ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEEDES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM(81)691
Vol.1981/0203

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement (CEE,Euratom) n°354/83duConseildu1erfévrier1983
concernant l'ouverture aupublicdesarchiveshistoriques delaCommunauté économique
européenne etdelaCommunauté européenne del'énergieatomique(JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifiéparlerèglement (CE,Euratom) n°1700/2003 du22septembre 2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003, p.1),cedossierestouvertaupublic.Lecaséchéant,lesdocuments
classifiésprésentsdanscedossierontétédéclassifiés conformément àl'article5dudit
règlement.
Inaccordance withCouncilRegulation (EEC,Euratom) No354/83of1February 1983
concerning theopeningtothepublicofthehistoricalarchivesoftheEuropean Economic
Community andtheEuropean AtomicEnergyCommunity (OJL43,15.2.1983, p.1),as
amended byRegulation (EC,Euratom) No1700/2003 of22September 2003(OJL243,
27.9.2003, p.1),thisfileisopentothepublic.Wherenecessary, classifieddocuments inthis
filehavebeendeclassified inconformity withArticle5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung (EWG,Euratom) Nr.354/83desRatesvom1.
Februar 1983überdieFreigabe derhistorischen Archive derEuropäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI.L43vom15.2.1983,
S.1),geändertdurchdieVerordnung (EG,Euratom) Nr.1700/2003 vom22.September 2003
(ABI.L243vom27.9.2003, S.1),istdieseDateiderÖffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit
erforderlich, wurdendieVerschlusssachen indieserDateiinÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel5
dergenannten Verordnung freigegeben.

COMMISSION OFTHEEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(81)691 final.
Brussels/19November1981
I
FOURTHREPORTFROMTHECOMMISSION TOTHECOUNCIL
ontheimplementation oftheprogrammeoffinancial
andtechnicalassistance tonon-associated
developing countries
(asof31July1981)
C0MC81)691final

ΟΚΤΕΝΤ3
IM'ROBUCTION
CHARACTERISTICS OPTHEPROGRAMME
(a)General
("b)197^-Spprogrammes
(c)1981programme
PROGRAMME BIPLEMENTATION
(a)General
(la)Rateofprogramme implementation
(c)Progresswithindividual programmes andproject
t
SPECIAL TOPICS ■
(a)Cofinancing
(b)Studiesandtechnical assistance
CONCLUSIONS

-1-
I.INTRODUCTION
TheRegulation governingtheCommunity'sprogrammeoffinancial ^andtechnical assistance tonon–associated developing countries
callsfortheCommission toprovideParliament andCouncil,each
year,withinformation ontheadministration ofthisprogramme .
Thepresent document represents thefourthsuchimplementationreport^,andcoverstheimplementation ofallnon–associates
,programmes from1976on,duringtheyearending31July1981.
Thiswillhoweverbethelastreporttofollowthisprecisepattern.
Giventheprocedural changesresulting fromtheadoption ofthe
above-mentioned Regulation inFebruary ofthisyear,futurereports
willnecessarily beslightly different intimingandcontent .
Firstly ,theywillbepresented ,ratherearlierintheyearthanhas
beenthepractice uptillnow,andthey.willcovertheyearending
inDecemberofthepreviousyear(ratherthanJulyofthecurrent
year,asatpresent),Secondly ,theywillalsocontain,inaddition
tothenormalsurveyofprojectexecution ,ageneralreviewofthe
preceding year'sprogramme .Thiswillreplacetheannualprogramme
reviewpresented toCouncilundertheadhocprocedure appliedbefore
1981.
Itisintendedthatthefirstofthesemodified reportsbepresen+~:\,
duringthesecondquarterof1982,covering theyearending -
31December 1981,a*idIncluding detailed comments onth":-^ol
programme .Consequently ,therewillbeacertainwiogreeofoverlap
withthepresentreport.
II.CHARACTERISTICS OFTHEPROGRAMME
II,a,General
Thenon-assooiates programme beganin1976,afteranearlierdecision
bytheCommunitytoexpandthegeographical scopeofitsdevelopmentcooperation activities ,andtoincreaseitseffortsinfavourofthe
poorestdeveloping countries .
1)CouncilRegulation 442/81
2)Previousreportswerepresentedin1978,1979and1980,ineachcase
coveringtheperiodending31Julyofthatyear.

Theprogramme 's "basic policy guidelines arelaid down inRegulation
442/81,and'these areamplified inthegeneral guidelines formulatedbytheCommission foreachsuccessive annual programme 1.Briefly ,
these policy guidelines maybesummarised asfollows :
-theaid shall bedirected tothepoorest developing countries
andtothepoorest sections oftheir populations }
-itshall beaimed essentially atdeveloping the rural sector ,
with particular emphasis ontheimprovement offood supplies ;
-asubsidiary part ofthefunds shall bedirected towards regional
projects (inwhich case projects outside therural sector maybe
considered ); .
-alimited proportion ofthefunds shall besetaside forexceptional
measures ,particularly post–catastrophe reconstruction projects ;
-theaidshall beingrant form ,andmaybeused tocover both
foreign and local costs ;
-projects mclybefunded directly (autonomously ),orincofinancement
with Member States orinternational organizations ;
-theallocation offunds should help maintain aCommunity presence
inthemajor regions ofthedeveloping world .
Each annual programme has-been prepared onthebasis ofproject ideas ,
gathered bytheCommission from theeligible recipient countries ,
from Member States aidagencies ,andfrom international aidorganizations .
Theselection andpreparation ofprojects hasbeen made inaccordance
with thebasic policy objectives outlined above ,while taking account
notonly ofthetechnical andeconomic viability ofindividual projects ,
but also oftheneed toconstruct abalanced overall programme in
keeping with therelative needs ofthedifferent recipients .
J\xll attention isgiven tothepreferences expressed bythegovernments
oftherecipient countries ,andtothefitbetween individual projects
andtheoverall development needs andpriorities ofthecountries
concerned .Anincreasing effort has infact been made toensure a
greater coherence among theactions financed bytheCommunity in
individual recipient countries over successive years .Forexample ,
particular regions orsectors have onoccasion been selected aspriority
areas forCommunity funding with certain recipients .
Once aproject hasbeen fully appraised ,thefinal financing decision
istaken bytheCommission after having consulted theMember States .
Uptill I98O ,this consultation wascarried outonce ayear ,inthe
form ofapresentation toCouncil oftheannual programme taken asa
whole .Prom theI98I programme onwards ,however ,theCommission has
been able toseek anopinion onindividual projects from thefinancing
committee setupunder thenewRegulation .This committee ,comprising
Member State representatives andchaired bytheCommission ,meets
several times ayear ,andprojects canthus beprocessed asandwhen
Although theRegulation wasonly formally adopted inFebruary 1981 ,
itsbasic policy guidelines hadinfact been strictly applied from
the1978 programme onwards .

-3-
■they areready ,rather than being delayed until the entire programme
hasbeen prepared .
II.b.The 1976–1980 propysmnies
Il.b.l .ïhnding available
The total funding available under thenon-associates programme hag
grown fairly rapidly since itsinception in1976 (though notas
rapidly astheCommission itself would have wished ,taking account
ofthepressing needs which itisintended tomeet ).
Prom 20.0 MECUin1976 ,theprogramme 'sannual budget grew to
138.5 MECUinI98O1.Thepattern ofgrowth hasbeen asfollows
(inMECU).
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980Total
1976-80I98I
20.0 45.O· 7O.O 110.0 138.5 383.5 I5O.O
These ,funds areprovided under thegeneral budget oftheEEC ,with
separate annual provisions for commitments and payments .The commit­
ment credits are"dissociatedJ' sothat under theCommunity 'sfinancial
regulations there isatwo-year period inwhich the available credits
must becommitted (i.e. ,therelevant budget year plus thefollowing
year ). Ifcredits arenotcommitted within this period ,byfinancing
decisions for specific individual projects ,thefunds arecancelled .
TheCommission 'spractice istocommit theentire funding required for
aparticular project atthecommencement ofthat project .Naturally ,
however ,payments arising from that commitment will bespread over the
entire execution period ofthe project concerned .For thekind of
rural-development project financed under this programme ,this execution
period isgenerally oftheorder of5years ,though itmay onoccasion
beaslittle as1year orasmuch as7years .
IE.b.2 .The annual programmes .1976-80
Once theannual budget (commitment credits )isknown ,asmall proportion
ofthe available funding issetaside for post-catastrophe projects
(introduced in1977 )amifortheprovisions foradministrative costs and
forsmall-scale studies andtechnical assistance (introduced in1977
1979 respectively ).Theremaining funds aredivided among thethree
l)Forsimplicity ,theterm ECU (European Currency Unit )isused throughout
this report .Theactual unit used hashowever changed slightly inboth
title andcharacter ,over thelife oftheprogramme ,from theTJA (Unit of
Account )in1976 and1977 »through theMJA (European Unit ofAccount )from
1978 to1980 ,totheECUfrom I98I onwards . ,

main geographical regions (Asia ,Latin America andAfrica )according
•totheindicative proportions setouteach year inthe general guidelines
proposed byt'heCommission forapproval byCouncil .Within these broad
geographical allocations ,individual projects areselected andapproved
following thecriteria andprocedures outlined above .
The "basic allocation offunding under the1976-1980 programmes is
shown inthefollowing table (MECU):
1976 I977 I978 I979 I98O Total
Commitment credits
-Annual budget
-Brought forward
Total I20.0 45.O 70.0 110.0 .I38.5
.- - - 6.9 ll.o "
20.0 ,45.0 70.0 116.9 149.5383.5
383.5
Special provisions
-Catastrophe
reserve
-Admin ,costs
-Small-scale
~studies /TA .
Total II2.0 11.1 I3.9
0.2 0.6 1.0 1.7
- 1.5 1.0
0.2 2.6 13.6 I6.627.0
3.5
2.5
33.0
Geographical
allocations
-Asia
-Latin America
-Africa
Total III18.0 34.8 43.0 71.9 89.85
2.0 10.0 I4.O 19.5 24.35
3.5 0.9 14.50
20.0 44.8 60.5 92.3 128.7257.55
69.85
I8.90
346.3
Total programme
funding (li+III)20.0 45.O 63.I IO5.9 I45.3 379.3
Credits carried
forward 6.9 11.0 4.2 4.2
Onepoint arising outoftheabove table which perhaps requires special comment is
theoccasional carrying-forward offunds from oneprogramme toanother ,andthe
consequent slight discrepancy ^oetween annual programme funding andthevolume of
budgetary credits available forthat particular year .Forexample ,the1973 budge
provided atotal of70.0 MECUincommitment credits ,forcommitment in1978 or197
Ofthis ,63.1 MECUwascommitted during these twoyears forprojects inthe1978
programme ,while 6.9MECUwascarried forward tothe1979 programme andcommitted
during 1979 .

-5-
Suchacarry-forward offundsfromoneprogramme toanotherisnecessary
when,foronereasonoranother,a'projecthastobecancelled atthe
lastminute(i.e.,shortlybeforetheendofthetwo-year commitment
period).Inthesecircumstances ,itisnormallyimpossible topropose
immediately anewprojectforthatprogramme ,andthefundsareinstead
transferred toanexistingprojectinthefollowingyear'sprogramme ,alreadyfully–appraised andreadyforimmediate commitment .Anequivalent
amountisofcourseliberated underthebudgetapplyingtothatsecond
programme ,butafullyearremainsbeforethesefundsneedtobecommitted ,
andthisprovidessufficient timetoidentifyareplacement project.
Thisprocedure hasinfactbeenusedonlyinaveryfewcases,wherea
projecthasbeencancelled duetoapolicy–changeonthepartofthe
recipient ,orwhereitbecomesevidentthataprojectcannotmeetthe
Commission 'sappraisal criteria .However,adegreeofflexibility is
necessary tocopewithsuchcases,andtheprocedure described here
servestheimportant purposeofpreventing thecancellation ofcredits,
whilebeingfullyinkeepingwiththefinancial regulations ofthe
Community .Itmustbestressed thatthisprocedure involves onlya
transfer offundsbetween programmes ,notatransfer betweenbudgets.
Allbudgetfundsarestillnecessarily committed beforetheendofthe
relevant two–yearperiod.
II.b.3.Basiccharacteristics ofthe1976-80programmes
II.b.3«i «General
Detailed comments onvariousaspectsoftheseprogrammes aregivenm
thefollowing sections .Toputtheprogramme inperspective ,however,
somebasicstatistics maybeofvalue.
Underthefiveprogrammes executed between1976and1980,atotalof
379*3MECUhasbeencommittedforspecificprojects <j>rprogrammes(representing 99%of"thebudgetary creditsavailable ).Thesefunds
wereallocatedto-atotalof150separateactions^,in24different
recipient countries .(plus15recipient organizations ).
Theaveragepercapitaincomeinthosecountries receiving aidunder
thisprogramme is$240,witharangefrom&90incaseofBangladesh ,
to&910inthecaseoftheDominican Republic (catastrophe reserveonly).
Thetotalpopulation oftheserecipient countries isof-theorderof
1250million,orapproximately 60%ofthetotalpopulation of.thedeveloping
world.,.Makingaverycrudecalculation ,thefundingprovided underthe
non-associates programme represents atotalpercapitacontribution of
0.3ECUovertheperiodI976-8O1 Thisisofcoursestillveryfarbelow
the8.3ECUpercapitamadeavailable totheACPgrouping asfinancial and
technical assistance underEDFIVoverthesameperiod.
./•
*'Theremaining 1%isaccounted forbythesmallamountcarriedforwardto
theI90Iprogramme .
2)ThesmalleractionsfinancedundertheTAprovision havenotbeencounted
separately here;instead,eachannualTAoradministrative costsprovision
hasbeencounted asoneaction.
3)Population andincomedatausedherehavebeentakenfromtheWorldBank's
AnnualReportfor1980,andgenerally represent estimatesfortheyear1978*

Ofthe 150separate actions financed ,under these programmes ,atotal
of70(representing 44$oftotal programme funding )have been
cofinanced with other donors .45projects (ll$offunding )have
been regional incharacter ,while 11projects (7$)have been funded
under thecatastrophe reserve .36actions ('J%offunding )have
taken theform ofproject preparation studies ortechnical assistant :*
(Naturally ,these various categories arenotexclusive ).
Theaverage size ofproject ,taking allfive programmes together ,has
been oftheorder of3.1MECUforinvestment projects ,and .0.7MECU
forstudies andtechnical assistance (notincluding thesmaller
studies financed under theTAprovision ).Crude averages ofthis
type arenaturally rather misleading ,however ,since they mask avery
wide range ofvariation .Studies have ranged from 100,000 to
800,000 ECU\while investment projects have ranged from 0.5MECU
(forawater supplies project intheMaldives )to18.0MECU (fora
rural credit project inIndia ).
Geographical allocation and major recipients
Asshown inthepreceding table ,74$ofavailable programme resources
hasbeen allocated toAsia over the1976-80 period .Latin America
accounted for20% ,andthenon-associated African countries for6c/0,
This general allocation isinkeeping with theindicative breakdown
proposed each year inthe annual guidelines ,
Afull list ofthevarious recipient countries andorganizations ,
showing thetotal funding allocated toeach between ij.976 andI98O ,
isattached asAnnex 1.Onemight note ,however ,that thebulk of
programme funding hasnaturally been allocated toarelatively small
group ofmajor recipients .Thefive largest recipients (India ,
Bangladesh ,Indonesia ,SriLanka andPakistan )accounted together for
54$oftotal programme funding ,while thetenlargest recipients (the
above countries plus Thailand ,Zimbabwe ,Honduras ,Haiti andBolivia )
accounted for73$oftotal funding .
The largest single recipient hasbeen India ,with total funding
(taking normal andpost-catastrophe projects together )of97*3 MECU ,
or25$oftotal programme funding .Other major recipients have been
Bangladesh (9$)»Indonesia (7$),SriLanka (6$),Pakistan (6$)and
Thailand (5$)«
The concentration offunding onthese larger recipients isofcourse
asimple reflection oftheir size andrelative need ,anddoes not
imply that smaller eligible recipients have been neglected .Atotal
of11countries each received between 5$and1$oftotal programme
funding ,while afurther 7countries each received between 1$and0.1$
oftotal funding .
l)Studies financed under theTAprovision have been even smaller ,
frequently oftheorder of30,000 to50,000 ECU .•/.

Turning toconsider theprogramme 'sbasic objective of
assisting thepoorest developing countries ,onemight note
that over theperiod from 197^"to19^0 ,atotal of1&foof
programme funds wasallocated tocountries with percapita
GNPbelow *>500 .Countries within theWorld Bank 1s"low-
income "group (percapita GNPbelow $360 )accounted forSyfo
oftotal funding ,while countries ontheUNlist ofleast -
developed oountries (LLDCs )accounted for16%oftotal
funding.' *-
' •
Ininterpreting these figures ,one should note first ofall that no
allowance hasbeen made forregional projects (accounting for afurther
11%oftotal programme funding ).Aconsiderable proportion ofthis ,
including such actions astheTAprogramme financed through theAsian
Development Bank andthesupport foragricultural research through the
CGIAR institutes ,wasalso particularly directed towards theproblems
ofthepoorest developing countries . •
AlsOj itshould benoted that theapparently lowshare oftotal funding
going totheLLDC group simply reflects thesmall aggregate size ofthis
group .With theexception ofBangladesh ,alltheeligible countries on
theLLDC list aresmall countries with arelatively lowabsorptive capacity .
Bangladesh alone infact accounted for55%oftotal non-associates funding
forthis group ,with Haiti ,Nepal andLaos astheother major recipients .
Finally ,though fitmust also benoted that while thenon-associates programme
isbasically directed towards thepoorest developing countries ,this isnot
itsonly objective .Theprogramme 'sRegulation also notes that attention
should begiven toensuring aCommunity presence inthemajor regions ofthe
developing world ,while aiming atareasonable geographical balance among
these regions .Inaddition ,theRegulation andthesuccessive annual guidelines
have also noted that attention should bepaid tothepromotion ofregional
cooperation .
Theclearest expression ofthese subsidiary objectives intheactual structure
oftheprogramme isofcourse the20%oftotal programme funding devoted to
theLatin American region ,along with thesignificant allocations tothe
countries ofASEAN andoftheAndean Pact (taking national andregional
projects together ,these twogroupings have accounted for14.8% and6.5% of
programme funding respectively ).
"''Countries intheLLDC group which areeligible fornon-associates
funding areAfghanistan ,Bangladesh ,Bhutan ,Haiti ,Laos ,the
Maldives ,Nepal ,North Yemen andSouth Yemen .TheWorld Bank s
low-income group includes theabove countries (with theexception
ofthetwoYemens )plusAngola ,Burma ,India ,Indonesia ,Kampuchea ,
Mozambique ,Pakistan ,SriLanka andVietnam .Thegroup ofcountn-
with percapita GNPbelow &500 includes allthose inthelow-income
group ,plusHonduras ,Thailand ,South Yemen andZimbabwe .
t

-8-
Thecountries ofthese regions arenotgenerally among thepoorest inthe
world .InLatin America ,only Haiti falls within theLLDC oreven low-income
groups ,while Honduras istheonly other eligible country with percapita
GNPbelow 2500 .Among theASEAN grouping ,only Indonesia comes within the
low-income group ,while Thailand andthePhilippines arerespectively just
below and just above the t>500threshhold .
While not among thepoorest ,these regions are ofconsiderable economic and
political significance totheCommunity ,and anyconsideration ofbalance
inthenon-associates programme -rust necessarily lead toasignificant minor
proportion offunding being emoted tothese areas .Itshould -also be
noted ,ofcourse ,t'.,at particular care istaken toensure that projects
financed inthese relatively more advanced countries are'directed toward
theneeds ofthepoorest groups intheir population .
(iii)Allocation bytype ofProject
Projects included inthenon-associates programme may "beof
several different types :national orregional incharacter ,
autonomous orcofinanced ,post-catastrophe ,studies andtechnical
assistance / 'Thefollowing table outlines theoverall breakdown
offunding among these principal categories over theperiod
1976-1980 .
Regional actions have accounted forroughly llfooftotal programme
funding over the197^-80 period .This category includes notonly
specific regional cooperation projects ,infavour ofgroupings such
asASEAN ortheAndean Pact ,"butalso various actions with a"broader
regional interest ,such astheCGIAR research institutes .
Theproportion offunding devoted toregional projects -hasfallen
quite significantly since 1978 ,butislikely torise again inthe
next fewyears ,asearlier project-preparation work in|hisfield
(particularly infavour ofASEAN )"begins tobear fruit .Generally ,
however ,itismore difficult toidentify valuable regional projects
than itisfornational projects ,particularly since many developing
countries areunderstandably more concerned with thepressing needs
visible intheir national economies than they arewith thepotential
benefits that might beoffered byregional cooperation .
Post-catastrophe projects ,involving long-term reconstruction or
prevention activities notgenerally covered bynormal emergency
aid,have accounted for9%oftotal programme funding since 1978
(when suchprojects were first introduced ). Thisfigure isin
keeping with theproportions suggested intheCommission 's
annual guidelines .Naturally ,however ,theshare offunding
devoted tosuchprojects inanyoneyearmayvaryconsiderably ,
depending ontheneeds arising inthatyear andonthepossibility
ofidentifying valuable actions relating tothese needs .

1976·1977 1978 1979 1980 Total
Numberofprojects 8 23 35 39 45 I50
Totalprogramme
funding(HECU) 20.0 45.0 63.1 105.9 145.3 379.3
Regional projects
Number 2 7 16 11 9 45
Shareoffunding (fo)17.5 21.3 17.0 7.7 6.3 10.9
Catastrophe projects
Number – - 1 5 5 11
Shareoffunding(5S) - - 3.2 10.5 9.ó 7.1
Cofinaneedprojects-
Number 4 14 15 16 21 70
Shareoffunding (fo)45.0 53.8 52.I 38.3 40.3 43.6
Studies andgeneral TA
Number 1 4 14' 98 36
Shareoffvinding(fo)7.5 5.1 8.7 6.3 7.0 6.9
Note:Onlycertainspecificcategories ofprojecthavebeendistinguished ,inthis
table.Thestudiesandgeneral TAcategoryincludesill#specialprovisions
forTAandforadministrative costs,butexcludes TAdirected towardsthe
implementation ofspecificprojects .

-10-
Thetworemaining typesofprojectdistinguished intheabove
table,cofinanced projects andstudies,arediscussed inmore
* detailinalaterpartofthisreport.Insummary,however ,
cofinanced projects accounted for44%oftotalprogramme funding
overtheperiodasawhole.Thisfigurehasvariedtosome
extentfromyeartoyear,depending ontheprojects "becoming
available ,butingeneraltermsitisclearthatasubstantial
partofthewholeprogramme hasbeendevotedtoprojects cofinanced
withotherdonors.
Studiesandgeneraltechnical assistance ,finally,accounted for-7£*-©f
totalprogramme funding.Thisfigureisrelatively small,seenin
itself,buttheseactionsareinfactofcrucialimportance forthe
programme as*awhole,giventheirroleinhelpingtocircumvent the
bottlenecks arisinginmanydeveloping countries inrelation tothe
preparation andimplementation ofeffective projects .
(iv)Sectoral breakdown
Thefollowing tableshowsthegeneralbreakdown ofpastnon-associates
fundingamongthemaineconomicsectors.(Theclassification used
herehasbeenslightly modified incomparison withearlierreports ,in
ordertobemoreinlinewiththeoverallbreakdown usedbytheOECD).
Amoredetailed breakdown ,showingthemainsub-sectors ,isgivenin
Annex2.
197ó1977 1978 19??1980 Total
1976-80
Totalprogramme
funding (MECU) 20.0 45.0 63.1 105.9 145.3 379.3
ofwhich .,·? lo1* % °¡o lo lo
Agricultural production 90.0 82.4 79.0 65.3 72.9 73.8
Agricultural services 10.0 17.1 12.4 24.0 9.ó15.0
Utilities - - 3.5 3.0 4.7 3.2
Socialdevelopment - -3.8 5.3 10.9 6.3
Industry - -0.3 - - 0.1
Administrative andTAprovisions -0.4 1.0 2.4 1.9 1.6
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
ivote:Largerstudieshavebeenallocated totheappropriate sector.

Inkeepingwiththepolicyobjectives setoutintheRegulation ,the
programme'semphasis hasbeenoverwhelmingly ontheruralsector,and
onfoodproduction inparticular .Overthefiveprogrammes reviewed
here,agricultural production andservices together accounted for88.8$oftotalprogramme funding.Theutilities andsocialdevelopment
sectors(alsocoveringessentially ruralactivities )accountedfora
further9*5$oftotalfunding.Theindustrial sector,ontheother
hand(onlycoveredinthecaseofregionalprojects),hasaccounted for
only0.1$«oftotalfunding.Theremaining 1.6$ofprogramme funding
wasaccounted for "bythespecialprovisions foradministrative costs
andsmall-scale TAandstudies „
Withintheagricultural sector,production-relaxed activities
accounted for73<-8$oftotalfunding,withservice-related
activities (credit,research ,extension andtraining ,etc.)
accounting for15»0$.Theprincipal sub-sectors weregeneral
agricultural production (18„1$oftotalfunding),irrigation
(16.2%),integrated areadevelopment (11.5$),andcropandinput
storage (10.1$).Livestock ,fisheries andforestry accounted
for8.0$,andprocessing andmarketingactivities for5°4%-On
theservices side,thetwomostimportant sub-sectors wererural
cred.it(6*4$)»agricultural andfoodresearch (6.0$)»
Otherimportant sub-sectors wereemergencyfacilities (suchas
cycloneandfloodsheltersfinancedunderthecatastrophe reserve),
with4.2$oftotalfunding,watersupplies andsanitation (2.5$)?
andhealth,education andhousing (2.1$)s
Thebalance amongthesedifferent sectorsandsub-sectors naturally
variessomewhat fromyeartoyear,depending ontheindividual
projectsthatbecomeavailable® Butwiththeexception ofthefirsttwoannualprogrammes (whenthetotalamountsinvolved were
toosmalltoshowanyclearpattern),therehasinfactbeen
relatively littlechangeintheoverallbalance.Themainsectors
ofactivity haveremained broadlythesame,andtheemphais onfood
production ,inthepoorestdeveloping countries ,hasremained the
centralelementoftheprogramme .

-12-
II.e .1981 programme (preliminary remarks )
The1981 non-associates programme iscurrently being formulated ,and it
would bepremature atthis stage tocomment indetail onthecharacter and
coverage oftheprogramme .Some general indications canalready begiven ,
however ,and the final programme will bepresented infull inthenext
Implementation Report .
Thetotal funding available forcommitment under the1981 programme amounts
to154.2 MECU,representing 150.0 MECUvoted asnew credits under the 1981
budget ,and4.2 MECUbrought forward from the1980 programme .
Theguidelines forthe1981 programme were formulated bytheCommission in
September 1980 andapproved bytheDevelopment Council ofNovember 1980 .These
guidelines reconfirmed thebasic policy objectives followed inprevious years ,
while setting thegeographical allocation offunding at73%forAsia ,20%for
Latin America ,and7%forAfrica (asunder the1980 programme ).Thereserve
forpost-catastrophe projects wassetatbetween 5%and10%,while theprovisions
foradministrative costs andsmall-scale studies andtechnical assistance were
set atindicative levels of2%and 1%respectively .
\Following theapproval ofthenon-associates Regulation inFebruary 198l »
individual projects arenowexamined bytheFinancing Committee setup
under this Regulation before they areproposed fordecision bythe
Commission .This Committee has infact already met ontwo occasions
(inJune andJuly ),andtwobatches ofprojects have subsequently been
approved bytheCommission .
Atotal of20.55 MECU (representing 13%oftotal programme funding )
hasalready been committed inthis fashion ,spread over 1|hefollowing
five projects »
-ASEAN i Scientific andtechnological cooperation programme
C2.8MECU)
-Nicaragua : ENABAS training assistance
(0.85 MECU)
-Pakistan : Drinking water programme .NWFP
(2.7MECU)
-Pakistan i Karachi fishing port
(12.0MECU)
-Thailand t Seed centre .Southern region
(2.2MECU)
FUrther batches ofprojects arecurrently atanadvanced stage of
processing ,and itisforeseen that thegreat bulk ofprogramme resources
(atleast 75$)will becommitted before theendofthis year.'
Necessarily ,however ,asmall number ofprojects requiring more detailed
examination will only befinalized during theearly part of1982 .As
noted earlier ,afull list ofprojects financed under the1981 programme
will bepresented with the 5"th Implements-tion Report .
%

-13-
III.PROGRAMME IMPLMENTATION
III.a.General
Inassessing theimplementation ofthenon-associates programme ,
thereareanumberofgeneralpointswhichshouldbebornein
mind.Thesehavebeenraisedinprevious reports,buttheyare
ofsuchcentralimportance (aswellasstillbeingmisunderstood ,
onoccasion),thattheydeservetoberepeatedhere.
First,itmustbestressed thattheabsorptive capacity ofmany
developing countries isseriously limited.Shortages oftrainedstaff(particularly atthelowerandintermediate levels),unwieldy
administrative structures ,andbottlenecks andshortages inimportant
economic sectorsgiverisetoseriousconstraints inthepreparation
andimplementation ofdevelopment actions,andmakeitveiydifficult
forsomecountries toeffectively absorbtheaidfundsavailable to
them.Thisproblemisofcourseparticularly seriousforthepoorest
ofthedeveloping countries .
Inthesecircumstances ,anydonoragencymustbeprepared todevote
substantial timeandefforttoadvising andassisting therecipient
authorities withthepreparation ofsounddevelopment projects .Only
bypreparing apipeline ofsuchprojects ,tobeconsidered for
financing asandwhenanindividual projectbecomesreadyfor
implementation ,canaregular andeffective flowofdevelopment
assistance beensured .
Farther,donorsmustbeprepared togivesubstantial assistance to
recipient authorities withthetechnical aspectsofproject
implementation ,andmoregenerally tosupervise andcontrolthe
wholeprocessofimplementation withgreatcare.(itshouldbe
noted,however,thatthefinalresponsibility forimplementation
necessarily remainswiththerecipient ).
Thedegreeofsupport andsupervision requirednaturally varies
considerably fromprojecttoproject andcountrytocountry.But
inmanyofthepoorestcountries ,theclosestattention tothese
pointsisrequiredifoneistobereasonably certainthataproject
isbeingeffectively implemented ,thatprocedural andotherdelays
arekepttoaminimum,andthatanychangesrequired tocopewith
unforeseen circumstances aremadepromptly andeffectively .
Sincethenon-associates programme beganin1976»theCommission has
madesubstantial andincreasing effortstodealwiththeseproblems .
Ontheonehand,asignificant proportion oftotalfundinghasbeen
devotedtostudies andtechnical assistance relating toproject
preparation .Theseessential activities havebeencarriedoutboth
throughsmall-scale studiesandtechnical assistance aimedatthe
initialformulation andverification ofprojectideas,andthrough
thelargerandmoredetailedstudiesrequiredforfinalfeasibility
anddesignwork.
./•

-M-
Ontheotherhand,considerable attention hasalsobeenpaidtothe
problems ofprojectsupervision andcontrol.Asidefromthework
carriedout"byCommission staff "basedinBrussels ,increasing use
hasbeenmadeofregular,short-term supervision andadvisory
missions byoutsideexperts.Also,development advisers havebeen
established intwooftheregional delegations oftheCommission
(BangkokandCaracas);theseofficials areresponsible forreviewing
projectimplementation intheirregions.
TheCommission redognizes ,however ,thatthisworkshouldbefurther
strengthened ,particularly intermsofassistance totherecipient
authorities responsible forprojectimplementation ,andthesupervision
andcontroloftheseprojects .Forsomerecipient countries atleast,
itis61earthatthepermanent presence ofadonorrepresentative is
necessaryifaidprogrammes aretobeexecuted withoutseriousdifficulties anddelays^.
Anothermatterworthemphasizing againisthebasicpointthatthe
implementation ofruraldevelopment projects ,inthepoorestdeveloping
countries ,isnecessarily ,alengthyprocess.Ashasbeennotedin
previousreports,atypicalmedium-sized agricultural development
projectmayrequireuptotwoyearsofpreparatory work(fromtheinitial
projectidea,throughfeasibility ,appraisal anddetailed designtothe
pointwhereitisreadyforfunding),followedbyfiveormoreyearsin
theimplementation phase(including inmanycasesaninitialperiodof
perhapsoneyearforthepreparation oftendersandawardofcontracts ,
duringwhichlittlevisibleprogresswillbemade).
Atime-schedule ofthisorderiswhollynormalforruraldevelopment
programmes ,anditshouldnotbethoughtthatsuchaprogramme is
ineffective orslowsimplybecauseindividual projectstakemorethan
oneyeartoimplement .Regrettably ,suchamisunderstanding ofthe
natureofruraldevelopment cooperation isstillseenfromtimeto
time.
<
Finally,itmightbeusefultoconsiderthecriteria bywhichthe
effectiveness ofanaidprogramme canbejudged.Here,effectiveness
mustnecessarily beconsidered inseveraldimensions ;threeaspects
whichareparticularly important arewhetheraidfundsarespentquickly
(particularly importantintimesofrapidinflation),whethertheyare
spentproperly (i.e.,inlinewiththetechnical andadministrative
provisions ofaproject)andwhethertheyarespentwell(intermsof
achieving theeconomic andsocialbenefits expected whentheproject
wasfirstformulated ).
Thelastofthesequestions iscertainly themostimportant ;rapid
disbursement andcorrectimplementation countforlittleiftheproject
wasbadlyconceived orifforsomeotherreasonitdoesnotbenefitthe
•A
l)Thispointhasbeenbroughtoutclearlyinseveralrecentreports,most
notablytheI98OreportoftheCourtofAuditoftheEuropean Communities .

-15-
peopleforwhomitwasintended .However,thisparticular question
canonlybeproperly answered sometimeafteraprojecthasbeen
completed ,whenitscomprehensive impactcanbeseenandits
effectiveness fullyevaluated .
Havingcommenced onlyin1976,thenon-associates programmeisstill
tooyoungtopermitanysignificant post-evaluation ofcompleted
projects .Thiswillcertainly "becommenced assoonasispractically
possible ,usingtheservices oftheCommission department setupfor
thispurpose.Forthemoment,however,thisisnotfeasible ,andthe
presentreportmusttherefore concentrate onthefirsttwoaspects
mentioned above.
Ill.b.Rateofprogramme implementation
III.b.1.Commitment
Theimplementation ofindividual projects canonlycommenceaftera
formalcommitment decisionistakenbytheCommission ,andafinancing
agreement signedwiththerecipient .Asnotedearlier,theCommunity's
financial regulations permitcommitments underaparticular annual
budgettobemadeeitherintheyearofthebudgetorintheyear
following ;thisgivesthedegreeofflexibility necessary toallowfortheproperpreparation andappraisal ofprojects^.Therateof
commitments underthefirstfivenon-associates programmes (alongwithinitialcommitments undertheI98Iprogramme )isshowninthefollowing
table.
Non-associates commitments ,1976-1981
YearBudget
credits
(MECU)Commitments
(allprogrammes )
(MECU)Commitment rates
(cumulative 'foofrelevant
budget)
Budgetyear
July DecFollowing year
July Dec
1976 20.0 20.0 _100
1977 45.0 '45.0 -100
1978 70.0 63.I -9090 100
1979 110.0 86.9 17381 100
I98O138.5 I33.9 87593
I98I 150.0 45.95 14
NotetThecommitment ratesshownheremaydifferveryslightly fromthose
giveninpreviousreports,sincetheCommission decision (ratherthan
theaccounting inscription )hasbeentakenasthedateoffinal
commitment ,inordertoreflectmoreaccurately therealnatureof
thecommitment process .
l)Underthe1976and1977programmes ,commitment creditswerenotdissociated
andfundshadtobecommitted withintherelevant budgetyear.Thiswas
notverypractical ,however,andthesystemwaschangedfrom1978withthe
movetodissociated credits .

Asshownintheabovetable,atotalof394.85 MECUhasbeen
committed toindividual development projects duringtheperiod
upto31July1981,representing approximately 74cJooftotalcredits madeavailable since1976.Theapparent gap
betweencredits andcommitments willbelargelyclosedduringthe
secondhalfof1931,asthebulkofI98Ibudgetary creditsare
committed .
Onepointwhichmightbenotedhereisthatatnotimehaveany
creditsbeenlostthroughcancellation .Theavailable budgetarycreditshavealwaysbeencommitted withintheperiodallowed (one
yearfor1976and1977»twoyearsfrom1978on).Forthe1980
programme ,asmallamount'offundingremainstobecommitted ,for
twoprojects whicharestillbeingfinalized ,butthesefundswill
certainly becommitted beforetheendof1981.
ITmightalsobenotedthatsince1979»911increasing proportion of
fundshavebeencommitted duringthefirstsixmonthsofthebudget
year(l%in1979»14$in1981).Thistrendwillcertainly continue ,
giventhatthenewcommittee procedure allowsproject-processing to
bespreadmoreevenlyovertheyear.Itwillnecessarily takesome
time,however,beforethesepossibilities canbeexploited tothefull,
sincethiswillrequireagradualacceleration andexpansion ofthe
projectpipeline .
Disbursements
Asnotedearlier,therateofdisbursement isbynomeanstheonly
indicator ofaideffectiveness ,butitdoeshavetheadvantage of
beingeasilymeasured .Itisofcourseofconsiderable significance
initsownright,since,otherthingsbeingequal,itisevidentthat
fasterspendingwillquickentheimpactofaidfundingandensure
thatitsrealvalueisnoterodedbyinflation .
Thefollowing tableshowsthetotaldisbursements madetodateunder
the1976-80programmes .(Sincethefirstprojectsunderthe1981
programme weredecidedupononlyinJulyofthisyear,therehasnaturally
beennodisbursement underthisprogramme asyet).

-17-
Totalfundsdisbursed ,asof31.7.81 (MECU)
Programme Punds
committedRindsdisbursed ,Proportion
disbursed
lo1976197719781979198019811Total^
1970 20.0 6.13.34.31.31.316.2 81.1
1977 45.O - -5.06.911.82.726.3 58.5
1978 63.1 – - -9.07.86.923.7 37.5
I979 IO5.9 - - -0.2I8.920.839.9 37.7
I98O I45.3 - - - -1.210.8 12.1 8.3
Total2379.3 .-6.18.320.441.042.5118.2 31.2
.,_.i 1 _i
|1)Firstsevenmonthsonly.
i?)Annualfigures maynotaddtototalsduetorounding.
i BytheendofJuly1981,totaldisbursements underthe197"–1980
. non-associates programmes amountedto118.2MECU,orjustover30$
ofthetotalfunding committed undertheseprogrammes .Theproportion
ofprogramme fundingdisbursed variedfrom81$forthe1976programme ,
alreadyinoperationforsomeip-fZyears,tofortheI98Oprogramme .
Asonemightexpect,thelevelofdisbursement hasinfactincreased
steadily overrecentyears,reflecting theincreasing maturity ofthe
programme andthegrowing numberofprojects comingfullyon-stream .
Atotalof34.8MECUwasdisbursed between 1976and1979»while
41.0MECUwasspentin1980alone,andafurther42.5MECUinthefirsthalfofI98I.
Theratesofdisbursement aremoreclearly showninthenexttable,
j_' whichindicates thecumulative proportion ofeachprogramme'sfunding
; disbursed insuccessive 12–monthlyperiods(beginning 6monthsafter
f theendoftherelevantbudgetyear).
I
I Cumulative disbursement rates,to31',7*81
Programme _ Funds
committed ■->
6Percentage disbursed
(monthsafterendofrelevantbudgetyear)
18 30 ;42: 54
;1976 20.0 -·;: – 31.5 .'64.9ï:'.J1'? 81.1
1977 45.0 2.4 23.5 49.5.58.5
1978 63.1 3.9 25.O 37.5
1979 IO5.9 4.5 37.7
I98O I45.3 8.3

_18-
Theview given "bythis table isnaturally asimplified one ,since no
account istaken ofthefact that different projects maybecommitted
atdifferent times during thebudget year or(since 1978 )theyear
following .Also ,itshould beremembered that onelarge payment
foramajor project cansignificantly influence therate shown for
anyoneperiod .
Making dueallowance forthese factors ,however ,the figures give
aclear picture ofthetypical pattern ofspending under any
programme ofthis type .During thefirst year orso,disbursements
arenecessarily very small ,given thetime required foraproject to
beestablished ,forconsultant recruitment andfortheissuing of
tenders andaward ofcontracts .Over thenext twoorthree years ,
disbursements tend tori3e quite quickly ,asmore andmore projects
come fully onstream .After four orfive years ,however ,therate
ofdisbursement tends tofall offagain ,given that faster-spending
projects have already been completed ,andthat theremaining projects
arenearing the endoftheir implementation period .
Inline with this pattern ,the 197° programme showed zero
disbursement during thefirst 6months ,but32$after 18months
and65$after 30months .Thereafter therate hasfallen offs'lightly ,
reaching 72$after 42months and81$after 54months .
The 1977 programme has shown aslightly slower overall rate of
disbursement ,reaching 59$after 42months (compared tothe72$
recorded forthe197^programme atthesame period ).However ,
this isstill broadly inline with the overall rate ofdisbursement
tobeexpected with projects having anormal average life of
5years orso.The1978 programme isagain slightly slower ,with
38$after 30months .
With the1979 •programme ,however ,amarked acceleration indisbursement
canbeseSir ,with 38$ofprogramme funding spent after only 18months .
TheI98O programme continues this rising trend ,%with 8$disbursed after
only 6months .This acceleration should notbeover-emphasized ,since to
some extent itsimply reflects therapid disbursement achieved with oneparti­
cular project (theIndian fertilizer programme ,first funded in1979 ).
However ,itisapparent that theacceleration incommitment rates
referred toearlier ,along with anincreasing attention being given to
disbursement planning inthe selection andpreparation ofprojects ,is
beginning tobear fruit .
PVirther evidence ofthis canbeseen inthefigures forthefirst
6months ofprogramme implementation .Theproportion oftotal
programme funding spent during this period hasrisen from 2.4$ under
the1977 programme ,to4*5$ for1979 8.3$ forI98O .Itmight
also bementioned that this final figure would have been even higher
(11$)haditnotbeen fortherecent problem with payment credits ,
discussed inthefollowing section ofthis report .

-19-
Individual programmes andprojects "arecommented oninmore detail later
inthis report .Itshould bestressed ,however ,that theoverall
disbursement rates cited here are general yvery creditable ,given the
basic orientation ofthenon-associates programme ,itsstress onslow-
spending rural development projects ,anditsconcentration onthe
poorest developing countries .Also ,these rates arecertainly no
slower than those generally achieved byother major donors operating
inthe same field .
III.b.3 Payment credits
One specific problem which has arisen recently inconnection with
disbursements under thenon-associates programme requires special
mention .Following amajor cut-back inthevolume ofpayment
credits made available forthis programme in1981 ,theCommission
has ,since May ofthis year ,been unable tomeet requests for
payment arising under any ofthevarious projects financed under
this programme since 1976 *
Asnoted earlier inthis report ,commitment andpayment credits for
thenon-associates programme are voted separately each year .The
amount made available ascommitment credits determines the volume
ofnew projects which canbedecided upon inthat year ,while the
amount provided aspayment credits determines howmuch canactually
bedisbursed inthat year forallongoing projects from 197^on.
ForI98I ,theCommission hadproposed 200.0 MECUinqommitment
credits ,and65.0MECUinpayment credits .However ,!thebudgetary
authorities oftheCommunity reduced these figures to150.0 MECU
and23.0MECUrespectively ,giving a25$cutincommitment credits ,
anda65$cutinpayment credits .
The reduction incommitment funding will necessarily befelt in
future years ,with areduced volume ofprojects tobefinanced under
theI98I programme .Theimpact ofthereduction inpayment credits
washowever much more immediate andmore concrete .ByMecyof1981
alltheavailable payment credits hadbeen exhausted (including both
theI98I credits andasmaller amount remaining available under the
1980 budget ),andnofurther payments could beauthorized .By
31July ,payments outstanding hadrisen to10.4 MECU ,andthis
figure hasofcourse been rising steadily since then -*-.
During themonth ofJuly ,theCommission was infact able tomake
asmall ,temporaiy ,transfer from another budget article ,providing
anadditional 1.4MECUtomeet some ofthemost urgent bills (without
this ,thefigure foroutstanding payments would have been correspond­
ingly higher ).However ,thescale oftheproblem wassuch that no
internal transfer could possibly provide more than avery small and
partial solution ,and ithasbeen necessary fortheCommission to
include amuch more substantial proposal foradditional non–associates
payments credits inthesupplementary budget which wasapproved by
thebudgetary authorities during September .
l)Haditbeen possible tomake payment onthese outstanding bills
asthey became due ,thedisbursement rates noted earlier would
ofcourse have been somewhat higher .Disbursements under the
1976 programme by31July would have risen to84»1$ oftotal
programme funding ,while thefigure forthe1977 programme would
have been 60.3$ »for1978 42.0$ ,for1979 40.0$ ,andforI98O
11.0$ .

-20-
Thesenewfundsbecameavailable "towardstheendof
September ,andtheCommission tookgreatpainstoensurethatalloutstanding billswerepaidasrapidlyaspossible there­
after.However,theproblemsarisingoutofthisenforced
delayinpayments havebeenextremely serious,
Thepreparation oftheprojectpipelineforfutureprogrammes has
beensetback,sinceithasbeenimpossible torecruitoutside
expertise fortheshort-term identification andappraisal missions
whicharenecessary here.Thecommencement ofnewly-approved
projects hasalsobeendelayed ,duetotheimpossibility of
signingcontracts or,insomecases,ofproviding thenecessary
advancepayments toenablelocalworktobestarted.Finally ,the
reimbursement of.recipient governments andcontractors forworkor
services alreadycarriedouthashadtobestopped.
Fortunately ,theproblemisofatemporary nature,andshouldhave
beenresolved bythetimethisreportispublished .However ,the
problems whichhavearisenhereservetounderline theimportance
ofmakingrealistic estimates ofthevolumeoffundingrequired for
paymentinanyoneyear,andofaccepting theseestimates interms
ofmakingsufficient budgetary creditsavailable tomeettheforeseen
requirements . (
Itmustnotbeforgotten thatpaymentflowsunderanaidprogramme of
thistypearenotcapableofmodification inlinewitjitheprevailing
budgetary constraints oftheCommunity .Rather,thevolumeof
paymentsarisinginanyoneyearisareflection oft|iecommitments
undertaken inprevious years,andrepresents alegalpbligation
arisingoutofthesecommitments .Itishardlyinkeepingwiththe
statureoftheCommunity thatitcannotmakeavailable ,whenrequired ,
thefundingnecessary tomeettheselegalobligations .

-21-
III.c .Progress with individual programmes andprojects (1976-80 )
Given the large number ofprojects financed under past non-associates
programmes ,itisnolonger practical ,inageneral report ofthis kind ,
toexamine theprogress ofindividual projects inanydetailed fashion .
Rather ,onecanatbest single outcertain projects which have shown
particular problems (orsuccesses ),andtrytodraw from this spme more
general indication ofthetypical difficulties encountered in
implementing anaidprogramme ofthis type .Thefollowing comments
deal inturn with theindividual annual programmes ,andtheprincipal
conclusions are summarised inthe final section .
III.c.1.1976 programm e
Funds committed under this programme totalled 20.0 MECU ,ofwhich
16.2 MECU ,or81% ,hadbeen disbursed byJuly I98I .
Ofthe8projects included inthis programme ,3have already been
completed ,while 4others arevery nearly complete .Intwocases ,
substantial savings have infact been made ,andconsideration isnow
being given tohow these funds canbest beused within the framework
ofthe projects concerned .
y
Theremaining project (Pakistan ,Khaipur tile drainage )isnowprogressing
satisfactorily after some delays intheearliest years ofproject
implementation ,and65$oftheproject grant hasnow t?een disbursed .
III .c.2.1977 programme
Total commitments under this programme amounted to45«0MECU .
Disbursements ,asof31July 1981 ,amounted to26.3 MECU ,or59$
ofprogramme funding .
Atotal of23projects were financed under this programme ,ofwhich
tenhave been effectively completed .Two other projects show
disbursements between 6(jfoand80/&,while fortheeleven remaining
projects disbursements areless than 5 (including tvroprojects for
which nodisbursements have yetbeen made ).
Most ofthese projects are infact now running fairly smoothly ,after
various delays inthe start-up phase .The delays which have arisen
have generally been inconnection with the preparation offinal design
specifications ,orthe recruitment ofconsultants .These problems
have been particularly significant inthe case oftheMuhuri irrigation
project inBangladesh (cofinanced with IBRD ),theSESulawesi project
inIndonesia ,andtheaquaculture projects inBurma andThailand (all
three cofinanced with AD©).
The two projects forwhich nofunds have yetbeen spent areboth
cofinanced with theIntern-American Development Bank (IDB)safisheries
project inHonduras ,andaregional grain storage project with BCIE
(Banco -Centro-Americano porlaIntegracion Economica ).Inboth
these cases ,delays have arisen mainly inrelation totheestablishment
ofdetailed workplans andimplementation arrangements between theBank
andtherecipients ,aswell asinthepreparation oftenders .
Finally ,itmight benoted that theimplementation ofoneproject
(Afghanistan ,grain andfertiliser storage )hasbeen suspended by
theADB asaresult oftheconditions currently prevailing inthat
country .

-22-
III.c.3.1978programme
Totalprogramme fundingfor197°amountedto63.1MECU,ofwhich
23,7MECU(38%)hasnowbeendisbursed .
Ofthe35projects financed underthisprogramme ,15havenowbeen
completed orareclosetocompletion (withdisbursement ratesover
90$). Thisincludes 3projectpreparation studieswhichhavegivenrisetoprojectsforsubsequent programmes -1-.
Afurthertenprojects showdisbursement ratesof40$orover,which
canbeconsidered asnormalforprojects atthisstageofimplementation .
Theremaining tenprojects showdisbursements oflessthan40$,
including fourprojectsforwhichnofundshaveyetbeenspent.Here,
themainproblems haveagainoccurred duringthestart-up phaseof
theseprojects ,andinmostcasesprojectimplementation isnow
progressing satisfactorily aftertheseinitialproblems havebeen
resolved .
Thus,anumberofprojects hadbeendelayedduetodifficulties with
consultant recruitment ,including theMuhaweli Gangaintegrated area
development projectinSriLanka(implemented incooperation withFAO),
thetea-estates rehabilitation projectinBangladesh (cofinanced with
UK),thesecondgranttotheSESulawesiprojectinIndonesia (ADB),
andatimberstudywithASEAN.Threeotherprojects (allcofinanced
withIDB)haveseenseriousdelaysinthefinalization ofimplementation
arrangements betweentheBankandtherecipient (Honduras ,agricultural
research andextensions Haiti,ruralwatersupplies ;CFAD,regionalruralcreditprogramme ).
IIIaC.il.1979programme
Totalcommitments underthisprogramme amounted to105»9MECU,of
which39»9MECU,or38$ofprogramme funding)hadbeendisbursed by
July1981.
* Atotalof39projects wereincludedinthisprogramme ,andeightof
thesehavenowbeencompleted ,including onepreparatoiy studyfora
projectsubsequently cofinanced withBelgiumundertheI98Oprogramme
(Thailand ,HuaiMongpumpirrigation ).
Thefigureforcompleted projects alsoincludes thefertilizer
programme forIndia,whichwithatotalgrantof25.0MECUhas
obviously hadamajorinfluence ontheaveragedisbursement rate
fortheprogramme asawhole.
l)Thailand ,cropdiversification ,fundedunderthe1979programme ;
Indonesia ,Baturaden livestock ^I98O;ASEANpost-harvest programme
nowunderconsideration fortheI98Iprogramme).

This particular project (since repeated under theI98O programme
andnowbeing considered again for1981 )deserves special mention
asonevery successful type ofproject funding .Under the
arrangement used here ,theCommunity grant isused topurchase
fertilizers for import into India *the local funds generated by
thedomestic sale ofthis fertilizer are subsequently used for
financing specific rural-development projects selected bythe Indian
authorities incollaboration with the Commission .The implementation
ofthese projects iscarried outbythe Indian authorities ,but with
appropriate review bytheCommission .
This procedure allows theinitial grant tobespent rapidly (main­
taining itsfull value asfarastherecipient isconcerned ),while
still allowing thefunds tobedirected ,intheir final use ,towards
rural development projects inthe poorest provinces ofIndia .It
must bestressed ,however ,that anarrangement ofthis type canonly
beeffective incertain specific circumstances ,andcould noteasily
beextended tonany other developing countries .
Oftheremaining projects ,15show disbursement rates inexcess of
20fotwhich canbeconsidered asnormal forprojects atthis stage of
implementation .Afurther 15projects show rates below 20$ ,
including 10forwhich nodisbursements have yetbeen made . .
Inmany cases ,these projects have only recently commenced orare
just onthepoint ofcommencement ,anddisbursements arelikely to
grow quite rapidly over thenext twelve months .Again ,however ,
delays have often been encountered during the early stages of
project implementation ,andinsome cases tljese have been fairly
serious .
Where delays have arisen ,theprincipal bottleneck hastended tobe
inthepreparation andapproval offinal design specifications and
work plans .Projects inthis category include twoemergency shelter
projects inIndia ,arural water supplies project inHonduras ,and
theChambo irrigation project inEcuador (allfinanced autonomously ),
aswell asapalm-oil project inBurma (JJDB),feeder-roads inHaiti
(IDB),andaseed–centre project inLaos (incooperation with the *
Mekong Committee ).Inother cases ,delays have arisen inrelation
totherecuitment ofconsultants (Bangladesh ,grain storage andASEAN ,
aquaculture ),orfrom theslow finalization ofadministrative arrange­
ments bytherecipient (Thailand ,rubber development andBCIE ,TA
programme ).
Finally ,theimplementation oftwoprojects inBolivia (agricultural
census andCochabajriba irrigation )hasbeen suspended bytheCommission
inthe light ofcurrent conditions there .Thesecond ofthese projects
iscofinanced with Germany ,whohasalso suspended heractivities .

t-24-
III .c.5.1980 programme .
Total commitments under this programme amount to145*3 MECU ,of
which 12.1 MECU ,or8.3$ ,hadbeen disbursed byJuly 1981 .
Naturally ,theprogramme isstill intheearliest stages ofimpler -
mentation ,andmost projects are still inthestart-up phase ,
having notyet given rise toanyrequests for payment .
However ,anumber ofprojects have already shown substantial
progress ,most notably amajor irrigation project inSriLanka
(50^0disbursement ),arur-' 1infrastructure project inZimbabwe
(68f0disbursement ),and a.livestock project inNepal (23%
disbursement ;cofinanced with ADB).
Several ofthe agricultural research projects financed through
CGIAR have also given rise tosignificant disbursements (though
this isonly tobeexpected given thenature ofthese projects )..
Oneofthese ,thegrant toCIAT (Centro Internacional deAgricultura
Tropical ),would infact have been fully disbursed iffunding had
been available tomake payment when requested .
III.c.6 .Summary remarks
Ashasalready been noted elsewhere inthis report ,theoverall
disbursement rates achieved under thenon-associates programme
arevery creditable ,given the slow-spending character ofthe
rural-development projects onwhich theprogramme isconcentrated .
However ,themore detailed comments made above make itclear that
where problems doarise ,this isvery frequently inconnection with
the earliest stages ofproject implementation .Inalmost all the
cases cited above ,theproblems which have arisen arethose relating
tothestart-up phase ,andareconnected with such tasks asthe
preparation offinal .designs andwork-plans ,theissuing oftenders '
andaward ofcontracts ,therecruitment andinstallation of
consultants ,ortheelaboration ofdetailed administrative arrange­
ments bytherecipient .Insome cases ,problems have also arisen
inconnection with thetimely availability ofcounterpart funding to
beprovided bytherecipient ,orinthenegotiation ofcofinancing .
arrangements ,but these have been less frequent .
This isnottosaythat problems donotalso arise atlater stages of
implementation .This does ofcourse happen ,andinsome cases these
problems ,connected with unforeseen technical orpolitical factors ,
are infact rather more serious for the eventual outcome ofthe
project .Such cases have been rare ,however ,andgenerally the
process ofimplementation tends torunfairly smoothly once thestart­
upphase hasbeen completed .
/

-25-
I
Thisgeneralobservation servestoemphasize thecentralimportance
ofclosedonorinvolvement andsupervision ,particularly duringthe
earlystagesofimplementation .Itisinfactduringtheseearly
stagesthatthebulkofthedonoragency'sworkisconcentrated ;
theregularsupervision requiredthereafter isnolessimportant ,
buttendstobemoreroutineandlesstime-consuming .
ι
Thisproblem,anditsimplications fortheCommission ,hasinfact
beenspecifically notedinarecentreportbytheAuditCourtof
theEuropeanCommunities -'-.ReferringtotwoprojectsinBangladesh
financedunderthenon-associates programme (1978tea-estate
rehabilitation arid1979emergency grainstorage),thereportnoted
thatbothoftheseprojects mighthavecommenced muchearlierifthe
Commission hadhadapermanent fieldrepresentative ,ableto
coordinate withtherecipient authorities duringthestart-up phase.
Generally ,
however,itisapparentthattheCommission mustbeabletogive
muchcloserattention totheearlystagesofprojectimplementation
thanhashitherto beenpossible .Thiscanonlytakeplaceifthe
staffresources available totheCommission (bothinBrussels and
inthefield)areappropriately strengthened .
l).AnnualReportforI98O.

*>26~
IV.SPECIAL TOPICS
IV.a.COFIHANCING
(i)General
Article 4ofthenon–associates Regulation indicates that a"substantial
share "ofaid granted under this programme should hedevoted toprojects
cofinanced with Member-States orwith multilateral orregional bodies .
Insetting outthis objective ,account wastaken ofthevarious
advantages which cofinancing canoffer ,,Ingeneral terms ,itprovides
anindividual donor with access toalarger pipeline ofprojects than
would otherwise have been available ,,This canbeparticularly
important inthecase ofrecipient countries where adonor haslimited
experience .More specifically ,amixture ofdifferent sources of
funding with different terms andconditions can insome cases beof
considerable value totherecipient .IntheCommunity context ,finally ,
cofinancing between EECandMember-States can .strengthen theoverall
"Community presence "inthe recipient country concerned .
However ,cofinancing isnotwithout itsdifficulties .Theneed for
coordination among donors andrecipients canbetime–consuming ,andmay on
occasion place aserious burden ontherecipient administration .In
some cases (depending onthetype ofcofinancing followed ),itmaybe
necessary tomake acertain compromise between the rules andprocedures
ofthedifferent donors ,inorder toensure efficient implementation .
Generally ,three different types ofcofinancing arepossible .Thefirst
andmost common type isparallel cofinancing ,where each donor finances a
specific project-component inaccordance with its ownprocedures .A
second type isjoint cofinancing ,where alldonors' funds arecombined
andadministered according tooneagreed procedure (this ismore common
inthecase ofvery large engineering projects ,where distinct components
cannot easily beseparated ). Thethird possibility ischannel financing ,
where onedonor hasnodirect relationship with therecipient ,but
channels itsfunds through another agency .Each ofthese different
types ofcofinancing has itsownadvantages ,andonetype maybemore
appropriate than another foraspecific project .
(ii)Cofinancing inthe1976-80 programmes
Thenumber ofcofinanced projects funded under thenon-associates
programme hasgrown steadily ,from 4in1976 to21in1980 .Out
of379*3 MECUcommitted under these 5programmes ,165.3 MECU ,or
44%oftotal programme funding ,hasbeen devoted tocofinajiced projects .
Ofthe 150separate projects funded under these programmes ,atotal of
70have been cofinanced .The average size ofthese projects hasbeen
2.4MECU (compared to2.7MECUforautonomous projects ),andthe
average share oftotal project costs funded byEEC incofinanced actions
hasbeen oftheorder of12$ .
Some basic statistics relating tocofinanced projects are shown inthe
following table .Other more detailed tables have been included in
Annex 3»
./•

27-
•1976 1977 1978 19791980 Total
Numberofprojects :total 8 23 35 39 45 I50
:cofinanced 414 15lá 21 70
Totalprogramme funding (MECU) 20.045.063.1IO5.9I45.3 379.3
ofwhich
cofinanced projects (MECU)»9.024.232.94O.658.6I65.3
Shareofcofinancing 45$54$52$38$40$ 43$
Totalcostofcofinanced
projects 64.4418.5365.9 209.0 337.91395.6
EECshareoftotalcosts 14$ 6$9$19$17$ 12$
Assuggested earlier,parallel cofinancing hasbeenthemostfrequently –usedform,
accounting for47outof70cofinanced projects and74$ofcofinanced funding.
Inallsuchcases,EECprocurement rulesandprocedures have "beenfullyapplied.
Jointfinancing (11projects and17$offunding)hasteenmuchlesscommon,whiJt&.
channelfinancing (12projects and9$offunding)hasbeenusedprincipally in
caseswheretheCommunity hadnodirectcontactwiththerecipient ,orwherethe
projects weregeneraltechnical assistance prograjnmes implemented byanotheragency.
(AnnexTableI)•
Theprincipal partnersincofinancing underthenon–associates programme havebeen
themajorinternational andregionalagencies (ADB,CGIAR,IBRDandIDB),accounting
for98.6MECUofnon-associates funding.ADBwasthelargestsinglepartner,
accounting for47.4MECU,followedbyIBRD(23.5MECU),IDB(15»7MECU)andCGIAR
(12.0MECU).
Atotalof17projectshavebeencofinanced withEECMemberStates(AnnexTableIII),
accounting for58.8MECUofEECfunding.AmongtheMemberStates,4projects have
beencofinanced withPranceand4withItaly,3,withtheUnitedKingdom,2eachwith
BelgiumandGermany,and1withtheNetherlands 1.Asyet,nocofinancing hasbeen
carriedoutwithDenmark,orwithGreece,IrelandorLuxembourg .
Onefurtherproject,inZimbabwe,wascofinanced amongEEC,Germany,theUnited
Kingdom andtheNetherlands .

-28-
ItmightbenotedherethattheEECcontribution -coprojects
cofinanced withMember-States hasbeenroughlyhalfthatmadeby
theMemberStates.Thisisarelatively highfigure,given
thattotalMember-States bilateral aidtothenon-associated
countries isatleast5timesthefundingavailable tothe
EEC•
Asregardsthegeographical patternofcofinanced actions,this
hasbeenbroadlysimilartothatofthenon-associates programme
asawhole,withAsiaaccounting for70%ofcofinanced funding,
LatinAmerica23%,andAfrica7%»
¥
Thesectoral breakdown ofcofinanced projects "hasa-lsobeen
broadlysimilartothatpertaining totheprogramme asawhole
(AnnexTableV),with77%ofEECcofinancing funding
beingdevotedtoagricultural production ,15%toagricultural
services,and8%toutilities .(AnnexTableV).Withinthese
broadsectoral groups,however,therewasaparticular emphasis
onirrigation (31%ofthetotal,comparedto16%oftotalprogramme
funding).
Finally,itmightbeusefultoexaminethedisbursement ratesachieved
withcofinanced projects .Thefollowing tablesetsouttheaverage
disbursement ratesforautonomous andcofinanced projects underthe
1976-1979 programmes ,distinguishing amongseveraldifferent categories
ofcofinanced projects® Nofigureshavebeengivenforthe1980
programme ,sinceonlyafewprojects included inthisprogramme have
sofarreachedthestageoffullimplementation .
Averagedisbursement rates,asof31.7.81
Programme 1976 1977 I978 1979
Autonomous projects ' 78% 54% 54% 20%
Cofinanced projects 63% 79% 33% 21%
Investment projects
cofinanced with
Member-States 15% 0%
Investment projects
cofinanced with
international or^regional institutions 59% 28% 24% 17%
Cofinanced TAprojects 100% 100% 79% 0%
Cofinaiiced research projects 100% 100% 90% 100%
IBRD,ADB,IDB,BCIE ./.

–c-y
Fromtheabovetable,therewouldseemto"benoverystriking
difference indisbursement patterns between autonomous projects
andcofinanced projects ,takenasawhole.Therearecertainly -
somedifferences inindividual years,butitisdifficult to
traceanyclearpattern amongtheannualvariations .
However,itisclearthatcertaintypesofcofinanced projectare
certainly muchslower^-disbursing thantheaverage.Inparticular ,
thelargerinvestment projects cofinanced withinternational and
regionalinstitutions hcivebeenmarkedly slower–spending ;totaldisbursements forsuchprojects byJuly1981stoodat28%forthe
1977programme ,and24%forthe1978programme ,comparedto54%
forautonomous projects underbothprogrammes .Disbursements have
alsobeenrelatively slowfortheinvestment projects cofinanced
withMember-States underthe1978and1979programmes .
Ontheotherhand,cofinanced technical assistance andresearch
projectshavebeenconsiderably faster-spending ,with100%disbursement
inseveralcases.Thisisonlytobeexpected ,however ,giventhe
different character oftheseprojects .
Theslowerdisbursement ratesexperienced withcertaintypesof
cofinanced projectshouldnotperhapsbeover-emphasized .Manyof
theprojects cofinanced withinternational orregionalinstitutions
havebeenlargeirrigation orintegrated areadevelopment actions ,
whichmaynaturally bemorecomplex andslowertoimplement .
Also,certainagencies oftenleaveasignificant partofproject
preparation worktobecarriedoutonlyaftertheformalcommitment
offunds,thuslengthening the"normal"lead-time between commitment
anddisbursement .TheADB,forexample,generally leavesdetailed
designworktobecarriedoutwithinthefinalproject (incontrast
tonormalCommission practice),whileIDBmaymakeitsformal ^
commitment evenbeforedetailed loannegotiations havetakenplace.
However ,itstillseemsthatasignificant numberofcofinanced projects
haveexperienced delaysbeyondthenormallead-time thatmightbe
expected ;severalsuchcaseshavebeennotedinthereviewofindividual
programmes andprojectsgivenabove(pp21-25).Aswithautonomous
projects ,suchdelayshavebeenconcentrated intheearlystagesof
projectimplementation (notablyinsuchareasasconsultant recruitment ,
approvaloffinaldesign,andtendering),anditwillbeimportant togive
specialattention infuturetothisparticularly sensitive phaseof
■implementation .
IV.a.3.Summary remarks
Duringtheearliestyearsofthenon–associates programme ,cofinancing was
frequently anecessary meansoffindingvaluable projects incountries
whichwerethenrelatively unfamiliar totheCommission .Inmorerecent
years,however,thisaspecthasbecomelessimportant ,andcofinancing is
soughtmoreinspecific circumstances whereitcanbringspecificbenefits .
Here,however ,itmustbeborneinmindthatotherdonors,bothbilateral
andmultilateral ,oftenfaceproblems inestablishing asufficiently large
l)TheIBRD,ontheotherhand,frequently invitestendersevenbefore
aformalcommitment decision hasbeenmade.

-30-
pipeline ofeffective projects ,andthus that thescope forcofinancing
isnot unlimited .
Some other potential problems with cofinancing have toberecognized .
Ontheonehand ,certain types ofcofinanced projects seem tobe
relatively slow-disbursing andsubject todelays intheearly stages
ofimplementation .This maytosome extent beareflection ofthe
type ofproject involved ,oroftheprocedures ofthecofinancing
partner .
Ontheother hand ,mariy recipient countries have asomewhat reserved
position asregards cofinancing .Dealing with several donors forone
project ,each with their ownprocedures andrequirements ,canplace a
significant extra burden ontherecipient administration .
Aslong asthese problems arerscognized ,andappropriate steps taken
tomeet them ,cofinancing canstill beofparticular value both to
donors andrecipients .
However ,itshould beborne }.r.mind that cofinancing isonly oneaspect
oftheregular cooperation andcoordination which must take place among
donors .Within theCommunity 'Cirtext ,contacts between theCommission 's
services andtheMember-State ahauthorities have been steadily
increased ,andaregular exchange ji1views also takes place with the
principal multilateral cofinancing partners .These regular contacts
maynotalways lead tospecific coivianced projects ,butarenoless
important inthat they ensure abef-^v coordination among individual
projects andprogrammes .
IV.b.STUDIES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Asnoted earlier inthis report ,studies andgeneral technical assistance
actions areacrucial element ofthenon–associates programme ,interms
oftheir importance inassisting recipient countries with project preparation
andgenerally' inhelping toovercome constraints associated with limited
absorptive capacity . %
Between 1976 and19^0 ,such actions accounted for7%oftotal programme
funding .This figure includes notonly those actions funded directly by
theCommunity (asseparate projects ,orunder thespecial provisions for
studies andtechnical assistance andforadministrative costs ),butalso
includes thestudy packages financed indirectly through such organizations
astheADBandtheBCIE .However ,itdoes notinclude more specific
technical assistance andsupport actions directed towards assisting with
theimplementation ofparticular programmes orprojects ,andfunded either
S.sseparate actions orascomponents ofindividual projects .
Forinformation ,afull list ofthese studies andgeneral technical assistance
actions hasbeen given inAnnex 4»Generally ,onemight note that these
actions have followed broadly thesame geographical andsectoral pattern as
theprogramme asawhole .However ,forcertain recipients orincertain
sectors theneed forpreparatory studies ortechnical assistance actions has
been somewhat greater ,andthis hasinfact ledtoasomewhat higher
proportion ofstudies intheLatin American region .

31-
Asonewouldexpect,individual technical assistance orstudies
actionstendto"berelatively smallandquick-disbursing ,though
theirsizeobviously variesaccording totheobjectives ofthestudy1,andonafewoccasions problemsrelatingtoconsultant
recruitment havegivenrisetosomedelaysinimplementation (as
withfull–scaleprojects).
Finally ,itmightbeusefultocommentbriefly onthedistinction
betweenthespecialprovisions foradministrative costsandcontrol
(introduced in1977)»andforstudiesandtechnical assistance
(introduced in1979)*Thefirstoftheseisintendedessentially
tohelptheCommission tocarryoutitsownresponsibilities inthe
fieldofon–the–spotevaluation ,appraisal andcontrolofprojects ,
andhasbeenusedtofinancetheshortterm recruitment ofspecialized
outsideexpertstocarryoutspecific evaluation orappraisal missions ,
ortomakeregularsupervisory visitstoprojects whicharealready
underway .Thisprovision hasalsobeenusedtoestablish development
advisors intheCommission 1sregional delegations inBangkok and
Caracas .
Thespecialprovision forstudiesandtechnical assistance ,onthe
otherhand,ismoredirectly forthebenefitoftherecipient
countries themselves ,inthesenseofproviding anaccelerated
procedure forcarrying outsmallerproject-preparation ortechnical
assistance exercises requested bytherecipient .Previously ,allsuchactionshadtobeapproved individually inthesamewayas
full–scaleprojects ,andthisobviously ledtoconsiderable delays
inpreparing aprojectpipeline .Itmightbenoted,however,that
theuseofthisaccelerated procedure hasbeenlimitedtoactions
costinglessthan300,000 ECU;largerstudiesortechnical
assistance inputshavefollowed thenormalprocedure applicable to
full-scale projects.
l)Inthefieldofprojectpreparation ,studiescanberequiredatanypoint
frominitialreconnaisance andevaluation ,throughprefeasibility and
feasibility work,tothepreparation ofdetaileddesignsforengineering
orworks.Thecostofsuchstudiescanthusrangefrom 50»000 ECUor
less,upto1,000,000 ECUormoreforamajordesignexercise.

-32-
V.CONCLUSIONS
Theprogramme offinancial andtechnical assistance tonon-associated ,
developing countries isnowinitssixthyear,andhasclearly
becomeanestablished component oftheCommunity'soveralldevelop­
mentcooperation policy.Fromtheinternal pointofview,amajor'
stepforwardcameinFebruary 1981,whentheRegulation settingout
theprogramme' sbasicobjectives andprocedures wasformally adopted
byCouncil.
Externally ,theprogramme iscertainly wellreceived bythevarious
recipient countries andorganizations ,despitetherelatively limited
fundingavailable .Thefactthatprogramme fundsareprovided ona
grantbasis,withthepossibility ofcoveringlocalexpenditures
whereappropriate ,isofparticular importance tothepoorest
developing countries whoarethemainrecipients undertheprogramme .
Sinceitscommencement in197&*thenon-associates programme has
grownquiterapidly,withcommitment fundingrisingfrom20MECU
in1976to150MECUinI98I.Inlinewiththecentralobjectives
oftheprogramme ,fundinghasbeenconcentrated onrural-sector
development »projects inthepoorestdeveloping countries ,while
payingdueattention totheneedtoensureacertainoverallbalance
inthegeographical allocation offunds.
Programme implementation hasbeenproceeding smoothly ,withatotal
of394.9MECUcommitted ,and118.2MECUdisbursed ,byJuly1981.
Thelevelofdisbursement hasinfactaccelerated rapidlyinrecent
years,astheprogramme hasbecomeestablished andmoreprojects have
comefullyon-stream .
Naturally ,avarietyofproblems havebeenexperienced inthe
implementation ofindividual projects ,butthisisinevitable inany
aidprogramme ofthiskind,andtheexperience ofthenon-associates
programme hasbeennodifferent fromthatofotherdonorsworkingin
thefieldofruraldevelopment .
Someoftheseproblems havehoweverbeengivenspecialattention in
thisreport.Mostnotably,ithasbeennecesary tostressthe
centralproblemofabsorptive capacity ,particularly inthepoorer
developing countries .Following fromthisistheneedforadonor
togivesubstantial assistance withprojectpreparation and
implementation ,andalsotomaintain aclosesupervision ofproject
progress .
Giventheseproblems ,asignificant partoftotalprogramme funding
hasbeenallocated tostudies andtechnical assistance forproject
preparation .Technical assistance ontheimplementation sidehas
beenincluded withinindividual projects asappropriate .Inaddition ,
theCommission hasputamajoreffortintostrengthening itssuper­
visorycapacity ,bothinBrussels andinthefield.However,ithas
againbeennecessary todrawattention tothedifficulties imposed
herebystaffing constraints .

ANNEXES
Allocation offunding "byrecipient ,1976-80
Detailedsectoral breakdown offunding,1976-80
Cofinancing statistics
Listofstudies financed underthenon-associates
programme *

ANNEX1
Allocation offundingbyrecipient ,1976-80 (MECU)
I976 I977>
1978 1979 1980Total 1
I976-8O
INORMALPROJECTS"
Afchaniston- 1.00 – - - 1.00
Bangladesh 2.5O 5.00 6.60 8.00 10.60 32.70
Burma - 1.00 -4.90I5.9O
India 6.00 12.00 15.40 25.00 28.00 .186.40
Indonesia 1.00 2.00 5.50 9.90 8.20 26.60
Laos - - 2.00 2.10'- 4.10
I'aldives ι - - - - O.50 O.50
Nepal I - 3.00 – 2.20 5.20
Pakistan ;3.00 4.00 4.80 6.70 5.80 24.30
Hiilippines - - 4.50 3.5O 8.00
SriLanka 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.30 I5.4O 21.70
Thailand - 1.00 0.30 5.70 I3.5O 20.50
Vietnam – 2.40 – – –2.40 ¡
Yemen(North) - 2.00 - 1.10 - 3.10
ADB I.50 O.4O 1.20 1.20 – 4.30
AS3UJ - -■0.00 0.30 - O.90
ICRISAT 2.00 1.00 0.80 0.30 0.95 5-55
IRRI – 1.00 0.80 1.00 1.20 4.00
!';ekoncCommittee - - 0.40 - O.40
TOTALASIA '18.00 34.80 43.00 7I.9O 89.85 257.55
Bolivia 2.00 1.80 1.90 3.00 8.70
Ecuador – - - 2.9O– 2.90
Haiti - - 2.40 5.OO 5.5O 12.90
Honduras – 1.00 2.40 3.20 8.00 14.¿O
Nicaragua – - - - 2.8O 2.80
Peru - - - 2.00 1.00 3.00
AndeanPact 3.Ó0 2.70 0.30 2.008.Ó0 1
BCIE - 1.80 0.43 O.5O O.5O 3.23
CATI3 – – O.57 1.10 0.20 1.57
CPAD - 1.80 – 1.80 ,
CIAT - O.8O 1.00 1.15 2.95 !
CIP - -0.40 0.50 0.00 I.50
IBB – - – 2.00 2.00
INCAP – 1.80 – – _ l.CO
OLADS - - O.oO -0.60 1.20
•TOTALLATIN AINERICA 2.00 10.00 14.00 19.50 24.35 69.65
Angola
¡lozaobique
Zimbabwe
TOTALAFRICA-"■O.5O
3.00
3.500.90
0.9014.50
14.501.40
j3.00
114.50
18.90
i

1976 I977 1978 I979 1980 Total
I976-8O
IIPOSTCATASTROPHE
PROJECTS
Dominican Republic – – – –4.00 4.00
India - 2.00 4.50 4.40 IO.90
Nicaragua- - -2.50 - 2.5Ο
•Peru - - - -1.50 I.50
SriLanka – - – 3.00 – 3.00
Zimbabwe – - ... - 4.00 4.00
CentralAmerica(PAIIO) - - - 1.10 - 1.10
TOTAL
POST-CATASTROPHE - – 2.00 11.10 13.90 27.00
IIIOTHERPROVISIONS
Small-scale studies _ 1.50 1.00 2.5Ο
andtechnical assistance
Administrative costs - 0.20 0.60 1.00 1.70 3.5Ο
TOTALOTHER'0.20 O.602.50 2.70 Ó.00
totalprochaine
FUNDING(I+II+III) 20.00 45·οο "63.10105.90 145.30 379.30

Sectoral breakdown ofnon–associates funding,1976–80AMra2
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 Total
76-80
Totalprogramme
resources (M''ECU) 20.0 45.0 63.1 105.9 145.3 379.3
ofwhich * % £ * % %
I.Agricultural production
Integrated area
development 8.4 13.9 4.7 17.9 ■■11.5 -
Generalagriculture 35.O 5.3 15.4 23.0 17.3 18.1
Irrigation 37.5"26.0 13.8 16.3 11.2 16.2
Storage 32.9 .24.4 7.6 - 10.1
Processing and
marketing 10.0 2.4 11.0 5.4
Livestock ,fisheries
andforestry •Γ 6.6 8.9 9.3 8.1 8.0
Other 7.5 3.1 2.6 2.0 7.4 4.6
(Sub-total ) (90.0)(82.4)(79.0)(65.3)(72.9)(73.8)
II.Agricultural services
Research (agriculture
andfood) 10.0 17.1 4.4 6.1 2.8 6.0
Ruralcredit - - 6.6 I7.O 1.4 6.4
Other - - 1.4 0.9 5.3 2.7
(Sub-total ) (10.0)(17.1)(12.4)(24.0)(9.6)(I5.O)
III.Utilities
Transport andEnergy - - 1.0 - 1.7 0.3
Watersupplies
andsanitation _ 2.5 3.0 3.1 2.5
(Sub–total) (-) (-) (3.5)(3.0)(4.7)(3.2)
IV.Socialdevelopmenti
Health,education
andhousing_ 0.6 5-21
2.1
Emergency facilities - - 3.2 5.3 5.8 4.2
(Sub–total) (~)(-) (3.8)(5.3)(10.9)(ύ·3)
V.Industry - - 0,3 - - 0.1 ·
VI.Provision foradmin­
istrative costsand
small-scale technical
assistance 0.4 1„0 2.4 1.9I
)
1.Ü
Total 100,0 100»0100.0 100.0 \100,0 100.0

ANNEX 3
STATISTICS RELATING TOCOFINAJTCING
I. Type ofcofinancing ,1976-80
Parallel Joint Channel Total
No.ofprojects 47 11 12 70
EEC contribution»
(MECU) 122.5 27.6 15.2 165.3
Share oftotal 74# 17# 9# 100#
II» Principal cofinancing partners »1976-80
Member
StatesADB*141. -
IBRD IBB CGIAR Others Total
No.ofprojects 17 17 9 7 14 6 70
EEC contribution
(MECU) 58.8 47-4 23.5 15.7 12.0 7.9 I65.3
Share oftotal 35»6# 28.7# 14a# 9«5# 7.3$ 4.7# 100#
III . Cofinancing with EECMember-States .1976-80
Country - Number of
projectsMember -State
contribution
(MECU)EEC
contribution
(MECU)Total
project costs
(MECU)
Belgium 2 3.70 13.00 I8.7O
France 4 2.20 9.IO 12.00
Germany 2 8.13 5.5O I9.9O
Italy 4 I.63 12.20 I7.OO
Netherlands 1 0.33 O.3O O.65
United Kingdom 3 72.60 14.70 122.16
Several Member -
States·*· 1 35.20 4.0 40.40
Total 17 123.79 58.8O 230.81
Oneproject inZimbabwe ,cofinanced with Germany ftheNetherlands andtheUnited
Kingdom together . »•»*«*■

-2
IV. Geographical patternofcofinancing ,1976-80
Asia Latin
AmericaAfrica Total
Numberofprojects *43. 24 3 70
EECcontribution
(MECU) 115*85 38.45 11.0 I65.3
Shareoftotal 7crf> 23% 1% 100$
V Sectoral patternofcofinancing ,1976-80
Agricultural
productionAgricultural
servicesUtilities Total
Numberofprojects 43 21 6 70
EECcontribution
(MECU) 127.8 24.O 13.5 I65.3
Shareoftotal 77.3/0 14.5$ 8.2io 100%

ANNEX4
STUDIES ANDTECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ACTIONS
I.Completelistofstudies andgeneraltechnical assistance actions
fundeddirectly underthe1976-80programmes
4
Year Recipient Title Category
(Study/TA)EECgrant
(MECU)
1976 ADB Technical assistance programme Studies 1.50
1977 NORTHYEMMWadiRasyan "basin Study 0.70
ADB Technical assistance programme Studies 0.40
ANDEAN PACTRural–sectortechnical assistance TA 1.00
mm Specialprovision for
administrative costs - 0.20
1978.INDONESIA Baturaden dairycentre Study 0.15
THAILAND Seedcentre,S.region Study 0.10
THAILAND Cropdiversification ,NEregion Study 0.20
*ADB Technical assistance programme Studies 1.20
ASEAN Regional post–harvest programme Study 0.30
ASEAN Regional timberutilization
studyStudy 0.30.
OLADE Géothermie surveys TA 0.60
BCIE Technical assistance programme Studies 0.43
ANDEAN PACTAlternative construction
materials studyStudy 0.10 .
ANDEAN PACTPilothousingproject TA. 0.40
ANDEAN PACTPalm-oil development Study 0.40
ANDEAN PACTIndustrial standardization ■
andqualitycontrol'TA 0.20
ANGOLA Mocamedes fishprocessing plant Study 0.50
– ■ Specialprovision for
administrative costs0.60

1979 SRILANKA Mahaweli Gangahydrologi calstudy Study 0.30
THAILAND Irrigation studies,NEregion Study O.7O
ADB Technioal assistance programme Studies 1.20
INDONESIA Waru–TuriandSeluma-Lais irrigation
designStudy O.BO
ASEMÏ Regional Aquaculture programme Study 0.30
MEKONG
COMMITTEETechnical assistance toSecretariat TA O.4O
BCIE Technical assistance programme Studies O.5O
- Specialprovision fortechnical
assistance andstudies– . I.50
?
*i'Specialprovision foradministrative
costs1.00
1980 NICARAGUA Ruralsectortechnical assistance TA 2.80
ANDEAN PACT Ruralsectorstudyprogramme TA 2.00 .
BCIE Technical assistance programme Studies O.5O
OLADE Regional géothermie surveys TA O.60
ZIMBABWE Ruralsectorstudyprogramme Stiidies 1.00
ZIMBABWE Technical assistance programme TA 0,50
- Specialprovision fortechnical
assistance andstudies- 1.00
" Specialprovision foradministrative
costsI.70
TOTAL 26.O8
Notes:Theabovetableincludes "bothstudiesandthosegeneraltechnical assistance
actionsdirected towardsthepreparation orplanning offutureprogrammes or
projects .Morespecifictechnical assistance actions,directed towardsthe
implementation ofparticular programmes orprojects ,havenotteenincluded.
Detailsofstudiesfinanced underthetechnical assistance programmes with
ADBandBCIEaregivenintableIIbelow.Detailsofactionsfinanced
underthespecialprovisions forstudies/TAoradministrative costsare
givenintableIIIbelow.

(H.Studiesfinancedindirectly throughregionalorganizations ,
1976-80 .
(a)AsianDevelopment Banktechnical assistance programmes ,1976-79
Year Country Title Cost(000ECU)
1976 BANGLADESH Inlandfisheries I60
BANGLADESH Pabnairrigation 176
BURMA Palmoil·development I72
INDONESIA Baliirrigation I 80
NEPAL Agricultural creditandtraining 224
institute
.PHILIPPINES Mindanao irrigation II 160
SRILANKA Sevenagala sugardevelopment 280
THAILAND Inlandfisheries development 103
1977 BANGLADESH Ruralvocational traininginstitutes 118
NEPAL Sagarmatha integrated ruraldevelopment 264
1978 BANGLADESH Tubewells I 252
INDONESIA .Palm–oilprocessing 78
LAOS Agricultural supportfacilities 53
PHILIPPINES Palawanintegrated areadevelopment 280
.SRILANKA Integrated teadevelopment 78
SRILANKA Anuradhapura dryzonedevelopment 240
.THAILAND Medium-scale irrigation 280
1979 BURMA Post–harvestricetechnology centre 120
NEPAL Secondintegrated ruraldevelopment 280
INDONESIA Aceh/N.Sumatralivestock 136
PAKISTAN Agro–technical education 118
Notest(l)Studycostingshavebeenconverted fromdollarsatan
indicative exchangerateofSi.25■1ECU.
(2)Anumberofstudiesforthe1979programme havestill
tobefullyidentified ,andarenotshownhere.

t ("b)BCIEtechnical assistance programme ,1978-80
Year Country Title•i\ ■
Cost(000ECU)-
1978 HONDURAS Oil-palm ,citrusand
cacaostudies264
NICARAGUA Ethylalcoholstudy •184-
CENTRAL
AMERICAN '
REGIONCacaostudy 40
I979 COSTARICA Storagesilosstudy 44
NICARAGUA Cacaostudy 200
Notes:(l)Costingshave "beenconverted fromdollarsatan
indicative exchangerateof$1.25 «=1ECU.
(2)ThestudylistfortheI98Oprogramme (covering
alsothebalanceoffundsremaining available
underprevious programmes )iscurrently being
-finalized .

III.Actionsfinanced underthespecialprovisions foradministrative oosts
andfortechnical assistance andstudies
III.a.Actionsrelating tothepreparation andappraisal ofspecificprojects
Year Country Title Cost(000ECU)
1978 SRILAMA Coconutrehabilitation 4
ASEAN Regional aquaculture programme1
HAITI Integrated ruraldevelopment ,S.region 52
HONDURAS Dairydevelopment 9
ANGOLA Marinefisheries 15-
MEKONG Technical assistance 75
COMMITTEE
ECUADOR Chamboirrigation 25
PAHO Earthquake preparedness programme 3
BANGLADESH Foodsecurity storage 34
TOTAL 236
1979 ECUADOR Ruralenergysurveys 54
NICARAGUA MA33AStechnical assistance 127
HONDURAS Fisheries development 26
THAILAND Small–scaleirrigation ,NEregion 39
HONDURAS Dairydevelopment II 76
NICARAGUA Waslalaintegrated ruraldevelopment 87
ANDEAN PACT Palmoildevelopment 15
HAITI Jacmelintegrated ruraldevelopment 80
THAILAND Livestock fattening andmarketing ■51
ASEAN Alternative energydevelopment 12
BURMA Oilpalmdevelopment 39
HONDURAS Development ofnativecommunities 51
BANGLADESH Irrigation development 47
39

PERU Vicunaprogramme 53
raiLIPFINES Fisheries sectorsurvey 30
DOMINICAN
REFUBLI CJuanchoirrigation 73
HAITI Jacrael IRDII 47
NICARAGUA Waslala IRDII 267
NORTHΥΈΜΕΝ Forestry development 10
CENTRAL
AMERICAN
REGIONFoodsecurity survey 136
TOTAL
• 1397
1980 THAILAND IngYomNanwaterdiversion 232
NICARAGUA MASAStechnical assistance II .23
INDONESIA Cooperatives sectorsurvey 30
ANDEAN PACT Ruraltechnology 50
TOTAL 335
rr
IIl.beActionsrelating togeneralprogramme implementation andproject
supervision andcontrol
(000ECU) 1977 I978 1979 I98O
Recruitment ofindividual .experts,on
shorttenn basis,forstudieson
specific development questions inindividual recipient countries·'· .- 90 77 -
Recruitment ofindividual experts,on
shortterm basis,forassistance with
projectpreparation andcontrol .200 210 353 10
Recruitment ofexpertsforregional
delegations inBangkok andCaracas- 60 262 153»
!
Other «2207 - i
1
1
Total 200 30C
........°cn "1'1IJO
1
Studiespreparedunderthisheadinghaveincludedreviewsofadministrative or
development planningprocedures inIndia,Indonesia ,ASEANandtheA33,aswell
asasurveyoffoodsecurity achievements inIndia.
2Supplementary contribution toa1977project(Vietnam,supplyofagricultural
machinery),tocovercostincreasearisingfromexchange–ratevariations .

III.c.Summary
(000ECU) !I977
ACI978
ACI979
ACTAI98O
ACTA
Bandsavailable 200 600 1000150017001000
Fundsutilized 200 596 899I32O168335
ofwhichï
–preparation andappraisal
ofspecific projects
(tableIII.a.)mm 236 1320-335
–general programme
implementation andproject
supervision (tableIll.b.)200 360 899 168
ACaSpecialprovision foradministrative costs.
TA««Specialprovision fortechnical assistance andstudies.
Note:Utilization offundsundertheI98Ospecialprovisions (fundingfor
whichwasapprovedonlyinDecember 1980)hashadtoheheldhackas
aresultoftheshortfall inpaymentcreditsavailable undertheI98I .
budget(seepp19–20above).Thebalancecurrently available will
infactbeabsorbed overthenextfewmonths,whenpaymentcredits
becomeavailable andnewcommitments canagainbemade.