COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
C0M(93) 200 final 
Brussels, 18 May 1993 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY INVESTMENT PARTNERS (ECIP) 
PROGRESS REPORT 1992 
(presented by the Commission) 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
On the 3rd February 1992 the Council of Ministers approved Regulation EEC 
N° 319/92. This provides for the implementation, for a three year trial period, of the 
European Community Investment Partners financial instrument for the developing 
countries of Latin America, Asia and the Mediterranean. 
The Regulation stipulates (Article 9.1) that: 
"The Commission shall send to the European Parliament and to the Council, by 
30th April each year, a progress report showing the projects selected, the 
appropriations granted and the repayments to the general budget of the European 
Communities and including annual statistics for the previous year". 
Accordingly, the Commission hereby presents its report for 1992. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
INTRODUCTION 3 
i) The role of the private sector in the development process 3 
ii) ECIP. The European Community's response to the needs of the 
private sector 3 
iii) How ECIP Works: Procedures and Policies 4 
a) Procedures 4 
b) Policy 5 
iv) Content of the Report 7 
ECIP: PROGRESS AND ACTIONS IN 1992 8 
i) Indicators of Progress 8 
a) Projects Presented and Accepted 8 
b) Size of the ECIP Network 9 
c) Promotion of ECIP 9 
ii) ECIP Actions 1988-92 11 
a) By Geographical Area 11 
b) By Facility.. 12 
c) By Sector 12 
d) By Financial Institution 13 
iii) Reimbursements to the budget 15 
iv) Relations with the European Investment Bank 15 
v) The ECIP Committee 16 
CONCLUSION 17 
ECIP PROGRESS REPORT 1992 
INTRODUCTION 
i) The role of the private sector in the development process. 
1. The private sector is increasingly important in the field of development. There 
are two main reasons for this. First, the shift in economic thinking towards free 
market economics which occurred during the 1970s has led to a widespread acceptance 
of liberalisation and market based policies. Secondly, at a practical level, it has been 
realised that overseas development assistance is not on its own sufficient to meet the 
needs of the developing countries in terms of the transfer of resources and technology. 
If foreign direct investment (FDI) by the private sector is encouraged, the overall flow 
of resources to the LDCs will rise and enhance the productivity of local savings. 
2. As the perceived importance of the private sector has increased, so too has the 
number of instruments designed to assist private sector activities in the developing 
countries. However, in dealing with the market, the instruments are themselves 
influenced by market conditions and forces: at present adverse conditions in many of 
the economies of the developed countries may lead to a declining interest in investing 
abroad, especially in LDCs. Given the stark choice between retrenchment and 
expansion, many firms, in particular SMEs, have chosen the former. This could affect 
the demand for those instruments designed to promote private sector activities in 
developing countries, although no such trend was noticeable until the end of 1992. 
ii) ECIP. The European Community's response to the needs of the private 
sector. 
3. During the 1980s the need emerged for a flexible instrument to help European 
private sector firms wishing to invest in developing countries as well as in response to 
the increasing interest expressed by firms in LDCs for joint ventures with European 
firms. This resulted in the creation of the European Community Investment Partners 
scheme (ECIP). The scheme^riginally intended to run for a three year trial period 
(1988-1991),, The geographical 
scope of the instrument was limited to 28 countries in Asia, Latin America and the 
Mediterranean. The original budget allocation was 30 Mecu for the three year period. 
4. The success of ECIP during its three year trial period led to the scheme being 
given a formal legal and budgetary basis with the adoption by the Council of Ministers 
of Regulation (EEC) No. 319/92 on 3rd February 1992. The Regulation foresees a 
three year life span and an increased budgetary resource (39.15 Mecu for 1993). 
iii) How ECIP Works: Procedures and Policies, 
a) Procedures 
5. The ECIP instrument has as its primary objective to facilitate the creation, in 
eligible developing countries in Asia, Latin America and the Mediterranean, of joint 
ventures which will contribute to economic development of the countries concerned. 
To this end it has been designed to provide support to joint-ventures at all stages of 
their development. Support is provided by four financing facilities each targeting a 
different stage in the creation and early life of a joint venture. The terms and 
conditions of the financing available vary between facilities, as the table below shows. 
Total financing under facilities 2,3 and 4 is limited to 1 Mecu. The adoption by the 
ALA/Med Committee of guidelines for direct equity participation under Facility 3 has 
enhanced the capacity of ECIP to invest in situations where statutory constraints 
prevent indirect participation via Fis. 
6. Applications for financing from facilities 2,3 and 4 must come from one of the 
Financial Institutions (Fis) in the ECIP network (applications for Facility 1 financing 
can come directly from eligible bodies). The Financial Institutions are commercial, 
merchant or development banks. Membership of the network is open to any bank, 
subject to the opinion of the ALA/Mediterranean Committee . The network represents 
one of the distinctive features of the ECIP scheme: its decentralised operation. The Fis 
operate the scheme in accordance with their usual procedures within overall controls set 
out in a Framework Agreement signed by the FI and the EC. It is felt that the freedom 
this offers to the Fis is the best way of taking advantage of their capabilities and local 
expertise. In addition Fis in the eligible countries act as important focal points for 
local businesses interested in attracting foreign investment. 
7. All proposals received by ECIP are discussed at the ECIP Steering Committee 
which comprises members of the relevant Commission services. It is this Committee 
which proposes projects for funding to the Commission. 
8. Once funding for a specific proposal has been approved, a Financing Agreement 
is signed with the Financial Institution. This sets out the conditions under which the 
funds will be disbursed by the FI to the final beneficiary. The funds are then 
transferred by the EC to the Financial Institution, to be disbursed on the EC's behalf in 
respect of the project in question. 
ECIP: Available Facilities 
Type of 
operation 
Beneficiaries 
Access 
Type of 
Finance 
Amount 
Limits Facility 1 
Identification 
of potential 
partners and 
projects 
Chambers of 
Commerce, 
Professional 
associations 
and Fis. Not 
individual 
Firms 
Direct to EC 
or through an 
FI 
Grant 
Maximum of 
100 000ECU 
50% of costs Facility 2 
Operations 
prior to 
launching a 
joint venture 
Local or 
European 
companies, 
wishing to 
undertake a 
joint venture 
investment 
project 
Application thro 
Interest free 
advance. Later 
converted to 
grant, loan or 
equity 
Maximum of 
250 000ECU 
50% of costs Facility 3 
Financing of 
capital 
requirements Facility 4 
Human 
resource 
development: 
training and 
management 
assistance. 
Joint ventures established by 
partners from the EC and the 
eligible country. 
Local companies making 
investments under a licensing 
and Technical co-operation 
agreement with an EC company. 
ugh an FI 
Equity holding 
or equity loan. 
Maximum of 
1000 000ECU 
20% of capital Interest free 
loan. 
Maximum of 
250 000ECU 
50% of costs 
b) Policy 
9. ECIP has two essential conditions which must be met before an action is 
approved. First, the action should, given reasonable expectations, be profitable. 
Secondly, there should be a contribution to economic development. In meeting these 
conditions the instrument is intended to be as flexible and as market-driven as possible. 
The only formal restrictions placed upon the instrument are those in the Regulation 
excluding large multinational firms and the condition that actions must relate to joint 
ventures with at least one European partner and one partner from the eligible country. 
In addition, projects approved by the Steering Committee have to be compatible with 
overall Community policy and the developmental criteria set out in the Regulation. 
10 The policies adopted by ECIP to facilitate implementation of the scheme also 
avoid unnecessary constraints. For example no priority sectors are identified and there 
are no geographical quotas or quotas limiting the number of actions per Facility. Each 
project is judged on its own merits in accordance with the Regulation. 
11. There are three areas where ECIP does have specific operational policies. First, 
although the scheme is available to operators in all the beneficiary countries and the 
member states in the same way, ECIP will be more effective in countries which have 
shown themselves to be open to foreign investment. Efficient use of ECIP resources 
suggests that, to have the greatest effect, activities such as ECIP information and 
training seminars should as a priority be conducted in countries that have proved their 
commitment to attracting foreign investment. 
12. The second implementing decision has been the orientation towards Small and 
Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs), although some larger companies, excluding large 
multi-national enterprises, can be found among the beneficiaries of the scheme. This is 
in correspondence with the Regulation which places an emphasis on SMEs, without, 
and this is most notable in cases concerning technology transfer, excluding bigger 
firms, 
13. The third policy decision has been to concentrate ECIP activities on Facility 1, 
2 and 4 actions. This does not mean that Facility 3 has been discarded, but as a 
general rule ECIP is only interested in undertaking Facility 3 actions in cases where 
other sources of financing are not forthcoming. The generally held view is that support 
for joint ventures can best be achieved by supplying finance for the activities where 
other sources of financing are least available. ECIP believes that by concentrating on 
sector identification and feasibility studies/pilot projects the viability of the proposed 
investments can be established and that this will in turn attract private financing. It is 
not ECIP's objective to emulate the IFC or European Development Finance Institutions 
members by building up an investment portfolio. In addition feedback from Fis and 
firms suggests that Facility 2 financing for a maximum of 50% of the costs of a study 
is more attractive than a maximum 20% equity participation in the joint venture. This 
is especially true in the case of smaller firms. 
14. Part of the comprehensive nature of the scheme is the fact that it covers all of 
the stages of a joint venture making process, from identification of projects through 
feasibility studies and equity funding to training facilities. This remains one of the 
most important, as well as unique, features of ECIP. This comprehensiveness should 
be underlined for it is, along with the decentralisation of the operation, very important 
for private operators. 
iv) Content of the Report. 
15. This is the progress report on the year's activities, as stated in Article 9.1 of the 
ECIP Regulation. The scope of the report is to provide the information requested by 
the Regulation and consists of an assessment of the progression of the instrument in 
1992. This is achieved by comparing a number of indicators over time. The second 
part of the report analyses ECIP actions over the period 1988-92 by sector, 
geographical region, facility and financial institution. Finally there is a statistical 
annex where the information required by Reg. 319/92 is presented in table form. 
EUP: PROGRESS AND ACTIONS IN Ie 
i) Indicators of Progress 
16. Initially the ECIP Regulation was intended to come into force on 1st January 
1992 The Regulation was only approved on 3rd February 1992 from which date the 
new ;trument could commence operations. 
17. The delay in the Regulation resulted in the ECIP timetable for 1992 slipping, 
notably with respect to the signing of Framework Agreements and the promotion of the 
instrument. The following indicators are to be examined to assess the progress of the 
instrument over the abbreviated period under consideration. The impact of the 
instrument on the development of the eligible countries is not one of the indicators 
used. The Regulation stipulates that there will be an independent evaluation of the 
instrument in 1994 at which point the developmental impact will be considered. 
a) Projects Presented and Accepted. 
18. In 1^92, 253 projects were submitted to the Steering Committee. Of these 186 
were approved for a total amount of 20.27 Mecu. By way of comparison for the 
period 1988-January 1991, 202 projects were presented of which 171 were accepted. 
19. These figures show a marked increase in the number of projects presented to 
ECIP for funding. This is especially noteworthy given the number of factors, notably 
those arising from the late approval of the Regulation, which constrained demand for 
the instrument during 1992. These included: the delays in organising information and 
training seminars; the lengthy process of signing the new Framework Agreements with 
Financial Institutions (see below); the generally small number of projects presented by 
new Fis who are still learning about ECIP, and finally the general economic situation 
which has affected investment in general and amongst SMEs in particular. Over time, 
as some of these factors decline in importance, the number of presentations will further 
increase, provided the economic situation improves, both within the EC and 
internationally. 
20. A second issue concerns the lower rate of acceptances in 1992 in comparison to 
the period 1988-Jan. 1991. In 1992, 74% of projects presented to the Steering 
Committee were accepted, the figure for the earlier period being 85 %. It could appear 
as if either the standard of projects proposed has declined or that the Steering 
Committee has adopted a more rigorous selection procedure, or both. 
21. The bulk of the projects submitted in 1992 came from Fis which were already 
part of the ECIP network and therefore were aware of the procedures and information 
required. It is clear therefore that the Steering Committee, in conformity with the 
developmental criteria laid down in the ECIP Regulation, is taking a harder line on 
proposals. 
b) Size of the ECIP Network. 
22. One of the key features of the ECIP instrument is its decentralised approach, 
with much of the management being undertaken by the Fis in the network. In addition, 
because all proposals submitted under Facilities 2, 3 and 4 must come through a FI it is 
essential that the network adequately covers all of the eligible countries as well as the 
member states. To this end fifteen new Fis were, following the opinion of the ECIP 
Committee, recruited to the network in July 1992 bringing the total number of 
institutions to seventy-three. This demonstrates the increasing interest in ECIP, an 
interest which built up in 1992 and which, judging from incoming applications, should 
lead to further recruitment in 1993. 
23. Once an Institution has been recruited into the network it enters into a standard 
Framework Agreement with the European Community. This sets out the legal and 
financial procedures and is the basis of the relationship between the two parties. This 
process has been prolonged by the fact that the new Regulation required a new 
Framework Agreement. This resulted in a need to explain the changes to the Fis. 
Therefore by the end of 1992 forty five framework agreements had been signed and 
operations with the Fis concerned had commenced. The remaining 28 Fis were, by the 
end of the year, in the process of negotiating their new Agreements with the 
Commission. 
c) Promotion of ECIP 
24. It is clear that more banks and other financial institutions are becoming 
interested in the ECIP network. The question arises whether this interest is shared by 
the business community. The increase in projects presented suggests that this is indeed 
the case. This increase does not, however, give a good indication as to the awareness 
of the instrument among potential users. It could be argued that the increase in 
presentations is the result of banks recommending ECIP to their existing customers, 
with the result that the Instrument remains known to relatively few firms. This is, in 
part, true. However, there is also evidence that many Fis, especially in the eligible 
countries, see the instrument as a way of attracting new customers and, therefore, wish 
to promote ECIP as much as possible. Measuring the degree of awareness is difficult. 
One method is to take the promotional activities of ECIP as a proxy. 
10 
25. Promotion of the Instrument takes two main forms: the diffusion of literature, 
and the organisation of missions and information and training seminars for interested 
Fis and members of the business community. 
26. Following the new Regulation, the ECIP information leaflet and user guide 
were updated, along with the Manual of Procedures and a new series of transparencies 
for presentations. The user guide is available in English, French, German, and 
Spanish, the leaflet is in addition available in Portuguese. An indication of the 
popularity of the Instrument is that a number of Fis have produced their own literature 
promoting ECIP or have translated the existing literature (for example, Hebrew and 
Mandarin versions of the leaflet have been produced). 
27. 31 000 leaflets and 16 500 user guides have been distributed within less than a 
year. This stock has been almost totally exhausted with dissemination at seminars, via 
EC delegations and the FI network and directly to interested parties: firms, banks, 
chambers of commerce, consultants etc. 
28. ECIP seminars have taken two forms: training seminars, usually of two days 
duration, which are aimed at the staff of Fis who are already part of the network or 
who have expressed an interest in joining the network; and information seminars, 
lasting half a day, aimed at larger groups of interested business people and financiers. 
Both types of seminar include briefing for the local and national media to ensure 
maximum coverage for the Instrument. 
29. In 1992 ECIP staff undertook visits to Argentina, Venezuela, Israel, Cyprus, 
India, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia, giving a total of 8 
information seminars and 3 training seminars. In total over 900 people attended the 
two types of seminar. In addition there were missions by ECIP staff members to 
individual Fis, trade fairs and seminars both inside the EC and in the eligible countries. 
The overall view is that the missions and seminars have greatly increased business 
sector awareness of ECIP and of the European Community as a business partner. 
11 
ii) ECIP Actions 1988-92 
30. The following is an analysis of ECIP actions both cumulatively from 1988-92 
and for 1992 alone. The analysis is carried out by geographical area, ECIP facility, 
economic sector and financial institution. These subject areas are not treated in total 
isolation as there are obviously linkages between them. The figures used are a 
synthesis of a range of account and geographically based data. The proposed 
implementation of the ECIP management information system in 1993 may, at a later 
date, result in a small revision of some of the data. 
a) By Geographical Area. 
31. The basic breakdown of ECIP actions approved by the Steering Committee is 
given by the tables on pages 1 to 4 . Two features immediately stand out. The first is 
the fact that the percentage of total funds committed to a given region is similar to the 
percentage of total projects in that region (page 2). One possible explanation for this is 
the similarity in the distribution of projects by facility within each region (page 1). 
However, the distribution of amounts by facility shows rather larger differences. It 
would appear therefore that at the aggregate level these differences have cancelled each 
other out. 
32. For 1992 the trend is rather less well defined. Each region shows a greater 
divergence between its share of total approved projects and the share of amounts 
approved. The difference is largest in the Mediterranean (see paragraph 34). 
33-, The second feature concerns the distribution of projects and financing between 
regions. There appears to be a remarkable degree of balance between Asia and Latin 
America in terms of the number of projects and the allocation of funds (page 2). 
However, it would be meaningless to suggest that these figures indicate some kind of 
balance or equitable distribution of funds between the two regions. In economic terms 
it is, given the range of factors from GNP per capita to openness to foreign investment, 
an almost impossible and probably meaningless task to decide what the correct 
allocation of funds should be for each region. For this reason ECIP avoids the setting 
of regional quotas, allowing instead market demand and the quality of projects to 
determine the allocation of funds, although care is taken to promote ECIP in such a 
way as to ensure a proper balance between Asia and Latin America. 
34. The figures for 1992 (page 3 & 4) show that the Mediterranean region, despite 
fewer Fis and the constraints of complementarity with the EIB, gained a increased 
share of both projects and funds allocated in 1992 . It is not clear why this should have 
been the case. Certainly the region has a larger than average share of Facility 2 and 3 
12 
actions. Perhaps this is, in times of uncertainty, the result of the region's close 
proximity to the Community. 
b) By Facility 
35. As was stated in paragraph 13 above ECIP puts an emphasis on Facility 1, 
Facility 2 and Facility 4 actions. This is clearly illustrated by the table on page 6 
which shows these Facilities comprising 92% of total ECIP actions approved over the 
period. For 1992 the figure is slightly higher at 94%. 
36. This preference is in part justified by the chart on page 5 which compares for 
the Facilities the percentage share of each Facility in terms of projects and finance 
committed. Most striking is that Facility 3 actions constitute only 8% of projects but 
represent over 28% of committed funds. For 1992 the figures reinforce the trend with 
Facility 3 taking 6% of projects but 28% of total amounts allocated (page 7). This 
ratio of just over 4:1 (funds:projects) is a consequence of the 1 MECU ceiling on 
Facility 3 financing, this being four times that available under Facilities 2 and 4. 
37. For this reason and also to ensure the quality of the portfolio, Facility 3 actions 
are treated to very close scrutiny by the Steering Committee. In 1992 50% of Facility 
3 project proposals were rejected as opposed to 33% of all proposals and only 24% of 
Facility 2 proposals . 
38. One final point of note is the very low number of Facility 4 actions. This 
facility is aimed at existing joint ventures. One explanation for the small number of 
projects is that ECIP is generally better known for its Facilities aimed at creating joint 
ventures. Existing joint ventures are therefore less likely to be aware of the existence 
of Facility 4 and joint ventures whose creation has been aided by earlier ECIP actions 
are not yet at a stage to benefit from the Facility. The 1992 figures show an increase in 
actions approved under the Facility. This is perhaps a first indication that developing 
joint ventures are beginning to make use of the facility. 
c) By Sector 
39. The information by sector is available in two levels of aggregation (Pages 13 to 
17) to allow both easy and in depth analysis. The broader aggregated sectors are 
intended to be indicative as the dividing lines between categories are in some cases 
rather arbitrary. This is most notably the case between the manufacturing and hi-tech 
sectors. 
14 
46. Once more it is unwise to attempt to draw any conclusions about a normal 
distribution between countries. Factors which have led to the current distribution can 
be classified as relating either to the Fis themselves or to wider influences. Within the 
former we must include: the willingness of Financial Institutions to become members 
of the ECIP network; the type of bank, and once a bank is accepted into the network, 
the way in which it promotes the Instrument. As was mentioned earlier, some Fis have 
been very active in promoting ECIP to the wider business community while, others 
have used it only with existing clients or for their own use. 
47. The wider factors relate to: Awareness of the EC, the presence of strong 
industrial associations to diffuse information about ECIP, the division of FDI between 
large firms and SMEs, and historical and commercial links with the eligible countries. 
This latter factor may have an effect in either direction. If there is a good knowledge 
of the eligible country concerned and well established links ECIP may not be required. 
It is intended that the promotional activities of ECIP within the EC will reduce the 
influence of these factors, thereby allowing each member state to reach a fair share. 
48. The division of projects between the Fis in the EC and Fis in the eligible 
countries reflects the relative size of the network and the greater experience of the 
former in dealing with ECIP. 
49. At this stage, and using the existing figures, it is premature to draw any 
conclusions about the benefits accruing to firms in member states from ECIP. First, 
any firm can use any financial institution. Therefore, when the choice of institution is 
being made, factors such as previous experience of using a certain institution or the 
perceived experience of an FI in the chosen host country are likely to be as important 
as the location of the FI. Secondly, proposals arising from the eligible countries will 
naturally include a European partner the identity of which can not be discerned from 
the figures given in the table. 
15 
iii) Reimbursements to the budget 
50. Article 5.4 of the ECIP Regulation provides that: 
"Loan repayment, the realization of participations and interest and 
dividend payments will generate renewable funds which will be held on deposit by the 
financial institutions on behalf of the Community...." 
Justification by the Fis of amounts collected by them depends on annual closure of the 
accounts of the FI themselves. This process for financial year 1992 is not yet complete 
at the level of the Fis. Preliminary responses to a request sent out by ECIP in January 
1993 for details of funds reimbursed are given in the table on page 9. From the replies 
received to date we can see that a total of 1.2 MECU was reimbursed in 1991 and 
1992. The vast majority of the reimbursements were, in accordance with the 
Regulation, directed to the centralised accounts held in each institution. The funds held 
in these accounts will be used to finance further ECIP actions in conformity with article 
5.4 of the Regulation. As a result, only 8 373.64 ECU was reimbursed to the general 
budget of the EC 
51. At this stage in the life of the instrument we would not expect large scale 
reimbursement. Under the new Regulation Facility 1 financing takes the form of a 
grant and by its nature is not reimbursable. Facility 4 actions are reimbursable but, to 
date, such actions represent a very small share of the funds allocated. For Facility 2 
actions the advance given becomes repayable if the action leads to the creation of a 
joint venture but the decision to proceed to creation of a joint venture need not be taken 
for a period of one or two years after completion of the action. As it is in addition 
possible to extend the repayment period over a number of years, or even turn the 
advance into equity by means of a Facility 3 action, the level of reimbursement has, to 
date, been low. For the majority of Facility 3 actions approved it is too early to expect 
to see reimbursement as the equity participation will usually be over a period of five to 
ten years. However over a period of five to seven years we would expect to see the 
rate of reimbursement increase. Finally, the disposal of the equity at the end of ECIP's 
participation in a successful joint venture will lead to some profit being made on 
individual actions. 
iv) Relations with the European Investment Bank. 
52. In accordance with Article 8.5 of the new Regulation The European Investment 
Bank and ECIP increased co-operation and co-ordination during 1992. As a result of 
detailed negotiations a "Gentleman's Agreement", providing for systematic co­
ordination and exchange of information on financing proposals, projects and Fis in the 
Mediterranean region, was reached on 27th October 1992 and has subsequently been 
16 
put into practice. The agreement formalises institutional transparency in the region, 
especially concerning risk capital proposals, where it has now been established that EIB 
risk capital relationships would take preference over ECIP. This accords with ECIP's 
policy of concentrating on Facilities 1, 2 and 4. 
v) The ECIP Committee. 
53. The ECIP Committee combines the ALA Committee and the Mediterranean 
Committee as set out in Article 8.2 of the Regulation. It is the function of the 
Committee to assist ECIP as appropriate. In 1992 the Committee met, in accordance 
with Article 8.3 (a), of the Regulation to prépare the guidelines for direct equity 
participation (see paragraph 5 above). In addition the Committee met to give its 
opinion on the applications of 15 Fis wishing to join the ECIP network. 
17 
CONCLUSION 
Despite some delay in the approval of the new ECIP Regulation the instrument 
has, in terms of allocating its 1992 budget, performed well. This has been achieved in 
spite of a greatly increased workload. 
Promotion of the instrument has continued at an increasing rate and the profile 
of ECIP is ever higher. ECIP has played a role in Asia, Latin America and the 
Mediterranean in encouraging local economic operators to consider the EC as a partner 
for business enterprises. As such ECIP is playing a role in the development of EC 
economic co-operation policy with ALA/Med countries. 
The network of Financial Institutions was expanded by over 25% during the 
course of the year and further expansion is expected in 1993. 
If the rate of Steering Committee approvals can be taken as a proxy for the 
quality of projects approved, it would seem that the new Regulation has led to a 
tightening up of the selection criteria of proposals with a consequent improvement in 
the standard of proposals accepted. 
Further assessment of the instrument and its effectiveness will be the subject of 
an independent evaluation due at the end of March 1994. 
n 
STATISTICS BY REGION 
a. Cumulative data for 1988 - 1992 
b. Annual data for the year 1992 
Cumulative data 1988-1992 by Facilities ECIP - Projects approved in Steering Committee 
Latin America 
Number Amount 
Facility 1 60 3.258.898 
Facility 2 78 7.254.120 
Facility 3 15 5.969.000 
Facility 4 1 107.000 
TOTAL | 154| 16.589.018 Asia 
Number Amount 
53 
109 
11 
7 2.846.577 
11.086.816 
3.335.712 
1.240.317 
180 18.509.422 Mediterranean 
Number Amount 
46 1.966.023 
55 5.086.760 
10 4.465.914 
7 1.213.843 
118 12.732.540 International 
Number Amount 
237.700 
0 
0 
0 
237.700 TOTAL 
Number Amount 
163 8.309.198 
242 23.427.696 
36 13.770.626 
15 2.561.160 
456 48.068.680 % 
17,29 % 
48,74 % 
28,65 % 
5,33 % 
100 % 
Amounts for Latin America (in Ecu) Amounts for Asia Amounts for Mediterranean 
Facility Facility Facility Facility 
12 3 4 12.000.000 
10.000.000 
8.000.000 
6.000.000 
4.000.000 
2.000.000 
0 6.000.000 
5.000.000 
4.000.000 
3.000.000 
2.000.000 
1.000.000 
0 
1988-1992 : number of ECIP projects approved for 
Latin America 
Facility 3 Facility 4 
10% 1% 
Facility 2 
50% Facility 1 
39% 1988-1992 : number of ECIP projects approved for Asia 
Facility 3 Facility 4 
6% 4% Facility 1 
29% 1988-1992 : number of ECIP projects approved for 
Mediterranean 
r- -,u_ r. Facility 4 Facility 3 g»/ 
8% 
Facility 2 
61% Facility 2 
47% Facility 1 
39% 
'LP 
Statistics by Region ECIP projects approved : cumulative data 1988-1992 
Regions 
Asia 
Latin America 
Mediterranean 
Multiregion 
Total Amounts in ECU (%) 
18.509.422 
16.589.018 
12.732.540 
237.700 
48.068.680 38,51 
34,51 
26,49 
0,49 
100 
Multiregion 
Mediterranean 
Latin America 
Asia 1988-1992 ECIP Steering Committee approvals : number of projects (light) - amounts in ECU (dark) 
0,00 30,00 35,00 40,00 
0 
Annual data for 1992 by Facilities ECIP - Projects approved in Steering Committee 
Latin America 
Number Amount 
Facility 1 31 1.810.048 
Facility 2 28 2.450.031 
Facility 3 3 1.870.000 
Facility 4 0 0 
TOTAL 62j 6.130.079 Asia 
Number Amount 
29 
30 
3 
4 1.439.935 
3.564.657 
1.095.712 
771.479 
66 6.871.783 Mediterranean 
Number Amount 
14 
32 
5 
6 505.586 
2.847.613 
2.676.914 
1.159.593 
57 7.189.706 International 
Number Amount 
83.050 
0 
0 
0 
83.050 Number % TOTAL 
Amount 
75 
90 
11 
10 40 
48 
6 
5 
186 100 3.838.619 18,93 
8.862.301 43,71 
5.642.626 27,83 
1.931.072 9,52 
20.274.618 100 
1992 : approved amounts for Latin America (Ecu) 
2.500.000i 
2.000.000 
1.500.000 
1.000.000 
500.000 
oi IIIPHIIPHII 
Facility Facility Facility Facility 
12 3 4 
1992 : number of ECIP projects approved for Latin 
America 
Facility 3 
5% 
Facility 2 
45% Facility 1 
50% 1992 : approved amounts for Asia (Ecu) 
4.000.000 
3.000.000 y 
2.000.000 
1.000.000-
0 
Facility Facility Facility Facility 
12 3 4 
1992 : number of ECIP projects approved for Asia 
Facility 3 Faf*4 
Facility 
45% Facility 1 
44% 1992 : ECIP approved amounts for Mediterranean 
(Ecu) 
3.000.000 
2.500.000 
2.000.000 
1.500.000 
1.000.000 
500.000 
0 
Facility Facility Facility Facility 
12 3 4 
1992 : number of ECIP projects approved for 
Mediterranean 
Facility 4 
Facility 3 11% 
9% Facility 1 
25% 
Facility 2 
55% 
(V) 
Statistics by Region ECIP projects approved : annual data for 1992 
Regions 
Asia 
Latin America 
Mediterranean 
Multiregion 
Total Amounts in ECU (%) 
6.871.783 
6.130.079 
7.189.706 
83.050 
20.274.618 33,89 
30,24 
35,46 
0,41 
100 
Multiregion 
Mediterranean 
Latin America 
Asia 1992 ECIP Steering Committee approvals : number of projects (light) - amounts in ECU (dark) 
0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00 25,00 30,00 35,00 40,00 
STATISTICS BY FACILITIES 
a. Cumulative data 1988 - 1992 23 
b. Annual data for the year 1992 
Facilities 
Facility 1 
Facility 2 
Facility 3 
Facility 4 
TOTAL Latin America 
Number Amount 
60 
78 
15 
1 3.258.898 
7.254.120 
5.969.000 
107.000 
154| 16.589.018 Cumulative data 1988-1992 - ECIP projects approved 
Statistics by facilities 
Asia 
Number Amount 
53 2.846.577 
109 11.086.816 
11 3.335.712 
7 1.240.317 
180| 18.509.422 Mediterranean 
Number Amount 
46 1.966.023 
55 5.086.760 
10 4.465.914 
7 1.213.843 
118| 12.732.540 International 
Number Amount 
237.700 
0 
0 
0 
4| 237.700 Number % TOTAL 
Amount % 
163 35,75 
242 53,07 
36 7,89 
15 3,29 8.309.198 17,29 
23.427.696 48,74 
13.770.626 28,65 
2.561.160 5,33 
456 100 48.068.680 100 
Total projects approved by facility for 1988-1992 in % : Nber (white), amounts (black) 
Facility 1 Facility 2 Facility 3 Facility 4 
r^ 
Z Q 
ECIP - Annual Report 1992 
Statistics by Facility 
Facilities Nberof 
Presented 
Projects Amounts 
Requested 
by FI/FB 
Facility 1 
1988 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
cumulated 5 
11 
25 
67 
102 
210 705.500 
502.655 
1.636.396 
4.544.399 
5.981.697 
13.370.647 Nberof Amounts 
Approuved approuved 
Projects by STC Ratio of approved on request! 
% for % for 
numbers amounts 
5 
8 
22 
53 
75 
163 227.550 
343.470 
1.100.870 
2.798.689 
3.838.619 
8.309.198 100,00 
72,73 
88,00 
79,10 
73,53 
77,62 32,25 
68,33 
67,27 
61,59 
64,17 
62,15 
Facility 2 
1988 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
cumulated 4 
28 
72 
85 
118 
307 330.075 
1.630.975 
9.298.985 
9.116.284 
14.942.057 
35.318.376 2 
18 
63 
69 
90 
242 217.000 
1.266.920 
6.594.871 
6.486.604 
8.862.301 
23.427.696 50,00 
64,29 
87,50 
81,18 
76,27 
78,83 65,74 
77,68 
70,92 
71,15 
59,31 
66,33 
Facility 3 
1988 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
cumulated 2 
7 
13 
9 
22 
53 730.000 
1.623.500 
5.413.500 
4.446.000 
11.174.926 
23.387.926 2 
4 
13 
6 
11 
36 580.000 
991.500 
5.110.500 
1.446.000 
5.642.626 
13.770.626 100,00 
57,14 
100,00 
66,67 
50,00 
67,92 79,45 
61,07 
94,40 
32,52 
50,49 
58,88 
Facility 4 
1988 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
cumulated 0 
0 
4 
2 
11 
17 0 
0 
501.667 
290.000 
2.231.073 
3.022.740 0 
0 
3 
2 
10 
15 0 
0 
355.088 
275.000 
1.931.072 
2.561.160 0,00 
0,00 
75,00 
100,00 
90,91 
88,24 0,00 
0,00 
70,78 
94,83 
86,55 
84,73 
ECIP activities 1988-1992 
Statistics by Facility 
1988-1992 cumulative number of projects 
Facility 1 
Facility 2 
Facility 3 
Facility 4 approved presented 
number number 
163 
242 
36 
15 % 
app/req 
210 0,78 
307 0,79 
53 0,68 
17 0,88 
1988-1992 ECIP approvals by Facility : number of projects presented by Financial 
Institutions (lined shading). Number of approvals by ECIP (points shading). 
Facility 1 Facility 2 Facility 3 Facility 4 
z g 
ECIP activities for the year 1992 
Statistics by Facility 
1992 annual number of projects 
Facility 1 
Facility 2 
Facility 3 
Facility 4 approved 
number presented 
number % 
app/req 
75 
90 
11 
10 102 
118 
22 
11 0,74 
0,76 
0,50 
0,91 
120 
100 1992 ECIP approvals by Facility : number of projects presented by Financial Institutions 
(lined shading). Number of projects approved by ECIP (points shading). 
Facility 1 Facility 2 Facility 3 Facility 4 
2°) 
ECIP activities for the year 1992 
Statistics by Facility 
1992 annual amounts (in ECU) at Steering Committee level 
Facility 1 
Facility 2 
Facility 3 
Facility 4 approved requested % 
amounts amounts a/r 
3.838.619 5.981.697 0,64 
8.862.301 14.942.057 0,59 
5.642.626 11.174.926 0,50 
1.931.072 2.231.073 0,87 
1992 ECIP financing by Facility : amounts requested by Financial Institutions (lined 
shading). Amounts approved by ECIP (points shading) Both are in ECU. 
Facility 1 Facility 2 Facility 3 Facility 4 
3 o 
ECIP activities 1988 -1992 
Statistics by Facility 
1988-1992 cumulative amounts (in ECU) at Steering Committee level 
Facility 1 
Facility 2 
Facility 3 
Facility 4 approved requested % 
amounts amounts app/req 
8.309.198 13.370.647 0,62 
23.427.696 35.318.376 0,66 
13.770.626 23.387.926 0,59 
2.561.160 3.022.740 0,85 
1988-1992 ECIP approvals by Facility : amounts requested by Financial Institutions (lined 
shading). Amounts approved by ECIP (points shading) Both are in ECU. 
Facility 1 Facility 2 Facility 3 Facility 4 
STATISTICS 
BY 
ECONOMIC SECTORS 
a. Cumulative data 1988 - 1992 30 
b. Annual data for the year 1992 
Cumulative data 1988-1992 - ECIP projects approved by Steering Committee 
Sectors 
1 Agriculture 
2 Forestry 
3 Fishing 
Agriculture/fishing 
4 Mining 
5 Energy/water 
Mining/energy 
Environment 
7 Wood industry 
8 Agro-industry 
9 Food industry 
10 Steel industry 
Primary processing 
11 Cement & Chemical 
12 Construction 
13 Mechanical industry 
14 Automobile industry 
15 Textile 
16 Manufacture 
Manufacture & construction 
17 Pharmaceutics 
18 Biotechnology 
19 High tech & informatics 
20 Electronics 
21 Telecom 
22 Aeronautics 
High Tech & New industries 
23 Transport 
24 Tourism 
25 Business service 
26 Financial service 
27 Other service 
28 Communication 
29 Education 
30 Health sector 
Services 
Multisector 
TOTAL 
Average amount/action Latin America 
Number Amount 
6 1.735.443 
3 538.051 
9 703.432 
18 2.976.926 
3 445.350 
7 536.065 
10 981.415 
6 519.538 
5 487.361 
13 2.301.628 
11 923.346 
1 38.794 
30 3.751.129 
3 310.000 
7 445.884 
4 250.185 
2 155.360 
2 274.584 
15 1.114.157 
33 2.550.170 
4 149.645 
3 176.274 
2 61.910 
4 247.230 
7 1.235.733 
0 0 
20 1.870.7921 
4 369.644] 
4 384.270 
2 79.619 
2 1.000.000 
1 250.000 
3 119.505 
1 57.644 
2 262.819 
19 2.523.501 
18 1.415.547 
154 16.589.018 
107.721 Asia 
Number Amount 
13 1.077.440 
1 72.500 
11 1.164.234 
25 2.314.174 
7 1.199.687 
6 795.015 
13 1.994.702 
6 707.438 
8 1.328.140 
11 1.063.141 
14 1.332.898 
3 252.602 
36 3.976.781 
6 547.392 
4 499.274 
9 591.784 
4 738.500 
2 132.700 
24 1.991.733 
49 4.501.383 
3 381.535 
4 330.154 
7 1.168.117 
6 345.415 
2 84.981 
6 448.277 
28 2.758.479 
2 327.663 
2 587.671 
5 318.287 
1 193.838 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
4 447.685 
14 1.875.144 
9 381.321 
180 18.509.422 
102.830 Mediterranean 
Number Amount 
6 1.332.205 
0 0 
5 1.607.414 
11 2.939.619 
3 181.432 
3 136.175 
6 317.607 
5 127.836 
2 522.000 
4 97.644 
4 388.910 
9 1.610.847 
19 2.619.401 
3 165.258 
1 61.250 
7 269.154 
4 421.985 
7 490.537 
10 1.336.150 
32 1744.334 
1 145.000 
2 239.352 
9 735.002 
2 84.193 
2 495.912 
0 0 
16 1.699.459 
4 429.884 
7 780.679 
2 38.225 
2 226.416 
0 0 
1 216.912 
1 60.000 
3 110.423 
20 1.862.539 
9 421.745 
118 12.732.540 
107.903 International 
Number Amount 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
2 117.150 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
0 0 
2 120.550 
4 237.700 
59.425 TOTAL 
Number Amount % 
25 4.145.088 8,62 
4 610.551 1,27 
25 3.475.080 7,23 
54 8.230.719 17 
13 1.826.469 3,80 
16 1.467.255 3,05 
29 3.293.724 7 
19 1.471.962 3,06 
15 2.337.501 4,86 
28 3.462.413 7,20 
29 2.645.154 5,50 
13 1.902.243 3,96 
85 10.347.311 22 
12 1.022.650 2,13 
12 1.006.408 2,09 
20 1.111.123 2,31 
10 1.315.845 2,74 
11 897.821 1,87 
49 4.442.040 9,24 
114 9.795.887 20 
8 676.180 1,41 
9 745.780 1,55 
18 1.965.029 4,09 
12 676.838 1,41 
11 1.816.626 3,78 
6 448.277 0,93 
64 6.328.730 13 
10 1.127.191 2,34 
13 1.752.620 3,65 
9 436.131 0,91 
5 1.420.254 2,95 
1 250.000 0,52 
4 336.417 0,70 
2 117.644 0,24 
9 820.927 1,71 
53 6.261.184 13 
38 2.339.163 4,87 
456 48.068.680 100 
105.414 
Annual data 1992 - ECIP projects approved 
Sectors 
1 Agriculture 
2 Forestry 
3 Fishing 
Agriculture/Ashing 
4 Mining 
5 Energy/water 
Mining/energy 
Environment 
7 Wood industry 
8 Agro-industry 
9 Food industry 
10 Steel industry 
Primary processing 
11 Cement & Chemical 
12 Construction 
13 Mechanical industry 
14 Automobile industry 
15 Textile 
16 Manufacture 
IHiHSiHiiliHili 
17 Pharmaceutics 
18 Biotechnology 
19 High tech & informatics 
20 Electronics 
21 Telecom 
22 Aeronautics 
High Tech ^to 
23 Transport 
24 Tourism 
25 Business service 
26 Financial service 
27 Other service 
28 Communication 
29 Education 
30 Health sector 
Services 
Multisector 
TOTAL 
Average amount/action Latin America 
Number Amount 
3 
1 
4 
6 
0 
2 
Z 
4 
2 
5 
1 
1 
IH Î" 
6 
2 
1 
1 
7 
III 1 
0 
1 
3 
2 
0 
7 
0 
3 
1 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
$ 
* 1.151.538 
80.000 
284.881 
1,516.419 
0 
181.000 
1M.O0Û 
409J88 
182.501 
1.066.727 
70.000 
38.794 
1.358.022 
80.000 
394.750 
100.000 
47.700 
24.584 
603.536 •• 
20.479 
0 
47.294 
209.730 
155.700 
0 
433,203 
0 
366.000 
39.892 
0 
0 
48.755 
0 
0 
454,647 
526.430 
62| 6.130.079 
98.872 Asia 
Number Amount 
3 
0 
4 
111 
2 
2 
4 
4 
2 
7 
0 
0 
ill 
4" 
2 
3 
2 
2 
9 
Ii 
0 
2 
0 
4 
2 
1 
9 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
* 
8 193.500 
0 
667.534 AMI 
44r\644 
194.515 
641199 
484,738 
526.000 
820.202 
0 
0 
1.348.202 
461.242 
156.424 
77.920 
500.000 
132.700 
809.228 
2.137.514 
0 
166.715 
0 
207.415 
84.981 
118.441 
577,552 
187.663 
0 
60.000 
0 
0 
0 
0 
236.000 
483,663 
338,921 
66 6.871.783 
104.118 Mediterranean 
Number Amount 
2 
0 
5 
7 
0 
2 
2 
3 
0 
3 
0 
5 
III ""2 
0 
4 
2 
2 
7 
Hi 
0 
0 
5 
2 
1 
0 
8 
1 
3 
1 
1 
0 
1 
1 
0 
$ 
4 1.064.000 
0 
1.607.414 
2i71.414 
0 
95.118 
95.118 
101.886 
0 
46.400 
0 
728.113 
1I1MI1 
147.213 
0 
180.141 
280.875 
109.265 
1.166.337 
1.883.831 
6 
o 
400.565 
84.193 
450.000 
0 
$34.768 
195.786 
41.173 
30.500 
15.150 
0 
216.912 
60.000 
0 
559.521 
168.665 
57| 7.189.706 
126.135 International 
Number Amount 
0 
0 
0 
I! "o" 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
T 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
II 
o 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
WE 
o 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 1 83.050 
1| 83.050 
83.050 Nber TOTAL 
Amount % 
8 
1 
13 
22 
2 
6 
8 
11 
4 
15 
1 
6 
26 
7 
8 
9 
5 
5 
23 
67 
1 
2 
6 
9 
5 
1 
24 
2 
6 
3 
1 
0 
3 
1 
1 
17 
21 
186 2.409.038 
80.000 
2.559.829 
5,048.867 
447.644 
470.633 
918.277 
996.412 
708.501 
1.933.329 
70.000 
766.907 
3.478J37 
688.455 
551.174 
358.061 
828.575 
266.549 
2.579.101 
6,271,*15 
20.479 
168.715 
447.859 
501.338 
690.681 
118.441 
1,945.513 
383.449 
407.173 
130.392 
15.150 
0 
265.667 
60.000 
236.000 
1.497.831 
1,117.066 
| 20.274.618] 11,88 
0,39 
12,63 
25 
2,21 
2,32 
5 
4,91 
3,49 
9,54 
0,35 
3,78 
17 
3,40 
2,72 
1.77 
4,09 
1,31 
12,72 
26 
0,10 
0,82 
2,21 
2.47 
3,41 
0,58 
10 
1,89 
2,01 
0,64 
0,07 
0,00 
1,31 
0,30 
1.16 
7 
6,51 
100 
109.003 
Sectoral analysis 
Sectors 
Agriculture/fish 
Mining/energy 
Environment 
Primary process 
Manufacturing 
New industries 
Services 
Multisector 
TOTAL Cumulative data 1988-1992 - ECIP projects approved in Steering Committee 
Latin America 
Number Amount 
18 
10 
6 
30 
33 
20 
19 
18 2976926 
981415 
519538 
3751129 
2550170 
1870792 
2523501 
1415547 
154 16589018 Asia 
Number Amount 
25 
13 
6 
36 
49 
28 
14 
9 2314174 
1994702 
707438 
3976781 
4501383 
2758479 
1875144 
381321 
180 18509422 Mediterranean 
Number Amount 
11 
6 
5 
19 
32 
16 
20 
9 
118 2.939.619 
317.607 
127.836 
2.619.401 
2.744.334 
1.699.459 
1.862.539 
421.745 
12.732.540 International 
Numbei Amount 
0 
0 
117.150 
0 
0 
0 
0 
120.550 
4 237.700 Nber % TOTAL 
Amount 
54 11,80 
29 6,40 
19 4,20 
85 18,70 
114 25,00 
64 14,00 
53 11,70 
38 8,40 8.230.719 
3.293.724 
1.471.962 
10.347.311 
9.795.887 
6.328.730 
6.261.184 
2.339.163 17,12 
6,85 
3,06 
21,53 
20,38 
13,17 
13,03 
4,87 
456 100 48.068.680 100 
Sectoral global amount approved for 1988-1992 (in %) Total Nber of projects in % (White) Global amount approved in % (black 
Services 
13% Multisector 
5% Agriculture/fish 
17% 
New industries 
13% Mining/energy 
7% 
Environment 
3% 
Manufacturing 
20% Primary 
process 
22% Multisector 
Services 
New industries 
Manufacturing 
Primary process 
Environment 
Mining/energy 
Agriculture/fish 
0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00 25,00 
(A) 
Sectors 
Agriculture/fish 
Mining/energy 
Environment 
Primary process 
Manufacturing 
New industries 
Services 
Multisector 
TOTAL Latin America 
Number Amount 
8 
2 
4 
9 
18 
7 
6 
8 1.516.419 
181.000 
409.788 
1.358.022 
1.250.570 
433.203 
454.647 
526.430 
62 6.130.079 Annual data 1992 • ECIP projects approved 
Statistics by agregate sectors 
Asia 
Number Amount 
7 
4 
4 
9 
22 
9 
3 
8 
66 861034 
642159 
484738 
1346202 
2137514 
577552 
483663 
333921 
6871783 Mediterranean 
Number Amount 
7 
2 
3 
8 
17 
8 
8 
4 2.671.414 
95.118 
101.886 
774.513 
1.883.831 
934.758 
559.521 
168.665 
57 7.189.706 International 
Number Amount 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
83.050 
83.050 Nber % TOTAL 
Amount % 
22 11,83 
8 4,30 
11 5,91 
26 13,98 
57 30,65 
24 12,90 
17 9,14 
21 11,29 5.048.867 
918.277 
996.412 
3.478.737 
5.271.915 
1.945.513 
1.497.831 
1.117.066 
186 100 20.274.618 24,90 
4,53 
4,91 
17,16 
26,00 
9,60 
7,39 
5,51 
100Î 
Sectoral global amounts approved for 1992 (in %) Total projects approved for 1992 : Nber (white), amounts (black) 
Services Multisector 
New industries 
10% 
Manufacturing 
25% Agriculture/fish 
25% 
Mining/energy 
5% 
Environment 
5% 
Primary 
process 
17% Multisector 
Services 
New industries 
Manufacturing 
Primary process 
Environment 
Mining/energy 
Agriculture/fish 
0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00 25,00 30,00 35,00 
ECIP Sector - Number of projects approved by the Steering Committee 
Ag re gate sectors TOTAL number for the year 1992 (black) TOTAL cumulative number for 1988 -1992 (white) 
CD 
C 
IE 
3 O 
•c 
CO 
< s» <u c 
CD 
c c o 
E 
c 
2 
"> 
c 
111 CO 
I 8 
Q. 2 
Q. So si 
5 8 5 
CD 
•St» 
*-? 
x: — 
CO 8 
'E 
CO o 
TS 
3} 
ECIP - Intervention des Institutions Financières 
Pays de la 
Communauté 
Européenne Nombre 
d'Institutions 
Financières Total projets approuvés 
en 1992 1988-92 
Belgique 
Danemark 
Espagne 
France 
Grèce 
Irlande 
Italie 
Luxembourg 
Pays-Bas 
Portugal 
RFA 
Royaume-Unis 
Communauté 
Asie 
Amérique Latine 
Méditerranée 
International 
p.m. : 
Chambres C. & Ind 
ECIP Grand total : 3 
1 
4 
4 
0 
1 
3 
1 
4 
1 
1 
3 
26 
6 
8 
4 
2 
20 6 
7 
16 
23 
0 
1 
25 
1 
16 
1 
9 
13 
118 
4 
9 
17 
4 
34 
34 
186 33 
28 
35 
71 
0 
2 
65 
1 
30 
2 
13 
38 
318 
10 
27 
26 
14 
77 
61 
456 Total montants approuvés (ECU) 
en 1992 Cumul 1988-92 
531.478 
1.636.906 
1.098.464 
3.418.638 
0 
64.000 
2.733.466 
26.000 
1.289.322 
20.315 
1.304.100 
2.639.315 
14.762.004 
340.849 
635.263 
1.399.446 
1.072.500 
3.448.058 
2.064.556 
20.274.618 3.166.151 
4.576.736 
2.757.605 
7.848.918 
0 
89.565 
7.310.507 
26.000 
2.554.319 
66.227 
2.237.066 
6.236.212 
36.869.306 
777.648 
2.389.340 
1.787.320 
2.641.200 
7.595.508 
3.603.866 
48.068.680 
ECIP - répartition des Institutions Financières membres 
Méditerranée 
9% International 
4% 
Amérique Latine 
17% 
Communauté 
57% 
32 
ECIP COMMITMENTS AND PAYMENTS 1988-1992 
1. The following tables give the total amount of ECIP funds committed, and paid 
out, in respect of actions for the period 1988-1992. For each year the commitments 
and payments are shown by region. 
2. For most years the budget has been fully committed. The exception to this is 
1992, where, despite the large increase in projects approved, the budgets for Asia and 
Latin America were under committed by 17% and 30% respectively. The under 
commitment is the result of the constraints listed in paragraph 18 of the main text. 
3. The volume of payments will not accord with the volume of commitments for 
any one year as payments have a very different time structure. Of course payments 
will, over time, approximate to commitments in the aggregate once actions that are 
abandoned before full payment is made and projects which are completed below budget 
are taken into account. 
4. The difference between payments proposed and payments actually paid reflects, 
in part, projects which are abandoned between payment being requested and payment 
being made. 
3<3 
1988.XLS 
ECIP 
CONSOMMATION DE CREDITS 
ANNEE 1988 
ASIE 
AMER. LATINE engagements 
paiements 
..„ 
engagements 
paiements 
•-*- • • — — 
crédits 
total engagé 
solde | 
% consommation 
crédits 
total payé 
solde 
% consommation 
crédits 
total engagé 
solde 
% consommation 
crédits 
total payé 
solde 
% consomn lation __ 
3.250.000, 
- — 
25.000, 
,— 
1.750.000, 
0, 
Yo 
1989.XLS 
ECIP 
CONSOMMATION DE CREDITS 
I 
ANNEE 1989 
ASIE 
AMER. LATINE 
MEDITERR. engagements 
paiements 
engagements 
paiements 
engagements 
paiements _.._ crédits —.—. 
total engagé 
solde 
% consommation 
crédits 
total payé 
solde 
% consommation 
crédits 
total engagé 
solde 
% consomrr 
crédits 
total payé 
solde îation 
% consommation 
crédits 
total engagé 
solde i 
% consommation 
crédits 
total payé 
solde 
% consomn nation 4.498.982, 
— 
312.573, 
_____ 
— 
3.069.132, 
668.825, 
-
1.432.132, 
48^24,— 
u: 
I M) 
1990.XLS 
ECIP 
CONSOMMATION DE CREDITS 
ANNEE 1990 
ASIE 
AMER. LATINE 
MEDITERR. ___. 
engagements 
paiements 
engagement 
paiements 
engagemen 
paiements — 
— — 
.—__ 
>s 
ts 
______ 
1 crédits 
total engagé 
solde 
% consommation 
crédits 
total payé 
solde 
% consommation 
— 
crédits —__ .— 
total engagé 
solde 
% consommation 
crédits 
total payé 
solde 
% consommation 
crédits 
total engagé 
solde 
% consommation 
crédits 
total payé 
solde 
% consommation — 
2.890.000, 
2.889.779,91 
220,09 
99,99% 
4.200.000, 
2.355.102,05 
1.844.897,95 
56,07% 
6.910.000, 
6.895.958,63 
14.041,37 
99,80% 
3.300.000, 
1.238.846,86 
2.061.153,14 
37,54% 
3.000.000, 
2.938.093, 
61.907, 
97,94% 
200.000, 
172.860, 
27.140, 
86,43% 
V£ 
1991.XLS 
ECIP 
CONSOMMATION DE CREDITS 
ANNEE 1991 
ASIE 
AMER. LATINE 
MEDITERR. engagements 
paiements 
engagements 
paiements 
engagements 
paiements __ 
crédits 
total engagé 
solde 
% consomnr 
crédits 
total payé 
solde lation 
% consommation 
.. . .. 
crédits 
total engagé 
solde 
% consommation 
crédits 
total payé 
solde 
% consomn 
crédits 
total engagé lation 
s 
solde 
% consommation 
crédits 
total payé 
solde 
% consommation - -
5.475.500, 
5.473.292, 
2.208, 
99,96% 
5.300.000, 
4.960.409,41 
339.590,59 
93,59% 
— -
4.504.500, 
4.504.096, 
404, 
99,99% 
3.900.000, 
3.774.234,5 
125.765,5 
96,78% 
3.000.000, 
2.999.353,3 
64677 
99,98% 
2.000.000, 
1.981.190,66 
18.809,34 
99,06% 
m 
1992.XLS 
ECIP 
CONSOMMATION DE CREDITS 
ANNEE 1992 
ASIE 
AMER. LATINE 
MEDITERR. _ — -
engagements 
paiements 
engagement 
paiements •• 
ts 
____. 
engagements 
paiements - •• • 
crédits ___ 
total engagé 
solde 
% consommation 
crédits 
total payé 
solde 
% consommation 
— 
crédits 
total engagé 
solde ] 
% consommation 
crédits 
total payé 
solde ••- —-
% consommation 
crédits 
total engagé 
solde 
% consommation 
crédits 
total payé 
solde 
% consommation - -
12.050.000, 
10.037.134, 
2.012.866, 
83,30% 
9.400.000, 
5.492.558,45 
3.907.441,55 
58,43% 
12.550.000, 
8.870.994, 
3.679.006, 
70,69% 
7.800.000, 
5.106.292, 
2.693.708, 
65,47% 
6.800.000, 
6.779.823, 
20.177, 
99,70% 
5.600.000, 
5.565.959, 
34.041, 
99,39% 
Etat des remboursements en faveur de ECIP au 31 décembre 1992 
Total rembt 1991 et 1992 : 
Remboursements en 1991: 
Remboursements en 1992 : 
Rembt au Budget CE : 1.285.306,14 
420.000,00 
865.306,14 
8.373,64 
Remboursements Facilité 1 
Remboursements Facilité 2 
Remboursements Facilité 3 
Total 1991 et 1992: 21.162,71 ECU 
583.418,00 ECU 
680.725,43 ECU 
1.285.306,14 ECU 
Facilité 1 
2% 
Facilité 3 
53% Facilité 2 
45% 
j_r 
v_s 
ANNEXES DATABASE 
Projects 1 to 656 presented to the 
Steering Committee and compiled on 
the basis of : 
A = Approval 
B = Favourable opinion 
C = Refusal 
0 = Suspension 
Amounts requested by the Financial Insti 
tutions are compiled too. 
ACTIVITE "EUROPEAN COMMUNITY INVESTMENT PARTNER" (ECIP) 
Situation au 31 décembre 1992 (*) 
Prêts et avances 
. pays d'Asie 
. pays d'Amérique Latine 
. pays du bassin Méditerranéen 
total Situation au 
31 déc 1991 
6.311.049,5 
5.696.903,4 
1.313.482,0 
13.321.434,9 Accordés 
en 1992 
3.117.984 
3.872.107 
1.058.106 
8.048.197 Cumulés au 
31 déc 1992 
9.429.033,5 
9.569.010,4 
2.371.588,0 
21.369.631,9 
Titres de participation 
. pays d'Asie 
. pays d'Amérique Latine 
. pays du bassin Méditerranéen 
total Situation au Acquis 
31 déc 1991 en 1992 
500.000 
500.000 
500.000 500.000 
1.000.000 Cumulés au 
31 déc 1992 
500.000 
1.000.000 
1.500.000 
(*) Chiffres donnés en ÉcOT 
Ces chiffres restent assujettis aux renseignements fournis par tes DG VIII et XIX. 
Les cas des projets "abandonnés'' (cas où l'avance n'est pas remboursable) ne peuvent fournir des chiffres 
définitifs. Il s'agit en effet de négocier les remboursements, au cas par cas, avec les Intermédiaires Financiers. 
<r^ 
KSN 0254-1475 
COM (93) 200 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN u 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-93-231-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-55728-1 
Office for Officiai Publicattons ctf the European Comrrnirrit.es 
L-2985I__ixenibourg