Comparative analysis of the EU operations unit with other development organizations

N.B. Background: 1999-2000

EU OPERATING UNIT - CELLULE D'OPERATION DE L'UE

ACTIVITIES

• Implement EDF Programmes. It therefore acts as an execting agency under the supervision of the EDF National Authorizing Officer and the Delegation of the European Commission.

FORCES

• Very light structure, so minimal running costs.

• Close-knit, motivated staff.

• Over 96% success rate in the 1st experimental Micro-projects Programme (7 MAG 066).

• Very strong involvement of beneficiaries in the projects.

• We prefer to work in-house.

• The beneficiary/Cellule relationship is favored (few intermediaries).

• A strong image among beneficiaries.

• Rapid release of project funding (Imprest accounts).

• Activities strongly on the rise.

WEAKNESSES

• A lot of time spent on travel, and expensive travel costs.

• Slowness in implementing projects due to geographical remoteness.

• Doesn't have many technical staff.

• A certain slowness in terms of implementation, since it's done by the company itself.

• In some cases, the quality of the finish is open to criticism, as the work is carried out by the beneficiaries themselves.

• All actions are carried out from Antananarivo (no regional representation).

• Too many activities concentrated in certain areas (the Centre and South).

• Mandatory beneficiary contribution of at least 25% of total cost required.

FID (DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTION FUND -FONDS D'INTERVENTION POUR LE DEVELOPPEMENT)

ACTIVITIES

• Financing micro-development projects in cooperation with the World Bank.

FORCES

• Structure attached to the Administration. Direct implementation of the government Programme.

• Requires a low beneficiary participation rate (5%).

• Very decentralized structure, with many regional representatives.

WEAKNESSES

• Low involvement of beneficiaries in project implementation.

• Systematic in-company production of the works, hence the high cost.

• The highly branched structure generates enormous structural costs.

PROJET MICROHYDRAULIQUE

ACTIVITIES

• Support for small hydro-agricultural schemes.

FORCES

• A certain reputation in the field of hydro-agricultural development;

• Direct impact on village communities.

• Highly decentralized structure. Long experience in the field;

• High attendance rate.

WEAKNESSES

• Concentration of actions on a certain part of the island, resulting in a limitation of costs and the number of projects: high structural costs, self-build construction method

AFVP (ASSOCIATION FRANCAISE DES VOLONTAIRES DU PROGRES)

ACTIVITIES

• Small-scale development projects financed by the French Cooperation

FORCES

• A high profile with financial backers and government bodies.

• Long experience in Africa.

• Represented on many development organizations.

• Some decentralized branches.

WEAKNESSES

• Young volunteers do not necessarily have the expertise and experience required for the projects to which they are assigned.

• Average attendance rate.

MICRO-PROJECT OPERATION MANAGEMENT (DIRECTION DE L'OPERATION MICROREALISATION)

ACTIVITIES

• Implementation of micro-development projects.

FORCES

• Headed by a Presidential Advisor.

• A certain reputation within the Administration.

• Availability of technical staff within the structure.

WEAKNESSES

• Experienced some issues in the implementation of certain donors' Programmes

N.B. Business was gradually picking up with the European Union.