REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DECENTRALIZED COOPERATION
Date: 1996-03-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Development Fund, cooperation policy, non-governmental organisation, regional cooperation, third country

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 01.03.1996 
COM(96) 70 final 

REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DECENTRALIZED 
COOPERATION 

(Presented  by the Commission) 

A. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.  Definition  of  decentralized cooperation 
2.  Milestones in the development of decentralized cooperation 

. .. 

B.  PUTTING THEORY INTO PRACTICE 

3.  Issues raised by decentralized cooperation 
4.  The various Community models of decentralized cooperation 

.  . 

1 

1 
2 

3 

3 
5 

C.  DECENTRALIZED  COOPERATION  AS  PART  OF FINANCIAL 
AND TECHNICAL COOPERATION: A PARTIAL ASSESSMENT 

5.  Summary of the various instruments 

7 

7 

5.1  The specific  Community budget headings,  available to agents of 

decentralized cooperation 

5.2  Official financial and technical cooperation programmes 

. .. 

J 

6.  The decentralized cooperation budget heading B7-5077 

7.  Decentralized cooperation under Lomé IV 

7 
8 

9 

11 

7.1  Overview 
7.2  Microproject programmes 
7.3  Decentralized cooperation programmes 
7.4  Prospects and limits 
8.  Decentralized  cooperation  with  developing  countries  in  Latin 

11 
12 
13 
14 

America,  Asia and the Mediterranean 

8.1  The Mediterranean  decentralized programmes 
8.2  ALA countries 
8.2.1  Asia 
8.2.2  Latin America 

D.  WHITHER DECENTRALIZED COOPERATION? 

14 

14 
15 
16 
17 

18 

-4 

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. 

A 

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 does 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. 

y 

-  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: 

4 

-  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  flexibility  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: 

- 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 
Since  the  definitions  of  decentralized 
into  future  EDF  programmes. 
effectively 
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 

NGOs and other local partners were still on the whole still relatively poorly organized, 
so  mat  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.5  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 d'Ivoire,  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); 

E.g.  in  Senegal,  Zambia,  Uganda,  Zimbabwe,  Lesotho,  Niger,  Tanzania,  and 
Mozambique. 
E.g. in Mozambique, Sierra Leone, and Swaziland 
Mozambique and Burundi. 
Burundi, Mozambique, and Mali. 
E.g. in Zambia, Botswana, and Zimbabwe. 
Togo, Mozambique, Angola, and Botswana, 

10 

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,  sorne  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. 

Medme^ia 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 
the 
representing 
programmes, 
fourth Mediterranean Protocol  (1992-96). 

total  available  under 

roughly  1%  of 

the 

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, 
including  cooperatives  and  non-governmental 
private 
organizations". 

institutes  and  operators, 

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 local 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. 

,i 

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 
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. 

in  approach,  "bottom-up"  and  geared 

towards 

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.). 

-  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 
ALA 
AER 
CEMR 
EC 
ESC 
EDF 
EU 
IULA 
NAO 
NGO 
NIP 
RIP 
OCT 
RIP 
T&D 
UTO 

Africa,  Caribbean and  Pacific 
Asia and Latin America 
Assembly of European Regions 
Council of European Municipalities and Regions 
European Commission 
Economic and Social Committee 
European Development Fund 
European Union 
International Union of Local Authorities 
National Authorizing  Officer 
Non-governmental  organization 
National Indicative Programme 
Regional Indicative Programme 
Overseas countries and territories 
Regional indicative programme 
Towns and Development 
United Towns Organization  , 

20 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(96) 70 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

11 

Catalogue number  : CB-CO-96-077-EN-C 

ISBN 92-78-00755-2 

Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg 

&