ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM (84) 174 
 
 
 
Vol. 1984/0 061 
  
 
Disclaimer  
Conformém ent au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 
concernant l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique 
européenne et de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, 
p. 1), tel que modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) n° 1700/2003 du 22 septembre 2003 
(JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1), ce dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents 
classifiés présents dans ce dossier ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit 
règlem ent. 
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 
concerning the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Econom ic 
Communit y and the European Atom ic Energy Communit y (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as 
amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 (OJ L 243, 
27.9.2003, p. 1), t his file is open to the public. Where necessary, classified documents in this 
file have been declassified in conformity with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation.  
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom  1. 
Februa r 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen  
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Europäischen Atomgem einschaft (ABI. L 43 vom  15.2.1983,  
S. 1), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1700/2003 vom 22. Septem ber 2003  
(ABI. L 243 v om 27.9.2003, S. 1), ist diese Datei der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit  
erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in dieser Datei in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5  
der genannten Verordnung freigegeben.  
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(84) 174 final.
Brussels. 26 March 1984.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATION TO THE COUNCIL
Towards better coordination 
of development cooperation policies and operations  
within the Community
COM(84) 174 final.

Towards better coordination of development cooperation policies and operations  
within the Community
The most effective possible use of aid resources remains one of the constant  
concerns of donors.
This concern for effectiveness is essential where the beneficiary states are  
concerned, since they should feel a real impact on their, development from the  
efforts of donors.
It is also essential for the donors who, today perhaps more than ever, are  
accountable to public opinion for the rigorous and effective use of the aid  
resources they are called on to administer.
Maximum effectiveness is to be achieved by better coordination of aid, which  
is t'he only way of making sure that cooperation activities are consistent  
with one another and complement one another better.
This coordination concerns all bilateral or multilateral aid, but first and  
foremost aid from "Europe", i.e. from the Community as such and from the  
individual Member States. Taken together, aid from these sources represents  
a very significant proportion of world aid.
On the basis of average payments in recent years, aid from these sources in the  
Community accounts for 33% of world official aid (29% from the Member States and 4%  
from the Community).  If only aid to Africa (ACP+MMI) is considered, the figure  
rises to 53% (45.5% from the Member States and 7.5% from the Community).
The Commission itself has always been aware of the necessity for such  
coordination and has endeavoured to achieve it.

-  2 -
At the instigation of certain Member States and the Commission, the Council  
approved, in 1974 and 1976, two resolutions which, starting from a certain  
de facto collaboration between Member States and the Commission, advocated  
that coordination within the Community be stepped up.
* *
The first part of this paper takes stock of the present state of coordination  
as it results from the implementation of the Council resolutions.
The new development policy guideline advocated by the Community, which makes  
dialogue and support for sectoral policies a central feature of cooperation  
activities, calls for thought to be given to how coordination could be adapted  
and improved.
With this in mind, the second part of this paper will propose a plan of  
action geared to the practical and operational aspects of coordination.
*
*  *
I. The state of coordination
The coordination of development cooperation policies within the Community has  
made considerable progress since the adoption by the Council of a first resolution  
in July 1974 and then a second in November 1976. ^
1. The trend has been particularly satisfactory in the general aspects of  
cooperation policy, particularly since it was necessary for the Community  
to express coordinated, or even common, positions in certain international  
conferences dealing with development problems.

- 3 -
Community coordination in the context of the North-South Dialogue within  
UNCTAD, or in the shaping of common positions at the Conference on International  
Economic Cooperation illustrate this trend.
This type of coordination takes place on the sidelines at these conferences  
and, more generally, at Council meetings (Development Ministers) and in the  
context of work by Council groups which prepare those meetings.
2. Coordination has also been developed in the harmonization of development  
policies, as regards both overall policy and the geographical and sectoral  
aspects of cooperation. The work in the Council groups dealing with development  
(GCD, ACP, ACP-FIN, Mediterranean) permits this level of coordination, as do  
the ad hoc meetings of the heads of development administrations or the meetings  
between Member States and the Commission which precede and accompany numerous  
international meetings organized on a geographical or sectoral bais: UNDP  
round tables, IBRD consultative groups, sectoral meetings of the ECA and other  
bodies of the United Nations family.
3. Lastly, efforts to improve harmonization within the Community have been  
intensified since the 1974 and 1976 resolutions, at the level of operational  
coordination between Member States and the Commission.
.  This coordination is carried out in different ways:
(a) Through the establishment of a system for exchange of information on the  
projects identified; thus the Commission regularly communicates to Member  
States the sheets identifying projects for which financing has been requested  
and which are about to be appraised.

- 4 -
Outside the Programming Committee, however, few Member States comply with the text of the  
Internal Agreement on the financing and administration of Community aid to  
ACP States. This text obliges them to notify to the Commission bilateral aid  
granted or contemplated and to update this information periodically.
(b) Through periodic general coordination meetings with each bilateral aid  
agency from the Member States. Generally speaking, the .purpose of these  
meetings is, first of all, to exchange information on the'state of implementation  
of the respective financial and technical assistance programmes, then to
look for ways of making cooperation more active and more effective and,  
lastly, to study projects or programmes of mutual interest.
(c) Through meetings at frequent intervals between Commission delegations and  
Member State representatives in the field, though the situation differs from  
one country to another as regards the number of Member States represented and  
the frequency of meetings.
(d) By organizing meetings on the sectoral aspects of aid, in which Member  
States and the Commission learn the lessons of past operations (ex post  
evaluation) so as to fix, in the context of drawing up the basic principles  
agreed with the beneficiary states, the general guidelines for projects to
be financed in the future. These guidelines esentially concern Community aid.  
There should be nothing to stop the Member States - who have participated  
in drawing them up - from taking account of them in their bilateral approach.
Meetings of this type have increased in number in recent years, and have  
dealt with numerous sectors and instruments of Community aid: rural
development, education and training, road infrastructure, village water supplies,  
livestock production, health, technical assistance, microprojects, food aid  
and Stabex.

5
(e) Via participation of Member States, alongside the Commission, in  
cofinancing operations.  Under the Lomé Conventions, 44 projects have been  
cofinanced with Member States, accounting for an overall amount of about
3 500 million ECU, while 29 projects are at the identification stage.
Between 1976 and 1982, 23 projects were cofinanced with Member States under  
the heading of aid to non-associated developing countries.
»
(f) Pursuant to two resolutions adopted by the Council in 1977,  
operational coordination procedures for emergency aid opeiations and food aid  
have been brought into play through an appropriate exchange of information and the  
implementation of joint action to provide effective and rapid help for  
countries affected by natural disasters and other comparable circumstances.
(g) Lastly, there is operational coordination of analyses and operations  
carried out with all or some Member States for certain problem regions or  
priority sectors.  Examples particularly illustrative of this level of  
coordination are the cooperation which has grown up on the problems of  
southern Africa or on the planning of complex "transport corridors" in  
eastern Africa. But it is above all in establishing food strategies in  
test countries where they are being tried out, and deciding the back-up to  
be given to them, that operational coordination has shown itself at its  
best.
Concepts of how a strategy is to be implemented must be cohesive, and this  
entailed effective operational coordination between the donors involved.
This cohesion was achieved in or around specific working groups set up for -  
this purpose on the spot. In these groups, countries with strategies can  
meet donors to exchange the necessary information, to search jointly for the  
most appropriate means of pursuing the strategic aims, and to prepare the  
decisions which have to be taken.

6
This work in the field is completed and backed up by meetings in  
Brussels between representatives of Member States and the Commission.
★
*  *
4. The facts mentioned above show that substantial progress has been  
made in coordinating aid, and the Commission welcomes this. But  
the situation should not be considered as perfect. Ther.e are still  
weaknesses, no doubt due to the cumbersome administrative procedures  
involved in a high degree of coordination. Improvements are necessary,  
and because of the specific nature of the different national approaches  
to cooperation and the different sensitivities and motivations of  
each Member State, these improvements will essentially have to allow  
a greater degree of cohesion and complementarity of cooperation  
activities to be achieved.
The coordination achieved on the back-up to be given to food strategies  
meets this concern. It is with this in mind that the Commission  
intends to propose some guidelines to make coordination more  
operational and more effective.
II. Guidelines for strengthening operational coordination
The guidelines proposed by the Commission concern all recipients of  
Community cooperation: the ACP States, the southern and eastern
Mediterranean countries and the non-associated developing countries.  
They need to be tailored to the specific role played by the Community  
in these different parts of the world, and to the characteristic  
features of its cooperation (its contractual nature, the existence of  
the Commission delegations).

- 7 -
There can be no doubt that the strengthening of coordination vis-à-vis  
the ACP States must come high on the agenda, not onLy because of the  
highly diversified nature of the Community's relations with those  
States, but aslo because the renewal of the Lomé Convention offers an  
opportunity in this connection.
The support for sectoral policies which should result from the dialogue  
advocated by the Community will have reasonable chances of success only  
if there is close coordination and harmonization of views between  
Member States and the Commission.
•
Where a convergence of views between Member States and the Commission  
on the analysis of a sectoral policy manifested itself in the intention  
of one or more Member States to provide joint or complementary support,  
the ACP States would have an even greater incentive to commit themselves  
to dialogue and to accept the consequences of it.
What is more, unity of views between the Community as such and its  
Member States would add weight to coordination extended to other  
bilateral and multilateral aid.
As the Community is obviously interested in ensuring the success of  
the new approach to development it advocates, it must make every effort  
to see that this coordination, which is the essential condition for  
success, is organized.
Whatever the destination of the Community aid, such coordination must  
be organized pragmatically. It is not a question of more  
institutionalized or formal coordination, but rather "a la carte"  
coordination which must be adapted to the interests and particular  
sensitivities of each Member State in respect of specific regions,  
countries or sectors.

-  8 -
This is the tine the Commission intends to take in its proposals/ which  
will be based on three practical and operational aspects of coordination:  
improving the exchange of information; strengthening coordination in the  
field; and making more systematic use of co-financing.
1. Improving the exchange of information
The organization of mutual exchange of information on aid policies and  
activities/ whether already decided on or under consideration/ is clearly  
a precondition for any operational coordination between Member States and  
the Commission, since it is the only way to ensure the necessary cohesion  
and complementarity between Community action and bilateral operations  
by Member States.
By transmitting its reports on countries during the phase of programming  
aid, by periodically publishing its statistics on actions for which financing  
decisions have been taken, and by regularly sending Member States its  
identification sheets for operations 'which could be financed, the  
Commission discharges its responsibility for information as laid down by  
the Council Resolutions of 1974 and 1976.
On the other hand. Member States, or most of them, send the Commission  
only information which is too sporadic or fragmentary to ensure its  
effective use. The information they give to one another is even  
more fragmentary.
To improve this situation and to gain the best possible knowledge of  
development activities financed by the Community, five types of measures  
could be considered:
(i) where Member States have prepared country reports, they should  
communicate these to the Commission;

- 9 -
(ii) Member States should communicate to the Commission their periodical  
statistics on the progress of their cooperation;
(iii) protocols concluded by certain Member States at the end of programming  
missions - or similar activities - which they carry out in developing  
countries should be communicated to the Commission;
(iv) Member States should communicate to the Commission, as laid down by Article 15  
of the internal financial Agreement relating to the second Lomé Convention and  
the equivalent provisions in the Mediterranean agreements/periodically updated  
information on aid they intend to grant to one or other of the ACP States. Such  
information, of a prospective character, is essential to the search  
for complementarity which should motivate the implementation of  
cooperation. It could be ensured by sending the Commission sheets  
identical to those sent by the Commission to Member States when  
projects are identified;
(v) informal contacts between the Commission officials responsible
for geographical areas and their counterparts in national administrations  
should be established and maintained. Exchange of detailed  
establishment plans between Member States and the Commission would  
doubtless make such contacts easier.
Such measures have a pragmatic character, are not in themselves spectacular,  
and should become automatic.
If they were to be adopted they would make a useful addition
to the range of information on the aid activities of Member States and the
Commission, without which there can be no effective coordination. And they
would not represent any additional administrative burden. They would also enable  
the Commission to present a regular, accurate picture of "European" aid.
2. The strengthening of coordination in the field
This is a vital requirement. It calls for more than mere improvement of  
the informative function of coordination, however necessary that may be.

-  10  -
It involves turning away from the sort of coordination that might be  
called "passive", i.e. aimed at avoiding duplication of effort, and  
towards "active" coordination, i.e. one which allows cooperation  
actions to complement one another. This implies a dynamic approach,
i.e. joint reflection and real consultation on the sectoral objectives  
of the beneficiary country and on the best ways to achieve them.
(a) The informative function of coordination in the field  
There are three aspects involved in strengthening it:
(i) intensifying contacts between Commission delegations - where they
exist - and the representatives of Member States in the field; these contacts  
modelled on those already existing in political cooperation, should  
be institutionalized;
(ii) collaboration in the preparation of an annual synthesis of
external aids, in particular those of Community origin (Community  
proper and Member States) received by each beneficiary country;
(iii) the organization, in the same spirit as that in which information  
is given by Commission officials on mission to the representatives  
of Member States in the field, of systematic meetings with the  
Commission delegation and the other Member States represented, on  
the conclusion of high-level missions, in particular programming or  
project identification missions conducted by a Member State.
(b) The dynamic function of coordination in the field
This is the central function where cooperation with the ACP  
States is concerned. Support for sectoral policies is  
inconceivable unless Member States are associated at a very early stage  
in the process of implementing cooperation. The notion of ongoing  
dialogue, which should characterize relations between the Community and  
the ACP States, should be based on a thoroughgoing analysis of those  
sectoral policies it is considered advisable to support.

-  11 -
In the Commission's view, an analysis of this kind, which is decisive  
for the progress of subsequent programming phases, should be conducted  
by the Commission delegate in collaboration with the representatives  
of Member States on the spot. It will be supplemented, where necessary,  
by the geographical, desk officer, in liaison with
his counterparts in the Member States chiefly interested in the country  
concerned or the sector envisaged.
Starting from the guidelines which emerge from the analysis, the dialogue  
should be given a permanent local context in which it can express itself.
For this purpose a joint programming unit could be considered; it would  
continue to exist during the whole time the cooperation was being implemented.  
Based on the sort of unit that exists in the field of food strategies, it  
would permit the essential exchange of information between beneficiary country.  
Commission and the Member States concerned, as well as the joint search for  
the most appropriate means of servicing the sectoral policy to be supported  
and the preparation of decisions to be taken. Obviously such a unit would  
have to be able to include other, non-Community, aid donors, whether bilateral  
or multilateral, since they can participate substantially in the operations to  
be undertaken under this heading.
3. More systematic use of co-financing
The place which should now be taken by support for sectoral policies in  
implementing cooperation with ACP States will often lead to participation by  
several donors because of the extent of the needs. This participation,  
which follows on quite naturally from the phase of joint dialogue, can take  
the form of individual actions which are separate but complementary since  
they serve the same objective: the success of the sectoral policy. Such
participation must also take the form of co~financing operations which,  
without being an end in themselves, will, when appropriate, express better

-  12  -
than any other formula the cohesion of the Community - Commission and  
Member States - not only in the analysis of a sectoral policy but also in  
the practical support that can be given to it.
This is the line taken in the Council's negotiating directives to the  
Commission for renewing the Lomé Convention, which state that the Community  
shall propose that more extensive use be made of co-financing.
A similar guideline exists for financial and technical assistance to non-  
associated developing countries. The relevant regulation lays particular  
stress on co-financing and stipulates that a substantial part of aid is  
to be channelled through co-financed operations. Application of this  
guideline has made co-financing a major component of the Community's  
presence in the countries concerned.
Co-financing thus emerges as a key factor in Community development policy  
and one of the main aspects of coordination. The different procedures  
used by each donor place a very severe strain on the administrative resources  
of the beneficiary countries, however, and frequently slow down operations.
In this connection it is a paradox that at the level of harmonization of  
procedures the Commission has obtained much better results with non-Community  
donors (World Bank, Arab Funds) than with the Member States. The fact that  
over 90% of projects co-financed with the Member States in the non-associated  
developing countries constitute cases of parallel financing speaks volumes in  
this regard.
The Commission therefore recommends that preference be given to. joint  
co-financing; this implies the use of one type of procedure only where  
such a formula proves to be possible and feasible and where it ensures  
that the action considered will be more effective.

13 -
A more ambitious and doubtless more rational formula would be to conclude,  
with the Member States that so wished, global co-financing agreements of  
the same type as some of them have concluded with the World Bank.
These agreements should state the amount to be made available, the duration  
of application, the way in which projects are to be chosen and monitored,  
and the types of co-financing to be considered.
The Commission confirms that it is prepared to conclude such agreements with  
Member States which so desire.
*
* *
In the concept of coordination which has been set out above, the purpose  
is not to achieve a common overview of all Community aids in the context  
of development policy or, a fortiori, establish a common policy of development
cooperation.
The Commission's approach is stamped with pragmatism. It presupposes an  
increased willingness to collaborate and concert action on the operational  
aspects of coordination.
There is no question of imposed coordination, but rather of a free discussion  
from which everyone benefits for the greater good of the Community as a whole,  
in the search for the best possible result in development terms.
The Commission's concern is that cohesion be ensured, and that cooperation  
actions be truly complementary, in the service of the sectoral policies to  
be supported.
This is the real challenge of coordination and the direction that should be  
given to it.