EUROPEISKA GEMENSKAPERNAS KOMMISSION 
Bryssel den 01 03.1996 
KOM(96) 70 slutlig 
RAPPORT OM GENOMFÖRANDET AV DET DECENTRALISERADE 
SAMARBETET 
(Framlagt av kommissionen) 

RAPPORT TILL RÅDET INFÖR RÅDETS MÖTE OM 
UTVECKLINGSSAMARBETE 
RAPPORT OM GENOMFÖRANDET AV DET DECENTRALISERADE 
SAMARBETET 
Rapportens mål 
Införandet av det decentraliserade samarbetet i gemenskapen som ett led i 
utvecklingssamarbetet visar viljan att utvidga kretsen av aktörer inom biståndet i 
syfte att främja utvecklingsinitiativ både i tredje land och i Europa. De potentiella 
aktörer som avses är icke-statliga organisationer, lokala och regionala 
myndigheter, sammanslutningar (på landsbygd eller i städer, yrkesmässiga, etc), 
kooperativ, företag och näringsliv1, fackföreningar och rent allmänt samtliga 
krafter i det civila samhället både i Europa och i tredje världen som skulle kunna 
bidra till en social och ekonomisk utveckling i utvecklingsländerna. 
Det decentraliserade samarbete som först infördes i Lomé IV har gradvis utvidgats 
till samtliga regioner för utvecklingssamarbete, dvs. AVS-länderna, ULT, 
Latinamerika och Medelhavsområdet. 
I praktiken kommer dock detta decentraliserade samarbete att anpassas till 
situationen i varje land och olika regioner i tredje världen - utvecklingsnivå, de 
ekonomiska och sociala strukturernas särdrag och befintliga kapacitet, den 
offentliga och privata sektorns respektive roller och det sociopolitiska systemet. 
Denna rapport försöker upprätta en första översikt av insatserna på detta område. 
Den behandlar dock inte främjandet av företagens roll och utvecklingen av den 
privata sektorn som bygger på särskilda instrument och metoder även om de följer 
samma allmänna riktlinjer. 
2. Sammanfattning av olika metoder för gemenskapens decentraliserade samarbete 
Åren 1990-1994 kännetecknas av ett gradvist starkt ökande genomslag för dessa 
principer i Europeiska unionens program i olika former beroende på de berörda 
regionerna. 
Inom ramen för de olika sätt att verka på som finns i sektorn. 
4h 
Sammanfattningsvis tar sig det decentraliserade samarbetet tre möjliga former: 
- Den första som härrör från erfarenheten av det europeiska uppbyggandet 
avtecknar det decentraliserade samarbetet som ett horisontellt samarbete mellan 
det civila samhällets aktörer i medlemsstaterna och tredje land (lokala 
myndigheter, ekonomiska aktörer, akademiska kretsar, osv.). Den grundar sig 
på principen om ömsesidighet (på det ekonomiska planet) och närhetsprincipen 
(på det politiska eller kulturella planet, särskilt när man verkar mot ett 
förberedande av anslutning). Det handlar snarare om ett "integrerande" 
decentraliserat samarbete. Denna metod avspeglas i MED-programmen 
(MEDURBS, MEDCAMPUS, osv.) för Medelhavsländerna som gradvis 
utsträckts till att omfatta Latinamerika och Asien (ALFA, ALURBS, ASIA-
URBS, osv.). 
- Den andra faller inom ramen för det klassiska biståndet särskilt till förmån för 
de fattigaste länderna och de som är i en fas av övergång till demokrati. Här 
handlar det huvudsakligen om att det civila samhället kommer till uttryck och 
deltar i utvecklingsprocessen. Man talar om ett decentraliserat samarbete 
"med deltagande som mål". En lång rad av program för deltagande ingår i 
denna metod som strävar efter att förstärka det civila samhället och de lokala 
aktörerna och som stödjer sig på decentraliserade aktörer och icke-statliga 
organisationer (mikroprogram och decentraliserade utvecklingsprogram, 
integrerade utvecklingsprogram för landsbygden, osv.). 
- Slutligen kan man tala om en tredje form av decentraliserat samarbete "med 
substitution som mål". Ett sådant samarbete berör länder där det offentliga 
biståndet av olika anledningar har upphört och där biståndet begränsas till 
basbehov och förmedlas av decentraliserade aktörer. 
Det tillkommer ett antal specifika instrument, dvs. särskilda budgetrubriker som 
gör det möjligt att stödja decentraliserade åtgärder. Bland dessa kan man nämna 
rubrik B7-5077 "Decentraliserat samarbete i utvecklingsländerna" som skall främja 
decentraliserat samarbete och ge institutionellt stöd till de decentraliserade 
aktörerna, särskilt genom samarbetsnät Nord-Syd och Syd-Syd för att stödja vissa 
pilotprogram. 
3. Slutsatser och framtidsutsikter 
Denna första översikt understryker mångfalden av erfarenheterna och visar att det 
rör sig om en idé- och åtgärdsverksamhet under full utveckling. 
Det har redan skett en vändning i Medelhavsområdet, Latinamerika och Asien där 
samarbetet alltmer utvecklas tillsammans med de lokala eller regionala 
myndigheterna samt med universitet och icke-statliga organisationer. Europeiska 
unionens förslag om ett verkligt partnerskap med företrädarna för det civila 
samhället har redan mött viss framgång. Alltfler AVS-länder går även i denna 
riktning där samarbetet med de icke-statliga organisationerna och lokala 
myndigheterna men också den privata sektorn intar en allt större plats. 
2A 
Det decentraliserade samarbetet är också ett huvudinslag i förhållande till 
målsättningarna för unionens bistånd. Därför bör det decentraliserade samarbetet 
införas i den sektoriella politik och metod som utgör grunden för dialogen mellan 
Europeiska unionen och mottagarländerna och inte bara betraktas som en 
fristående form av insatser. Då kommer det - och bör göra det - att bli ett 
huvudinslag i dialogen och målen för det nationella biståndets prioriteringar. 
Utvecklingen på lång sikt av de institutionella och tekniska möjligheterna för 
organisationerna i det civila samhället, den sociala sektorn, näringslivet och de 
lokala myndigheterna bör stå i centrum för de politiska program som stödjer sig 
på dessa principer. 
Sammanfattningsvis avspeglar sig tre centrala idéer för en politik med ett 
decentraliserat samarbete som skulle kunna utgöra de huvudsakliga riktlinjerna: 
Öppning mot ett större deltagande i biståndspolitiken för medborgarna och 
huvudaktörerna i utvecklingsländerna. Detta deltagande vars mekanismer i hög 
grad fortfarande återstår att definiera, skall gå via en förstärkt dialog mellan 
länderna, EU och de lokala aktörerna, till exempel i form av samrådsforum. 
- Utvidgning i Europa av kretsen av de decentraliserade aktörer som deltar i 
samarbetet och som kan bidra till EU:s betydelse och insatser på detta område. 
Detta syftar i första hand på stärkandet av de solidaritetsband som traditionellt 
är ett av de starkaste och mest originella kännetecknen av unionens insatser i 
olika delar i världen. 
Det andra kravet är snarare ett resultat av den internationaliserings- och 
allmänna konkurrensprocess som de decentraliserade aktörerna, såsom städer, 
regioner och lokala institutioner i stigande grad deltar i tillsammans med sina 
ekonomiska partner. Denna process skulle kunna främja nya former av 
partnerskap mellan Nord och Syd som i högre grad grundar sig på nätverk, 
strävanden efter ömsesidiga intressen och slutligen ett öppnande i Europa 
mellan olika typer av aktörer vilket skulle möjliggöra mer globala 
infallsvinklar för samarbetet. 
- Större hänsyn till den lokala utvecklingens dimension och särskilt till 
decentraliserings- och regionaliseringsströmmarna i utvecklingsländerna. Det 
är alltmer dessa nivåer som blir relevanta idag oavsett det gäller den 
ekonomiska utvecklingen, miljö och fysisk planläggning eller handledning i 
demokrati. Detta är en lämplig handlingsnivå både beträffande det lokala 
deltagandet och de europeiska decentraliserade aktörernas medverkan. 
Sammanfattningsvis borde gemenskapspolitiken vad gäller det decentraliserade 
samarbetet beakta åtminstone tre angreppssätt: 
För det första bör det skapas grunder för en djupare dialog med aktörerna i det 
decentraliserade samarbetet i utvecklingsländerna så att villkoren för ett 
verkligt deltagande för och samråd mellan aktörerna gradvis införs i samband 
med biståndspolitiken och de europeiska biståndsprogrammen. 
3&L 
Detta samråd bör företrädesvis förekomma på den ländernivå eller regionala • 
nivå som motsvarar de särskilda samarbetspolitiska ramarna (till exempel de 
nationella och regionala vägledande programmen för Europeiska 
utvecklingsfonden, Medelhavsområdet, de centralamerikanska länderna, osv.). 
För det andra bör man även skapa förutsättningar för en djupare dialog med 
det decentraliserade samarbetets potentiella aktörer i Europa. Till exempel 
spelar CLONG en viktig roll vad gäller samrådet mellan de icke-statliga 
organisationerna och EU:s institutioner. Det finns ingen plattform för en dialog 
av detta slag mellan de lokala europeiska myndigheterna trots att dessa i hög 
grad gör sig gällande internationellt och är starkt engagerade i biståndet. De 
lokala myndigheterna som deltar fullt ut i den interna gemenskapspolitiken, ser 
alltså paradoxalt nog deras roll begränsad vad gäller de yttre förbindelserna 
vilket för övrigt har fått Europas regioner att idag åberopa sig på 
subsidiaritetsprincipen i samband med det europeiska biståndet. 
Till sist bör biståndsinstrumenten anpassas så att de blir smidigare och för att 
det decentraliserade samarbetet skall ingå fullständigt i EU:s politik och 
program. Dessutom bör dessa instrument harmoniseras för att garantera att de 
kompletterar varandra, underlätta förståelsen för dem och förbättra insynen 
utifrån. På samma sätt bör man sträva efter en samordning med 
medlemsstaterna, särskilt med dem som har en decentraliserad 
samarbetspolitik. 
4c^ 
A. INTRODUCTION 1 
1. Definition of decentralized cooperation 1 
2. Milestones in the development of decentralized cooperation ... 2 
B. PUTTING THEORY INTO PRACTICE 3 
3. Issues raised by decentralized cooperation 3 
4. The various Community models of decentralized cooperation . . 5 
C. DECENTRALIZED COOPERATION AS PART OF FINANCIAL 
AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION: A PARTIAL ASSESSMENT 
7 
5. Summary of the various instruments 7 
5.1 The specific Community budget headings, available to agents of 
decentralized cooperation 7 
5.2 Official financial and technical cooperation programmes ... 8 
i 
6. The decentralized cooperation budget heading B7-5077 9 
7. Decentralized cooperation under Lomé IV 11 
7.1 Overview 11 
7.2 Microproject programmes 12 
7.3 Decentralized cooperation programmes 13 
7.4 Prospects and limits 14 
8. Decentralized cooperation with developing countries in Latin 
America, Asia and the Mediterranean 14 
8.1 The Mediterranean decentralized programmes 14 
8.2 ALA countries 15 
8.2.1 Asia 16 
8.2.2 Latin America 17 
D. WHITHER DECENTRALIZED COOPERATION? 18 
k 
REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 
REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DECENTRALIZED 
COOPERATION 
A. INTRODUCTION 
1. Definition of decentralized cooperation 
The EC's espousal of decentralized cooperation as part of its development cooperation 
policy signalled a commitment to broadening the range of people and organizations 
involved in cooperation, with a view to making full use of all the talents which might be 
harnessed for development, both in Europe and the partner countries. Decentralized 
cooperation can involve non-governmental organizations (NGOs), local government, 
associations (rural or urban, professional, etc.), cooperatives, companies and business 
interests1 (for whom there are specific schemes), and trade unions ... in short, all the 
organizations that make up "civil society", both in Europe and in the South, and are 
capable of contributing to the social and economic growth of developing countries. 
The concept emerged and gradually took shape as part of European Community policy 
at the end of the eighties in response to several different (but interconnected) phenomena: 
the growing importance accorded to grassroots social and economic development issues 
and to participatory approaches to development among donors, especially the EC; the 
rise of NGO activity and the general, gradual crystallization of organized forms of civil 
society in the South; and increased enthusiasm for democracy and human rights in the 
early nineties, which brought fresh insights into the role and importance of civil society 
and its representatives in the development process. In this respect, the EC is just one 
among many bilateral and multilateral aid agencies now rethinking its priorities and 
development instruments. 
Decentralized cooperation, as set out in the introductory chapters to Lomé IV, can be 
applied to any of the standard instruments of financial, technical and economic 
cooperation. It is not meant to be a new instrument, but a different approach, 
complementing traditional methods of planning and implementing cooperation. It 
should (and ultimately will) cover all the EC's target regions for development 
cooperation: the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (the ACP), the overseas 
countries and territories (OCT), Asian and Latin American countries (the ALA), and the 
Mediterranean. 
1 Based on specific instruments related to this sector. 
<i 
Note that this report does not cover all fields and development agencies involved in the 
decentralized cooperation approach, in its widest sense. For example, it docs not cover 
support for businesses and private sector development. Though the same general policy 
applies, they are subject to quite distinct instruments and methods (because of the nature 
of such projects) and have already been the subject of specific reports. The main focus 
is therefore on local authorities/institutions and voluntary organizations in the widest 
sense. 
Obviously - as the report itself makes clear - differences between countries and regions 
will lead to different priorities and emphases in decentralized cooperation that reflect 
their degree of development, the range and effectiveness of existing social and economic 
structures, the relative importance of the public and private sector, and their social and 
political systems. 
2. Milestones in the development of decentralized cooperation 
- 1989-90: decentralized cooperation was covered for the first time in Articles 20 
to 22 of the fourth Lomé Convention and referred to in the introduction to almost 
all the national indicative programmes; 
- 1991: decentralized cooperation was enshrined in Articles 7 to 10 of the OCT 
Decision (Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991); 
- 1992: decentralized cooperation was acknowledged in Article 3 of Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 443/92 of 25 February 1992, relating to financial and 
technical assistance to and economic cooperation with ALA countries; 
- 1992: introduction of budget heading B7-5077 (Decentralized cooperation with the 
developing countries) as an incentive; widespread distribution of the document 
"Decentralized Cooperation - Objectives and Methods: 15 answers to 15 questions" 
dated 26 November 1992; wide internal distribution of instruction note No 52552, 
dated 13 August 1992, setting out implementing rules and methods for the EDF; 
launch of the first MED programmes; 
- 1993 on: first decentralized cooperation programmes launched under the EDF 
(starting with Côte d'Ivoire, Benin, Senegal, Madagascar, and Dominican 
Republic, etc.); refinement of priorities and targets for budget heading B7-5077 
and of information and mobilization campaigns (aimed at NGOs, local authorities, 
economic and social circles); production of how-to guides; new moves to include 
decentralized cooperation in official programmes (ongoing/new programmes, draft 
national indicative programmes (NIPs) for 1995-2000, the negotiating directives 
for the revision of the fourth Lomé Convention, etc.). 
Between 1990 and 1994, several key factors helped to consolidate the Community's 
decentralized cooperation policy, especially at European level. 
- Decentralized cooperation gradually won acceptance in Europe, thanks to effective 
campaigns by representative bodies such as the ESC, the NGOs' Liaison 
Committee, the Assembly of European Regions (AER), and city organizations 
(T&D, United Towns Organisation (UTO), International Union of Local 
Authorities/Council of European Municipalities and Regions (IULA-CEMR), etc.) 
which all had high hopes of decentralized cooperation and the EU - particularly 
local authorities, which felt that they had been shut out of traditional Community 
initiatives and agencies. 
There were influential decentralized cooperation projects carried out by local 
authorities (regions, cities, provinces, etc.) in various Member States (the 
Netherlands, France, Spain , etc.), after national legislation and even financial 
incentive schemes were introduced. This movement was also encouraged by 
organizations such as the Council of Europe (with the Congress of Local and 
Regional Authorities of Europe and the North-South Centre) and the United 
Nations, which carried out the groundwork for a permanent dialogue with such 
bodies. One of the main functions of budget heading B7-5077 and the MED 
programmes was precisely to provide a clear incentive for decentralized 
cooperation, drawing in hundreds of local authorities, universities and European 
NGOs. 
Under the EDF, the number of experiments gradually expanded. Decentralized 
cooperation was first introduced in traditional development NGO activities. 
However, it gradually gained in scope through a new generation of programmes 
dealing with rural/urban development, support for local government and the 
"informal" economy. They all aimed at grass-roots participation, engaged with 
the local dynamics of institutional and social change and refused to confine 
themselves to offering external, "turnkey" solutions. They put stress on building 
up local skills and on creating the right climate for organic development genuinely 
supported, indeed driven, by those it was meant to benefit. They sought new ways 
of improving the synergy between those directly involved (e.g. voluntary and 
business organizations, local authorities, NGOs), on the one hand, and state 
intervention/external aid, on the other. Some of the programmes sprang from 
purely local initiatives and were/are being implemented in a totally decentralized 
way, as in the Cameroon (participatory urban development), for example, or the 
Dominican Republic (Puerto Plata Province development). 
B. PUTTING THEORY INTO PRACTICE 
3. Issues raised by decentralized cooperation 
These can be summarized in a handful of points, the first of which concerns recent 
changes in the development scene and the actors involved. 
- In the South, non-governmental agencies (representative bodies, NGOs, local 
authorities, social and economic groups, etc.) have emerged as a wellspring of 
potential development proposals and activities; they are demanding a more active role 
both in the national and international arena. The widespread weakness of central 
governments, economic liberalization, and the trend towards decentralisation have 
all contributed to the rise of civil society; hence the current search for new 
interfaces between civil society and the state and between local agencies and 
international aid. Numerous NGO networks and Third World associations active in 
development have seized international, regional and local opportunities for debate in 
the wake of several major UN conferences, which have undoubtedly acted as a 
catalyst. If the recent flurry of meetings and seminars on decentralized cooperation 
called by Southern NGOs is anything to go by, the EC will not be allowed to stand 
idly by. 
- This trend has had repercussions in the North, especially for European NGOs, with 
which the EC has long cultivated close ties. It is no accident that they too are under 
unprecedented pressure to examine their own identities and legitimacy, the nature 
and purpose of their partnerships with the South, and their institutional relations 
with the EC. This rethink is a direct response to their Southern counterparts' 
growing maturity and demands, which have prompted the major donors to shift 
towards direct financing, increased use of NGOs and decentralized cooperation (or 
variants of it), and to refocus their strategies around those issues. 
- Decentralized cooperation has also opened the door to the involvement of other 
sections of European civil society in development cooperation, and to alternative 
forms of intervention other than those deployed successfully by the NGOs, as 
illustrated for example by the actions of local authorities, universities, trade 
federations and leading institutions, social and co-operative groups, etc. This wider 
participation is challenging European NGOs in terms of not only their relations 
with other elements of civil society in Europe, but also the exclusive position they 
have enjoyed up to now as representatives of European civil society to the EC. The 
question is whether it is possible to establish a more direct dialogue between various 
parts of civil society and Community institutions, in other words promote wider 
participation in Europe itself European local authorities, cities and regions, for 
instance are calling for a more direct dialogue with the EU and greater recognition 
of their role in mobilizing public opinion and promoting development 
Then there are questions as to how to apply decentralized cooperation to development 
programmes and projects. 
- Participation, in the widest sense, is the key to decentralized cooperation. If we 
are to cultivate and make full use of grassroots potential to initiate action in the 
South, there has to be some mechanism for first listening to local agents, for 
establishing genuine dialogue between them and the authorities, so that they can 
be involved as early as possible in defining development priorities and 
programmes. This responsiveness must extend to implementation on the ground, 
so that the grass-roots organizations and agents concerned assume as much 
responsibility as possible. 
This is quite different from participatory approaches aimed primarily at getting 
people on the ground to contribute to projects (by providing manpower, covering 
running costs, etc.), necessary though that may be. In terms of setting up 
programmes, participation applies to the whole "project cycle", from the initial 
idea through identification, preparation, etc. to implementation. The quality, or 
degree, of participation at each level will determine how "decentralized" the 
project actually is in practice. 
Wider participation is not going to come about without some preparations to 
smooth the way: local actors must be enabled to play their full part by a deliberate 
policy of organization-building. This requires resources, and timescales which look 
beyond the lifespan of the project or the NIP to the long term. In addition, 
over-restrictive financial and technical cooperation procedures and rules must be 
made more flexible, particularly those of the EDF, which currently put major 
practical obstacles in the way of the introduction of decentralized cooperation that 
can be overcome only thanks to the dedicated efforts and enthusiasm of 
individuals, notably delegation staff. 
Decentralized cooperation is not just a matter of NGO access to contracts to 
implement traditional programmes. Like other donors, the EC is increasingly 
involving NGOs as contractors, and depends heavily upon them in Asia and Latin 
America, for example, where it is cost-effective and made easier by the more 
flexible instruments governing Community aid there. This is a controversial issue 
among Northern NGOs, who are reluctant to risk their principles and social 
support by being "instrumentalized" (i.e. becoming an arm of official aid donors) 
but do not want to pass up opportunities to expand their work. It is a trend that has 
led to a boom in "supporting NGOs", particularly in the South, where a new 
generation of pseudo-NGOs is likely to spring up to fill the gap in the market for 
expertise, jumping on the decentralized cooperation bandwagon. There is work to 
be done to investigate and establish a code of practice for decentralized 
cooperation, based on criteria distinguishing between representative, intermediate, 
and support organizations, etc., along with clear and unambiguous ground rules 
determining conditions of access to Community funds for these local organizations 
in the context of decentralized cooperation. In the case of the EDF, it is unlikely 
that such rules could fail to differ to some extent from the standard rules applied 
to traditional aid programmes (as regards eligibility, tendering, contracting, etc.) 
which are designed specifically to mediate between commercial service providers 
and governments. 
4. The various Community models of decentralized cooperation 
Rapid progress was made in putting the principles of decentralized cooperation into 
practice in EU development programmes from 1990 to 1994. The form it took varied 
from region to region, reflecting the priorities for European development aid in each 
case, the scope offered by the legal and institutional framework of the aid 
programmes, and individual initiatives on the part of the EC. 
However, the high profile gained by its early inclusion in Lomé IV as a major plank 
of Community cooperation policy was, in a way, jeopardized by this very diversity 
which, rightly or wrongly, gave rise to a certain public confusion, even frustration. 
Very broadly, one can postulate three "schools" of decentralized cooperation: 
- One, drawing upon the experience of European integration, sees decentralized 
cooperation as horizontal cooperation between sections of civil society in the 
Member States and third countries (local authorities, economic groups, higher 
education institutions, etc). The instruments of decentralized cooperation developed 
in the Mediterranean (under the MED programmes), and more recently in Latin 
America aim mainly at the establishment of closer and more balanced political, 
economic and cultural relations, based on either economic reciprocity or political 
or cultural "proximity", 
the latter being particularly relevant for aspiring EU candidates. This form of 
cooperation involves mainly cultural, economic, technological and scientific 
exchanges, possibly with an element of "democratic engineering", with countries 
which are generally at an intermediate development level or undergoing economic 
transition. These programmes have unquestionably been successful, particularly in 
Europe, where they have undoubtedly provided an incentive. Some of these 
programmes have been quite radical in rethinking methods, particularly as regards 
the network concept; here we will refer to this variant as the integration model of 
decentralized cooperation. 
- Another school has its origins in the traditional development aid aimed at least 
developed countries and those undergoing democratization. It emphasizes the need 
to give civil society a voice and a role in the development process. In treating civil 
society as a principal - an agent, not just a "beneficiary" of development -
decentralized cooperation calls into question both traditional development aid 
instruments and the relationship between civil society and the public authorities in 
developing countries. This we will refer to as the participatory model of 
decentralized cooperation" (participation being understood in its broadest sense). 
While this model is influential in a number of pilot schemes and programmes, it 
has to be recognized that, very often, the development of decentralized cooperation 
is hampered by the institutional frameworks of cooperation (and Lomé IV in 
particular), cumbersome rules and procedures, and even a degree of defensiveness 
or mistrust as referred to earlier. Nonetheless, given the extent of the resources 
devoted to this field by the EC, it is on this ground that the future of decentralized 
cooperation will be decided. / 
- Finally, one cannot overlook a third form of decentralized cooperation which one 
might term the surrogate model. This comes into play precisely in countries 
where, for various reasons, official cooperation has been suspended and aid is 
maintained only for priority needs and channelled by decentralized agencies. In 
principle this is laudable, but in some cases, unfortunately, once official relations 
are re-established, decentralized cooperation ceases to be a priority and the local 
agencies involved are relegated to the back seat or even excluded from Community 
programmes altogether, something which seriously undermines the Community's 
credibility in promoting decentralized cooperation. 
This diversity of situations, along with the supremely qualitative, subjective nature of 
the decentralized approach, render it impossible to establish a hard and fast definition, 
or identify one "standard" body of practice. Decentralized cooperation only makes sense 
if it is intricately linked to the reality on the ground and the constraints of each 
particular situation. In practical terms, that means we have to accept and encourage 
diversity and a variety of experiments in the field, but we would argue that such 
experiments must be rooted in certain basic principles enabling one to mark the 
boundaries of decentralized cooperation and allowing the message to be delivered loud 
and clear to all participants. 
C DECENTRALIZED COOPERATION AS PART OF FINANCIAL 
ANDTECHNICAL COOPERATION: A PARTIAL ASSESSMENT 
This section attempts to give a broad outline - admittedly very incomplete - of those 
experiments we were able to list and investigate. 
5. Summary of the various instruments 
5.1 The specific Community budget headings, available to agents of decentralized 
cooperation 
- The decentralized cooperation budget (heading B7-5077): a broad variety of 
decentralized players in developing countries, including local authorities, are 
eligible for this aid; in practice, since the budget allocation is small, it supports 
mainly preparatory projects to encourage and reinforce decentralized organizations 
both in developing countries and in Europe, support for the creation of 
North-South and South-South partnerships and networks, and projects to prepare 
decentralized cooperation components of official programmes. It mainly acts as a 
catalyst and a lever for the spread of decentralized cooperation in countries with 
official EC aid programmes (1994 budget: ECU 5 million). 
There are a number of other budget headings which, while not specifically dedicated to 
decentralized cooperation, can contribute indirectly to its objectives: 
Å 
- Budgets specifically intended for the development of North-South partnerships 
and/or the reinforcement of non-governmental partners in the South. These 
headings are available to local groups in the North and South, and not only NGOs: 
- B7-5220 and 5230: support for projects to promote human rights and 
democracy in the developing countries (1994 budget: ECU 27 million); 
- B7-5031: aid for training nationals of developing countries (1994 budget: 
ECU 2 million). 
- Promotion of initiatives by local groups in the North or the South: 
- B7-5076: rehabilitation and reconstruction projects in developing countries 
(1994 budget: ECU 45 million); 
- B7-5040: the environment in the developing countries (1994 budget: 
ECU 20 million). 
- Promotion of initiatives by NGOs in the North or the South: 
- B7-5014: aid for NGOs active in Vietnam (1994 budget: ECU 2 million); 
- B7-5015: aid for NGOs active in Cambodia (1994 budget: ECU 1 million); 
- B7-5013: aid for NGOs active in Chile (1994 budget: ECU 3.8 million) (this 
budget heading disappeared in 1995; 
- B7-4083: financial assistance to the West Bank and Gaza Strip (1994 budget: 
ECU 50 million). 
- Support for Southern NGOs indirectly via northern NGOs: 
- B7-5010: NGO cofinancing (1994 budget: ECU 145 million); projects 
formally aimed at institutional support for grassroots organizations in 
developing countries under Chapter XII of the General Conditions 
represented approximately only ECU 3 million in 1994 (i.e. 2% of the total). 
However, an increasing number of integrated projects tend to incorporate 
this dimension. 
In practice, the availability and implementation of these budgets varies widely; some are 
very narrow in their purpose or have a very limited definition of an NGO or local 
partner, while others offer maximum fiexibility in supporting genuinely decentralized 
initiatives. 
The total available under these budget headings was ECU 300 million in 1994. 
5.2 Official financial and technical cooperation programmes 
The EDF and the Mediterranean and ALA programmes offer the greatest scope for 
decentralized cooperation. 
One can broadly distinguish three types: 
- programmes specifically intended to support grassroots initiatives, generally small-
scale, either within the framework of traditional instruments such as the microproject 
programme, which can be adapted to give local organizations greater responsibility, 
or under ad hoc decentralized cooperation programmes designed precisely with that 
end in mind. Some sectoral or integrated programmes incorporate such a component. 
The EDF has long and wide experience in this field, which has also been applied in 
developing countries in Central America, in' the Andean Pact countries and in 
Palestine. A number of steps were taken under Lomé IV to* steer microproject 
programmes in that direction; 
traditional programmes (sectoral, integrated) with which local groups may be 
involved in some way. The level of involvement may vary considerably, and may 
cover all or only part of the project cycle. One example might be a programme 
designed and implemented by a large NGO recognized as having broad support in 
the community. The most significant advances have probably been made in ALA 
countries which have large, recognized and locally-based NGOs (Bolivia, Chile, 
Bangladesh, India, and Sri Lanka, for example) and where domestic circumstances 
favour this approach. However, as mentioned above (see B.3), bringing NGOs into 
national programmes as project managers or in a supporting role can simply be a 
variation on the traditional "top-down" approach to project management. All too 
often that is still the case. 
lastly, there are horizontal instruments, a type which is gradually spreading in the 
Mediterranean (with the Medurbs, Medmedia, Medinvest, Medcampus, Avicenne and 
forthcoming Medassociations programmes) and in Latin America (with the Alinvest 
and Alfa programmes, soon to be joined by "Urbal"). These are designed mainly to 
promote trade links and transfers of know-how, via networks involving small groups 
of European and Southern non-governmental organizations and associations. 
6. The decentralized cooperation budget heading B7-5077 
From 1992-94, ECU 7.845 million was allocated for 44 projects as follows: 
12 projects (accounting for 13.5% of the funds) to promote decentralized 
cooperation, mobilize local partners in the North and the South (NGOs, local 
authorities), help build networks, and prepare decentralized programmes to be 
financed by official funds. Most of these projects involve ACP States, where there 
is great demand for decentralized cooperation a demand underpinned by the policy 
set out in the Lomé Convention. These projects enable local partners to improve their 
organization and network, boost North-South and South-South partnerships and 
facilitate dialogue with central government and the delegations on the introduction 
of decentralized cooperation in official programmes. 
17 projects focusing on institution-building and support for local partners, accounting 
for 34 % of the funds. The main countries concerned are the ACP States, Latin 
America (Central America, Colombia, Bolivia, and Chile) and, to a lesser extent, 
one or two Mediterranean and Asian countries (India, Vietnam). The majority of 
these projects are very narrowly circumscribed by EDF and ALA rules and 
programmes. In addition, almost two-thirds involve building or expanding networks 
or associations of municipalities, often in connection with local government issues 
in the countries concerned. Support for decentralization, urban and municipal 
development is expanding rapidly within the ACP and (in some cases) ALA 
framework. 
The "regional networks for decentralized cooperation" approach 
under budget heading B7-5077 
The networks have several objectives in common: 
- to bring NGOs and local authorities in Europe and the South to combine their efforts, 
technical and financial resources around common objectives for grass-roots development 
(improvement of living conditions and urban management, job creation etc.); 
- to break down barriers, and encourage North-South/South-South exchanges of experiences, 
and cross-fertilization of ideas between different groups of partners, so as to make local 
partners in the South stronger in the long term, increase their profile and expand their 
activities; 
- to encourage pilot and incentive schemes that monitor the real impact of these approaches on 
the ground, paving the way for their incorporation into official programmes. 
These networks tend to stress: 
- support for initiatives by grassroots groups and NGOs, allied with enhanced dialogue with 
the local authorities (for example, the "Urban crisis, social exclusion" and Europe-Central 
America programmes); 
- skills and institution-building for local authorities as part of devolution programmes (e.g. the 
municipal development programme in West Africa; and the PARMA programme); 
- North-South partnership and twinning schemes and support for pilot projects (e.g. PARMA 
and Europe-Central America programmes). 
Some examples: t 
- Europe-Central America decentralized cooperation programme 
Partners: in Europe, national associations and collectives grouping some 50 Dutch, French, 
Spanish and German cities; NGOs and local associations; in Central America: national 
associations of municipalities from the six countries of the region, local authorities, NGOs, and 
training centres. 
Activities: support for devolution of powers to local government and institution-building for 
local authority associations; support for pilot schemes on local development focusing on social 
and economic topics and urban management. 
- Support programme to strengthen local government in West Africa (PARMA) 
Partners: in Europe, about 20 French, Italian and German municipalities involved in twinning 
or partnership schemes; in Africa, local authority associations and national subcommittees 
responsible for decentralization, NGOs, local associations, etc. 
Activities: strengthening national city associations, and skill-building pilot projects to improve 
local authorities' planning and management of community facilities and services, with the 
participation of residents. 
- "Urban crisis and social exclusion" programme in West Africa 
Partners: NGOs, district associations, social project leaders, municipalities, research centres. 
Activities: support for grassroots initiatives targeting groups with problems (young unemployed 
people, women etc.); aid in setting up district community associations and training community 
leaders. 
To give some idea of the cost, the total budget for these three programmes is roughly 
ECU 3 million, of which 50% is financed by the EC; the remainder is usually financed by the 
partners concerned (on the spot and in Europe) and various bilateral and multilateral 
decentralized cooperation programmes (French, Dutch, Italian, World Bank, etc). 
10 
- 15 pilot projects and programmes (accounting for 52.5 % of the funds), mainly in ACP 
and ALA countries. These projects are based on North-South partnerships such as 
urban twinning schemes and partnerships between NGOs and municipalities, often in 
innovative areas such as urban management, combating social exclusion, city 
environment projects, and local economic development. Regional support structures 
for local initiatives have been set up in Central America and in West Africa via local 
authority and NGO networks. 
In all, during the period 1992-94, the regional distribution of the funds was as follows: 
ACP States 61%, Latin America 28%, Asia 4%, the Mediterranean 1%, other 6%. 
7. Decentralized cooperation under Lomé IV 
7.1 Overview 
The Lomé Convention framework, with its emphasis on states and national authorizing 
officers, is not always conducive to fostering wider participation, which is why 
decentralized cooperation is still relatively untried. The revised Lomé IV introduces some 
changes: 
- promotion of cooperation between national authorizing officers and local partners (in 
the annex to the Convention); 
- inclusion in the national indicative programmes of more easily accessible funds for 
decentralized initiatives; 
- greater recognition of decentralized cooperation in traditional programmes. 
,/ 
The data below was gathered by sending questionnaires (in mid-1994) to all the 
delegations. The goal was not to draft an exhaustive assessment but rather to take stock 
and identify trends in approaches, suggest promising areas for further study and identify 
the main obstacles so that this method of cooperation can be incorporated more 
effectively into future EDF programmes. Since the definitions of decentralized 
cooperation vary, the figures merely give a rough idea. 
- Three quarters of the 41 countries that replied (excluding island ACP States and 
countries to which aid has been suspended or is pending) reported programmes which 
more or less fulfil the criteria for decentralized cooperation, in terms of the level and 
depth of involvement in the various stages of the project's preparation and subsequent 
management, the involvement of local authorities and NGOs, and the importance 
attached to decentralized North-South partnerships. 
- The 54 programmes reckoned to be the most significant account for commitments 
totalling some ECU 574 million under the 6th and 7th EDF (representing roughly 5% 
of the resources of the 7th EDF). 
- One quarter of the countries gave the following reasons for the absence of any 
decentralized cooperation: lack of sufficient dialogue with government authorities, a 
"democratic deficit", the structural weakness of local partners, and insufficient staff 
in the delegations to make a valid contribution in this very demanding field. 
- There were several recurring themes in the replies from countries implementing 
decentralized cooperation: the impact of recent or current decentralization policies on 
the planning and implementation of future decentralized programmes, and the fact that 
11 
NGQs and other local partners were still on the whole still relatively poorly organized, 
so that informing, advising, and encouraging grassroots organizations made great 
demands on the delegation staffs time. 
- 50% of the programmes cited were in fact microproject programmes or decentralized 
cooperation programmes2 specifically designed to support small grassroots initiatives, 
although the extent to which local partners assume management responsibility varies 
enormously (see below). 
- Others are traditional rural development programmes,3 urban development 
programmes/ or private sector, support programmes.3 They may be programmes 
geared to local development incorporating economic, social and institutional projects. 
They may attempt to widen the planning process; include institution-building and 
human-resource development for local partners; involve local communities in steering 
the project; involve NGOs, and/or delegate certain financial and management 
responsibilities to local partners, depending on circumstances. Nevertheless, these 
usually are "top-down"programmes, in which participation is clearly defined and 
limited. 
- Two EDF programmes, launched in late 1994, are exceptional: 
One is a province-wide integrated local development programme in the Dominican 
Republic, which is the result of bringing together one state-sponsored scheme and 
, another started by local groups (NGOs, community groups, municipalities, etc.) 
which had banded together in a "social forum" and lobbied for self-reliant 
development. The programme ultimately agreed upon is being implemented, with 
this local entity providing management and practical support. 
The other programme is aimed at developing the executive abilities of intermediate 
associations of urban residents in the cities of the Cameroon. The project was 
planned by them from start to finish with the support of a European NGO. These 
groups will take responsibility for implementing and managing it according to rules 
and mechanisms worked out collectively and administered by them. 
7.2 Microproject programmes 
The microproject programmes are one potential resource for decentralized cooperation. 
They are normally intended to support community or collective projects and implemented 
with the participation of the people who will benefit. They typically involve small 
economic and social facilities in rural environments: village water supplies, education 
and health projects. 
However, microproject programmes are primarily "centralized" instruments. Their 
priorities are decided by the national authorizing officer and the Delegation; project 
2 E.g. in Angola, Botswana, Benin, Burundi, Kenya, Lesotho, Mozambique, Uganda, 
Senegal, Swaziland, Tanzania, and Zambia. 
3 E.g. in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Congo, Guinea, Mali, Niger, and Uganda. 
4 Mali, Côte dTvoire, and Guinea. 
5 The Dominican Republic, Guyana, and Kenya. 
12 
identification, selection, implementation and finance are generally entrusted to a project 
management unit accountable to the National Authorizing Officer, who has the final say. 
They are geared primarily to achieving quantifiable short-term goals; developing local 
skills may not figure either as an objective or as a longer-term strategy. 
Some of these programmes nevertheless have a marked emphasis on: 
- involving the beneficiaries and giving them greater responsibility via preliminary 
information campaigns or on-the-spot training;6 in certain cases NGOs, the local 
authorities or beneficiaries are involved in the programme's steering committee;7 
some micro-project programmes are run by local users' committees.8 This being said, 
some programmes have to contend with a certain lack of motivation among those 
"volunteered" to take part in the projects. 
- strengthening the role of local authorities: support for local government may be an 
explicit objective;9 local authorities are associated with project identification, 
implementation and monitoring and subsequent management of facilities;10 however, 
a number of evaluations have demonstrated the very real risk of local authorities 
"taking over" the programmes to the detriment of the wishes of local people; 
- involving NGOs in project identification, implementation and monitoring.11 
Under Lomé IV, ECU 105 million had been allocated to microproject programmes at the 
close of 1994. Of the 36 microproject programmes approved, approximately a third 
incorporates to some degree one or other of the elements of the decentralized approach. 
It is nonetheless to be feared (and experience tends to confirm) that the traditional 
microproject programme is not the most suitable vehicle for implementing decentralized 
cooperation. Microprojects have been slow to take off under Lomé, and are only now 
gaining in visibility, experience and reliability. Few national authorizing officers or 
delegations are inclined to take the risk of upsetting this fragile balance; some prefer to 
confine decentralized cooperation to ad hoc programmes, separate from microprojects. 
7.3 Decentralized cooperation programmes 
These are an attempt to learn from the experience gained with the microproject 
programmes (project scale, the degree of community participation, etc.), but they differ 
from the latter on the following essential points: 
- some programmes are open to a broad range of local initiatives (social, economic, 
training, etc.), outside the predefined focal sectors or regions and accessible to a wide 
variety of local partners (e.g. in Niger, Benin, Mauritius, and Madagascar). Others 
target specific geographical areas and are part of a wider move to support 
decentralized local development (e.g. in Senegal, Cameroon, and the Dominican 
Republic); 
6 E.g. in Senegal, Zambia, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Niger, Tanzania, and 
Mozambique. 
7 E.g. in Mozambique, Sierra Leone, and Swaziland 
8 Mozambique and Burundi. 
9 Burundi, Mozambique, and Mali. 
10 E.g. in Zambia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe. 
11 Togo, Mozambique, Angola, and Botswana. 
13 
- the relevant local partners are involved in the programme's decision-making and 
policy-making bodies; 
- management of resources and responsibilities is delegated to the local partners via 
"interfaces": local or foreign NGOs with effective management skills; 
- institution-building among grass-roots organizations is an explicit objective of the 
programme, and is translated into resources devoted to coordination, communication 
and training intended to organize local partners in sustainable ways. 
Under Lomé IV, programmes of this type have been launched or are under appraisal in 
Benin (ECU 2 million), Burundi, Ghana (ECU 2 million), Mauritius (ECU 2 million), 
Madagascar (ECU 1.5 million), Niger (ECU 2 million), Senegal (ECU 4 million) and 
Zimbabwe, bringing the total indicative budget to some ECU 13 million. 
7.4 Prospects and limits 
This overview confirms that there is still some way to go to ensure that decentralized 
cooperation is firmly embedded in aid policies and programmes within the Lomé 
framework. Putting the principle into practice has already thrown up a host of questions 
about methods and rules. Moreover, the decentralized cooperation programmes described 
above are not as yet covered by any specific provision in the Lomé Convention. In spite 
of these difficulties, some countries have already undertaken policy reviews on the 
importance and the role to be given to decentralized cooperation in the future NIPs, 
which include launching wide-ranging consultations among local participants. 
8. Decentralized cooperation with developing countries in Latin America, Asia and 
the Mediterranean 
As mentioned in the introduction, it is worth stressing decentralized cooperation has in 
some ways been implemented differently in the Mediterranean, Latin America and Asia 
compared with the ACP countries, reflecting the variety of development levels and 
profiles of different regions. This difference may be reflected in the roles of the various 
participants and the methods used to support their projects in practice. 
8.1 The Mediterranean decentralized programmes 
Decentralized cooperation in the Mediterranean countries grew out of the New 
Mediterranean Policy between 1990 and 1995, with programmes such as Medurbs, 
Medcampus, Medinvest, Avicenne and Medmedia. 
The programmes are geared primarily to the development of North-South and South-
South partnerships of non-governmental organizations, in the form of networks. 
They all follow the same pattern, establishing networks intended to encourage dialogue, 
technology transfers and exchanges of expertise between similar or related organizations 
in European and non-EU countries. The networks must include at least one non-EU 
participant and two from different Member States. 
Medurbs targets local authorities. The objective is to improve living conditions and 
strengthen local democracy, with networks relating to the environment, town planning, 
social exclusion, transport, and municipal management. Some 150 cities have been 
involved since the programme was launched in 1992. 
14 
Medcampus targets higher educational establishments. It covers social and economic 
development, company management, management of the environment and cultural 
exchanges involving 450 universities and colleges. 
Medinvest aims to create an environment favourable to small and medium-sized 
enterprises by encouraging transfers of know-how, working through trade and 
professional organizations. 
Medmedia encourages cooperation between media professionals to promote transfers of 
know-how and strengthen cultural ties in the Mediterranean area. 
During the period 1992-94, an estimated ECU 43 million was committed to these four 
programmes, representing roughly 1% of the total available under the 
fourth Mediterranean Protocol (1992-96). 
In addition, a Med-Association programme aimed at NGOs is in preparation. 
These programmes have had a definite incentive effect, as a result of the careful attention 
paid to publicity and communications. 
A debate is now under way on the long-term sustainability of some of these networks 
(beyond the period of EC aid), and on the projects' visibility and impact in the South as 
a result of the limited resources devoted to networks targeting initial or preparatory 
contacts; this hampers subsequent access to financing for longer-term projects, and their 
ability to mesh with other European aid programmes for the region. 
The European Union is now proposing to go further in its efforts to involve civil society 
in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership programmes for associate countries in the 
Southern and Eastern Mediterranean. An action programme is likely to be adopted at 
the Barcelona Ministerial Conference in November. 
8.2 ALA countries 
The 1992 Council Regulation governing cooperation with developing countries in Asia 
and Latin America11 states that for financial and technical aid "the recipients of aid and 
partners in cooperation may include not only States and regions but decentralized 
authorities, regional organizations, public agencies, local or traditional communities, 
private institutes and operators, including cooperatives and non-governmental 
organizations". 
Here, this principle seems easier to apply than under the EDF. Indeed, the ALA 
development framework is much more flexible and less reliant on the governments of the 
recipient states, leaving Brussels a great deal of discretion in selecting projects and 
operators. These vary enormously, according to the region and EU priorities. 
15 
While there has recently been increased interest in economic cooperation in the two 
regions, the bulk of the resources is still devoted to projects to combat poverty in the 
poorest countries. 
8.2.1 Asia 
Most aid is devoted to traditional development projects (rural development, food aid, 
refugees, etc.). Financial and technical cooperation is targeted largely towards South 
Asia (India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, etc.). In these countries, there is wide recourse to the 
many organized local NGOs, some quite powerful, which is the hallmark of 
decentralized cooperation. 
Thus in Bangladesh, 90% of aid in 1994 was channelled through local NGOs (the 
Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC), Proshika, etc.), under major 
multiannual programmes agreed jointly by the state, the NGOs and the EU, centring 
mainly on the campaign against poverty and community development. The Community 
is contributing up to ECU 30 million over 5 years in the case of Proshika. The third 
rural development programme, implemented by BRAC (the country's second-largest 
NGO) aims to support organizations of the poor at village level. The programme focuses 
on institution-building and human-resource development in a very wide range of fields, 
from health through to credit and training. BRAC is fully responsible for 
implementation, with the support of a consortium of donors. Of course NGOs are also 
called upon to implement some parts of government-run programmes such as the 
IFADEP programme. 
Bangladesh is a classic example of the steady rise of iocal NGOs which, with the support 
of a few foreign NGOs, have risen from modest beginnings to a position as fully-fledged 
institutions recognized and respected by international donors and, above all, by the State. 
There are some parallels in Sri Lanka and India. In India, there are about 6000 active 
NGOs, of all sizes. To give some idea, the primary education support programme is 
thoroughly decentralized in approach, "bottom-up" and geared towards local 
communities. The Community contribution is fixed at ECU 150 million over 5 years. 
The country has recently shifted to promoting development and local government at rural 
community level, and the Commission, working with the government and NGOs, is 
starting to support a whole series of initiatives aimed at strengthening these communities 
and their elected authorities. 
At the same time, economic concerns have become more important to the EU's strategy 
for the region, and this is opening the way to other possible forms of decentralized 
cooperation based on stepping up and expanding partnerships and other ties between 
Europeans and Asians (economic operators, local authorities, centres of excellence, etc.). 
Some city network experiments, similar to those initiated under the Medurbs programme 
and in Latin America and Africa, have recently been launched - in Vietnam, for 
example, where a Euro-Vietnamese network of cities has been formed to work on town 
planning, environmental and urban management issues. Similar networks, on the urban 
environment, have been set up at regional level, bringing together NGOs and local 
authorities. All in all, these experiments account for less than ECU 1 million. It is 
reasonable to believe that there is great scope for expanding this initiative to include not 
only the major European local authorities (regions, provinces, major cities, etc.), but a 
16 
wide range of institutions and local organizations involved in environmental issues, 
research, etc. This might be one of the objectives of the embryonic Asiaurbs programme. 
8.2.2 Latin America 
Development aid is targeted mainly at Central America and the Andean countries, 
especially Bolivia. 
As in Asia, the existence of mature local NGOs and recognized social movements is an 
advantage in shifting towards a more proactive policy on participation. Even now, NGOs 
are often involved as implementing partners or in supporting roles in European aid 
programmes. 
This is the case, for example, in Peru, where there is a programme to supply drinking 
water to the shanty towns of Lima. Its success is in large part due to the involvement 
of district committees and NGOs. In Bolivia, the participation of local communities and 
NGOs in development policies and programmes has been given high priority by central 
government (following a "local participation law" on the issue) and has become one of 
the main planks of EU aid. 
In Central America, regional programmes have resulted in substantial resources being 
devoted to the development of indigenous communities, the cooperative movement, 
peasant organizations and microenterprises. 
For example, the Procoopca regional programme^ costing ECU 22 million, aimed at 
developing the cooperative movement, is based on a participatory approach: the project 
management unit involves local partners in defining priorities, setting policies, and 
implementing them. 
Another interesting approach is that of North-South networks combining the resources 
of European non-governmental institutions, such as the Alfa programme for universities. 
This model could usefully be extended to other groups of institutions such as local 
authorities (regions, cities, etc.). 
A test programme of this type was begun in 1994 (financed under the B7-5077 budget 
heading, with the intention of switching to ALA budget funding if it proves successful), 
based on a network of about 50 cities and NGOs in Europe and the national associations 
of municipalities and their regional federation in Central America, to provide support for 
local management of Central American towns. The programme builds upon successful 
agreements and twinning schemes concluded in the early 1980s, enabling cities to expand 
ties and undertake practical projects. In this way, it helps forge links between NGOs, 
grass-roots associations and local authorities. 
Other similar experiments involving city networks and centres of expertise (research 
centres, NGOs, and the like) have been conducted in Latin America. Such arrangements, "•* 
limited as yet, could usefully be adopted on a much wider scale so as to make full use 
of the solidarity and the wealth of very varied ties (cultural, economic, etc.) linking the 
region with Europe. 
17 
D. WHITHER DECENTRALIZED COOPERATION? 
This initial assessment highlights the different faces of decentralized cooperation: the 
varying interpretations of it, and the many operational forms it has assumed in the 
context of a Community cooperation policy, which is characterized by marked 
differences in approach from one geographical area to another. It also shows that it is 
a field in which theory and practice are developing rapidly, and where there is abundant 
potential for development. 
A turning point has been reached in the Mediterranean, Latin America and Asia, where 
there is increasing cooperation with local and regional authorities, universities and 
NGOs. The EU's offer of a genuine partnership with representatives of civil society has 
already met with a degree of success there. A growing number of ACP States are 
following this example, and collaboration with NGOs, local authorities, and the private 
sector is becoming increasingly important. 
The common thread to these approaches is the search for models of cooperation centring 
more on grassroots involvement of individuals, social and economic groups, models 
more in keeping with local realities and change, which will therefore be more effective 
and viable. 
Decentralized cooperation is also essential to the objectives of EU development 
cooperation policy, enabling it: 
- to achieve sustainable economic and social development, stressing the idea that 
only development that is internalized by local communities can endure and help 
meet people's needs effectively, especially in the fight against poverty; 
- to reinforce democracy and the rule of law by restoring civil society as a 
counterweight to political and economic interests. 
In this connection, the use of decentralized cooperation must be incorporated into the 
framework of sectoral policies and approaches which underpin the EU's dialogue with 
recipient states, and not be regarded simply as an adjunct. This will enable it, rightly, 
to become a key element of that dialogue and of the objectives enshrined in national 
development priorities. 
Long-term development of the institutional and technical capacities of civil society, of 
social and economic forces and of local authorities must be at the heart of policies and 
programmes based on those principles. 
In summary, three ideas appear axiomatic to a policy of decentralized cooperation: 
- development policies must be open to greater participation by citizens and grassroots 
organizations in developing countries. Wider participation will require enhanced 
dialogue between the states, the EU and local partners, the forms of which - such as 
cooperation forums, for example - have for the most part have yet to be invented. 
- a broader base of non-governmental organizations involved in cooperation in Europe 
which might help EU activities have a wider impact in the field. 
This is primarily intended to strengthen ties of solidarity which, traditionally, have 
been a strong point and hallmark of EU action in various regions of the world. In 
18 
addition, the trend towards globalization and worldwide competition is increasingly 
affecting local operators such as cities, regions and local institutions and their 
respective economic partners. These processes should stimulate new network-style 
forms of North-South partnerships, seeking mutual and reciprocal interests, and break 
down barriers in Europe between different groups of operators, allowing common 
approaches to development cooperation. 
- better incorporation of the local development dimension, with increasing attention to 
decentralization and regionalization in developing countries. Increasingly, action on 
many issues from economic development to the environment, town planning, and 
schooling for democracy needs to be taken at regional or local level. Local action is 
conducive to local participation and the involvement of non-governmental European 
partners. 
In conclusion, Community policy on decentralized cooperation should at the very least 
consider three angles of attack: 
- The first imperative is to lay the foundations of a more sustained dialogue with agents 
of decentralized cooperation in the developing countries in order to create a climate 
for genuine participation by/consultation of such organizations on development policies 
and European aid programmes. This cooperation should preferably take place at the 
national or regional level corresponding to the cooperation framework in question (for 
example the NIPs and RIPs in the case of the EDF, in other cases at Mediterranean, 
Central America, etc.). 
i 
s 
- Secondly, the climate for a more sustained dialogue with potential non-governmental 
cooperation partners in Europe should also be created. The NGOs' Liaison 
Committee, for example, plays an important role from this point of view with regard 
to cooperation between NGOs and EU institutions. There is no similar platform for 
dialogue with European local authorities, although they have a strong presence in the 
international arena and are heavily involved in development aid. Local authorities, 
which are fully involved in intra-Community policies, have paradoxically been 
undervalued in external policies. This has led the European Regions to call for the 
principle of subsidiarity to be applied in their favour to European development 
cooperation policy. 
- Lastly, aid instruments should be standardized to make them more flexible and enable 
decentralized cooperation to take its rightful place in EU policies and programmes. 
Some harmonization is also needed to ensure they are more complementary, easier to 
understand and more visible to the outside world. By the same token, greater 
coordination should be pursued jointly with the Member States, especially those which 
have adopted a decentralized cooperation policy. 
19 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 
ACP Africa, Caribbean and Pacific 
ALA Asia and Latin America 
AER Assembly of European Regions 
CEMR Council of European Municipalities and Regions 
EC European Commission 
ESC Economic and Social Committee 
EDF European Development Fund 
EU European Union 
IULA International Union of Local Authorities 
NAO National Authorizing Officer 
NGO Non-governmental organization 
NIP National Indicative Programme 
RIP Regional Indicative Programme 
OCT Overseas countries and territories 
RIP Regional indicative programme 
T&D Towns and Development 
UTO United Towns Organization 
20 
ISSN 1024-4506 
KOM(96) 70 slutlig 
DOKUMENT 
SV n 
Katalognummer : CB-CO-96-077-SV-C 
ISBN 92-78-00761-7 
Byrån för Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella publikationer 
L-2985 Luxemburg