ARCHIVESHISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEEDES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM(79)315
Vol.1979/0120

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement(CEE,Euratom)n°354/83duConseildu1erfévrier1983
concernantl'ouvertureaupublicdesarchiveshistoriquesdelaCommunauté économique
européenneetdelaCommunautéeuropéennedel'énergieatomique(JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifiéparlerèglement(CE,Euratom)n°1700/2003du22septembre2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003,p.1),cedossierestouvertaupublic.Lecaséchéant,lesdocuments
classifiésprésentsdanscedossierontétédéclassifiésconformément àl'article5dudit
règlement.
InaccordancewithCouncilRegulation(EEC,Euratom)No354/83of1February1983
concerningtheopeningtothepublicofthehistoricalarchivesoftheEuropeanEconomic
CommunityandtheEuropeanAtomicEnergyCommunity(OJL43,15.2.1983,p.1),as
amendedbyRegulation(EC,Euratom)No1700/2003of22September2003(OJL243,
27.9.2003,p.1),thisfileisopentothepublic.Wherenecessary,classifieddocumentsinthis
filehavebeendeclassified inconformitywithArticle5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung(EWG,Euratom)Nr.354/83desRatesvom1.
Februar1983überdieFreigabederhistorischen ArchivederEuropäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI.L43vom15.2.1983,
S.1),geändertdurchdieVerordnung(EG,Euratom)Nr.1700/2003vom22.September2003
(ABI.L243vom27.9.2003,S.1),istdieseDateiderÖffentlichkeitzugänglich.Soweit
erforderlich,wurdendieVerschlusssachen indieserDateiinÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel5
dergenanntenVerordnungfreigegeben.

COMMISSION OFTHE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(79 )315final
Brussels ,18June 1979
/
Report from the Commission
onthe implementation ofmicroprojects
under the Lomé -Convention
''• . 'V .-N
■ . ■Ν -
v - <-> .
COM(79)315finalv;
I
4

Report ontheimplementation ofmicroprojects under the
Lomé Convention
This report isintended toform abasis forthe decision to
betaken bythe ACP-EEC Council ofMinisters under Article 14(2)ofPro-
col No2tothe Lomd Convention onthe follow-up tothetwo-year micro -
project experiment .
r
The Convention stipulates that the Fund shall participate as
anexperiment inthe financing ofmicroprojects ,for which the sumof20
million units ofaccount isearmarked .Microproj ects have metwith ahighly
favourable reaction from both local communities and the ACP States ,most
ofwhich have included such schemes intheir indicative programmes .By
31December 1978,thirty ACPStates had programmed microprojects ,for a
total ofnearly 19million EUA.Anumber ofACPStates have already indica­
tedthat they will beaskingthe Commission for amendments intheir indica­
tive programmes tofurther microprojects .This means that the 20million
units ofaccount made available under the Convention will beinadequate
tomeet all the requests forfinancing .
Implementation oftheprogrammes isproceeding most satis­
factorily .Asof31December 1978 the Commission hadapproved thefinan­
cing of28annual programmes ,for atotal ofover 10million EUA.Inthe
first half of1979,itislikely that financing decisions will betaken
onthirteen more programmes ,for atotal ofabout 4.4million EUA,bringing
thelevel ofcommitments tonearly 15million EUA.
The Commission therefore proposes that theCouncil of
Ministers vote tocontinue with microprojects andtothat endauthorize
theuseofafurther 5million units ofaccount forfinancing such micro-
project programmes asthe ACPStates might wish tocarry outwith any
ftioney remaining <5ver fromtheir EDF-f inanced Indicative .'development
programmes . .•; .V'.;--.V.x :<;•'M.·ν

MICROPROJECTS UNDERTHELOMECONVENTION
Article46(1)oftheLomeConvention andChapter7ofProtocol .No2tn
theConvention,ontheapplication offinancialandtechnicalcooperation
1.TheprovisionsoftheConvention
TheConventionhasearmarkedasumof20millionEUAformicroprojects
■forgrassrootsdevelopment,inparticularinruralareas.Toqualify
forCommunityfinancingthesemicroprojects must:
-stemfromaninitiativetakenbyalocalcommunitywhoseactive
participation mustbeensured;
-meetareal,priorityneedatlocallevel;
-befinancedfromthreesources:thecommunitybenefiting (contribution
inmoneyorinkind),theACPState(financialcontribution orcontri­
butionofpublicworksservices)andtheFund(whosecontribution may
notexceed75000EUApermicroproject).
TheACPStatespresentannualprogrammeswithinthelimitsoftheappro­
priationsearmarkedintheirindicativeprogrammes;afterexamination by
theCommission'sdepartments,theseprogrammesaresubmittedtotherele­
vantbodiesoftheCommunityforfinancingdecisions.
Withintheframeworkoftheseannualprogrammes,theACPStateconcerned
takesthefinancingdecisionsrelatingtoeachmicroproject withthe
agreementoftheCommission.
2.Application oftheConvention
Theimplementating ruleswerefinalizedatthefourthmeetingofthe
ACP-EECSubcommittee onFinancialandTechnicalCooperation,heldon
28and29June1977,andaresetoutinAnnexI(documentACP-EEC/106/f/77).
3.Programming ofmicroprojects
Article14ofChapter7ofProtocolNo2totheLomeConventionstipulates
thattheFundshallparticipate asanexperimentinthefinancingofmicro-
projects,anappropriation of20millionunitsofaccount,tobemade
availableasgrants,beingearmarkedforthispurpose.Attheendofthe
secondyearaftertheentryintoforceoftheConventiontheACP-EEC
CouncilofMinistersistodecideonthefollow-uptotheexperiment.
ThemajorityofACPStateshavewishedtomakeuseofthenewtypeof
operation.Fromtheoutsetoftheprogrammingtwenty-five oftheminclu­
dedmicroprojects intheirindicativeprogramme,andfive(Sudan,Sierra
Leone,Jamaica,theCentralAfricanEmpireandGuyana)subsequently re­
questedalterationstotheirindicativeprogrammesforthispurpose.

-2-
The amount programmed totals 18776million EUA,leaving abalance of
1224million EUA,which islikely toprove inadequate tocover requests
from ACPStates wishing ,inthelight ofthesuccess oftheir first pro­
gramme ,tohave additional programmes financed .Inaddition ,itislikely
atthe endofthelife ofthe Lome Convention anumber ofACP States will
askthat anysmall sums left over from their indicative programmes be
earmarked for microprojects .
Annex IIshows details ofthe sums programmed .
4.Financing decisions taken bythe Commission
4.1.By31December 1978 the Commission had approved thefirst twenty-eight
annual programmes submitted toit,forthe amounts and onthe dates
given below :
i.e. byyear :in1976 1decision ,for atotal of 270000 EUA
in1977 12decisions ,for atotal of5384000 EUA
in1978 15decisions ,for atotal of4361000 EUA
4.2.Attheendof1978,3annual programmes were being appraised bytheCameroon
Sénégal
Gambia
Upper-Volta
Sierra Leone
Madagascar
Kenya
Malawi
Liberia
Samoa
Togo
Jamaica
Swazi land
Ethiopi a
Ghana
Grenada
Malawi (2nd programme )
Chad
Samoa
Sudan
Lesotho
Guyana
Solomon Islands
Burundi
Zambi a
Upper-Volta <2ndprogr .)
Sudan (2nd programme )
Sierra Leone (2ndpr.)2060 000 EUA
630 000 EUA
420 000 EUA
300 000 EUA
105 000 EUA
235 000 EUA
363 000 EUA
75000 EUA
320 000 EUA
175 000 EUA
223 000 EUA
580 000 EUA
380 000 EUA
280 000 EUA
75000 EUA
190 000 EUA
122 000 EUA
550 000 EUA
166 000 EUA
300 000 EUA
i490 000 EUA
70000 EUA
440.000 EUA270 000 EUA
340 000 EUA
370 000 EUA
186 000 EUA
300 000 EUA20.12.76
6.5.77
25.5.77
18.7.77
18.7.77
28.9.77
28.9.77
28.9.77
28.9.77
23.11.77
23.11.77
23.11.77
1.12.77
3.2.78
3.2.78
3.2.78
11.4.78
7.4.78
7.4.78
7.4.78
16.6.78
16.6.78
25.7.78
25.7.78
28.7.78
18.8.78
24.10.78
10.11.78
10015_Q00_EUA ,i.e. 53%oftheamount programmed
Commission :
Kenya C2nd programme ) 1370 000 EUA
Sao Tome 200 000 EUA
Samoa (3rdprogramme ) 170000 EUA

-3-
4.2.Broken down bycountry ,this shows that :(Annex II)
-18countries have presented one annual programme
-5countries have presented two annual programmes
- 1country haspresented three annual programmes
-6countries have presented noprogramme ;they are :
Cape Verde
Guinea
Surinam
Uganda
Papua New Guinea
Central African Empire
only thelast twoofwhich have announced the forthcoming presentation
ofaprogramme .
5.Content ofannual programmes financed (Annex III)
Asrequired bythe Lome Convention microprojects covered bythe annual
programmes proposed must "normally becarried outinrural areas ".
The ACP States have fully understood the purpose ofmicroprojects ,concen­
trating onschemes designed toenable therural population tolive and
work inimproved conditions .Thetwenty-eight annual programmes for which
the Commission hasalready taken financing decisions can bebroken down
asfollows :
Social infrastructure : 254 schemes or39 %ofall schemes
Rural water engineering and wells : 311 schemes or23 %ofell schemes
Rural tracks and bridges : 163 schemes or 12 %ofall schemes
Development ofproduction : 106 schemes or 8%ofall schemes
Storage facilities and markets : 114 schemes or 8%ofall schemes
Processing ofcrops ;small irri­
gated areas ;soil conservation ;
fisheries ;afforestation ;stock-
farming : 135 schemes or10 %ofall schemes
1353 schemes
Thetable inAnnex IIIgives the breakdown ofthe schemes bycountry .
The ACP States' requests forfinancing show that inthemajority ofcases
theinitiative forthe proposed schemes comes from thelocal communities
which are tobenefit .
Itisalso clear that the schemes cater forbasic needs ;the two most popular
types ofscheme ,with 62%ofthetotal ,covering social needs and water
supply .Theprovision ofsocial infrastructure accounts for 40 %ofallthe
schemes .This mainly means schools ,butalso covers maternity clinics and
rural dispensaries ,creches ,andsocial centres for women and young people ,
and soon.
Wells ,boreholes and water supply account for 23%ofthe schemes .
6.Participation inimplementation ofthe programmes (Annex IV)
Theimplementating rules ofthe Lom£ Convention formicroprojects state
that "the share borne bythe ACPState andthe community concerned should
beatleast equal tothegrant requested from the European Development
Fund".

Fortheannualprogrammesonwhichfinancingdecisionshavebeentaken,theaverageLevelofcontribution tothetotalsumis:
-EDF:41%,withamaximumof65%(Burundi)andaminimumof19X
(Ghana)
-ACPStates:34%,withamaximumof54%(GambiaandJamaica)anda
minimumof8%(SolomonIslands);
-Localcommunities :25%,withamaximumof50%(Ghana)andaminimum
of11%(Sudan).
Thethree-waybreakdownofcontributions isthereforeinlinewithboth
thespiritoftheConventionandtheimplementingrules.
Thetotalfortheprogrammesis24336000EUA,whichbreaksdownasfollows
10015000EUAfromtheEDF
8149000EUAfromtheACPStates
6172000EUAfromthebeneficiary communities.
InmostcasestheACPStates'contributions consistofsupplyingequipment,
meansoftransportandextensionstaff.
Thecommunities supplyvoluntarylabour,andcontribute someconstruction
materialsand,exceptionally ,money.
TheLomeConvention (Article15<1)ofProtocolNo2)alsostipulatesthat
"TheFund'scontribution toeachmicroproject maynotexceed75000units
ofaccount".Fortheprogrammesfinanced,theaveragecontribution is
7400EUApermicroproject .
Executionoftheprogrammes (AnnexV)
Thepossibility ofcarryingoutmicroprojects whichmeettheneedsoflocal
communities metwithafavourable,andinsomecaseshighlyenthusiastic,
welcomefromtheACPStatesandthepotentialbeneficiaries .Forthatreason,
andalsobecausetheschemeshaveonthewholebeenwell-chosen,thereare
fewifanyproblemsinherentintheexecutionproper,apartfromthose
involvedintheintroduction ofanynewtypeofoperation.
Asmicroprojectsaresmall-scalegrassrootsdevelopment schemes,basedto
agreatextentonlabourandtheprovisionofservices,itmightbethought
thattheycouldberapidlyimplemented .
Theexperiencegainedfromcarryingoutthefirstprogrammesshowedthat
inmostinstancestherearecertainminimumtimingsandotherconstraints
whichmeanthatworkcannotstartimmediatelythefinancingdecisionis
taken.
AtCommissionleveltheintroduction inOctober1977ofanexpeditedproce­
durefortheapprovalofannualprogrammesmeansthatafinancingdecision
canbetakenveryshortlyaftertheCommissionDelegatesubmitsafinancing
proposaldrawnupinagreementwiththeACPStateconcerned.Itthentakes
afurthermonthonaverageforthefinancingagreementtobesigned.
Workinthefieldcangenerallytakeplaceonlyoutsidethewinteror
rainingseason,anddependsontheavailabilityoflocallabour,which
mustbefreedfromtraditionalagricultural tasks.

Although where microproj ects are concerned the normal competition rules
may befreely waived ,some considerable time maystill beneeded forprice
consultations ,the award ofcontracts ,andinparticular delivery .
Italso takes acertain amount oftime toset uptheorganizational frame­
work forthe programme ,selecting the necessary supervisor(s )andthe
manager ofthe imprest fund and opening ofbank accounts andrelated
formalities ,particularly since insome ACP States such operations need
tobegiven publication intheofficial gazette .
This means that some considerable time may elapse between thesigning
ofthe financing agreement andthestart oftheactual work .
One must also bear inmind that asmicroprojects were aninnovation intro­
duced bythe Lome Convention initially for atwo-year experimental period ,itwas necessary towork out amethod ofimplementation best suited to
their purpose .That iswhy the implementing rules were adopted jointly
bythe Commission andthe ACP States ,and whythe Commission ,before
authorizing the expedited approval procedure ,followed the normal pro­
cedure forthefirst few programmes ,togain abetter idea oftheir content .
The new type ofoperation also gave rise tocertain problems inconnection
with their implementation ,which the experience gained from thefirst
programmes should make itpossible toavoid infuture .Article 17(1)of
Protocol No 2tothe Lom6 Convention states that the ACP State concerned
should prepare anannual programme setting out the broad outlines ofthe
projects planned and submit ittothe Commission .This presents noproblems
asregards thedecision bythe Commission .Forthe purpose ofimplementa­
tion,however ,itisnecessary todraw upadetailed estimate for each
scheme coming within the programme .Anumber ofthe ACP States have had
difficulty inpreparing the estimates assome schemes were based onold,
out-of-date evaluations ,orhad been insufficiently studied ,orposed
technical problems ;this meant cancelling orpostponing some ,schemes .
Certain factors obtaining inspecific countries mayaffect the length
oftime required forexecution :
-Incertain countries funds from external sources offinance must
appear inthe budget ,which requires parliamentary assent .The same
applies tothe ACP States' contribution tothe cost ofthe programme .
-Insome cases thetransfer ordisappearance ofatechnician has
put paid toascheme .
-Temporary shortages ,particularly ofbuilding material ,can hold up
work .
-Inone instance alocal community reluctant tomake itscontribution
because inanidentical project allcosts had been borne byexternal
aid.
/.

-6-
Inthe ACPStates where asecond -annual programme hasalready been
financed ,theexperience ofthefirst has been found ofvalue ,and
the schemes aregotunder waywithout problems .The schemes presented
have been studied more thoroughly ,andthecosts more accurately esti­
mated .
Theinformation campaigns mounted bythe ACPStates topublicize the
advantages offered bymicroprojects gives communities achance topass
onsuggestions forprojects totheir governments .
With regard toimplementation itisfound that schemes are more easily
carried outifthey are linked orcomplementary toprojects being execu­
ted,orare coordinated bybodies such astherural expansion centres
inSenegal orthe Rural Development Fund inUpper Volta .
8.Conclusions
Despite arather slow start and anumber ofproblems duetothenovelty
ofthis type ofoperation ,microprojects are undoubtedly ideally suited
tothe ends assigned them under the Lome Convention .
The enthusiasm shown bythebeneficiary communities andthe ACP States
has been sudti that theappropriations earmarked under the Lome Convention
will beinadequate tomeet the demand from ACP States wishing toinclude
microprojects intheir indicative programmes forfinancing before the
expiry ofthe Lome Convention .
The Commission therefore recommends that the Council ofMinisters :
-decide infavour ofcontinuing with microprojects ;
-accordingly ,authorize afurther 5million units ofaccount tobeused
forfinancing such programmes ofmicroprojects asthe ACP States may
wish tocarry outwith facilities remaining unused under their EDF-
financed indicative development programmes .