Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Translating the Monterrey Consensus into practice: the contribution by the European Union SEC(2004)246}
Date: 2004-03-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, developing countries, development aid, financing of aid, international conference

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 05.03.2004 
COM(2004)150 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

Translating the Monterrey Consensus into practice: 
the contribution by the European Union 

{SEC(2004)246} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The  Monterrey  Consensus,  adopted  by  the  International  Conference  on  Financing  for 
Development (FfD) in Mexico, 18-22 March 2002, reflected a number of critical commitments 
"to  address  the  challenges  of  financing  for  development  around  the  world,  particularly  in 
developing  countries."  The  European  Union,  which  as  a  collective  is  responsible  for  more 
than 50 % of the worldwide Official Development Assistance (ODA), is a key partner in the 
FfD  process.  The  Union  defined  its  contribution  to  the  FfD  process  in  eight  explicit 
commitments, adopted at the European Council in Barcelona on 14 March 2002.  

In this monitoring report for 2004, the Commission updates its analyses of the state of play in 
the implementation of the Barcelona Commitments  and  makes  recommendations  for  further 
action in certain fields. For the first time, the contribution by the future Member States that 
will join the Union on 1 May 2004 is also covered. The report shows that the Union remains 
firmly engaged in the FfD process and is on track for meeting its 2006 targets for increase in 
the  volume  of  Official  Development  Assistance  (as  a  share  of  GNI).  Some  Member  States, 
which have not yet met the UN target of 0.7% ODA/GNI, have chartered new steps and set a 
timetable for reaching this goal.  

A number of concrete measures have also been taken to meet the commitments which focus 
on aid untying and debt relief. The progress on Global Public Goods, trade related assistance 
and innovative sources of financing is also promising, although the initiatives in these fields 
are being carried forward by individual Member States (and others) rather than by the Union 
as  a  whole.  The  Commission  believes  that  no  major  further  initiatives  on  Community  level 
need to be taken in relation to these commitments during 2004, and that the focus should be 
on finalising and reaching conclusions on the various ongoing activities.  

In  contrast,  few  concrete  steps  forward  have  been  taken  to  achieve  closer  co-ordination  of 
policies  and  harmonisation  of  procedures  (Commitment  II).  This  is  striking  since  the 
conclusions of the Barcelona Summit request that concrete steps should be taken before 2004. 
This Communication is therefore focused on proposals for further, concrete steps in this field, 
such as  

•  Closer coordination between EU donors in the field of development policy, which 
should inform the Member State’s own aid systems as  well as the  Union’s joint 
position in the international aid debate;  

•  Closer coordination of multiannual programming and analytic work;  

•  The  establishment  of  a  common  framework  for  aid  implementation  procedures, 

which could take the form of a Directive.  

•  The establishment of a local EU Action Plan for coordination and harmonisation 
in  any  partner  country  where  two  or  more  EU  donors  have  a  cooperation 
programme.  

2 

 
 
  
 
1. 

BACKGROUND:  THE  MONTERREY  CONSENSUS  AND  THE  CONTRIBUTION  BY  THE 
EUROPEAN UNION  

The  Monterrey  Consensus,  adopted  by  the  International  Conference  on  Financing  for 
Development (FfD) in Mexico, 18-22 March 2002, reflected a number of critical commitments 
"to  address  the  challenges  of  financing  for  development  around  the  world,  particularly  in 
developing  countries."  The  Monterrey  approach  is  comprehensive,  emphasising  that  trade, 
finance  and  development  are  closely  interrelated.  It  is  therefore  an  important  framework  to 
guide  the  international  community’s  common  efforts  at  the  national,  regional,  international 
and  systemic  levels  and  an  important  platform  for  achieving  the  Millennium  Development 
Goals (MDG).  

The  European  Union,  which  as  a  collective  is  responsible  for  more  than  50  %  of  the 
worldwide  Official  Development  Assistance  (ODA),  is  a  key  partner  in  the  FfD  process. 
Acting  collectively  at  Monterrey,  the  Union  contributed  significantly  to  the  overall  positive 
outcome  of  the  Conference.  The  Union  defined  its  contribution  to  the  FfD  process  at  the 
European Council in Barcelona on 14 March 2002, and pledged to  

•  Examine  the  means  and  timeframe  for  each  EU Member  State  to  reach  the  UN  target  of 
0.7%  ODA  of  Gross  National  Income  (GNI),  with  an  intermediary  target  of  0.39%  by 
2006, by which year the Member States should reach the target of at least 0.33% of GNI 
individually; 

•  Improve  aid  effectiveness  through  closer  coordination  and  harmonisation,  and  take 

concrete steps to this effect before 2004;  

•  Take measures with regard to untying of aid to Least Developed Countries (LDC); 

•  Increase its Trade Related Assistance (TRA); 

•  Support the identification of relevant Global Public Goods (GPG);  

•  Support  reforms  of  the  International  Financial  Systems  and  strengthen  the  voice  of 

developing countries in international economic decision-making; and 

•  Pursue  the  efforts  to  restore  debt  sustainability  in  the  context  of  the  enhanced  Heavily 

Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative. 

The  events  in  the  world  since  2002  have  further  underlined  the  need  for  the  Monterrey 
consensus to be fully implemented as soon as possible. It is therefore important to monitor the 
extent  to  which  donors  and  recipient  countries  alike  respect  their  commitments.  In  this 
context,  the  Union  has  an  opportunity  to  demonstrate  its  sustained  commitment  to  common 
solutions for global challenges by staying on track and delivering on its promises.  

3 

 
 
  
 
The Commission is mandated to report annually on the extent to which the EU Member States 
and  the  Commission  implement  the  Barcelona  Commitments  and  contribute  to  the  FfD 
process1 and to propose corrective measures wherever sufficient progress is not demonstrated. 
The  monitoring  exercise  is  a  good  opportunity  for  collective  benchmarking  and  ensures 
transparency on the action taken by the Union. The first report of this kind was approved by 
the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) in May 2003, and demonstrated 
that the EU and its Member States had made a good start in their efforts to meet the Barcelona 
commitments,  in  particular  on  the  pledges  concerning  increase  in  EU  ODA.2  The  report 
formed the basis for a positive and constructive EU input to the first High Level Dialogue on 
FfD (in the context of the UN General Assembly) in October 2003. 

In this monitoring report for 2004, the Commission updates its analyses of the state of play in 
the implementation of the Barcelona Commitments  and  makes  recommendations  for  further 
action in certain fields. For the first time, the contribution by the future Member States that 
will  join  the  Union  on  1  May  2004  is  also  covered.  The  considerable  and  laudable  efforts, 
which  the  future  Member  States  have  made  to  shoulder  the  ‘acquis  communautaire’  in  the 
field  of  development  policy  and  in  relation  to  the  Barcelona  commitments,  should  be 
especially noted. 

A detailed description of the state of play in the implementation of the eight Commitments is 
set out in Annex 13 to this Communication. It shows that the Union remains firmly engaged in 
the FfD process. The Union is on track for meeting its 2006 targets for increase in the volume 
of ODA (as a share of GNI). Some Member States, which have not yet met the UN target of 
0.7% ODA/GNI, have chartered new steps and set a timetable for reaching this goal.  

A number of concrete measures have also been taken to meet the commitments in relation to 
aid untying and debt relief. The progress on Global Public Goods, trade related assistance and 
innovative sources of financing is also promising, although the initiatives in these fields are 
being carried forward by individual Member States (and others) rather than by the Union as a 
whole. The Commission believes that no major further initiatives on Community level need to 
be  taken  in  relation  to  these  commitments  during  2004,  and  that  the  focus  should  be  on 
finalising and reaching conclusions on the various ongoing activities.  

In  contrast,  few  concrete  steps  forward  have  been  taken  to  achieve  closer  co-ordination  of 
policies  and  harmonisation  of  procedures  (Commitment  II).  This  is  striking  since  the 
conclusions of the Barcelona Summit request that concrete steps should be taken before 2004. 
This Communication is therefore focused on proposals for further, concrete steps in this field.  

1 

2 

3 

Conclusions  adopted  by  the  General  Affairs  and  External  Relations  Councils  in  November  2002  and 
May 2003 respectively 
Commission  Staff  Working  Document  “Follow-up  to  the  International  Conference  on  Financing  for 
Development Monterrey - 2002) - Monitoring the Barcelona Commitments”; reference SEC (2003)569, 
15  May  2003.  See  Council  Conclusions  of  the  General  Affairs  and  External  Relations  Council  of  20 
May 2003, document 9379/03(Presse 138) p. 20 
SEC(2004)246 

4 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
2. 

THE COMMITMENT TO INCREASE FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR ODA 

The  Barcelona  conclusion  reiterates  the  commitment  by  each  Member  State  to  generate 
sufficient financial resources to achieve the MDGs and, in this context, to reach the UN goal 
of 0.7% ODA/GNI. The Member States that had not yet reached the 0.7% target committed 
themselves – as a first significant step – to increase their ODA volume within their respective 
budget  allocation  processes  to  at  least  0.33% of  GNI  by  2006.  This  individual  commitment 
was  coupled  with  a  collective  commitment  to  reach  an  EU  average  of  0.39%  ODA/GNI  by 
2006. 

The  implementation  of  the  commitment  on  ODA  is  well  on  track.  In  spite  of  a  difficult 
budgetary situation in many Member States, the EU countries increased their ODA in 2002 by 
5.8% in real terms compared to 2001, and provided 0.35 % of their collective GNI (see Annex 
1,  Table  1).4  This  was  beyond  the  forecast  that  Member  States  made  last  year  and  that 
amounted to an ODA/GNI ratio of 0.34 %.  

ODA  rose  significantly  in  Sweden,  France,  Greece  and  Italy  compared  to  2001,  and  also 
increased  in  Belgium,  Finland  and  Portugal,  while  it  decreased  in  Austria,  Denmark,  the 
Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. ODA fell markedly in Austria (by -8.4 %) and 
Spain  (by  -10.3.%)  compared  to  their  2001  levels,  which  had  been  boosted  by  exceptional 
debt relief operations. 

The  EU  average  ODA/GNI  ratio  remains  above  the  effort  of  most  other  OECD  countries, 
except Norway: 

Diagram 1: ODA/GNI contributions in 2002: The EU compared to other DAC Members  

ODA/GNI 2002

I

/

N
G
A
D
O
%

1,2

1

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

0

The Netherlands
Denmark
Belgium
Ireland
Luxembourg
France
Sweden

Portugal
FinlandUK
Germany
Austria

Spain
Greece

Italy

United States
Japan
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Norway
Switzerland

Data source: OECD/DAC statistics on Net Official Development Assistance in 2002, published on 27 January 2004 

4 

It should be noted that the Member States’ contribution to Community aid (via the EU budget and the 
European Development Fund) are included in these statistics. The total volume of resources channelled 
via the EC in 2002 was 6 561 M US$. 

5 

 
 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
•  The  United  States  increased  its  ODA  by  15%  in  real  terms  in  2002  to  $13.2  billion, 
representing 0.13% of its GNI. This increase was mainly due to additional and emergency 
funds in response to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks as well as new aid initiatives, 
especially in relation to health and humanitarian aid. 

•  Japan  remained  at  the  level  of  0.23%  of  GNI,  while  Canada  and  Norway  made 

considerable increases; by 0.06 and 0.09 percentage points of GNI respectively.  

•  The  ODA  contribution  of  GNI  by  Switzerland  and  New  Zealand  fell  with  0.02  and  0.03 

percentage points respectively from 2001 to 2002. 

2.1. 

The roadmap to 2006 and beyond  

Assuming that current trends continue, the Commission estimates that in 2006 all of 
the  current  Member  States  will  have  reached  or  exceeded  the  individual  target  of 
0.33%  ODA/GNI.  The  projected  collective  ODA/GNI  ratio  of  the  current  Member 
States in 2006 is 0.43 (see Annex 1, table 2).  

Some Member States (Greece, France and Italy) have increased the pledges for one 
or  several  intermittent  years  while  Austria,  Belgium  and  Luxembourg  have  revised 
their  annual  pledges  slightly  downwards.  Belgium  has,  however,  also  committed 
itself  to  attaining  the  UN  target  of  0.7%  ODA/GNI  by  2010,  and  Austria  remains 
committed to the individual target of 0.33% by 2006. Luxemburg remains well above 
the UN target of 0.7% for the whole period.  

Ireland and France have also made firm commitments for which year the UN ODA 
target  of  0.7%  of  GNI  should  be  reached  (Ireland  by  2007  and  France  by  2012). 
Finland  has  extended  its  perspective  to  0.44  %  by  2007.  Denmark  will  gradually 
reduce its assistance year-by-year, but will remain above 0.8 % of GNI.  

The data available for acceding countries, which will join the Union on 1 May 2004, 
indicate that they provided 0.03% of their collective GNI in ODA in 2002.5 This may 
appear far off the targets for ODA/GNI ratios as set by the Barcelona commitments. 
It must however be kept in mind that the acceding countries face special constraints 
and most have a GNI per capita which puts them in the Part II of the OECD/DAC 
classification. All acceding states have nevertheless started to make the transition to 
becoming  donors  and  shoulder  the  part  of  the  ‘acquis  communautaire’  relating  to 
development  policy,  including  the  Barcelona  Commitments.  The  progress  during 
2002 in defining the policy frameworks for foreign aid and creating the institutional 
framework for the implementation is promising. The work the Commission currently 
undertakes  with  those  countries  indicates  a  promising  readiness  to  engage  in  a 
process of policy development and setting up of an institutional framework. 

Initially, most of the ODA from the acceding countries will be provided through the 
contributions  to  the  EC  (via  the  EU  budget  and  the  European  Development  Fund) 
and  their  contribution  to  multilateral  institutions.  The  transition  to  also  providing 
additional  bilateral  aid  will  be  gradual  and  differentiated,  and  will  depend  on  the 

5 

“The Consequences of Enlargement for Development Policy”, prepared for the European Commission 
by Development Strategies, IDC, 31 August 2003. See pp 58-60. The study is available on the Internet, 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/organisation/assess_enlarg_en.htm 

6 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
starting point of each of the countries concerned. The Czech Republic aims to reach a 
total  of  0.13  %  and  the  Slovak  Republic  0.16  %  ODA/GNI  by  2006;  which  are 
notable  increases  from  the  levels  provided  in  2002.  The  2006  ODA/GNI  target  for 
Lithuania is 0.08-0.1; also that a significant increase from an estimated ratio of 0.025 
in 2003. 

Accession countries other than those mentioned above have not been in a position to 
make  firm  projections  for  the  provision  of  ODA.  A  study  carried  out  in  2003 
however  suggests  that  some  of  them  (notably  Slovenia,  Cyprus  and  Malta)  could 
have  the  possibility  of  progressing  rather  faster  and  could  reach  0.15%  ODA/GNI 
rates  by  2006,  while  others  (e.g.  Poland,  Hungary  and  the  Baltic  countries)  could 
reach  0.1%  ODA/GNI  in  the  same  period,  with  some  increase  in  their  non-EC 
budgets.6  Calculations  on  the  basis  of  these  data  suggest  that  the  ten  accession 
countries would increase the ODA contribution from 0.03% of their collective GNI 
in  2002  to  0.11%  in  2006.  This  would  represent  more  than  tripling  the  nominal 
amount (from €107 million to a projected €389 million). 

If the assumptions outlined above hold true, the EU as a whole will provide 0.42 % 
of  its  collective  GNI  in  ODA  by  2006,  or  €38.5  billion.  Thus,  the  Union  would 
actually  exceed  the  Barcelona  targets,  in  spite  of  the  changing  landscape  for 
development  policy  due  to  the  2004  enlargement.  In  comparison,  the  OECD/DAC 
estimates that the DAC average will be 0.28 ODA/GNI (see diagram 2).7  

Diagram 2: Projected ODA/GNI in 2006: The EU compared to the DAC average, US and Japan, 
including the gap to the UN target of 0.7 ODA/GNI 

0,8

0,7

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0

Gap to UN target

Projected ODA/GNI 2006

EU 25

EU 15

EU 10

DAC 

USA

Japan 

Against this background, the Commission invites the Member States to maintain or 
increase the annual ODA pledges for the period up to 2006, in order to safeguard the 
progress  the  EU  is  making  to  deliver  on  its  commitments  made  at  the  Monterrey 
conference.  It  is  particularly  important  that  current  Member  States  honour  their 
pledges in order to not jeopardise the collective target for 2006 after enlargement.  

6 
7 

Idem, pp. 58-60. 
Source:  Statement  by  Mr  Manning,  Chairman  OECD/DAC,  at  the  World  Bank  Development 
Committee, Dubai 22 September 2003 

7 

 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
In addition, the Commission invites the Member States that have not yet attained the 
UN benchmark of 0.7% ODA/GNI, or yet committed themselves to a year by which 
this target should be reached, to examine their timeframe for increasing their ODA 
provision over the next few years. 

3. 

COMMITMENT  II:  COORDINATION  OF  POLICIES  AND  HARMONISATION  OF 
PROCEDURES 

At the Barcelona Council, the EU Member States agreed to take concrete steps to co-
ordinate aid policies and harmonise implementation procedures before 2004 in order 
to  improve  aid  effectiveness.  This  commitment  was  reiterated  in  the  EU  input, 
presented  by  the  Greek  Presidency,  at  the  High  Level  Forum  on  harmonisation  in 
Rome, February 2003. Unfortunately, the Commission notes that the results in terms 
of  coordination  and  complementarity 
the  objectives.  This 
Communication  is  therefore  focused  on  proposals  for  further,  concrete  steps. 
Coordination should become a political reflex, making the Union an efficient partner 
to  the  partner  countries  and  to  other  stakeholders  in  the  international  donor 
community. This would contribute significantly to the continued success of the FfD 
process  and  be  a  crucial  contribution  to  the  operationalisation  of  the  Monterrey 
consensus. 

fall  short  of 

3.1. 

The  objective  to  achieve  coordination  and  complementarity:  30  years  of  good 
intentions  

The  political  commitment  to  achieve  closer  coordination  and  complementarity 
between  bilateral  and  Community  aid  was  by  no  means  invented  at  the  European 
Council  in  Barcelona.  The  Barcelona  Commitment  should  be  seen  in  the  light  of 
Treaty  obligations,  which  have  existed  since  the  Maastricht  Treaty  from  1992.  In 
addition,  numerous  Council  Conclusions,  Resolutions  and  Guidelines,  the  first  of 
which dates back as far as 1974, address the importance of the so-called ‘Three Cs’ 
(see Box 1). 

8 

 
 
  
 
Box  1:  Examples  of  Council  Conclusions,  Resolutions  and  Guidelines  and  other  key  events  relating  to  coordination  and 
complementarity between Community and bilateral aid 

• 

July 1974: Council Resolution on Harmonisation and coordination of the cooperation procedures of Member States 

•  November 1976: Council resolution on coordination 

• 

• 

June 1984: Council Resolution on coordination of cooperation procedures of within the Community. 

1986: Council resolution on coordination. 

•  November 1992: Council declaration on “Horizon 2000” includes references to the importance of coordination and harmonization. 

•  May 1993: Council resolution on coordination of aid policies 

•  December 1993: Council resolution on operational coordination, including the decision to try closer operational coordination on a pilot 

basis in 6 countries (Bangladesh, Costa Rica, Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Peru). 

•  October 1994: The pilot exercise is launched 

• 

June  1995:  Council  Resolution  on  Complementarity  between  development  policies  and  actions  of  the  Union  and  those  of  Member 
States. 

•  December 1995: Commission reports on the results of the initiatives in the 6 pilot countries (COM(95)700). 

• 

• 

1996: Council conclusions on operational coordination 

June 1997: Council conclusions on operational coordination 

•  March 1998: the Council adopts operational ‘Guidelines for strengthening the operational coordination between the Community and the 

Member States in the field of Development Cooperation”. 

•  September 1998: EU DGs meeting discusses ways to improve on operational coordination 

•  May 2000: Council conclusions on Operational Coordination between the Community and Member States, on the basis of a Commission 

report on the implementation of the 1998 Guidelines. 

•  October  2000  /  General  Affairs  Council  adopts  Conclusions  on  the  Effectiveness  on  the  Union’s  External  Action,  and  calls  on  the 

Commission and the Member States to achieve reinforced coordination and complementarity 

•  November 2000: adoption of the Development Policy Statement, which refers to coordination and complementarity (paragraphs 29 to 
39)  ,  and  the  Common  Framework  for  Country  Strategy  Papers,  which  was  presented  as  a  main  tool  for  coordination  and 
complementarity 

•  May  2001:  The  Council  adopts  reinforced  guidelines for  operational  coordination,  applicable  to  all  countries  and  regions  that  receive 

Community assistance. 

•  March  2002:  Foreign  Ministers  at  the  European  Council  in  Barcelona  adopts  conclusions  “to  take  concrete  steps  on  co-ordination  of 
policies  and  harmonisation  of  procedures  before  2004,  both  at  EC  and  Member  States  level,  in  line  with  internationally  agreed  best 
practices  including  by  implementing  recommendations  from  the  OECD  Development  Assistance  Committee  Task  Force  on  donor 
practice” Closer EU coordination initiated in four focal countries (Vietnam, Mozambique, Morocco, Nicaragua). 

• 

17 November 2003: The Council adopts conclusions on the Annual Report on EC aid in 2002, and emphasises the need for closer local 
coordination between the Commission and the Member States (see paragraph 8). 

The  reasons  for  strengthening  coordination,  as  well  as  the  approach  to  be  adopted,  have  in 
principle  remained  the  same  since  1974.  Co-ordination  of  Community  and  bilateral  aid 
policies and programmes will help reducing the transaction costs for recipient countries and 
achieve better efficiency and impact of EU aid. By virtue of its position as the world’s largest 
donor by far in financial terms, the Union should exercise leadership in the global aid process. 
The  importance  of  coordination  of  aid  policies  for  better  policy  coherence,  and  for  the 
emerging  European  identity  in  the  External  Action  of  the  Union,  has  also  often  been 
emphasised. The coordination process should be pragmatic, should take place in the partner 
country  as  far  as  possible  and  should  focus  on  systematic  information  sharing  in  order  to 
identify opportunities for complementarity between Community and bilateral aid. Systems for 
co-financing on the basis of harmonised procedures should be sought in order to reduce the 
transaction costs for partner countries and finally, common sector policies should be defined 
in order to inform and facilitate the policy dialogue with the partner country.  

the  Council’s  decisions.  Status 

A  number  of  ad  hoc  initiatives  have  certainly  been  taken  over  the  last  decade  to 
operationalise 
to 
improvements in the exchange of information between the Commission and Member 
States, in particular on the field level, and numerous formal and informal discussions 
with the Member States and the Commission have been held on this question. 

reports  generally  point 

9 

 
 
  
 
Closer EU coordination has been tested twice on a pilot basis in a limited group of 
countries.  The  first  trial  was  undertaken  in  1994/95  and  covered  a  sample  of 
countries.  In  1995,  the  Commission  proposed  to  extend  and  generalise  the  lessons 
learned from the pilot cases.8 This led to the establishment in 1998 of guidelines on 
operational coordination, which were completed in 2001 after a second round of field 
assessments.  These  Guidelines9  were  very  comprehensive  and  for  example  covered 
instructions  to  engage  in  close  coordination  at  all  levels  of  aid  implementation  but 
with  particular  attention  to  the  multi-annual  programming  process,  leading  to  joint 
programmes and joint analysis. The Guidelines were applicable to all countries that 
receive  EU  assistance  but  unfortunately appear not  to  have  been duly disseminated 
and implemented.  

In order to stimulate further action, the Member States agreed to take new initiatives 
in  Vietnam,  Mozambique,  Nicaragua  and  Morocco  in  2002.  The  first  field  status 
report  showed  promising  results.  This  collective  process  starts  to  show  interesting 
outcomes  in  the  four  countries.  A  comprehensive  model  for  budget  and  sector 
support has been developed in Mozambique and interesting tests for the definition of 
sector  leadership  amongst  the  donors  are  taking  place  in  Morocco.  In  Vietnam,  a 
local  EU  Action  Plan  for  coordination  was  established  in  May  2003  while  in 
Nicaragua,  the  EU  has  chosen  to  push  coordination  and  harmonisation  under  the 
Government leadership as a case for ownership. On the level of interaction between 
headquarter  offices,  an  increasing  amount  of  analytic/diagnostic  work  within 
particular sectors is undertaken jointly by groups of EU donors and in many sectors, 
the  Commission  is  coordinating  networks  of  experts,  that  have  drafted  Guidelines 
and  other  tools.  The  Community’s  Country  Strategy  Process  and  the  creation  of 
Country Fact Files10 over the last few years, have been good opportunities for closer 
alignment of programmes and exchange of information.  

But in spite of these encouraging elements of progress, the results unfortunately fall 
far short of the ambitious objectives the Union has set for itself. The survey carried 
out to prepare this Communication, shows that the coordination within the Union is 
not structured, nor is it systematic or generalised throughout the partner countries in 
which several EU partners are present (see Annex 1 for detailed results). The efforts 
undertaken have not resulted in the desired complementarity and division of labour 
according to comparative advantages. The Commission finds it disappointing that the 
survey also reveals that many Member States remain reluctant to move from words 
to  action,  and  do  not  show  readiness  act  on  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  Union’s 
obligations  to  coordinate  more  closely.  In  fact,  some  appear  to  back-pedal  on  the 

8 
9 
10 

COM(1995)700 
Contained in Council Document 5431/01 DEVGEN 12/RELEX 9, 18 January 2001 
Country Fact Files are a new instrument designed to contribute to the improvement of the coordination, 
coherence  and  complementarity  of  the  European  Union’s  external  actions.  They  are  a  response  to  a 
specific request from Foreign Ministers in the GAERC who, in December 2002, discussed and agreed a 
CFF format. Country Fact Files include basic economic and social indicators as well as data covering 
Community actions and those of the Member States. In addition they offer brief political and economic 
assessments of the country, an overview of any disputes between the country and the EU, a summary of 
the Community’s development cooperation strategy, information about all agreements with the EU/EC, 
and  the  essentials  of  Community  policy.  They  include  contact  details  for  the  Commission  Delegation 
and  Member  States’  Embassies.  The  CFFs  focus  on  developing  countries  where  coherence  between 
development cooperation activities and other EU policies is of great importance. 

10 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
Barcelona  Commitment  by  calling  into  question  the  added  value  and  role  of  EU 
coordination:  

•  A majority of Member States are not willing to start using the Communications on 
various matters of development policy, which have been approved by the Council, 
as reference documents for bilateral assistance; 

•  Several  important  tools  and  frameworks,  such  as  the  Common  Framework  for 
Country  Strategy  Papers,  a  set  of  ten  core  indicators  for  measuring  results  and 
Guidelines for various sector policies, are not applied by Member States in their 
bilateral aid programmes, although these tools have been developed together with 
experts of Member States;  

•  A  majority  of  Member  States  are  not  willing  to  rationalise  the  strategic 

programming exercise by engaging in EU-wide multi-annual programming; 

•  Only one of the current Member States, along with five of the acceding countries, 
are prepared to explore the possibility to establish an EU-wide aid implementation 
procedure.  

11 

 
 
  
 
3.2. 

The case for EU coordination in the field of development cooperation 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  lack  of  progress,  and  apparent  lack  of  political 
will to move forward, is detrimental to the partner countries, to the Member States 
and  to  the  Union.  An  important  opportunity  for  (a)  promoting  ownership  and 
reducing  transaction  costs  in  aid  delivery,  (b)  reinforcing  the  coherence  of  the 
Union’s External Action and (c) accommodating the new Member States efficiently 
in the donor community is being lost. The Union should make full use in the field of 
development  of  its  experience  of  and  capacity  for  integration  and  harmonisation, 
which has already been demonstrated in various and complex policy areas.  

First,  the  EU  Member  States  and  the  Community  provide  more  than  50  %  of 
worldwide ODA and make up the biggest donor group in the world. The Union must 
take  its  responsibilities,  which  follow  from  that  position  within  the  donor 
community. In particular, the Union should consolidate the policies and procedures 
which govern the implementation of aid from European partners in order to reduce 
transaction  costs  for  partner  countries,  which  arise  from  having  to  deal  with 
implementation procedures of multiple donors. Such measures should be taken in the 
short term, without waiting for all development partners to progress simultaneously, 
and  without  waiting  for  partner  countries  to  develop  sufficiently  solid  governance 
systems to substitute for donor procedures. Immediate donor coordination efforts for 
short term efficiency gains are also all the more critical in the light of the difficulties 
in  translating  innovative  forms  for  cooperation  into  practice,  such  as  the 
public/private partnerships (“Type II initiatives”), which were given much attention 
in the Monterrey Consensus and in the World Summit on Sustainable Development.  

Secondly,  closer  coordination  would  equip  the  Union  to  exercise  the  political 
leadership,  which  should  follow  with  its  collective  financial  weight  in  the  donor 
collective and enable the Union to be a motor in the international aid debate and in 
international institutions. For example, without effective EU coordination in the FfD 
Conference,  the  Union  would  most  likely  not  have  been  able  to  contribute  so 
successfully  to  the  positive  outcome.  The  policy  mechanisms  and  institutional 
framework  for  achieving  policy  alignment  and  harmonisation  of  procedures  are 
already  in  place  at  the  level  of  the  Union.  This  institutional  framework  should  be 
fully  exploited  to  foster  concrete  results,  which  can  subsequently  feed  into  wider 
coordination  processes.  Furthermore,  the  above-mentioned  survey  shows  that  a  de 
facto  development  policy  consensus  is  emerging  within  the  Union;  centred  around 
the  MDG/PRSP  process,  sector-wide  approaches  and  multi–annual  programming 
leading  to  the  identification  of  focal  sectors  for  each  donor.  Thus,  there  is  fertile 
ground for building a closer policy community on development matters.  

Thirdly,  the  EU’s  development  assistance  must  form  part  of  a  coherent  external 
relations  policy,  underpinned  by  effective  multilateralism.  Although  development 
cooperation  is  a  shared  competence  between  the  Union  and  the  Member  States, 
several key external policies are developed and implemented exclusively at the level 
of  the  Union.  Without  coordination  of  development  cooperation  policy  and 
programmes within the Union that support and interplay with other external actions, 
a  crucial  opportunity  for  policy  coherence  towards  developing  countries,  and  for 
strengthening the external identity of the Union in the world, is lost.  

12 

 
 
  
 
Finally, in 2004, the Union has a historic opportunity to prevent further proliferation 
of policies and procedures among donors as a result of the EU enlargement, which 
will take place on 1 May 2004. The acceding countries are in a process of setting up 
bilateral  aid  programmes  in  order  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  acquis 
communautaire. The survey shows that a vast majority are ready to engage in closer 
coordination and  harmonisation  within the EU  and  base  their  aid  programmes  on  a 
common  platform.  The  accession  countries  will  of  course  also  enrich  the  existing 
body of knowledge with their past experiences both as donors and recipients of aid. 
This window of opportunity should not be ignored. 

3.3. 

The  added  value  of  EU  coordination  and  the  role  of  EU  coordination  within 
wider coordination processes  

The initiatives for stronger EU coordination in the area of development cooperation 
should naturally be seen in the light of international developments. In particular, the 
last  decade  has  seen  a  steady  increase  in  the  importance  of  focusing  on  partner 
country ownership of the development process, of sector wide approaches and donor 
coordination, and of focusing on results and improved aid effectiveness. 

The Union and its Member States have played a crucial role in bringing about these 
shifts in the international aid debate, and the Commission considers that there is no 
contradiction  between  deepening  EU  coordination  and  engaging  in  wider  donor 
coordination  processes.  Dialogue  within  the  EU  is  and  should  remain  firmly 
anchored  in  the  international  aid  effectiveness  debate,  which  takes  place  primarily 
within the DAC of the OECD and culminated in the Aid Effectiveness High Level 
Forum in Rome in February 2003. The Commission fully subscribes to the objective 
that  the  donor  community  as  a  whole  can  and  should  implement  the  Rome 
Declaration and make a qualitative leap towards institutionalising and systematising 
the  coordination  initiatives  across  sectors  and  partner  countries.  Any  EU  initiatives 
therefore need not, and should not, be EU exclusive, but open to all donors sharing 
the EU’s perspective, and any output should feed into the OECD/DAC process.  

3.4. 

Harmonisation  among  donors  as  a  stepping  stone  to  harmonisation  with  the 
partner country’s procedures 

Many  Member  States  are  in  favour  of  harmonising  around  the  partner  country’s 
procedures rather than among donors. While the Commission fully subscribes to this 
ultimate  goal,  many  partner  countries’  governance  systems  currently  do  not  satisfy 
the reporting and monitoring requirements, to which the donors are subject (e.g. vis-
à-vis  the  national  Parliaments).  The  survey  also  shows  that  the  level  of 
deconcentration to the field for implementation of bilateral aid is comparatively low 
and many EU donors face legal constraints to use procedures other than their own.  

Against  this  background,  the  Commission  believes  that  the  intention  to  harmonise 
around  the  partner  country’s  procedures  should  be  a  long-term  goal.  In  order  to 
reduce  transaction  costs  in  the  short  to  medium  term,  the  EU  should  reduce  the 
number  of  different  procedures  applied  by  EU  donors  and  establish,  while  taking 
account  of  existing  regulatory  constraints,  core  “minimal  EU  implementation 
requirements”.  The  transaction  costs  for  partner  countries  would  be  drastically 
reduced,  while  the  donors’  reporting  requirements  would  be  satisfied.  The  minimal 

13 

 
 
  
 
requirements should serve as a benchmark and be flexible enough to be adapted as 
soon as the quality standards are met to the partner country’s own procedures.  

3.5. 

Complementarity: a missed opportunity  

Coordination is a tool to achieve better complementarity among donors, or to put it 
differently,  avoid  overcrowding  in  countries  or  sectors,  which  appeal  to  many 
donors,  and  underinvestment  in  more  challenging  areas.  Complementarity  is  about 
the choices that individual donors make and the international aid effectiveness debate 
has so far not tackled the issue of how to achieve complementarity on a large scale.  

The survey shows that there is great scope for complementarity within the Union. All 
Member  States  and  the  Commission  have  a  policy  of  geographical  and/or  sectoral 
concentration.  There  are  currently  important  overlaps  in  terms  of  sector  focus  and 
gaps in terms of country coverage in some parts of the world, while only a EU few 
donors  are  active  in  certain  more  challenging  countries  and  sectors.  The  Joint 
Statement  on  Development  Policy  by  the  Member  States  and  the  Commission  of 
November 2000 was the first noticeable attempt to define a concrete framework for 
complementarity.  But  unfortunately,  it  was  limited  to  the  Commission  in  terms  of 
identifying the added value of each donor. The Commission considers that potential 
for a division of labour among the EU donors should be investigated in further detail. 

3.6. 

Proposals for further action 

It  is  time  for  the  Union  to  break  with  the  habit  of  re-stating  policy  goals  and 
commitments  and  take  decisive  new  steps,  on  the  level  of  dialogue  between 
Headquarters  as  well  as  on  local  level,  to  translate  its  ambitious  objectives  into 
action:  

(a)  On the level of Headquarters-to-Headquarters 

•  The EU institutions are important fora for exchange of ideas and perspectives on 
development  policy  in  order  to  stimulate  policy  convergence.  The  debate  on 
sector and/or thematic policies should henceforth be used to develop and solidify 
joint  positions  and  actions.  Such  joint  positions  could  take  either  Community 
policies or bilateral policies as their starting point. Conclusions which are adopted 
by  Member  States  should  serve  as  flexible,  state-of-the-art  frameworks  for 
bilateral action.  

•  The joint positions in the field of development policy should inform the Member 
State’s  own  aid  systems  at  both  headquarters  and  field  level,  as  well  as  the 
Union’s  joint  position  in  the  international  aid  debate  (such  as  the  OECD/DAC). 
The  EU  should  have  a  common  position  in  the  next  High  Level  Forum  on 
harmonisation in 2005.  

•  Sector and thematic guidelines that are discussed in the Expert Groups that have 
been set up for most major sectors and themes should apply to bilateral assistance 
as well as to Community aid. Such Guidelines should serve as a common platform 
for  the  dialogue  with  partner  countries.  The  progress  in  this  respect  should  be 
assessed before the end of 2005.  

14 

 
 
  
 
•  By  2006,  all  Member  States  should  work  on  the  basis  of  multi-annual 
programming,  based  on  the  method  set  out  in  the  Common  Framework  for 
Country  Strategy  Papers.  The  processes  for  programming  and  diagnostic  work 
would  thus  be  compatible  within  the  Union,  allowing  for  work-sharing  and 
identification  of  focal  sectors  according  to  comparative  advantages.  The  EU 
programming cycles should be harmonised around the national policy framework 
and budget cycle of each partner country. 

•  The EU should take initiatives to jointly develop key inputs for the multi-annual 
programming process, such as analysis of the political situation, macroeconomic 
and  social  context,  the  partner  country’s  policy  agenda,  the  coherence  of  all  EU 
policies  affecting  the  partner  country,  the  donor  matrix  and  performance 
indicators.  These  elements  should,  once  adopted,  be  used  as  key  inputs  for  the 
respective  bilateral  programming  processes  for  the  Member  States  and  for 
Community aid. The process should take place in the field, be undertaken under 
the  leadership  of  the  partner  country  wherever  possible  and  be  open  for 
participation by other donors that share the EU’s policy perspective.  

•  Before  the  end  of  2005,  the  Council  should  start  debating  a  proposal  by  the 
Commission for a common framework for aid implementation procedures, which 
could  take  the  form  of  a  Directive.  Such  a  Directive  should  be  confined  to  the 
procedural  requirements,  which  the  EU  donors  place  on  recipient  countries  as 
minimal  standards  for  the  implementation  of  aid  by  those  countries.  It  would 
serve  as  a  platform  for  national  implementation  procedures  and  for  dialogue  on 
the best way to start using procedures of the partner country itself. Adopting that 
approach  would  probably  lead  to  changes  in  the  regulatory  environment  for  the 
implementation  of  development  aid  both  of  the  Member  States  and  the 
Commission. 

•  On the basis of a study to be undertaken by the Commission, the key elements of 
a strategy for complementarity within the EU should be debated by the Member 
States before the end of 2004. Such a strategy should be operationalised by 2006, 
in the context of improved coordination of multi-annual programming.  

(b) At local level 

•  The EU should establish an EU Action Plan for coordination and harmonisation in 
any  partner  country  with  where  two  or  more  EU  donors  have  a  cooperation 
programme. The main purpose of the Action Plan should be to identify the added 
value  that  the  EU  could  bring  to  coordination  processes  managed  by  the 
government of the partner country, and the respective comparative advantages of 
the Union partners in the development partnership. The Commission proposes that 
such Action Plans are developed and agreed between local representations. As a 
first target, by the end of 2005 such Action Plans should have been approved for 
all partner countries where the EU contributes 50% or more of total ODA. 

•  The practice of an annual report on the state of play in EU coordination should be 

extended to all partner countries.  

15 

 
 
  
 
•  The Member States and the Commission should undertake to step up information 
sharing  and  to  open  any  donor-wide  initiatives  for  joint  analysis  and  diagnostic 
work in which they take part to all EU partners present in that country. 

The  Commission  will  undertake the  relevant  assessments in  order  to appraise  the 
impact  of  the  proposed  measures  and  to  quantify  the  gains  already  obtained  from 
coordination,  in  terms  of  improved  reduction  of  transaction  cost  for  the  partner 
country and aid effectiveness. 

4. 

COMMITMENTS  III  TO  VIII:  UNTYING,  DEBT  RELIEF,  TRADE  RELATED 
ASSISTANCE,  GLOBAL  PUBLIC  GOODS,  REFORM  OF  THE  INTERNATIONAL 
FINANCIAL SYSTEM AND DEBT RELIEF 

A  number  of  concrete  measures  have  been  taken  to  meet  the  commitments 
concerning  aid  untying  and  debt  relief.  The  progress  on  Global  Public  Goods  and 
innovative  sources  of  financing  is  also  promising,  although  the  initiatives  in  these 
fields are the work of individual Member States rather than the Union as a whole. 

4.1. 

Untying of aid 

Untying of aid was recognised in Monterrey as one of the significant means of improving the 
effectiveness  of  aid.  In  order  to  support  its  added  value,  the  European  Union  agreed  in 
Barcelona: 

•  to implement the DAC recommendation on untying of aid to Least Developed Countries, 

•  to  continue  discussions  in  view  of  further  untying  bilateral  aid,  and  to  consider  steps 

towards further untying of Community aid. 

Significant  progress  has  been  made  by  most  Member  States  and  EU  aid  is  progressing 
towards  untying.  The  initiatives  as  well  as  the  potential  for  further  action  with  regard  to 
untying are positive and spelled out in detail in Annex 1.  

Against this background, the Commission invites the Council to: 

•  give a general endorsement to the proposals which will be sent by the Commission for a 
regulation and for a renegotiation of the relevant part of the Cotonou Agreement, which are 
in line with the conclusions adopted by the General Affairs Council in May 2003 and the 
European Parliament in September 2003; 

•  support  the  ongoing  debates  at  International  Level  on  further  untying  of  aid  beyond  the 
DAC  Recommendations,  with  in  particular  a  specific  emphasis  on  Food  aid  and  on  the 
access  of  recipient  countries  to  donors’  aid.  In  this  regards,  the  ongoing  studies  by  the 
OECD/DAC and the Commission on the added benefit and impact of further untying is to 
be encouraged.  

4.2. 

Trade Related Assistance (TRA) 

In  Barcelona  the  EU  committed  itself  to  increasing  assistance  for  long-term  trade-related 
capacity  building,  productive  capacity  and  measures  addressing  supply-side  constraints  in 
developing  countries,  as  well  as  to  provide  immediate  support  for  trade-related  technical 

16 

 
 
  
 
assistance  in  order  to  improve  the  negotiating  capacity  of  developing  countries  in  trade 
negotiations, including by commitments made at the pledging conference of the World Trade 
Organisation (WTO) in Geneva in March 2002.  

A considerable number of actions have been launched by the EC and Member States in order 
to  meet  the  commitment.  There  is,  however,  a  serious  concern  about  the  efficiency  of  the 
greater activity due to lack of co-ordination among the EU Member States and in the wider 
donor community. The lack of co-ordination has led to duplication and a generally poor level 
of complementarity. Most Member States see scope for better co-ordination at EU level, but 
also  highlight  the  importance  of  wider  donor  co-ordination  using  WTO  and  OECD 
instruments such as the OECD Joint Database. 

The action programme to improve the delivery of TRA contained in the Communication on 
Trade and Development (COM(2002)513 final) involves the review of existing mechanisms 
for  EU  Member  States  co-ordination  and  introduction  of  the  necessary  changes.  The 
Commission and the Member States should collaborate closely in the broader frameworks for 
TRA in OECD and WTO. It would also be advantageous to establish co-ordination for TRA 
at recipient country level, wherever possible using existing mechanisms such as the Integrated 
Framework.  The  Commission  also  invites  the  Member  States  to  enhance  exchange  of 
information  and,  as  much  as  possible,  co-ordination  –  including  in  multilateral  frameworks 
and at the recipient country level. 

4.3. 

Global Public Goods.  

In the Council Conclusions on Monterrey and the World Summit on Sustainable Development 
(WSSD) in Johannesburg, the EU confirmed its commitment to tackling the issue of Global 
Public  Goods  (GPGs).  Even  though  its  proposal  for  the  establishment  of  a  global, 
participatory  process  on  GPGs  was  not  taken  up  in  the  final  outcome  documents  of  either 
event, an International informal Task Force on GPGs was launched at the WSSD by France 
and Sweden, in collaboration with the UN Development Programme (UNDP).  

The  Commission  and  several  EU  Member  States  have  actively  supported  the  Task  Force 
during its almost two years of existence. The Task Force aims to clarify and give a practical 
definition of the concept of GPGs and will analyse how successfully global public goods are 
currently  being  provided  (e.g  aviation  safety,  ozone  restoration,  marine  pollution 
management,  the  combating  of  HIV/AIDS).  It  is  expected  that  lessons  can  be  drawn  from 
these experiences on how to approach provision of other priority public goods 

The Commission invites the Member States to: 

•  Agree to gradually open up the current process and to broaden its participation within the 

EU.  

•  Instruct the Commission to take a more active role and represent a European perspective 

within the International Task Force on GPGs. 

4.4. 

Innovative Sources of Financing 

In Barcelona, the Member States committed themselves to “further explore innovative sources 
of  financing  and  taking  into  account  the  conclusions  of  the  Commission  Globalisation 
Report”. In 2002, six Member States indicated that they were pursuing such initiatives. Their 

17 

 
 
  
 
effort focused on international taxation mechanisms, public/private partnership and the HIPC 
initiative for the cancellation of poorest countries’ debt. 

Eight countries (including both Member States and new Member States) have indicated that 
they  have  taken  the  initiative  to  further  explore  innovative  source  of  financing  during  2003 
and that they will continue being involved in such research in 2004 (see Annex 1). 

4.5. 

Reform of the International Financial System 

The Barcelona commitment  is  to  influence the reform of the International Financial  System 
by  combating  abuses  of  financial  globalisation,  strengthening  the  voice  of  developing 
countries  in  international  decision  making  and,  while  respecting  their  respective  roles, 
enhancing the coherence between the UN, International Financial Institutions and the WTO.  

In the survey to prepare for this Communication, some Member States expressed interest in 
pursuing the issue of further EU coordination within the Boards of the World Bank and the 
IMF  (see  Annex  1).  Generally,  Member  States  expressed  greater  satisfaction  with  EU  co-
ordination  in  the  IMF  Board,  in  which  there  exists  the  formal  anchor  of  the  euro,  and  also 
because  the  Economic  and  Financial  Committee  (EFC)  has  established  a  specific  sub-
committee  (SC  IMF)  to  co-ordinate  the  EU  position  on  IMF  and  related  issues.  Reflections 
are ongoing with the aim of establishing more formal procedures of co-ordination for World 
Bank issues.  

4.6. 

Debt relief 

The  Barcelona  commitment  is  to  pursue  the  EU  efforts  to  restore  debt  sustainability  in  the 
context  of  the  enhanced  Heavily  Indebted  Poor  Countries  (HIPC)  initiative,  so  that 
developing  countries,  and  especially  the  poorest  ones,  can  pursue  growth  and  development 
unconstrained by unsustainable debt dynamics.  

Already  by  May  2003,  all  the  current  Member  States  of  the  Union  had  made  the  necessary 
provisions to ensure their own participation in the HIPC initiative. They also all go or have 
committed going beyond the requirements of the HIPC scheme by providing 100% debt relief 
on their pre-cut off date claims towards HIPC countries. Three of the acceding countries have 
also made a contribution to HIPC.  

5. 

CONCLUSIONS 

At the Monterrey FfD Conference, the Union was able to push the international development 
agenda forward due to the fact that it acted as a united group. This way, the Union contributed 
to  putting  the  global  platform  for  financing  for  development  in  place.  The  Union  should 
continue  to  address  the  FfD  challenge  as  a  group  and  to  carry  the  international  agenda 
forward.  

The European Union is firmly on track for meeting its commitment concerning the volume of 
ODA, and has taken a number of concrete measures to meet the commitments on aid untying 
and debt relief. The initiatives by individual Member States and the Commission concerning 
Global  Public  Goods,  trade-related  assistance  and  innovative  sources  of  financing  are  also 
promising.  The  Commission  particularly  commends  the  progress  made  by  the  acceding 
countries,  and  their  openness  to  increase  their  involvement  over  the  next  few  years.  The 
Commission believes that no major further initiatives need to be taken at Community level in 

18 

 
 
  
 
relation  to  these  commitments  during  2004,  but  that  the  focus  should  be  on  finalising  and 
reaching conclusions on the various ongoing activities.  

In  contrast,  the  Commission  believes  that  the  Union  as  a  whole  must  deliver  better  on  the 
commitment  to  achieve  closer  co-ordination  of  policies  and  harmonisation  of  procedures 
(Commitment  II).  The  Union  must  take  its  responsibility  to  reduce  transaction  costs  on 
country  level  in  the  short  term,  without  waiting  for  all  development  partners  to  progress 
simultaneously,  and  without  waiting  for  partner  countries  to  develop  sufficiently  solid 
governance systems to substitute for donor procedures. A better coordinated Union, in which 
coordination  is  a  political  reflex,  would  be  an  efficient  partner  for  the  developing  countries 
and for other stakeholders in the international donor community. This would contribute to the 
implementation of the Monterrey consensus and the achievement of the MDGs.  

Against this background, the Commission therefore invites the Council  

•  to  maintain  or  increase  the  annual  ODA  pledges  for  the  period  up  to  2006,  in 
order to safeguard the progress the EU  is making to deliver on its commitments 
made at the Monterrey conference. The Member States that have not yet attained 
the UN benchmark of 0.7% ODA/GNI, or yet committed to a year by which this 
target  should  be  reached,  are  encouraged  to  examine  their  timeframe  for 
increasing their ODA provision over the next few years; 

•  to  endorse  its  proposals  for  a  qualitative  leap  in  relation  to  coordination, 

harmonisation and complementarity as set out in section 3.6; 

•  to  give  a  general  endorsement  to  the  proposals,  which  will  be  sent  by  the 
Commission  for  a  Regulation  on  untying  and  for  a  renegotiation  of  the  relevant 
part of the Cotonou Agreement; 

•  to  support  the  ongoing  debates  at  International  Level  on  further  untying  of  aid 
beyond  the  DAC  Recommendations,  with  in  particular  a  specific  emphasis  on 
Food aid and on the access of recipient countries to donors’ aid; to progressively 
open  up  the  current  process  for  addressing  Global  Public  Goods  and  to  broaden 
the participation within the EU in the Task Force set up for this purpose.  

19 

 
 
  
 
List of Acronyms 

EC 

European Communities 

EU 

European Union 

FfD 

International Conference on Financing for Development 

DAC  Development Assistance Committee of the OECD 

GAERC 

General Affairs and External Relations Council 

GNI  Gross National Income 

GPG  Global Public Goods 

HIPC  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative 

IFI 

International Financial System 

IMF 

International Monetary Fund 

LDC  Least Developed Country 

MDG  Millennium Development Goals 

ODA  Official Development Assistance 

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 

PRSP  Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers 

TRA  Trade Related Assistance 

UN  United Nations 

UNDP UN Development Programme 

WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development 

WTO  World Trade Organisation 

20