541
2.161 .609
Advance paid In1979
*
Dominica bananas 2.480.000
(1)Following the decision ofthe ACP-EEC Council ofMinisters of
13/14March 1978 ,which called the Commission toact upon these
late requests .

TABLE VII !sExceptîonal aîd (art.59)1979
Burund Y 1•979.000 Purchase and transport ofessen­
tial goods following the Uganda /
Tanzania conflict
Cape Verde 1>200*000 Supply ofbeans following drought *
.150*000 Supply oflnsecttcIdes,sprayers
etc*** for locust control
Central African Rep# 300.000
650.000
Dom tn!ce
FIJI
Ghana
Equatorial Guinea
Jamaica300.000
3.000.000
300.000
1.200.000
30,0.000
700.000
9
300.000
300.000
275.000Supply ofmedeclnes ,food .Insec­
ticides ,chemical following the
downfall ofthe Empire
a
Supply ofspare parts etc..foh
lowing the downfall ofthe Empire
Supply ofessential goods follo­
wing hurricane David
Supply ofessential goods follo­
wing hurricane David
Supply ofbuilding materials fol­
lowing damage caused bytyphoon
Fay
Supply ofbuilding materials and
ofproducts for repairs tococonut
palm plantations following typhoon
Fay 1 ••
Supply ofbuilding mater IalsfoI­
Iowl ng .typhoon Mel 1
Supply ofbuilding materials an'd
agricultural products following
typhoon Mel I
(.
Medical aid following drought
Supply offood tocombat shortages
•r
Supply offertilizers ,seeds ,
vehicles ,tents ,etc.foIlowing
fIood
Malawi 2.500.000 Fuel alr-llft following break In
rail IInk

2.
Mal i
Maur 1tlus
Uganda220.000 Medical aid following drought
700>000 Supply ofbuilding materials for
Rodrlgues Islands following
typhoon Cel Ine II
300*000 Purchase and ,transport ofessen­
tial goods
200.000 Medical aid *(African Medical and
Research Formation )
Rwanda 55.000 Fight against meningitis epidemic
300.000 Purchase ^and transport ofessern -
tlal goods following Uganda /
Tanzanle conflict
2.000.000 Purchase and transport ofessen­
tial gqods following Uganda /
Tanzanle conflict
Sao Tome ePrincipe 300.000 Supply offood following swine
fever
Sudan
Tanzan 1a
Chad
Zamb !a274.000 Supply ofessential goods to .
Ugandan refugees Insouthern Sudan ♦,
990.000 Supply of6ulldlng materials fol­
lowing floods
300.000 Supply ofbulldjng materials fol­
lowing conflict with Uganda
300.000 Supply ofmedicines ,spare parts
foIIowl ngclashes
\ ι ·
172.000 Rep Iacement offerry following
» host 11Itles
Non-aIIocated operations :
East Africa
Southern Africa300.000
4.700.000
24.565.000Anti-locust campaign
Supply ofessential goods (medi­
cines ,local foodstuff 's,tods ,
clothing ,etc..) torefugees from
Namibia and Zimbabwe
./.

3.
Reallocation ofbalances decided In1976 :
Rwanda 419.000 Purchase and transport ofes­
sential goods following Uganda /
Tanzania conflict
Somalia 2.390.000 Supply oflorries ,etc... for
• , refugees

TABLE IX:Measures toassist small and medium-sized enterprises
asat 31.12.1979
(000 EUA )
/
Cred !+ IInes
-Sierra Leone (National Development Bank ) 1.000
-Mal I(Banque deDéveloppement *180
-Botswana (National Development Bank ) * 650
-Guyana (Guyana Agrie »Coop «Ind »Dev *Bank ) 700
-Samoa (Western Samoa .Development Bank ) 890
-FIJI (FIJI Development Bank ) 700
-Tonga (Tonga Development ,Bank ) 130
-Ghana (National Investment Bank ) 1*.880
-Bellze (Development Flnance Corporation ) 400
-Bahamas (Bahamas Development Bank ) 690
-Jamalca (Development Venture Capital Flnanclng ) 1*860
*Suriname (Landbouwbank N.V ») 2.000
-£enln (Banque béninoise dedéveloppement ) 350
Industrial cooperation and promotion (grants )
-A ACP
•Dakar Investor's forum (1978 ) • •180
•Dakar Investor's forum (1980 )' 50Or-,
-Central African Republic (establishment ofthe
Office Promotion SME )
-Mano Rlver Union (Industriai project appralsal unlt ) 900
-Mauritius (Industrial promotion ) 1 v 700
* +-Sénégal
•SME (small and med Iuhi-s 1zed enterprises ) 950
•Promotion ofthe Dakar Industrial free zone 590 <
•National data-process Ingscheme #250
Technical assistance (grants )
-Botswana (Technology Center ) 475
-St. KItts (Industr IalProgramme ) 310
-Zambia (Development Bank Zambia ) 400
-Other TAprojects (Malawi ,Nigeria ,Mall ,Belize ) 370
1

ofsupply contracts byorigin ofgoods -
-oftechnical cooperation contracts bynationality ofcontractor
\ 1• • ,.■ ■
4th E.D.F. -SITUATION ASAT31.12.1979
'
in'000 EUA
Nationality
of
firmsWork ;>.contracts Supply contract sTechnical cooperation
contractsTotal contracts
AmountI %
j31.12*.79/.
31.12 Amount%
31.12.79 31.12%.
31.12.79%
31.12, 1
l%
31.12.79Z
31.11 ?
78 78 7878
Germany 35.828 6.93 9.30 38.248 21.35 25.07 34.709 20.07!
21.75 108.785 '12.52 14.46
Belgium 27.548 5.33 8.11 9.046 5.05 2.90 16.434 9.51 10.94 53.028 6.10 7.90
France 125.801 24.34 29.62 37.749 21.07 25.14 33.763 19.52 15.48 197.313 22.71 25.87
Italy 60.132 11.64 11.92 37.772 21.08 6.05 20.388 .11.79 12.11 118.292 13.61 11.04
Luxemburg 3.265 1.89 2.37 3.265 0.38 0.51
Netherlands 23.330 4.51 2.24 7.785 .4.34 2.59 13.404 7.75 9.15 44.519 5.13 3.78
Denmark 2.309 0.45 -50 0.03 0.05 5.036 2.91 3.14 7.395 0.85 0.68
United Kingdom 18.863 3.65 2.51 23.824 13.30 16.65 -18.230 10.54 10.39 60.917 7.01 6.44
jIreland 2.771 1.60 1.40 2.771 0.32 0.30
ACP-0CT \ 218.253 42.24 B6.30 17.928 10.00 14.71 24.939 14.42 13.27 261.120 30.05 27.94
Third Countries 4.699 0.91 6.771 3.78 6.84 11.470 1.32 1.08
Total 516.763 100 100 179.173 ' 100 100 172.939 100 100 868.875 100 100
59.48 % 20.62 %. .19.90 % 100 %

TABLE XI jCost ofthe Delegations
(000 EUA)
Cost ofthe Delegation
COUNTRIES
1976 /1978 1979 TOTAL
BARBADOS 772 460 1.232
BENIN 1.205 587 1.792
BOTSWANA 663 377 1.040
LESOTHO 596 379 975 .
SWAZ LAND 297 203 500
BURUNDI 1.195 729 1.924
CAMEROON 2.435 1.122 3.557
EQUATORIAL GUINEA 3 3
CENTRAL AFRICA REP . 1.528 717 2.245
CONGO 1.432 634 2.066
IVORY C0AST 2.330 868 3.198
ETHIOPIA 1.004 627 1.631
IFIJI \ 480 . 298 778
SAMOA 196 122 x318
TONGA 134 83 I 217
GABON , 1.014 456 1.470
GAMBIA 473 I 315 I 788
GHANA 1.289 755 - 1 2.044
GUINEA BISSAU 1 592 363 955
GUINEA 953 494 1.447
GUYANA 626 288 914
UPPER-VOLTA 1.764 929 2.693
MAURITIUS I 683 462 1.145
COMORES 195 218 413 ■
'SEYCHELLES 3 7 10
JAMAICA 1.099 595 1.694
BAHAMAS I 19 30 49
KENYA 1.460 847 2.307
LIBERIA V . 790 490 1.280
MADAGASCAR 2.193 I 920 3.113
MALAW I 955 459 1.414
MALI 1.951 .962 2.9 3
MAURITANIA 1.599 760 2.359
NGER 2.1 25 936 3.061
NIGER IA 498 418 916
RWANDA 1.084 649 1.733
SENEGAL • 2.589 1.099 3.688
SIERRA LEONE 756 437 1.193
SOMALIA .1.463 722 2.85
SUDAN 1.696 91 1 2.607
SUR NAME 88 375 1.193
TANZAN A 1.478 794 2.272
CHAD 1.765 836 2.601
TOGO 1.261 637 1.898
TRINIDAD &TOBAGO 862 483 ! 1.345
GRENADA -14 13. 27
UGANDA 687 535 1.222
ZA RE 2.288 1.037 3.325 .
ZAMBIA 1.327 828 2.55
CAPE VERDE 5 3 18
PAPUA NEW GU NEA 156 1 26 417
SAO TOME &PRINCIPE 27 34 61
DJIBOUTI 8 70 78
ALL STATES I
■ I4.352 1.880 6.232
TOTALS |57.187 29.524
* I86.71 1

COUNTRIES
"TEDFresources administered by
commitmentsthe CommissionEDF resources
'administered bythe
EI8
commitmentsTotal
EDF
Commitments|'EDF
'
Payments»iil■■■HSaMHDSk
Payments (9)
as %of
commitments
(8)Projects
and
Programmes
(spécial
loans and
srants )STABEXExceptional
aidDélégation
expensesTotalRisk
capitalInterest
rate
Subsidies
(1) (2) . (4) (5)=(1 )to(4 ) (6) (7)(8)=(5 )+
(6)+(7 )(9) (10)=(9):(8 )
BAHAMAS 1.354 52 1.406 . Γ1.406 353 25,1
BARBADOS 2.530 1.310 3.840 364 4.204 2.015 47,9
BENIN 29.355 20.017 20 1.901 51.293 51.293 23.930 46.7
BOTSWANA 18.391 2.670 1.108 22.169 22.169 6.674 30,1
BURUNDI 38.047 1.486 .2.059 2.021 43.613 500 44.113 17.039 38,6
CAMEROON 38.541 4.065 3.765 46.371 2.300 4.680 53.351 28.270 53,0
CAPE VERDE 2.216 778 1.350 23 4.367 80 1 4.447 2.509 56,4
C.A.R. 27.074 903 950 2.404 31.331 31.331 10.356 33,0
COMOROS 5.970 1.896 2.597 429 10.892 10.892 4.542
CONGO 20.334 7.362 250 2.200 30.146 3.150 33.296 24.620 73,9
IVORY COAST 32.381 15.000 3.383 50.764 432 ,5.945 57.141 29.922 52,4
DJIBOUTI 2.935 692 m 60 3.687 1.000 4.687 1.844 39,3
DOMINICA 2.284 2.480 3.300 8.064 8.064 I 4.144
I51/3
ETHIOPIA 78.668 14.420 2.750 1.779 97.617 97.617 28.967 29,7
FIJI 8.774 2.115 2.500 829 14.218 2.098 16.316 4.768 29,2
GABON 7.619 6.703I
I1.570 15.892 15.892 10.975 69,0
GAMBIA ' 9.j?35 2.489 749 838 13.431 13.431 5.171 33,5
GHANA 39.807 5.176 2.430
I2.157 49.570
ι2.433 52.003 16.344
ι31,4

♦2,
' I
EDFresources administered bythe Commission
commitments>■■■■■"■ ■" !■■«■■■■«■
EDF resources
administered bythe
CommitmentsI
Total EDF Payments (9)
r
COUNTRIESProjects
and
Programmes
(spécial
loans and
arants )STABEXExceptional
aidDélégation
expensesTotalRisk
capitalInterest
rate
subsidiesEDF
commitment :ipayments
las %of
commitments
(8)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)=(1)to(4 ) (6) (7)(8)=(5 )+
(6)+(7 )(9) (10)=(9 ):(8)
GRENADA 1.980 29 2.009 m2.00 » 200 10,0
GUINEA 53.791 3.035 1.565 58.391 58.391 12.844 22,0
GUINEA BISSAU 15.845 8.808 467 1.051 26.171 26.171 17.179 65,6
EQUATORIAL GUINEA 428 300 3 731 731 309 <2,3
GUYANA 12.273«M '990 13.263 3.200 16.463 2.691 16,3 ,
UPPER VOLTA 36.141 7.262 2.847 46.250 4.428 50.678 34.110 67,3
JAMAICA ": 17.369 275 1.792 :19.436 491 19.927 5.889 29,6
KENYA 68.758 300 2.455 71.513 1.166 7.800 80.479 28.832 35,8
KIRIBATI 170 2.283 2.453 2.453 2.283 93,1
LESOTHO 17.481m 1.230 1.043 19.754 19.754 5.626 28,4
LIBERIA 20.570 7.587 1.356 29.513 286 1.242 31.041 13.795 44,4
MADAGASCAR 36.588 2.903 1.700 3.258 44.449 44.449 16.408 36,9
MALAWI 57.647 - 4.Q00 1.497 63.144 987 1.410 65.541 21.571 32,9
MALI 65.667 5.887 1.020 3.096 75.670 3.650 79.320 36.373 45,9
MAURITIUS 7.450 3.700 1.221 12.371 886 13.257 4.943 37,3
MAURITANIA 17.783 37.001 1.307 2.503 58.594 3.637 62.231 53.201 85,4
NIGER 53.340 22.654 9.614 3.255 88.863 900 1.047 90.810 65.619 72,2
NIGERIA 3.378 1.017 4.395 3.000 7.435 3.998 53,8

EDF resources administered bythe Commission
•V.
commitmentsEDF resources
administered bythe
EIB
fntnmi tmpnt gTotal EDF IPayments (9)
COUNTRIESProj ects
and
Programmes
(special
laons and
qrants )STABEXExceptional
iaid
ιDélégation
expensesTotalRisk
capitalInterest
rate
subsidiesEDF
commitment :paymentsas %of
commi'tments
(8)
(1) (2)»
(3),- (4) (5)=(1)to(4 : (6) (7)(8)=(5 )+
(6)+(7 )(9) (10)=(9 ):(8)
IUGANDA 22.499 13.695 500 1.316 38.010- 38.010 16.130 42,4
PAPUA NEW GUINEA 1.418 521 1.939 1.900 •1.235 5.074 3.254 64.1
RWANDA 56.270 609 6.435 1.861 65.175 3.000 68.175 29.574 43.4
STLUCIA 2.305 2.305 2.305
i1.404 60/9
S0L0M0N ISLANDS 1.455 2.173 3.628 3.628 2.805 63,5
SAMOA 4.251 2.838 338 7.427 .7.427 4.194 56,5
|SAOTOME 1.598 « , 300 75 1.973 1.973 l 484 24,5
SENEGAL 48.333 65.106 3.685 3.877 121.001 200 121.201 91.229 75,2
SEYCHELLES 1.992 10 2.002 620 2.622 690 26,3
ISIERRA LEONE 25.621 3.977 1.285 30.883 30.883 8.871 28,7
SOMALIA 32.285 1.932 3.426 2.326 39.969 /"39.969 15.200 38,0
SUDAN 60.452 2.628 1.536 2.757 67.373 6.500 73.873 17.835 24,2
SURINAME 6.412 1.233 7.645 7.645 1.298 17,0
SWAZILAND 11.815 3.369 538 î•15.722 153 1.626 17.501 9.845 56,2
TANZANIA 71.550 20.702 355 2.402 95.009 7.400 741 103.150 44.59C 43,2
TCHAD 38.102 300 2.755 41.157 7.500 48.657 25.210 51,8
TOGO 30.306 3.626 2.026 35.958 3.250 419 39.627 23.6?3 59,6
TONGA 2.763 1.149 200
. ι232 !
_. 14.344
ι ,-
II
■ I4.344 I 2.475 I 57,0

- Ή.
EDFresources aenini stered bythe Comm
,commitmentsission EDF resources
administered bythe
EIB
commit ment sTotal
EDF
lommitments
/•• •EDF
!
Payments
IPayments (9)
as %©f
:ommitments
(8)COUNTRIESProjects
and
Programmes
(spécial
loans andrtrant 3!
!
!STABEX j
!Except ional
aidDelegatior
expensesTotal[
Risk
capitali ■
iInterest
rate
subsidies
(1)
I(2).| (3)
\ *(4) (5>=(1)to<4 :
f- ^IJIJ 'l(6)
I(7)
i ■(8)=(5 )+
(6)+(7 )(9) (10)=9î:(8 )
J
TRINIDAD
TUVALU
ZAÏRE
ZAMBIA
REGIONAL PROJECTS
.TOTALS \5.695
*
82.115
38.749
176.429\ –
f '-
175 ; .- :
' .- . 19.300
|- 17.012
i;1.429
3.468
2.1427.124
175
104.883
57.903
176.4295.230
632
6.0001.577
»
m
411
2.6998.701
175
110.113
58.946
185.1283.130
175
27.371
22.773
63.13836,0
10©,0
24,9
»,6
Μ,Ι
A..5-74 *709f301.946 1Q1.622 j85.398 2.063.675 ! 64.464 43.781 2.171.920 963.162 M,3
SUMMARY
AFRICA
CARRIBEAN
PACIFIC
REGIONAL PROJECTS1.327.247 j288.733 95.347
52.202 2.480 ' 3.575
18.831 10.733 .2.700
176.429 ]
■i -76.643
6.835
1.920
m ■1.787.970
I
65.092 i
34.184
176.429 J
« . .-53.364
3.200
1.900
6.00035.317
2.432
3.333
2.6991.876.651 !
70.724 ;
39.417
185.128859.446
21.124
19.454
63.13845.8
29.9
49,3
34,1
TOTALS 1.574.709 301.946 ;101.622 t>.398 2.063.675 64.464 43.781 2.171.920 963.162 U.Z