Cover Image
close this bookThe Courier N 137 - January - February 1993 Dossier: Development and Cooperation - Country Report: Mauritania (EC Courier, 1993, 100 p.)
View the document(introduction...)
close this folderMeeting point
View the documentManuel Marin, commissioner for development
close this folderACP- EEC
View the documentEC Development Ministers lay down lines for future policy
View the documentDeclaration of the Council and of representatives of Governments of Member States meeting in the Council on aspects of development cooperation policy in the run-up to 2000
View the documentSocial Partners' meeting in Brussels
View the document'Europe House' opened in Abuja
View the documentThe opening ceremony of 'Europe House'
close this folderCountry report
close this folderMauritania: a delicate balancing act
View the document(introduction...)
View the documentCombining the differences: droughts and the urbanisation of nomads
View the documentThe dynamics of ambiguity: «Unearned income is the enemy»
View the documentFragility at the extremes
View the documentAn interview with Prime Minister Sidi Mohamed Ould Boubacar
View the documentAhmed Ould Daddah, opposition leader
View the documentAn interview with Hamdi Ould Mouknass
View the documentInterview with freelance journalist Yahya Ould Bechir
View the documentWomen in Mauritania
View the documentCooperation with the EEC
View the documentProfile
close this folderACP
View the documentAPROMA and ACP commodities: reorganisation or reform?
View the documentRwanda: EEC aid and the challenge of rural development
View the documentAn Orstom Agricongo project: Babyfood from Brazzaville
close this folderEurope
View the document1 January 1993 - Europe without frontiers
View the documentEurobarometer charts latest trends in public opinion
View the documentPoll highlights environmental concerns
close this folderDossier
View the documentDevelopment and cooperation
View the documentThree decades of development
View the documentToward an ethic for development
View the documentAn interview with DAC Chairman Alexander Love
View the documentDevelopment as a pledge of financing
View the documentCan development be measured?
View the documentDevelopment and poverty: the case of Latin America
View the documentCan development be left to the economists?
View the documentThe informal sector: development at the grassroots
View the documentAn interview with Michel Relecom, Chairman of UNIBRA
View the documentTrade reform: impacts for the North and the South
View the documentAASM then ACP... what next?
View the documentAid and development- where the twain shall meet
View the documentIs development aid harmful to development ?
View the documentDevelopment aid in the 1990s
close this folderClose-up
View the documentMicroprojects in Swaziland
close this folderDeveloping world
View the documentSouth Africa Church leaders call on EC to help end violence in their country
View the documentILO's 1992 World Labour Report
close this folderCTA-bulletin
View the documentScientific research and the coffee crisis
View the documentBooks
close this folderNews round-up
View the documentThe convention at work
View the documentEuropean Community
View the documentAcknowledgements

Microprojects in Swaziland

Reflecting the growing realisation that, in development as in other fields, small projects on a human scale sometimes offer better chances of success, the idea of microprojects was first put forward during the Lomegotiations in 1974/15. Adopted 'on an experimental basis' at that time, microprojects have since been confirmed as a highly effective EC aid instrument.

Projects qualify as microprojects if they meet a priority need expressed and identified locally, and if they are run on the initiative and with the involvement of the local community benefiting from them. Typical projects are rural water supplies, dip tanks, schools, woodlots, small enterprise projects and footbridges.

Microprojects are a way of making significant improvements in the living conditions of rural populations, particularly the poorest and most isolated sections who are cut off from other types of development aid. For rural populations, they are often the only instrument of progress available, particularly for women and children. The implementation of a microproject often involves the setting up of a project committee which helps the community to assume responsibility and develops local management capacity. This new organisational ability then underpins the future running of the project. In this way, both the sustainability and the impact of the project are improved.

Microprojects are growing in popularity and extent. Currently, nearly half of the ACP countries have chosen to take advantage of this particular form of cooperation, although they still represent a small proportion of the overall aid made available under the Lomonventions (2.5% under LomII).

Swaziland is one country that has a high proportion of its development assistance from the EC in the form of microprojects - over 15% of the LomII National Indicative Programme (ECU 3 million) was allocated for this purpose and although the figure is somewhat lower under LomV it is still a substantial component in the overall programme (ECU 2.2 million or roughly 9% of the total).

The big increase in the commitment to microprojects in Swaziland which took place under LomII was accompanied by a conceptual change in the way they were to be administered. A largely autonomous MPP Unit was established consisting of an EC-funded technical assistant as project manager supported by local staff for financial control, project appraisal and monitoring. The flexibility with which such an independent unit could operate soon proved to be a major advantage. It became clear at an early stage that the Government ministries had a much more limited capacity for this type of activity than had previously been supposed but, instead of grinding to a halt when faced with this obstacle, the MPP Unit was able to adjust and keep moving.

It started working more closely with NGOs, who were often closer to local communities and were well-placed to ensure that beneficiaries were appropriately trained. The MPP also strengthened its direct links with the beneficiary groups and implemented some projects itself, or even devised innovative ways of utilising assistance from private commercial firms.

In this way, the MPP Unit became a catalyst for mobilising many parties concerned with rural development. It is to the credit of the Swaziland Government that it saw the necessity of flexible and autonomous management of the Unit. The latter's responsiveness to community needs and its ability to give an immediate reply to requests is undoubtedly the secret of its success. More than 200 projects have now been implemented, bringing social and economic benefits to more than 85 000 people.

In the early phase of the programme the majority of projects were for building schools. More recently, however, requests have increasingly focused on income-generation and rural employment creation. Such projects are more demanding in terms of appraisal, the training that is required, and follow-up than those in the social sector, and plans are under way to strengthen the MPP Unit's ability to respond to this challenge. In the first four years (under LomII), the projects implemented with the Unit's assistance represented almost 4% of the total capital expenditure of the Swaziland Government - an extraordinary achievement when one considers that the Unit has a staff of only ten people!

Under LomV, the existing arrangements are set to continue, with the emphasis increasingly on income-generating projects. On the organisational side, the only major change is that the management of the MPP Unit will be localised. It is worth noting that the figure of ECU 2.2 million does not include technical assistance, which is now accounted for separately. The reduction in funds for microprojects is, accordingly, less than the raw figures imply.

Projects that can be funded fall into four main categories:

Agricultural: Irrigation, dams, wells, vegetable gardens, crop production, livestock and animal husbandry, dip-tanks and forestry.

Social infrastructure: Education (schools), non-formal education (such as workshops for carpentry or tailoring), health care (rural clinics or maternity wards), women's and youth group activities, cultural and community centres, rural water supply and sanitation.

Economic infrastructure: Markets, warehouses, stores and silos, craft industries and premises to encourage commercial activities, rural electrification and agro-based industries (such as mills and oil extractors).

General infrastructure: Minor roads minor bridges and footbridges.